Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor in the SDNY, writes a scathing op-ed in the New York Post that Robert Mueller, in his report to the Attorney General, attempts to shift the burden of proof on obstruction from the prosecution to the defendant. That’s not how our system of justice works.
For obstruction, you need:
Criminal Law for Laypeople: You need to prove *both* the actus reus (the physical act) and the mens rea (the mental state) to convict someone of a crime. At minimum, you also need to have some evidence of both to *charge* someone with a crime. Without both, you have nothing.
— Elliott Hamilton (@ElliottRHams) April 18, 2019
Given that the Mueller report found no collusion (iow, no evidence of criminal wrongdoing), his finding of unable to conclude on obstruction, shows just how desperate the Mueller team (including 13 Democrats) was to do anything to harm Donald Trump and his Administration. Meaning, in order to prove obstruction, you need an underlying crime. With no finding of collusion, that is thrown out the window.
That the media goes along with this charade shows just how biased they are and are nothing more than an appendage of the Democratic party.
Welcome to my blog and thanks for dropping by! I post about faith, family, mac, sports, tech, and more. Please feel free to join the discussion by leaving comments, and stay updated by subscribing to the RSS feed.
wpDiscuz