So I Got a Call From The New York Times...
The Latest Trump Move Involving Minneapolis Is Going to Trigger a Lib Meltdown
Here’s Why That ICE Agent Involved in the Minneapolis Shooting Is in Hiding
Latest NYT Piece on Mamdani Shows How Being an American Liberal Is Just...
Why the Hell Should We Care If Democrats Don’t?
Israel Misunderstood
A Quick Bible Study Vol. 303: The Best of St. Paul
Men Need to Work
Greenland and the Return of Great-Power Politics
INSANITY: Mob of Leftist Rioters Stab and Beat Anti-Islam Activist in Minneapolis
U.S. Strike in Syria Kills Terrorist Linked to Murder of American Soldiers
Florida Man Convicted of $4.5M Scheme to Defraud U.S. Military Fuel Program
Chinese National Pleads Guilty to $27 Million Scam Targeting 2,000 Elderly Victims Nationw...
Orange County Man Arrested for Alleged Instagram Death Threats Against VP JD Vance
Hannity Grills Democrat Shri Thanedar After He Admits Voting Against Deporting Illegal Sex...
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