Categories
Bill Whittle Now

Trump Presumption of Innocence Flipped, Mueller Testimony Flopped

Democrats hoped that former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s testimony before House committees would bring his 448-page report on President Trump to life on video, because most Americans didn’t read the book. Instead, Democrats wound up reading the report to Mueller, who — in most cases — gave short answers, and referred them back to his written report. As a movie, the Mueller testimony flopped. Meanwhile, Republicans planted seeds of doubt about the political motives behind the two-year investigation into Russia’s election interference, and possible obstruction of justice by Trump. Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-TX, among others pointed out that Mueller’s claim that the “president was not exculpated” or “exonerated” flipped the presumption of innocence which lies at the heart of the American justice system.

Democrats hoped that former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s testimony before House committees would bring his 448-page report on President Trump to life on video, because most Americans didn’t read the book. Instead, Democrats wound up reading the report to Mueller, who — in most cases — gave short answers, and referred them back to his written report. As a movie, the Mueller testimony flopped. Meanwhile, Republicans planted seeds of doubt about the political motives behind the two-year investigation into Russia’s election interference, and possible obstruction of justice by Trump. Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-TX, among others pointed out that Mueller’s claim that the “president was not exculpated” or “exonerated” flipped the presumption of innocence which lies at the heart of the American justice system.

14 replies on “Trump Presumption of Innocence Flipped, Mueller Testimony Flopped”

All I was going to say Mr. Doty already said, you should have waited a few hours. I hope there’ll be another episode about this. He never heard of Fusion GPS !!!

“We” already elected Bozo the Clown – twice. Check it off the list, done, never again.
Side note, Battleships – I’m astonished and awed by the volume and “throw weight” that these behemoths could inflict in WWII, as articulated in the Hornfischer books.

You guys should really have waited until the hearings were concluded.
Mueller changed his story for the FOURTH TIME and corrected his testimony regarding indicting a sitting President. And as for the so-called evidence of obstruction….I think Bill and Scott should be shot. Did anyone shoot them? No. Did I shoot at them and miss? No, they’re both still alive. Nothing was actually obstructed so no obstruction occurred.
It’s very simple really.

btw, I like Bill and Scott and hope they both live long and fruitful lives bedeviling the liberals at every turn.

As usual, the dems shot themselves in the foot. They *were* trying to get people who didn’t read the report to understand what was in it, but all they proved was that the guy who supposedly *wrote* it was one of the people who apparently hadn’t read it! What a joke!

I watched it live yesterday. Mueller was sad. It is obvious he is a senile old man and in no way was it possible that Mueller led that special council’s office. Weissman had to be the operational commander. Mueller seems to have stepped into the sunset of his life now. And the whole spectacle bombed for the Democrats. Even liberal media types like Chuck Todd were criticizing this theater.

Watched it live??
Were you being punished?

These hearings look like an entire panel of the two old guys in the balcony heckling the Muppet Show.
Watching a few clips was painful.

I didn’t watch the whole thing because I didn’t have the stomach for it, but what I saw – save for Ratcliffe and a few others – was a bunch of old confused and flustered men in desperate need of Polygrip and a fresh helping of Jello.

The terms “not guilty” and “innocent” are not synonymous. If a person commits a crime but their guilt cannot be proven then he is deemed “not guilty” at trial, but, that person still committed the crime and is far from innocent. The state or the people could not prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Our system contains the double jeopardy clause so one cannot be tried for the same crime twice. So we also need to take note that the investigation was just an investigation and not a trial so the progressive lefties will keep digging and digging to find anything to indict our President as double jeopardy does not apply until after a trial.
The lefties are like a frenzy of sharks who sense blood in the water but do not realize the blood is their own.

Legally, morally and practically if you are found Not Guilty you are “Innocent”. You were Innocent before you were charged. You were Innocent during the trial, and You remain Innocent after the trial because you were found Not Guilty. That is what the Presumption of Innocence really means. It is why Warrants are needed during an investigation and so forth. What you described is a system used where the Presumption is guilt since the state produced so much evidence or the one where Freedoms and Rights are not protected because the Bad People are abusing them so it is OK if the government spies on people because only guilty people have anything to worry about. I am sure you are a fine, decent and Upstanding fellow and do not intend to demean you or your beliefs in any way but so many people really do not comprehend what Presumption of Innocence really means and how important that is.

Like Bill said we would rather let a few people who are actually guilty walk free than imprison an innocent person.

To clarify, I was using innocent in the moral sense and not guilty in the legal sense. If our morals come from our creator like our natural rights do and you murder someone but are found not guilty in a court of law, will the author of our morals concede to your trial outcome and hold you harmless? If someone murders another, you cannot say they are morally innocent even though they are found not guilty in a court of law. The presumption of innocence is strictly a legal doctrine and is something Americans hold in high esteem, as they should.
It seems like our disagreement is all semantics. I was just explaining why you’re found not-guilty at trial rather than proclaimed innocent.

Loving this line:

The lefties are like a frenzy of sharks who sense blood in the water but do not realize the blood is their own.

Thanks, Ted!

Leave a Reply