The sad part of Robert Mueller’s grandstanding is that he proved he truly was James Comey’s role model. Apparently bad FBI Directors are not an anomaly.
Imagine being touted as this great patriot and Lawyer to then give a speech where you say everyone deserves the Presumption of Innocence, but then undercut that with a statement so clearly demonstrating little understanding of the Presumption of Innocence that anyone who thought maybe you were corrupt (if not an imbecile) by your words you removed all doubt that you certainly are corrupt, and lost almost your entire credibility by sheer power of your ego.
That’s what Robert Mueller did with his announcing closure of the Office of Special Counsel by political publicity stunt. Only by corruption would Robert Mueller not know the “Presumption of Innocence” is the standard to be breached, to be surpassed, epitomizng the notion of “reasonable doubt.” The Presumption of Innocence is the default state of every single one of us when charged with a crime, and has been that way according to recorded history as cited in Coffin v. US, 156 US 432, since Greece, http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep156/usrep156432/usrep156432.pdf.
1895, 30 years after the Civil War and before the first failed era of Progressive rule, and its birth of the Federal Reserve, is when Coffin was decided. This is a time when Individual Rights were being understood to extend further across every aspect of American Citizens, irrespective of race, creed, color, station, wealth or poverty, finally a constitutional provision hoped to come to fruition decades before by many of our Founders realized, according to James Madison in Federalist 42 as codified in the Constitution under Article I Section 9 to end slavery by 1808 (See first 3 paragraphs here, https://www.congress.gov/resources/Federalist-42).
The Coffin case is about 2 individuals alleged to have aided and abetted a crime committed by a bank president where these 2 were charged by a Grand Jury for violating a Federal Law in aiding and abetting the president of the bank..
The case head recites 50 charges and all particular details, to which you’ll find some interesting court procedures employed to challenge the charges while the language seems almost turned on its head. I find this explains how mis-educated we generally are, and no I am not going to cite the entire history of the Presumption of Innocence from Coffin because, even though it’s very straightforward, the language was more tortured than we use today. One could say that is a sign of those folks, our American Elders of the past essentially, giving greater attention to detail, problem solving, and having greater hands on intelligence, I know I’d say that. But many may well put forth that the uniformity of today’s rules brought about a clarity of language, ignoring that it also brought about a collective assumption method of reasoning that led to silencing numerous details of considerations and how to make them, how to protect our Rights and appreciate importance of them, all necessarily set on the side of the road of “we need more uniformity” for the sake of appeasing a ruling class of elites endless claims of such necessity for their stature and power. But, I digress….
I urge you to take a look at the Coffin case, muddle through it as I know I did to find the nuggets. I’m about to cite a few I found in Coffin v US from page 460 of the Supreme Court Reports pages digitized into a PDF file and linked above. All emphasis is mine unless otherwise noted.
Justice White delivered the opinion of the court in Coffin which includes the following:
“Concluding, then, that the presumption of innocence is evidence in favor of the accused introduced by the law in his behalf, let us consider what is “reasonable doubt.” It is of necessity the condition of mind produced by the proof resulting from the evidence in the cause. It is the result of the proof, not the proof itself, whereas the presumption of innocence is one of the instruments of proof, going to bring about the proof, from which reasonable doubt arises, thus one is a cause [i.e. the Presumption of Innocence], the other [i.e. reasonable doubt] an effect. To say that the one is the equivalent of the other is therefore to say that legal evidence [Presumption of Innocence] can be excluded from the jury, and that such exclusion may be cured by instructing them correctly in regard to the method by which they are required to reach their conclusion upon the proof actually before them. In other words, that the exclusion of an important element of proof can be justified by correctly instructing as to the proof admitted.”
And what follows helps me further appreciate not being a fan of “evolution….” for often in its less grand forms it’s a method of extinguishing what’s important:
“The evolution of the principle of the presumption of innocence and its resultant, the doctrine of reasonable doubt, makes more apparent the correctness of these views, and indicates the
necessity of enforcing the one, in order that the other may continue to exist.” Apparently setting forth what’s wrong with just giving Jury instructions on reasonable doubt.
Justice White continues:
“Whilst Rome and the the Mediaevalists taught that wherever doubt existed in a criminal case, acquittal
must follow, the expounders of the common law, in their devotion to human liberty and individual rights, traced this doctrine of doubt to its true origin, the presumption of innocence, and rested it upon this enduring basis. The inevitable tendency to obscure the results of a truth, when the truth
itself is forgotten or ignored, admonishes that the protection of so vital and fundamental a principle as the presumption of innocence [Jury Instruction] be not denied, when requested, to any one accused of crime.” [Note that in Coffin the Judge denied the request of the accused to instruct the Jury to consider the Presumption of Innocence.]
Every American has this Presumption of Innocence attached to us throughout our life, it is invisible, it is quite often what gives rise to praise or trust, for we abide by it unerringly generally in living our lives to be the best we can be, obviously the opposite of seeking to carry on criminally. When the Presumption of Innocence is invoked is by our being suspected of a crime, whether acting criminally or not, and then being investigated to prove if the charge is true or not. The whole point of an investigation is to place the burden of proof upon the accuser. This has been the case it appears from almost the beginning of recorded history, and that’s why the Presumption of Innocence has been assumed attached to the point it isn’t mentioned, some even think a Jury doesn’t need to be instructed on the Presumption of Innocence at trial. The commingling of the Presumption of Innocence and reasonable doubt is so significant some believe if a Jury is told how to arrive at reasonable doubt that this is instruction enough.
According to Coffin, and I completely agree with this, the Presumption of Innocence is a proof in and of itself, imposed by the law forcing the burden of proof upon the accuser. This is how the Presumption of Innocence has been applied throughout thousands of years of history. I am not saying it was applied fairly or to everyone. I am saying that the limits imposed by the Constitution and 8 Bill of Rights Amendments demand the Presumption of Innocence as a proof that exists as evidence in favor of every American Citizen accused of a crime. The limits imposed and the idea of Due Process appear to be the means of insuring the Presumption of Innocence is at the root of America’s Justice System.
The presumption of innocence Robert Mueller speaks of is not the ancient Presumption of Innocence that requires proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
In his speech, and it’s been all over the media, Mueller took it upon himself to say:
“The order appointing me Special Counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation and we kept the office of the Acting Attorney General apprised of the progress of our work. And as set forth in the [Mueller] report, after that investigation, if we had confidence the President clearly did not commit a crime we would have said so.” — per below video at around 3-4 minutes in…
The obvious question: At what point was the evidence being contrasted and compared against the Presumption of Innocence of Donald Trump to establish or negate reasonable doubt? Answer: None.
If Robert Mueller had invoked the ancient Presumption of Innocence he’d have projected the reasonable person standard upon the evidence and drawn his conclusions from that instead of extra ordinarily reviewing the evidence for “proof of innocence” a non-existent and honestly bogus standard.
I say bogus because you can ask any Police Officer if anyone is innocent and at best they’d say a new born baby, otherwise I usually am told, “No one is innocent, everyone is guilty of something.” And it’s true we can’t even drive down the road, even if we follow every rule we’ve been told we will find ourselves having to break a rule at many times in our lives when driving. I’ve had to run a red light that won’t change or back up when I happened to stop too far in the intersection. When most people look at the decades they’ve driven they’ll realize the list of driving violations they got away with alone is pretty long, and even moreso when you go beyond just driving down the road.
The standard being used by Robert Mueller is exactly not the Presumption of Innocence. No. Instead Mueller, like everyone from the beginning of all of this, is applying a “foreign” standard, (See https://www.rightsidenews.com/editorial/podesta-podesta-podesta/, and https://www.rightsidenews.com/uncategorized/democrat-recusal-bamboozle/). Foreign includes a corrupt standard. Thus I probably shouldn’t have sought so hard to match “Bueler” and “Mueller” in titling this, and just called it “Robert Mueller’s 30 Million Dollar Taxpayer Funded Vacation.” But I digress….
As I am no lawyer it is beyond my comprehension how a Former FBI Director who is a lawyer, and the man who was appointed Special Counsel could be so entirely inept in knowing the exact principle of the Presumption of Innocence and how it is applied, especially in the United States of America due to the limits imposed upon government by our written Constitution. Thus how I arrive at the certainty of corruption. Any Presumption of the honorableness of Robert Mueller was due to a Presumption of his Innocence, that he completely gutted with his speech.
Obstructing an investigation where the Investigators are well aware the subject of the investigation, Donald J. Trump and his campaign, have not colluded with Russia, is compelled to apply a “reasonable doubt” standard to impose the Presumption of Innocence as a necessary act of reason (i.e. “reasonable doubt”) for any information to be able to be discerned for evidential value as incriminating, exculpatory, or of no merit. The standard of Proof, to meet the Burden of Proof, so that evidence can overcome a Due Process hurdle imposed by the Constitution, a hurdle to assure as best as possible that the State willy nilly can’t just charge anyone with a crime. The thousands of years the Presumption of Innocence has existed appears to be why we have a right to Due Process. This process is to assure evidential value and conviction isn’t determined by “an emotional epiphany,” standard, or an “angry over the election” standard, etc., but is a process to assure that if a person is charged and convicted it is by overcoming a reasonable doubt standard. As explained in Coffin, the reasonable doubt standard derives from the ancient principle of the Presumption of Innocence.
Case after case of Supreme Court Cases discuss the “reasonable person” standard to help determine if what someone did is what a reasonable person would do, meaning: was what they di based in reason? Is it sound reason? Or is reason that has an agenda, a nefarious purpose, is an effort to conceal, to hide, to get away with something? And in all of that, was the reason an excuse to assert beyond ones Individual Rights and assume extra rights over another without their knowledge, consent, and/or agreement to waive their Rights and be subject to another?
Involuntary servitude is what the 13th Amendment outlawed. Politicians spend money to volunteer to be “Public Servants” every election though they sure don’t act like it now do they?… At least that explains where Robert Mueller gets such hubris to utterly ignore the Presumption of Innocence as a standard to apply to Donald J. Trump.
And all of this is crucial, essential, and important for the simple order of America’s law and its basis that the highest, the Sovereign power, resides in the American People (see Justice James Wilson, http://web.archive.org/govote.avoiceofthepeople.com/).
Lastly, How’s this effect Impeachment? Our Constitution has standards too or it hasn’t any basis in reality for then the limits the Constitution imposes lack all reason to be acted upon and can be imposed willy nilly, without any Due Process, fairness, nor due regard for the accused, becoming entirely a dog and pony show, essentially a kangaroo court/banana republic exercise.
In fact if what Donald J. Trump did was not able to rise to the level of a criminal act under the statutory laws of the United States, under the regulations derived from statute to assure fundamental fairness, such as the Presumption of Innocence, then Impeachment isn’t anywhere near a rightful act.
All statutory enactments and regulations are below the level of law that the Constitution itself is in regulating the Government. Thus the Impeachment clause of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” is an even higher standard, meaning Impeachment isn’t a political act but a self-policing mechanism of the Constitution itself as the germane Law of the Land in its original founding of the United States government. Therefore this idea of pursuing Impeachment for allegations and or other specious suspicions or even actual actions taken by the President when those same actions do not rise to the level of statutory criminality is using Impeachment as an act of Treason, of giving comfort and aid to our enemies by publicizing a coup between the branches of government. The value of the law is what’s lost when the Presumption of Innocence and reasonable doubt standards are set aside by folks like Robert Mueller and James Comey as the lawfulness of their analysis and methods, in both the Hillary Clinton and Donald J. Trump cases has proven not to be able to surpass the less stringent statutory legal standard. Remember it was Comey making the indictment decision, a decision that solely rests under the authority of the Attorney General, which Robert Mueller is carrying on identically, and both are absent of using the Presumption of Innocence. This is proven by not using the reasonable doubt standard, for instance would a reasonable person have deleted 30,000+ emails after they’ve been subpoenaed? The Governing Law of the United States of America is the Constitution which presides over America’s Government. Statutes are done by a Congress created by that very Constitution and that is why the Impeachment Standard of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (notice the capitalization) affords greater protections to the accused and is an even higher hurdle, unless of course the faction of corruption is all that’s at work, which Hamilton warned us of in Federalist 65:
“Would it have been desirable to have composed the court for the trial of impeachments, of persons wholly distinct from the other departments of the government? There are weighty arguments, as well against, as in favor of, such a plan. To some minds it will not appear a trivial objection, that it could tend to increase the complexity of the political machine, and to add a new spring to the government, the utility of which would at best be questionable. But an objection which will not be thought by any unworthy of attention, is this: a court formed upon such a plan, would either be attended with a heavy expense, or might in practice be subject to a variety of casualties and inconveniences. It must either consist of permanent officers, stationary at the seat of government, and of course entitled to fixed and regular stipends, or of certain officers of the State governments to be called upon whenever an impeachment was actually depending. It will not be easy to imagine any third mode materially different, which could rationally be proposed. As the court, for reasons already given, ought to be numerous, the first scheme will be reprobated by every man who can compare the extent of the public wants with the means of supplying them. The second will be espoused with caution by those who will seriously consider the difficulty of collecting men dispersed over the whole Union; the injury to the innocent, from the procrastinated determination of the charges which might be brought against them; the advantage to the guilty, from the opportunities which delay would afford to intrigue and corruption; and in some cases the detriment to the State, from the prolonged inaction of men whose firm and faithful execution of their duty might have exposed them to the persecution of an intemperate or designing majority in the House of Representatives. Though this latter supposition may seem harsh, and might not be likely often to be verified, yet it ought not to be forgotten that the demon of faction will, at certain seasons, extend his sceptre over all numerous bodies of men.” — https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/Federalist-65
Bill Clinton committed perjury and that was provable beyond a reasonable doubt, and that crime is what led to his Impeachment.
IS AMERICA, ARE AMERICANS, HONESTLY READY TO MAKE IT A CRIME TO WIN AN ELECITON? Well if we use the Robert Mueller Standard clearly he’s ready to make the winner of an election something to be determined by whims of those who lost and had every opportunity to change their misfortune before the election, penalizing the winner for taking the risk inherent in running for public office and giving up, sacrificing a portion of their lives to serve.
Is punishing the winner really what we as Americans want?
God Bless you and I thank you for reading and sharing this,
P.S. I am sure this was some Law School Professor during the Special Counsel’s Law School education, “Mueller?…………Mueller?……….Mueller?” Be a real kick if he sounded like Ben Stein :p