Here Are Some of the New Taxes Coming to Virginia Under Democrat Rule....
You Can See Why That Anti-ICE Lawsuit Filed by Minnesota Was Such a...
Utah Law Banning Inappropriate Material in School Libraries Faces Legal Challenge
The Traffic Tickets Looked Routine. The Pattern Behind Them Didn’t.
Pam Grier Tells The View About Her Childhood Experience With Racism in Ohio....
James Clyburn Just Said What About Republicans?
Here's How Much Money CA Is Losing As Hollywood Takes Production to Friendlier...
FBI Serves Subpoenas to Offices of Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, AG Keith Ellison,...
American Jailed by Russia Over Firearm on Boat
Trump Dumps ATF Merger Plan
Danish Member of European Parliament Tells President Trump to 'F**k Off'
Gavin Newsom’s Davos Tantrum: Embarrassing Ramble About Trump, Europe, and Greenland
Guess How Much of Every Humanitarian Dollar the US Spends Actually Reaches the...
You Won't Believe These Deleted Posts by Mamdani's Equity Chief
There Is a Bombshell New Report Out About Trump's Immigration Policies
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