RUSH: So Mueller says at the end of his press conference this is what he wants, to dot the I’s and cross the T’s. “The thing everybody needs to remember is the Russians attempted to interfere in our elections and we need to keep this in mind going forward.”
How in the world do you talk about that and not mention the dossier and the Hillary Clinton collusion with the Russians or this Fusion GPS outfit with Steele and all the people at the FBI that used this dossier illegally to get a warrant to spy on members of the Trump campaign?
How do you talk about Russian collusion and not talk about what the FBI did? When there’s no evidence that Trump did anything. This thing is just — well, it is what it is, an ongoing effort to continue the tarnishing and the slandering and the libeling of Donald Trump, the destruction, if you will.
Let’s get started on the phones. Columbus, Ohio. This is Tom. Great to have you, sir. Hi.
CALLER: Hello, Rush. All they need to do is change the basis of our legal system to “you are guilty until proven innocent.” And now a jury of your peers needs to unanimously agree and decide you are innocent, and if one person has doubt, you are guilty, and you are going to jail. That’s what the Democrats are deciding.
RUSH: Democrats? Mueller!
CALLER: Mueller as well. Well, he’s the lead dog in this fight.
RUSH: Right. But Mueller — of course you know Mueller is a Republican. He’s a racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe Republican. He is. He’s a Republican.
CALLER: (crosstalk) — Democrat.
RUSH: I know. The point here is is that what Mueller has done here is stand our system of justice on its head. And it happens right here in this statement: “If we had confidence the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”
It’s what I asked you. You’re charged with anything, you’re charged with a crime you can go to jail for 20 years. Make up the crime, whatever it is. And the investigators in court say, “If we had evidence you didn’t do it, we would have said so.” Meaning, they can’t prove you didn’t do it. Therefore, you’re guilty. They can’t prove you didn’t do it.
It’s not up to you to prove you didn’t do what they say you did. It’s up to them to prove that you did it. And if they can’t prove that you did it, then you are not guilty. It doesn’t say you’re innocent. Innocent and not guilty are two different things in the legal system.
Not guilty means they couldn’t prove it. You coulda done it, and they can’t prove it. You get away with it. If you did it and they can’t prove it, congrats, you get away. But you’re not innocent. In the eyes of God, you did it. You just got away with it. But they couldn’t prove it.
What Mueller says here, “If we had confidence that the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so.” Well, what are these nimrods in the Drive-By Media gonna conclude with that? “He did it! He did it! Mueller knows he did it! He can’t find the evidence and Mueller telling us he did it, he did it, he did it.” That’s what they’re gonna run with. “He did it, he did it, he did it, they just can’t prove it.” Therefore we’ve got a new framework of guilt. Robert Mueller says he did it, but they just can’t prove it.
“We could not exonerate the president.” That’s not the gig! But again, folks, after saying that, this wizard then went on to say that even if he had done it and even if we had confidence that he had done did it, we couldn’t indict. You know why? Because the Justice Department says you can’t indict a sitting president. And so we were never, ever going to be saying that he done did it.
Well, then, what has all of this been for? If you, by virtue of guidelines, were never, ever going to be able to charge the president with a crime, then why do this? Guidelines at the EIB Network, which I wrote, now require me to stop talking.