Trump is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
You’re twisting words. He had the power to say whether he believed Trump was innocent, but not that power to say whether he believed Trump was guilty (because, in his rationalization, it’s unfair to accuse someone of something that they can’t defend themselves against). He then went on to deliberately repeat that he would not say that Trump was believed to be innocent.
Trump is presumed innocent until proven guilty. It’s called “presumption of innocence” and it is a fundamental principle going back to common law.
This is meaningless as applied to the presidency in regards to the DOJ regulation. The DOJ can not indict Trump, so it would be impossible for them to “prove him guilty.” Congress is the only body of government that can try the president.
You’re using the presumption of innocence out of context. How can you indict for a person of a crime, if you assume they are innocent of that crime?
Trump is presumed innocent until proven guilty. You are admitting the entire investigation was useless.
In order for Trump to have obstructed justice, what would he have to have?
You’re using this statement out of context. No one has to believe that Trump did not commit a crime.
Several people went to jail and Trump can be impeached based on the evidence presented in the investigation, so it’s not useless. Pelosi believes it’s better to let the stain of corruption hurt his re-election, so she doesn’t want to impeach him.
The evidence of Trump’s obstruction is in the report. The DOJ is subordinate to the president and can not indict him. Congress could hold him accountable.
1 Like
Lol…no
You have that backwards. Mueller could say Trump was innocent, he could not charge him with a crime. He expressly said he could not say Trump did not commit a crime.
3 Likes
Yeah, I mean it’s like if a child finds his parent doing something wrong… the child can’t discipline the parent as the child is subordinate to the parent. It doesn’t mean that the parent didn’t do anything wrong. The DOJ is subordinate to the president. The president can only be punished by Congress (according to Mueller).
I’m not quite sure why they are acting like this is that difficult to understand.
2 Likes
This conversation has unfortunately been had multiple times. No matter how many times the exact text of the Mueller report is given, the false pretext of “presumed innocent” and claims that Mueller could have charged Trump continue.
I mean is it bad reading comprehension, cognitive dissonance or purposeful lying?
Mueller basically is presenting tons of damning evidence to the proper authorities… Congress. That Mueller is not doing things that he doesn’t have to authority to do does not mean that Trump was exonerated. It’s like the truth doesn’t even matter anymore.
2 Likes
Not quite. Mueller’s job was to try and find the evidence to prove him guilty. His guilt has to be established by congress.
Everyone knows that (that doesn’t live on Fox).
Now we just have to put up with years of excuses.
Barr not only did not accuse Trump of a crime, he stated that Trump was not guilty of obstruction.
That’s right. It was Muellers rationalization, not a DOJ rule that he couldn’t say the President was guilty. But Mueller went further than that. He stated that, since he could not indict, that he would not determine whether the President were guilty or not. He stated he made no determination of guilt. That is a different thing than deciding someone is guilty but can’t be indicted.
Saying that he could not determine that Trump did not commit a crime cannot by any stretch be considered the same thing as saying that he did commit a crime.
But…even if Mueller decided in his report that Trump were guilty, Barr is the one to whom the report was written, and his decision would have overruled Muellers…so it really isn’t that relevant.
Barr got the job by saying it was impossible for the president to obstruct justice. He declared the president innocent before he even read the report.
Mueller didn’t invent this rationalization, it’s the DOJ guidelines. While the supreme court has never actually ruled on this, it’s not an outlandish opinion.
Mueller clearly stated that concluding that the president was guilty was never an option and it wouldn’t be fair to even make that accusation given that Trump would be unable to defend himself in court. The most he could say is whether or not he feels the evidence cleared him. He made it explicit, that he would not say that.
Neither Mueller nor Barr have authority over Trump’s innocence or guilt.
Mueller gave the evidence… the jury is going to be either Congress or the American people in 2020.
1 Like
This is key…
The DOJ guideline is not to indict. Can you cite where the guideline is not to express an opinion of guilt?
Yes, we agree that he did not state that there was conclusive evidence of Trump having committed a crime, and that he made not determination that Trump was guilty of a crime. We agree.
