William Barr
In the aftermath of the Mueller report, Attorney General Bill Barr has been accused by the Democrats of being biased in favor of President Donald Trump. They felt he had a partisan interpretation of the report to exonerate the president of collusion and obstruction of justice. His critics are partially correct: Barr is indeed biased. It’s called the presumption of innocence.
It’s called the presumption of innocence.
In our everyday life, we tend not to think about the fact that our system of justice is deliberately designed to be biased in favor of the accused. Yet this is, perhaps, the crowning achievement of our civilization. A bromide that captures its essence is that “it is better to let ten guilty people free than to convict an innocent man.”
This legal standard dates to the second-century Roman empire. It is also a recognition of the fact that proving a negative is often impossible and unreasonable. That is why the court only reaches the verdicts “guilty” or “not guilty.” Not guilty does not mean innocent.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller did not honor two thousand years of Western legal tradition when he declared:
“If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.”
The standard Mueller seems to have applied for exoneration was proof the president was innocent.
What is, perhaps, even more disturbing is that Barr went along with this standard when evaluating the evidence. Still, he concluded that there was no basis for a charge of obstruction of justice. The absence of probable cause, much less evidence beyond a reasonable doubt means no charges could be brought legally or ethically against any defendant, much less the president.
William Barr
The Democrats, however, accused Barr of being biased, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) thought that there was enough evidence for impeachment proceedings. This gives us a unique insight into the mindset of Democrats: They have seemingly accepted Mueller’s exoneration standard and will adapt it to their political needs to slow-roast the president over the impeachment coals.
The fact that this burden-shifting happened in the Kavanaugh hearings as well, shows this is not a fluke, but a calculated attempt to hold people to a standard they will never be able to meet, precisely because we can’t prove a negative. Witnesses should be prepared to refute such demands with demands of their own for a fair process, and President Trump should use his bully pulpit to advocate and inform on the issue as well.
~
At Liberty Nation, we love to hear from our readers. Comment and join the conversation!
Readers: Feel free to comment below. And remember to check out the web’s best conservative news aggregator Whatfinger.com
8 Comments
Janice Janes
this happened long before Kavanaugh. Remember the Duke Lacross players? Law students were of the opinion “well, they probably did something sometime.” Even after it was proven they were actually “Innocent” not just not quilty and that the prosecutor was perfectly willing to frame those kids, people still think they are guilty.
Diogenes
So what happens to rogue prosecutors? Usually nothing. What happens to rogue political officials? Usually nothing. At most, as in the law of the jungle, the devil takes the hindmost – meaning the lowest in the scheme gets eaten, or punished
If nothing ever will happen to them, other than the severe sounding words of their being “held accountable”, what will actually happen? Maybe that means an admonishment ‘slap on the wrist’ as opposed to their actually being incarcerated. Does actual punishment ever happen? Usually never. They get to do book deals, with their books written by ghost writers, receiving large payments in advance for their marketability. They might be forced to retire, usually at full pension. Then, if ever called to justice, we will be told by those who have jurisdiction that they have “suffered enough”. Then they get to work for law firms (as they are usually all lawyers) or become lobbyists, after a small amount of time has passed, and they further enrich themselves.
Why does this continue to happen? Why do we allow it to happen?
Hint: because big fish are more prominent than little fish, and little fish don’t make waves. Like most successful outlaws, be they in crime or in government, they “die with their boots on.” This also happens because most of us are too busy working to care about such things. In all of politics, we have very short memories and we accept corruption from those in authority as being a ‘given’ in life. As long as we allow this to continue, we have no one to blame other than ourselves for allowing it.
RufusVonDufus
Yes, I believe AG Barr is biased. Biased towards following the laws as they were written and meant unlike the Dem’s who are biased to interpreting laws to suit their momentary feelings. I’ll take Barr any day!
Diogenes
Onar, you are correct in your perspectives, as well as astute in stating them.
History lesson about common law: In England, after the Magna Carta, all were presumed innocent until proven guilty. Of course, justice could be bought or sold. It always is, and it always will be, to some degree. But the basic principle survived, and was also preserved in American law, based upon that fundamental principle.
In France, all were presumed GUILTY, until proven INNOCENT. That French concept of law persisted, and still existed in New Orleans, until long after we bought from the French.
Guilty until proven innocent. That’s the way the IRS operates. Bon Chance, Jacques! (Good luck, Jack!)
So which would you prefer to live with? The culture and laws of England or the culture and laws of France? We do have a choice now, don’t we?
QUOTATION: “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?” “A Republic, if you can keep it.”. (B. Franklin).
I suggest that everyone Google some Franklin quotes to read and appreciate Ben Franklin’s wisdom. Maybe there is a reason why his face is on our $100 bill.
Maybe even Rep. Omar understood this. As she said: “It’s all about the Benjamins”. Not that I like or agree with her politics, But unlike AOC, maybe she is more intuitive, or more unwittingly enlightened than we give her credit for.
Onar Åm
Excellent remarks.
lazarus
This so-called “crime” that was obstructed was the “crime” of collusion, which was proven to be non-existent, i.e. not only was Trump “Not Guilty” of it the actual crime of collusion, “collusion” is non-existent in the U.S. code. When someone is found not guilty of a crime how is it possible to be found guilty of obstructing a crime that was NOT committed. One must have the NON-brain of a Democrat to figure this out. And here’s the thing: All of Trump’s accusers, especially Mueller, and his 18 angry Democrats, indeed just about everyone on both sides of the aisle in government have lived their entire lives unbreakably “suction-locked” on the government TIT. Most of them would starve to death if they had to get an honest job! But my comfort in the injustice being meted out to the Best President in the History of America – my comfort is this: The Sovereign of the Cosmos, including our Universe has promised “By the measure with which you measure, you WILL be measured” This Traitor Trash’s Divine MEASUREMENT is coming!
rev_dave
The Democrats have been running a de facto ‘kangaroo court’ while trying to hide behind the appearance of legal processes. Their behavior of late reminds me of precisely why the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment – and WHY it was listed as Second out of ten. The order of presentation was likely a reflection of their priorities.
Nancy Johnson
When the 1st Amendment liberties are infringed upon the citizens of this country, then the Founders expect the 2nd amendment to come into play. They were living examples of the 2nd Amendment to secure their rights which eventually was written as the 1st Amendment. Never tyranny which we are bordering on with the Dems and their MSM, globalists, and tech cabal.