Was this investigation fair and honest?
Texas Rep. John Ratcliffe laid the smack down on former Special Counsel Robert Mueller during the much anticipated Mueller hearings.
As the nation watched, Rep. Ratcliffe exposed Mueller as a partisan hack who went after President Donald Trump with a standard not allowed in the law.
RATCLIFFE: Good morning, director. If you let me quickly summarize your opening statement this morning you said in volume one on the issue of conspiracy the special counsel determined the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government, its election interference activities and volume two for reasons you explained special counsel did not make a determination whether there was an obstruction of justice crime committed by the president. Is that fair?
MUELLER: Yes, sir.
RATCLIFFE: In explaining what special counsel didn’t make a decision, the report on the bottom of page 2 of volume 2 reads as the evidence we obtained about the president’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred.
While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. Now, I read that correctly?
RATCLIFFE: 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?
MUELLER: Can you repeat that?
RATCLIFFE: Which DOJ policy or principle sets forth a legal standard sets forth a person is not exonerated if their crime Noll conduct is not conclusively determined.
Where is the DOJ policy that says that? Let me make it easier. Is there — 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?
MUELLER: I cannot.
RATCLIFFE: I have five minutes. Let’s leave it at you can’t find it. 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 is not in any of the documents or appointment order or the special counsel regulations, not in the olc opinions and justice manuals and the — nowhere do those words appear together because respectfully, director, it was not the special counsel’s job to constitution conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence or exonerate him.
The bedrock principle of our justice system is a presumption of innocence and it exists for everyone. Everyone is en titled to it including sitting presidents.
Because there is a presumption of innocence prosecutors never, ever need to conclusively determine that. Now, director, the special counsel applied this inverted burden of proof that I can’t find and you said doesn’t exist anywhere in the department policies and you used it to write a report.
The very first line of your report the very first line of your report says as you read this morning authorizes the special counsel to provide the Attorney general with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or decisions reached by the special counsel. That’s the first word of your report, right?
MUELLER: That’s correct.
RATCLIFFE: Here is the problem. Special counsel didn’t do that. On volume 1 you did, volume 2 with respect to potential obstruction of justice the special counsel made neither a prosecution decision or a declination decision. He made no decision.
You told us this morning and in your report you made no determination. Respectfully, director, you didn’t follow the special counsel regulations.
It clearly says write a confidential report about decisions reached. Nowhere in here does it say write a report about decisions that weren’t reached.
You wrote 180 pages about decisions that weren’t reached, about potential crimes that weren’t charged or decided.
And respectfully, respectfully by doing that you managed to violate every principle and the most sacred of traditions about prosecutors not offering extra prosecutorial analysis about potential crimes that aren’t charged.
So Americans need to know this as they listen to the Democrats and socialists on the other side of the aisles as they do dramatic readings from this report that volume 2 of this report was not authorized under the law to be written.
It was written to a legal standard that does not exist at the Justice Department. And it was written in violation of every D.O.J. Principle about extra prosecutorial commentary.
I agree with the chairman this morning that Donald Trump is not above the law but he shouldn’t be below the law where volume 2 of this report puts him.
Src: The Federalist Papers