T Nation

Mueller's Final Statement

I think this is the correct take. Trump engaged in bad behaviour (borderline criminal) but impeachment is not where the wiser democrats want to go. Pelosi isn’t an idiot, and her caution regarding impeachment proceedings is probably the right move.


Agree with you both.

Adding Trump’s impeachment to the Kavanaugh debacle…mixed in with the “AOC Wing” ain’t gonna’ do the DEMS any favors.

Don’t forget, guys, that Trump will have two borderline genius sociopaths running his Campaign and whispering in his ear (sorry, I can’t remember both names):

The guy with the Beard who is supposed to be an “evil genius” when it comes to data collection, demographic analysis, etc.

And the weird guy from Duke who looks and acts like a serial killer? (He actually was a center figure in the Mueller investigation).

(Sorry…anybody remember their names?).

1 Like

Steven Miller is the serial killer from Duke.

Anyone remember the name of the other guy?

I’m ashamed to say I’m drawing a blank.

He should get the Mooch back, that was Trump’s finest hour.

Brad Parscale is the other guy.

He has actually been named as Trump’s 2020 Campaign Manager.

Both are considered young, “evil geniuses”. (with “Evil” depending on what side you support).

1 Like

MOOCH was the MAN!!!

1 Like

In politics? For my money, evil is when you fail to win.

It will be interesting to see what future prisoners Trump surrounds himself with this time.

I got a good lol out of this story. Referenced over 4 dozen times in the mueller report:

Mueller is not going to get away quietly…lol

1 Like

I don’t read fake news. Got a link to something reputable like InfoWars?

1 Like


Is there any of these not count as fake news? I do agree CNN is garbage. They are losing money, viewers and employees like a flood.
Infowars is garbage… Can’t use it, sorry.

I was being sarcastic. Of course InfoWars is a cesspool of idiocy.

I have no idea what Gorka is referring to, but the idea that an accused is innocent until proven guilty is in the Talmud, and specifically originates from when G-d confronted Adam for eating the “apple” — even G-d (who knew) called a witness (Eve) to provide evidence against him and followed up by Deuteronomy 19 or so where the procedure of calling “two or three” witnesses must be followed.

It was in stark contrast to the Roman law, which was guilty until proven innocent.

The concept crept into the West in heresy/Inquisition-related Catholic church trials (so I guess sometime in 1300-1500), then made it into French Napoleonic code in the late 1700s.

England was a later adopter, but its historians sure have taken a lot of credit for it, wrongly. So, yes, one is certainly forgiven for thinking this is an English common law concept, because the English re-wrote history and claimed it.

I read a great law review on this, probably 15 years ago. I will see if I can find it.

1 Like

I’d definitely read that if it could be posted

1 Like

So one could say, if mueller was actually presuming guilty without proof, he was holding up thousands of years of judeo-christian values instead of stepping on them.

Damn do I enjoy a good ironybomb.

No. Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat - the burden is on the one who says/accuses, not the one who denies.

You could say that, but it would be exactly wrong, as Jewish law has always been innocent until proven guilty (from the literal beginning) and Nazarene law caught up about 2400 years later, but still 700 years ago.

1 Like

Yeah, that’s the church law.

That’s Roman. The Catholic church, like everything else (pontifex maximus title), took it from Justinian’s Codex which in turn is a collection of Roman law practices.

If Nazarene law took 2400 years to catch up, doesn’t that still equate to thousands of years of values?

I mean I was really just poking a jab at the guy from the tweet, but it’s not like it doesn’t hold up that he was exactly oppositely wrong if you put into context the number of people effected by it. Just a fun irony