Mueller and Comey both invented new standards--i.e. made shit up--to clear Hilly and "fail to exonerate" Trump

At least a few of you may recall the absurd bullshit FBI director James Comey used to explain to congress and the public--in his televised testimony in July of 2016--why he decided NOT to charge Hilliary Clinton with innumerable violations of the laws for mis-handling beyond-Top-Secret information:  His infamous excuse was essentially this:

"Yeah, Hillary is probably guilty of all kinds of sh* that would land anyone else in a Federal prison, but I have decided not to charge her with any offense whatsoever."

He then went on to invent a legal standard that was NOT part of the actual, written law:  He brazenly lied, testifying that the law required that someone could only be charged for violating the law covering exposure of highly-classified information if that person intended to break the law.  He went on to say that he didn't find any intent by the lying bitch to break the law--despite the fact that she absolutely instructed her lying aides Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin--among others--to email her beyond-Top-Secret information to her unsecure private email server. 

So we have two lies here:  First, unless she's a total idiot (something no one on the Left believes) and knows nothing whatsoever about the laws or rules governing the handling of classified information, then it's clear she did intend to break the law, since she ordered her aides to do so.  Second, Comey simply lied when he stated that the statute requires "intent." 

I've read it.  It doesn't.  Comey got up in front of the public and lied his ass off, to clear both himself (for failing to charge Hilliary--a decision he made before she had even been so much as interviewed by the FBI) and to clear Hilliary.

Now, just for laughs, fast-forward to Mueller's laughably-misnamed "press conference" yesterday.  Mueller pulled a total inversion on Comey:  He said his report did NOT exonerate Trump because they couldn't prove he didn't do things to collude or obstruct justice.

Let that sink in for a minute.

One of the most basic, vital premises of American law is that an accused doesn't have to prove that he or she is innocent.  Instead, the prosecution--the government--has the "burden of proof" to show beyond reasonable doubt that someone actually broke the law.  Mueller discarded this, fanning the flames of Trump Derangement Syndrome by saying--understandably--that he was "unable to show that Trump did NOT break any laws."

And yet when Hilliary provably broke the law regarding mis-handling beyond-Top-Secret classified information, his buddy Comey simply invented a new requirement, not in the actual, y'know, statute.

Like Comey, Mueller just pulled a whole new legal standard right out of his a$$. If you're Hillary, they have to be able to prove you intended to break the law and you knew you were breaking it before the FBI would even consider charging you.  But if you're Donald Trump, you must prove you didn't do X, or else special counsel Mueller will claim you have NOT been exonerated.

Both these legal tests were simply invented by the Left so it can get what it wants. They cloak themselves in a veneer of legitimacy to disguise their grab for power.

But it's all a sham. I'd sooner trust a Scientology affidavit.

H/T Ace.