Rep. John Ratcliffe John Lee RatcliffeHillicon Valley: Subpoenas for Facebook, Google and Twitter on the cards | Wray rebuffs mail-in voting conspiracies | Reps. raise mass surveillance concerns Bipartisan representatives demand answers on expired surveillance programs Democrats call for declassifying election threats after briefing by Trump officials MORE (R-Texas) tore into Robert Mueller Robert (Bob) MuellerCNN's Toobin warns McCabe is in 'perilous condition' with emboldened Trump CNN anchor rips Trump over Stone while evoking Clinton-Lynch tarmac meeting The Hill's 12:30 Report: New Hampshire fallout MORE at Wednesday's House Judiciary Committee hearing, claiming the former special counsel violated Justice Department principles by writing that his investigation did not exonerate President Trump Donald John TrumpSteele Dossier sub-source was subject of FBI counterintelligence probe Pelosi slams Trump executive order on pre-existing conditions: It 'isn't worth the paper it's signed on' Trump 'no longer angry' at Romney because of Supreme Court stance MORE.

Ratcliffe, a former prosecutor who has seen his name floated for attorney general and other positions in the Trump administration, was moved up by Republicans so that he was the second GOP lawmaker to ask questions to Mueller.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Which DOJ policy or principal sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined?” Ratcliffe asked Mueller, referring back to Mueller’s opening remarks in which he said the special counsel’s office was guided by Justice Department policies in its investigation.

When Mueller didn’t offer a clear answer, Ratcliffe pressed him to give an example of an instance of this other than the investigation of potential obstruction of justice by Trump.

“I cannot, but this is a unique situation,” Mueller said before Ratcliffe cut him off.

“You can’t find it because — I’ll tell you why — it doesn’t exist,” Ratcliffe 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 principal of our justice system is presumption of innocence. It exists for everyone,” Ratcliffe said, raising his voice. “Everyone is entitled to it — even sitting presidents.”

Rep. John Ratcliffe asks if Mueller can cite an example besides Trump where the DOJ "determined that an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined"



Mueller: I cannot, but this is a unique situation https://t.co/pjOwNhYtbJ pic.twitter.com/ekNGyhgV3O — CBS News (@CBSNews) July 24, 2019

Ratcliffe went on to continue to criticize Volume II of Mueller’s report, noting that the special counsel’s regulation required him to issue a confidential report to the attorney general that lays out prosecution or declination decisions.

Ratcliffe charged that Mueller “managed to violate” Justice Department principles by explaining in his report that he failed to reach a conclusion on obstruction.

Mueller wrote in his report and reaffirmed in his May 29 press conference that he did not answer the question of whether Trump engaged in criminal wrongdoing because of the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted.

Instead, Mueller’s report lays out evidence he found regarding 10 episodes of potential obstruction by Trump.

Lawmakers are being held to tight timelines for their questions, and Mueller did not get a chance to respond to Ratcliffe's closing statements.

"If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment," Mueller's report states.

"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. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."