AlwaysWrite
Addicted Member
Even after Robert Mueller's testimony before two House committees turned into a fiasco, the Democrats and their friends in the lamestream media continued their "no exoneration" talking points.
Liberal newspapers and talk shows continued to push their unfounded and ridiculous "no exoneration" theme, clearly demonstrating their extreme bias and hatred of President Trump.
Democrat committee chairmen Jerrold Nadler and Adam Schiff should know that a person must be charged in order to be exonerated. It's one of the simplest and basic legal concepts. So what are the charges or specific evidence against Trump, without which there couldn't possibly be an "exoneration"?
The job of a prosecutor -- or special counsel, in this case -- is to determine if sufficient evidence exists to indict someone for a crime. If someone is indicted, the evidence is presented at a trial (or an impeachment proceeding), where the accused has the rights provided by our legal system to confront witnesses, present exculpatory evidence and put forward a full defense. And if there is insufficient evidence to indict, the prosecutor must drop the case without public comment.
Exoneration is defined as "the action of officially absolving someone from blame", and nowhere in the American justice system does a prosecutor have the job (or the right) to exonerate anyone. Rather, it's the exclusive job of a jury or trial judge with regard to alleged guilt, and it's designed that way to fully protect the rights of the accused.
Nevertheless, we continue to hear that Mueller didn't exonerate the president. Why? Because the Democrats and lamestream media are determined to damage Trump by any means, fair or not, legal or not.
Liberal newspapers and talk shows continued to push their unfounded and ridiculous "no exoneration" theme, clearly demonstrating their extreme bias and hatred of President Trump.
Democrat committee chairmen Jerrold Nadler and Adam Schiff should know that a person must be charged in order to be exonerated. It's one of the simplest and basic legal concepts. So what are the charges or specific evidence against Trump, without which there couldn't possibly be an "exoneration"?
The job of a prosecutor -- or special counsel, in this case -- is to determine if sufficient evidence exists to indict someone for a crime. If someone is indicted, the evidence is presented at a trial (or an impeachment proceeding), where the accused has the rights provided by our legal system to confront witnesses, present exculpatory evidence and put forward a full defense. And if there is insufficient evidence to indict, the prosecutor must drop the case without public comment.
Exoneration is defined as "the action of officially absolving someone from blame", and nowhere in the American justice system does a prosecutor have the job (or the right) to exonerate anyone. Rather, it's the exclusive job of a jury or trial judge with regard to alleged guilt, and it's designed that way to fully protect the rights of the accused.
Nevertheless, we continue to hear that Mueller didn't exonerate the president. Why? Because the Democrats and lamestream media are determined to damage Trump by any means, fair or not, legal or not.
