Mueller: Guilty Until Proven Innocent

by
What do you think?

Should prosecutor say or do things for the purpose of helping one political party or the other? Robert Mueller abused his position of trust. He knowingly allowed himself to be used for partisan political advantage.

Mueller has moved beyond the conclusion of his report. The former special prosecutor invited Democrats to institute impeachment proceedings. He did so by implying that President Trump might have committed obstruction of justice.  This act put Mueller’s thumb on the scale of justice. His implied obstruction of justice charge is one the report does not bring. This reveals his partisan political bias.

We are a nation based on the rule of law.

Prosecutors are part of how we administer the rule of law. The rules should not be different for the President and the Special Prosecutor than they are for anyone else. Aren’t we all equal under the law?

Should a prosecutor go beyond publicly disclosing that there is insufficient evidence to indict? Doesn’t it seems like that should be out of bounds for a prosecutor? Suggesting the subject of the investigation might be guilty even lacking  evidence to indict feels wrong. We have a presumption of innocence… for a reason. Do you remember what that reason is?

Prosecutors are only allowed to conclude whether there is sufficient evidence to bring a charge. They are not allowed to decide whether the subject of the investigation is guilty or is innocent. Determination of guilt or innocence requires a full adversarial trial with a zealous defense attorney, vigorous cross examination, exclusionary rules of evidence and other due process safeguards. Such safeguards were not present in this investigation.

Conclusion:

Can there be another plausible reason why Mueller went beyond his report to suggest the President might be guilty… except to encourage impeachment talk and action? Do you support politicians who do not respect the rule of law?

Author

Share to...