Robert Mueller, Former F.B.I. Director, Is Named Special Counsel for Russia Investigation

Certain people will have egg on their faces but they should have known it was always going to be really difficult to prove that Trump worked with Russia to fix the election. You'd need something damning to prove that, that he had calls with Putin or some other Russian Operative or something concrete like that.

Instead, what we found was that Russia did try to influence the election and everyone should be happy to learn that they weren't able to collude with Trump because if Mueller did find that...the country would be in tatters right now...we'd basically have a lame duck president that would also be a traitor...

With that said, Mueller didn't find that and liberals should trust that...on the other side of the fence though people should eat their words about Mueller. There was a lot of slander and attacks aimed his way, that he was biased and it was a 'witchhunt' and all of that, but as soon as long as Mueller's conclusion is something they can go along with then they drop it immediately.

At the end of the day, this was never going to change anti-trumpers minds, this was something that could only hurt Trump because there's so many other things going on with him that all it really does is clear him of one thing.

 

You're wrong, he is innocent until proven guilty. He has the presumption of innocence, he must be proven guilty, not the other way around. By law, he is innocent until proven guilty. Our system presumes innocence, which means that legally speaking, even the obviously guilty are treated as though they are innocent, until they are proven otherwise.

 

Jump is a high schooler I think. Don't take his posts too seriously.

 

The DNC is like a gumball machine

 

That section indicates that Mueller declined but that the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General determined not sufficient irrespective of the rule against indicting a sitting President.

 

Our system never proves innocence, that language does not exist anywhere in the ruling. It is something said during an arrest to remind everyone that the person being arrested or questioned is still innocent until he is proven not in court.

We can prove he is not innocent in court by finding him guilty.

We can never prove someone innocent, especially in a case like this.

 

I never said it proved innocent, I said HE WAS INNOCENT TO BEGIN WITH. Mueller couldn't prove him innocent, because he already was. All he could do was probable cause to guilt.

 

To claim someone is innocent of this goes way beyond anyone’s pay grade. I’m sorry it’s just not something you can prove.

 

I don't have to prove it, it is our God given lights as defined by our laws, and the courts that oversee them. There are hundreds of years of legal precedence backing that fact. You arguing that he wasn't innocent until proven guilty, is like arguing that the sky isn't blue. You're wrong, and in spite of overwhelming evidence, you still believe that you are right.

Your opinion, does not negate law, just because you don't like the guy. Innocent into proven guilty is there for everyone, no just the innocent. The eyes of justice are blind for a reason. I didn't vote for the guy, and I don't like the guy - but I sure as hell am not going to throw our rights out simply because I dislike him.

 

The courts were not designed or created to prove innocence. Our tax dollars would be going to waste if that were the goal.

You can bring god into this, Butler our right is we have to go to court and be proven guilty before any punishment can be made on any charges.

 

If you are innocent until proven guilty... and you are labeled not guilty... then you are still innocent. In a way yeah it proves it in a legal status kind of way. I see what you mean about the not proven as in actually proving. Like OJ
That dude was never innocent despite being innocent in the eyes of the law.

 

Big win for Trump. It will certainly help him in 2020

 

Again, you're wrong.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/presumption_of_innocence

Prestigious Law Schools Across the US > Some CF Poster

Even if you personally saw the crime happen, the person is innocent, until a judge or jury convicts them, and/or they confess. THE LAW IS BLIND. Our entire judicial system is built on this fact. This is the very reason we screen and select jurors, so we know their opinions aren't corrupted by outside sources that may taint their opinions one way or the other.

Not living by innocent until proven guilty, is a slippery slope.

 

Technically you are right, but our courts were not designed to prove innocence.

There are many cases which the judge ruled not guilty only to have guilty rulings made based on new evidence or a re-trial. Trump was found not guilty in court by a judge with the evidence brought forward at the time. Good for him.

 

Being technically right is all that matters in the court of law. Emotion and law are segregated for a reason.

I don't budge on innocent until proven guilty, because I saw 12 Angry Men when I was like 10 years old. And I'm glad I did.

 

Find me one judge who ruled innocent. The ruling is not guilty. New evidence can come up sometimes, and there are many other factors. Our courts were not made to determine if someone is innocent. Only if they are guilty of the charges based on the evidence brought to light.

 

Not sure what language you want me to say it in, they don't have to say they are innocent. If they are not guilty, that means they are innocent - because by their God given rights, they are innocent until proven guilty.

My emotion, and your emotion should play no part in a court case. How many innocent minorities have been convinced because of crying white moms wrongfully pointing out the wrong dark skinned man over the past 240+ years? SPOILER ALERT: A lot.

Emotion should not play any role in justice. Justice should be fact based, and unbiased. That is why justice is blind, and we are all innocent until proven guilty - regardless of how much that hurts your feelings.

 

Trump team turns tables after Mueller report, calls for investigation into probe's origin

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tr...ler-report-calls-for-investigation-into-probe
Michael Goodwin: Why Obama and Clinton should now be probed

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/michael-goodwin-why-obama-and-clinton-should-now-be-probed

 

There is no such thing as god given rights. What you keep repeating has no meaning in a court of law.

Being not guilty does not mean innocent, sorry if you fail to understand why judges cannot rule someone innocent.

 

Now you must be trolling... a higher power or God is mentioned throughout our laws and history.

In that sense, God does not mean the Christian God - nor did I say it did, it means "not of this earth," meaning our rights are bigger than the government. This is the same reason you swear on a holy book and/or invoke the name of a holy deity when you perform an oath of office, and/or you are sworn under oath for legal testimony. It is a symbol that your rights, supercede the will of the United States. The United States founders borrowed this legal jurisprudence from the British.

(source)