Anyone Catch CNN's Embarrassing Error About the J6 Pipe Bomb Suspect?
Dan Bongino Wonders Why the FBI Seemingly Stopped Looking for the J6 Bomb...
People Are Driving to Tim Walz's House and Calling Him This...It's Hilarious
Here's What Caused a Lefty Trump Supporter to Laugh in the Face of...
Grand Jury Rejects Another Indictment Against Letitia James
Media Gaslighting Works: Only a Quarter of Voters Know Kirk’s Assassin Was a...
What Is Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers Hiding About State SNAP Recipients?
Did Rep. Jim Himes Really Try to Make Martyrs Out of Narco-Terrorists?
Democrats Say Aftyn Behn Is the Future of Their Party? We're Fine With...
MS NOW Melts Down After SCOTUS Hands Texas Redistricting Win
Keith Ellison Has No Regrets About His Handling of the Feeding Our Future...
A Five-Point Plan for Republicans Heading Into 2026
Gavin Newsom Wants Democrats to Be More 'Culturally Normal'
Far-Left Commentator Mocks White Culture, Says U.S. Would Become a ‘Sh*thole’ Without Immi...
A Left-Wing Heckler Called Tom Homan a 'Racist' and a 'Traitor.' Here's What...
Tipsheet

Congressman Ratcliffe Rips Mueller For Making Up a Bogus Standard of Guilt for President Trump

AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

On Wednesday morning, former Special Counsel Robert Mueller testified in front of the House Judiciary Committee about his 448-page report. It was released to the public in April after a two-year-long investigation.

Advertisement

Republican Congressman John Ratcliffe didn't waste any time with his brief, five minute questioning period and ripped Mueller for making up a standard of guilt only applicable to President Trump.

"Now your report, and today you said that, 'All times the Special Counsel team operated under, was guided by, and followed Justice Department policies and principles,' so which DOJ policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined?" Ratcliffe said.
 
"Which DOJ policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined? Where does that language come from, director? Where is the DOJ policy that says that? Let me make it easier, can you give me an example other than Donald Trump where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined?" he continued.

"I cannot but this is a unique situation," Mueller responded.

"Ok, well you can’t—time is short, I’ve got five minutes—let’s just leave it at you can’t find it because I’ll tell you why: it doesn’t exist. The Special Counsel’s job, nowhere does it say that you were to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence or that the Special Counsel report should determine whether or not to exonerate him. It’s not in any of the documents, it’s not in your appointment order, it’s not in the Special Counsel regulations, it’s not in the OLC opinions, it’s not in the Justice manual, and it’s not in the principles of federal prosecution," Ratcliffe continued. "Nowhere do those words appear together because, respectfully, respectfully director, it was not the Special Counsel’s job to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence or to exonerate him, because the bedrock principle of our justice system is a presumption of innocence. It exists for everyone, everyone is entitled to it, including sitting presidents. And because there is a presumption of innocence, prosecutors never ever need to conclusively determine it."

Advertisement

Watch below:

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement