Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller told Democrat lawmaker that he would have indicted President Trump if it were not for the Office of Legal Counsel’s (OLC) opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted, which contradicted previous statements he issued.
Mueller, in his first appearance on Capitol Hill on Wednesday to testify on his investigation, appeared muddled throughout his testimony, making it difficult for lawmakers to get clearcut responses to their questions.
He initially indicated to Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) that he would have indicted Tump if it were not for the OLC opinion that a sitting president could not be indicted.
Lieu asked him, “I’d like to ask you, the reason again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?”
Mueller responded, “That is correct.”
However, Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-AZ), during her questioning of Mueller, pointed out that his answer to Lieu contradicted his report, as well as a statement he put out earlier. Lesko said:
That is not what you said in the report, and it’s not what you told Attorney General Barr and in fact in a joint statement that you released with DOJ on May 29th after your press conference, your office issued a joint statement with the Department of Justice that said, ‘The attorney general has previously stated that the special counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the president obstructed justice. The special counsel’s report, and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination one way or the other whether the president committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements.’
“So Mr. Mueller, do you stand by your joint statement with DOJ that you issued on May 29th as you sit here today?” she asked.
Mueller responded, “I would have to look at it more closely before I said I agree with it.”
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.