A Republican congressman on Wednesday accused Robert Mueller of violating “the most sacred traditions” of prosecutors as well his purview as special counsel by presenting opinions about why President Trump could be prosecuted for obstruction while not referring charges.
It was Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, who confronted Mueller at a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee.
“You wrote 180 pages – 180 pages – about decisions that weren’t reached, about potential crimes that weren’t charged or decided,” the congressman said. “And respectfully, respectfully by doing that you managed to violate every principle and the most sacred of traditions about prosecutors not offering extra prosecutorial analysis about potential crimes that aren’t charged.”
Mueller repeated on Wednesday, at the urging of Democrats, his conclusion that he could not exonerate the president regarding obstruction of justice.
But Ratcliffe argued that such editorializing wasn’t part of the special counsel’s instructions, nor is it allowable in the U.S. justice system.
The job of a prosecutor, he emphasized, is to decide whether or not there is probable cause that a crime was committed. In the mean time, the accused is presumed innocent.
In the first part of Mueller’s 448-page report, he explained why his team came to the conclusion that there was no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election.
But Ratcliffe pointed out that in the second part of Mueller’s report, the special prosecutor ignored the standard presumption of innocence in American jurisprudence.
Mueller, the lawmaker said, went out of his way to state he couldn’t conclude the president was exonerated.
“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?” Ratcliffe asked.
Mueller stumbled, appearing to not want to answer.
Ratcliffe rephrased the question: “Where does that language come from? Where is the DOJ policy that says that?”
Ratcliffe cut to the chase: “I’ll 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 said he was unable.
“Let’s just leave it at ‘you can’t find it’ and I’ll tell you why – because it doesn’t exist,” Ratcliffe said. “The special counsel’s job, nowhere does it say that you are to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence or that the special counsel report should determine whether or not to exonerate him.
“Nowhere do those words appear together because, respectfully, director, it’s not the special counsel’s job to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence or to exonerate him, because the bedrock principle of our justice system is a presumption of innocence.”
See the exchange:
