| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Land of the Free |
| Guilty Until Proven Innocent: Mueller Upends Rule of Law, in Final Appearance‐Sidney Powell |
| 2019-06-02 |
| [Epoch Times] When special counsel Robert Mueller formally closed the Russia investigation on May 29, he opened the door to wide-ranging speculation as to the intent behind his statement. In the eyes of former Texas prosecutor Sidney Powell, Mueller’s words stood the rule of law and the presumption of innocence on their heads. Today we sit down with Sidney Powell, who is the author of "Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice." She was lead counsel in more than 500 appeals in the Fifth Circuit, and she is ranked by her Texas peers as a "Super Lawyer." We discuss the implications of special counsel Mueller’s May 29 press conference, the recent DOJ decision to not prosecute a serial leaker, corruption in the DOJ in general, and what can be done to correct it. Jan Jekielek: You are the author of the book "Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice." And you wrote this book in 2014, maybe long before there was such an overt knowledge that there is corruption, makes you an expert on these issues. Recently, special counsel Mueller tended his resignation, did a press conference. A lot of people have a lot to say about that. I’m sure you do. What are your thoughts? Sidney Powell: I was extremely disappointed in Mr. Mueller’s press conference. Yes, I published the book hoping to put an end to the corruption and the Department of Justice so people could see what was going on, and instead it simply gotten worse as evidenced by Mr. Mueller’s press conference yesterday in which he literally stands the rule of law and the presumption of innocence on their head. I mean, just completely turns the presumption of innocence upside down and puts the burden on the president to prove that he’s innocent instead of accepting the burden on the government to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt or even probable cause to indict, which they clearly didn’t have. In fact, all you have to do is go to volume two, page nine of Mr. Mueller’s report. I think it’s the second paragraph that starts talking about how they’re talking about statutes in an ordinary case ... potentially relevant obstruction of justice statutes in an ordinary case. To know that means they have absolutely nothing with which they can charge the president of the United States, even were he not the president of the United States. You don’t conduct a two-year investigation and then come out with 248 pages of smear tactics, which is exactly what volume two of the report was, and then talk about potentially relevant statutes. You either have a clear violation of a federal statute or you don’t. And that’s really all that should have been said there. We don’t have a violation of any federal obstruction statute. Mr. Jekielek: So, Sidney, for the benefit of our audience, how is the presumption of innocence exactly turned on its head here? |
| Posted by:Besoeker |