So the Mueller Report (sounds like a failed Robert Ludlum novel) is out. And for all the hyperventilating about it, the most astonishing thing to me is that now, in 2019 America, you have to prove you're innocent. It has almost always been the case that if a prosecutor cannot find grounds to indict, they say so. Robert Mueller didn't indict, but he left the matter open. That's outrageous. Instead, he left a report filled with a bunch of nuggets so that others could continue to torment his quarry.
We've seen this before, actually. The corrupt Democrats in Wisconsin did the same thing to Scott Walker. The "John Doe" investigations of his campaign were thrown out by state and federal judges, but we got to read all of the prosecution's theories anyway. It was a disgrace. So is what happened to Donald Trump.
Bonus: see if you can spot the irony in the article I linked.
3 comments:
I don't see the link. Maybe I'm dense. :^)
But to the question of "prove you're innocent", there is also the logical principle that you cannot prove a negative. It's at the heart of our legal system, and quite frankly it's at the heart of any honest inquiry. You don't "prove" the null hypothesis, you "retain" it for lack of reason to accept an alternate. Along those lines, I really liked Brad's link to Mary Katherine Ham's comment that she hoped the Democrats hadn't skipped leg day at the gym, or else they're going to get tired from moving those goalposts.
Sorry about the link being tough to see, hover over Scott Walker in the second graph and it should be there.
If several people aren't brought to justice and their lives in tatters, we can expect this to play out repeatedly every time a GOPer gets elected. Consider this the beginning of the end of our republic.
Post a Comment