On Wednesday’s episode of “The Andrew Klavan Show,” Klavan discusses the disastrous congressional hearing with Robert Mueller, who led the independent investigation into alleged “collusion” between Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia. Video and partial transcript below:
Now remember, this whole thing is because of the Democrats, who live within the media bubble, just like the Republicans do. They just have their imagination fed back to them all the time. If they believed in Green Dragons eating the Empire State Building, the media would say that’s what was happening. And it would shock them to find out that everyone in New York is looking at the Empire State Building, and there’s no Green Dragons.
In other words, they don’t know. What they think is that we read the report, but we didn’t get the report. We’re not smart enough to get the report. We need the visuals, we need it on TV. We’re not going to read the book, we need to see the movie. They keep saying this, they keep actually using those terms. Trump keeps saying, “No obstruction no collusion, no obstruction, no collusion.” There was no obstruction and there was no collusion. So that’s the end of that. But, just in this one point, that he was not exonerated, John Ratcliffe (R-TX) really went after him [Mueller] on this. Listen to this clip.
Ratcliffe: “Your report and today you said at 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 the last part of that question?”
Ratcliffe: “Yeah. Which DOJ policy or principle set forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated, if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined? Where does that language come from Director? Where is the DOJ policy that says that?”
Mueller: [Silence]
Ratcliffe: “Let me make it easier. 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, but this is unique situation.”
Ratcliffe: “Well you can’t, time is short. I’ve got five minutes. Let’s just leave it at you can’t find it because, I’ll tell you why, it doesn’t exist.”
Of course it doesn’t exist, the principle that you have not been exonerated does not exist in law. I mean think about it for yourself: You’re accused of some horrible thing you didn’t do. You go to trial, they either find that you are not guilty or you’re guilty. You either did it or you didn’t, you are innocent if they can’t prove it. And that’s the standard, that’s the legal standard. It is such an important legal standard because you can ruin anybody with innuendo. You can charge anybody with anything, as they always say, you can indict a ham sandwich. …
How would it be if you got charged of some terrible thing and they said, “Well we couldn’t prove you were guilty, but you’re not exonerated.” You never do that. You say, “Not guilty, I was found not guilty.” Even if it’s a miscarriage of justice, you are innocent until proven guilty.
This just blew up in the Democrats’ face…. I mean I was going to come on the show, I didn’t know whether the hearing was going to start before I came on. And still I was going to tell you it’s going to blow up because I read the report. There’s nothing they can get out of this except for him saying something that he shouldn’t be saying like, “Oh yes, I think he’s guilty, but I couldn’t do anything about it.” Which would be absurd, I mean it would just be an absurd thing for him to say.