At the Mueller hearing yesterday Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas made a big deal about the report claiming that it could not exonerate Trump.

From the Mueller report:
“The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred,” Mueller wrote. “While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”


Ratcliffe then said:
“Respectfully, director, it was not the special counsel’s job to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence or to exonerate him because the bedrock principle of our justice system is a presumption of innocence,” Ratcliffe said, raising his voice. “It exists for everyone. Everyone is entitled to it — including sitting presidents.”

My question is this:
Does an investigation, which is what the Mueller report is documentation of, necessarily have to presume innocence? An investigation is not a trial. In a trial the presumption of innocence is, and always should be an important principle. But, an investigation is merely the collecting of evidence. In fact, I would contend that suspicion of guilt is the starting point of every criminal investigation. Investigations involve suspects, intent, motives, evidence and such. If every investigation into a possible crime started with the idea that a person was innocent until proven guilty, then there would never be an investigation of any crime, ever. Just asking.

That's what I'm seeing and hearing. I watched a lot of the hearings yesterday and heard a lot of things that should shock every American. Yet, a good portion of the country are being fed lies and are being encouraged to ignore important things said and exposed during the hearings. Who cares what Mueller looked like, it's the information that was important. WTF!

This video has Dershowitz admitting he got a massage at Epstein's place, but it's not what you might think. Apparently with all the young girls around, Epstein kept an old woman around to massage Dershowitz. Yeah right...

Every now and then I'll run across a Jordan Peterson video on line and give it a listen. He's always talking about how the "left" expects "equal outcome", as in everyone's success will be equal. Such a narrative of course implies that the "left" expects something for nothing, that they are lazy and unrealistic. He claims this as a highly educated clinical psychologist and a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto. But, I'm thinking for all his knowledge, Peterson is totally wrong when he claims the "left" is pushing for "equal outcome".

I know it's anecdotal, but I've never heard anyone, or any group on the so-called "left" call for "equal outcome". "Equal opportunity" yes, I've heard calls for "equal opportunity". I've also heard calls for things such as "equal justice" and "equal rights". But, I have never heard any group or gender call for, or expect "equal outcome". I think Peterson is distorting protests for "equal opportunity" and applying a false narrative to the "left".

What's your take on this guy? He's got credentials and a fabulous vocabulary and I'm just a lowly hourly wage type guy with little education, but I honestly think Peterson is full of crap on this.