The Mueller Report’s Flawed Conclusion Warps The Entire Notion Of ‘Innocent Until Proven Guilty’

[GURPS]

But it is worth emphasizing one point, in particular, about Mueller's report. The one-paragraph ultimate conclusion, presented on page 394 of the available document PDF (and labeled page 182 in the report itself), amounts to a remarkable warping and distorting of the prosecutorial function. Mueller refuses to expressly exonerate Trump and states that, "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

Mueller and his team of Democrat prosecutors fail the logic test and of course shiv POTUS at the end of their report. The bottom line is that they tried — and failed — to find evidence for collusion. pic.twitter.com/Y3z6Z0ZmXF
— Jordan Schachtel (@JordanSchachtel) April 18, 2019

The fundamental problem is that this is simply not how prosecution works, under the Anglo-American legal system.

If a prosecutor cannot adduce the necessary evidence to bring forward a charge, then he ought to keep quiet. It is not the role of a prosecutor to say that a suspect did not clearly not commit a crime.

This is burden-shifting mischief and it amounts to gaslighting.
— Josh Hammer (@josh_hammer) April 19, 2019

As a political matter, Mueller's refusal to expressly exonerate Trump opens the door for a tendentious Democratic push of articles of impeachment, as Ben notes. But the potential legal implications of Mueller's conclusion are even more dastardly, in the long run, than are the political implications. Former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy hit the nail on the head yesterday at the New York Post:

In his report, Mueller didn’t resolve the issue. If he had been satisfied that there was no obstruction crime, he said, he would have so found. He claimed he wasn’t satisfied. Yet he was also not convinced that there was sufficient proof to charge. Therefore, he made no decision, leaving it to Attorney General William Barr to find that there was no obstruction.
This is unbecoming behavior for a prosecutor and an outrageous shifting of the burden of proof: The constitutional right of every American to force the government to prove a crime has been committed, rather than to have to prove his or her own innocence.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/46192/hammer-mueller-reports-flawed-conclusion-warps-josh-hammer

 

[TCROW]

 

[transporter]

dailywire...again??? OK!!!

But it is worth emphasizing one point, in particular, about Mueller's report. The one-paragraph ultimate conclusion, presented on page 394 of the available document PDF (and labeled page 182 in the report itself), amounts to a remarkable warping and distorting of the prosecutorial function. Mueller refuses to expressly exonerate Trump and states that, "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

This has been refuted multiple times. No matter how many times you post it, you still won't make that last sentence stand alone without proper context. Here is the entirety of the final conclusion which does nothing more than restate what is said in the summary pages of Volumes I and II:

Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

Now back to your propaganda:

Mueller and his team of Democrat prosecutors fail the logic test and of course shiv POTUS at the end of their report. The bottom line is that they tried — and failed — to find evidence for collusion. pic.twitter.com/Y3z6Z0ZmXF
— Jordan Schachtel (@JordanSchachtel) April 18, 2019

The fundamental problem is that this is simply not how prosecution works, under the Anglo-American legal system.

WRONG! As has been posted before and as is CLEARLY stated in the opening pages of Volume I Mueller was not looking at "collusion".

WRONG! As has also been posted before and as is CLEARLY stated in the opening pages of Volume, Mueller states that there was evidence of conspiracy and coordination.

As a political matter, Mueller's refusal to expressly exonerate Trump opens the door for a tendentious Democratic push of articles of impeachment, as Ben notes. But the potential legal implications of Mueller's conclusion are even more dastardly, in the long run, than are the political implications. Former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy hit the nail on the head yesterday at the New York Post:

Also has been posted before (and is shown in the concluding paragraph above), Mueller would have exonerated Trump if Trump there was no evidence Trump committed a crime.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/46192/hammer-mueller-reports-flawed-conclusion-warps-josh-hammer

dailywire...sheesh...why don't you just start posting article from the Enquirer or the Weekly World News. Or just be truthful and copy/paste from RT.