-By Paul Dowling
“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” —Thomas Jefferson
“The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind.” —Thomas Jefferson
Burden of Proof: In a Free Republic, the State Must Prove Guilt or Acquit
Totalitarians insist the burden of proof should be on the accused to prove her or his innocence, while, in a republic, free people remain innocent until proven guilty by the state. When it has suited their purposes in the past, Democrats used to say, per the case of the murderer’s gloves not fitting OJ Simpson’s hand, that “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit!” But, in the totalitarian world of today’s Democrats, the simple suggestion, with regard to Russian collusion, that President Trump is ‘Not Exonerated’ means, to the Democrats, that the accused should be considered guilty. This means that any and all accusations, even staged ones (as in the case of Brett Kavanaugh), would have the power to convict a person of wrongdoing. Don’t like someone? Just make an accusation against that person, and presto—instant guilty verdict! Thank God that America’s formal legal standard is still not the one used in countries like Cuba or China!
LBJ’s Unjust Accusation
There is a story, involving Lyndon Baines Johnson, about how LBJ thought he could win his race for the US Senate by making the unfounded accusation that his political opponent had committed acts of bestiality. An aide reportedly said to Johnson, “We can’t do that, Lyndon, there’s absolutely no proof that he’s a pig-f***er.” “I know that,” replied Johnson, “I just want to hear him deny it.” This has been the blueprint for many a future accusation perpetrated by Democrats against their Republican opponents, a tactic that is far from playing by the [Marquess%20of%20Queensberry%20rules]Marquess of Queensberry rules. Trump, however, fights back against the dirty tricks of Democrats harder than almost any Republican ever has, tending to counterpunch even harder than he was hit in the first place! So, the regular dirty tricks do not work so well on Trump, thus he has managed to win the presidency due to his toughness and lack of convention.
A High-Tech Lynching
Anyone can see that the accusations against [2016%20Election%20Data%20for%20New%20York.docx]Brett Kavanaugh come right out of the same Democrat playbook. In Kavanaugh’s case, all of the slanderous charges of sexual misconduct against him turned out to have no proof behind them—only fabricated statements. The charges were never demonstrably true, and Kavanaugh’s reputation was incredibly clean, inspiring many women he knew to come out in support of him. After all was said and done, the Democrats just wanted to hear Kavanaugh deny the charges out loud. This is the same ploy to which Democrats have been subjecting President Donald Trump. Although no hard evidence has ever been offered to prove Trump has colluded with Russians of any kind, for any purpose, the Democrats have just continued to make their baseless accusations, because this is the style of dirty pool that has successfully brought them victory so consistently in the past. Luckily, Americans enjoy the rare privilege of living in a free republic, where the presumption of innocence holds sway, rather than the socialist tenet of one’s being condemned as guilty unless proven innocent.
The Mueller Report
After two years of relentless persecution, by means of making vicious accusations devoid of any factual basis and citing anonymous sources absent any third-party corroboration, the Democrats are proving to be just as US Attorney Joe DiGenova has characterized them: “This is the future of our country if the Democrats get control of the House and Senate. They are vile people. There is nothing good anymore to be said about the Democratic Party. They have eschewed all integrity [and] honesty in pursuit of power. They are an ugly people, and they need to be beaten down politically and defeated.” Friedrich Nietzsche has famously written, “Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster.” The Democrats have been fighting false monsters for quite some time, and, in so doing, they have indeed become real ones.
The Mueller Report, issued by the team leader of 18 anti-Trump Democrats, demonstrates that—in an unforgiving Internet world, where no information can ever be erased—there was no Russian collusion to be found. Indeed, according to Q, Mueller’s team of angry Democrats had already learned there was no collusion 18 months before Mueller turned in his report. The last 18 months were spent doing a thorough investigation of everything Trumpian, per the methodology of Stalin, whose commissioner of secret police, Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria, once said, “Show me the man, and I will show you the crime.” This all runs counter to the principles of living in a free republic, where criminal investigations are for crimes, not people, and where investigators are supposed to follow the trail of facts to discover the real picture of what has transpired, rather than reverse-engineer what they find to fit the picture they want to see into a pre-built frame that they themselves have fashioned. Since there was no collusion, Mueller sought to frame Trump for obstruction, despite Trump’s unprecedented transparency, having never once claimed executive privilege, as well as having provided millions of pages of documents and unfettered access to fact witnesses in his administration.
Per his report to Attorney General Barr, Mueller has attempted to leave the door open for Democrats to harass Trump on the basis of his theatrical statement on page 8, of Volume II, of thereport which states that, “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” But proving one’s innocence is not incumbent on the accused in a free republic; proving the guilt of the accused is the government’s burden. On its face, Mueller’s statement is anti-presumption-of-innocence. Mueller has made it clear that, in a world where he is the investigative leader of 18 hardcore Democrats, it is the state whose suppositions and accusations ought to be proven wrong; the individual should have no right to be regarded as innocent until proven guilty. After two years of no real proof of wrongdoing on the part of the accused, it is still the Deep-State narrative of guilty-because-he-was-accused that should hold sway, according to Mueller, even in the absence of evidence. In other words, it is left to Trump to do what no man has ever been able to do—prove a negative. Events which never happened can never be proven not to have happened; this is why Socialists love to use that standard and Libertarians eschew such totalitarian thinking, requiring instead proof positive that wrongdoing has taken place.
Also in his report, Mueller—true to form—disallows the very human response of maintaining one’s innocence as having any validity whatsoever. Only the state’s narrative is to be favored. From June 16, 2015, onward, Trump’s references to Russians, wherein Trump has claimed that he is not guilty of any wrongdoing, have been construed by Mueller to suggest that Trump, by making such statements, is obstructing justice with respect to the collusion Trump cannot definitively prove does not exist. Truth be told, if Mueller were likewise accused of Russian collusion, he too would be unable to prove a negative and would suffer the same injustice if he were actually held to the same unfair standard to which he is now holding Donald Trump. Also, Mueller suggests to Democrats—obviously the intended audience of his report—that, once Trump leaves office, it might then be a good time to attempt to prosecute him, since Trump will no longer be a sitting president with all the power and privileges of the office he now holds.
Trump & the Patriots Turn the Tables: The Hunters Are About to Become the Hunted
Unlike John Proctor, an actual victim of witch hunting in early America, it appears that, in the end, Trump will escape the unfairness of the metaphorical witch hunt that is still ongoing by the Democrats who are trying to destroy him. Trump and the Patriots will do this by turning the tables on the corrupt Democrats and following the facts to find out exactly how such an improper—and possibly even treasonous—investigation originated. Trump, however, will use the rule of law in the pursuit of his efforts to investigate Deep-State Democrats and the crimes they have allegedly perpetrated.
Fruits of a Poisoned Tree: From the Beginning, the Collusion Pretense Was Illegitimate
In a recent drop, Q has asked, “If the [Steele] dossier was known to be unverified and fake, how then was an investigation started to begin with? At what point did Mueller determine there was no collusion? [18 months ago?] Was the investigation kept ongoing as a ‘talking point’ to rig the midterm elections? Was the investigation kept ongoing to retain the ‘BLOCKADE’ to essentially restrict POTUS from unmasking and informing the public as to the TRUTH about what really happened? Was the investigation kept ongoing to PROTECT THOSE WHO ‘KNOWINGLY’ COMMITTED TREASON/SEDITION? NO BLOCKADE = GAME OVER.” In other words, the end of the ongoing Mueller Probe will now allow Trump to go forward with the FISA Declassification without fear of being accused of obstruction of justice for having done so. The end of the Mueller Probe has, in effect, removed a “blockade” against the president’s ability to reveal Deep-State corruption, since, in the postmodern world of the Democrats where Trump is always at risk of being prosecuted for obstruction, resorting too soon to any self-defense of this nature would have provided a pretext for accusing him of just that. So, Trump decided it would be more judicious to wait until the “blockade” was removed before proceeding.
A Trap for Mueller
Also, Dave, the anchor of the X22 Report (17 mins. 40 secs. into the report), points out the following trap for Mueller, with regard to his own report: “In this report, it’s saying that the Intelligence Community announced that it was Russia that did the hacking, and everything that Assange was saying is completely fake, phony, and false. So, the question is, ‘Why was this kept in the report?’ It was done on purpose. Let’s just say that if Assange were to suddenly testify, and a server with the source files appeared—and Assange states that Seth Rich was the source—what happens to Mueller’s credibility? What happens to the report’s credibility? It gets knocked down further, and it implicates Mueller in a cover-up.”
With the extradition of Assange to the US, under the pretense of wanting to prosecute him for “conspiracy to commit computer intrusion,” could it be possible that the appearance of evidence to contradict inaccurate claims contained in Mueller’s report—that Russia hacked into the Democrat National Committee’s computer system—is imminent? Will Robert Mueller soon find himself the subject of an investigation? Is it possible that Mueller knew about Seth Rich and knew why he was murdered but chose to cover it up? Will Mueller the hunter become Mueller the quarry? All will soon be revealed. But one thing is certain: any prosecutorial action taken against Mueller—or any other criminals-pretending-to-be-public-servants for that matter—will see the presumption of innocence used as the basis for determining whether or not a case should be prosecuted. No one will be required to prove a negative. Instead, the burden of proof shall lie with the state, which is as it should be; and any case that goes forward will have to be positively proven, beyond a reasonable doubt. This is better treatment than Democrats propose to give others nowadays. But it is the kind of thing Patriots must do, if they are to avoid the Nietzschean fate of becoming just like the very monsters they are hunting.Don't forget to Like Godfather Politics on Facebook and Twitter, and visit our friends at RepublicanLegion.com.
Become an insider!
Sign up for the free Godfather Politics email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.