SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Former Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller is seen during is testimony before Congress on July 24, 2019, in Washington, DC. - Three months after releasing the final report on his probe into the 2016 election, much of the American public remains unclear about the former special counsel's findings on whether Trump criminally obstructed justice and whether his campaign colluded with Russians. (Photo: Saul Loeb/AFP)
Rep. Ted Lieu's Recap During Mueller Testimony Makes Obstruction of Justice Case Against Trump
"Any reasonable person could conclude that the crime of obstruction of justice has been met."
Jul 24, 2019
Amid congressional testimony on Wednesday in which former special counsel Robert Mueller reiterated publicly that President Donald Trump "was not exculpated" of wrongdoing in his report, Democratic Congressman Ted Lieu of California also provided a succinct recap of why the only reason Mueller did not recommend charges against the president was because of an existing Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memo stating that a sitting president could not be indicted.
"The reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president. Correct?" Leiu asked.
And answered Mueller: "That is correct."
Watch:
Notably, after Leiu listed the "elements" of possible obstruction found in the report, Mueller said he wanted to be clear that just because those elements are listed does not mean that he would necessarily agree with Lieu's effort to prove that Trump did obstruct justice.
Despite that--even as Vox's Alex Ward warned it was not "exactly as big as you think it is"-- the exchange was treated as significant by many watching the hearing. As the progressive advocacy group Public Interest tweeted:
The exchange was characterized by some observers as "huge" and a "notable statement under oath" by Mueller:
Later in the day, during his appearance before the House Intelligence Committee, Mueller walked back a key portion of his response to Lieu:
Why did the exchange as it originally occurred matter? According to reporting by VICE News:
Mueller just told Lieu, for the first time, that government policy against indicting a sitting president was the key point that kept him from attempting to nail Trump for obstruction of justice.
An opinion by the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel argues that charging a sitting president would be unconstitutional -- although plenty of lawyers, including former Clinton investigator Ken Starr, think that view wouldn't survive a challenge in the Supreme Court.
Mueller is essentially confirming that he could say the president did not commit a crime but was blocked from saying the president did commit one, said Paul Rosenzweig, a former member of Starr's team, who's been watching the hearings closely.
"He viewed the OLC prohibition as a one-way ratchet," Rosenzweig said. "He could exonerate, but he could not indict."
Mueller may not have meant to go there today, but taken literally, he just pretty much stated that he would have indicted Trump if he'd been allowed to, Rosenzweig said.
While Mueller has stood by the mandate, he also stated during Wednesday's hearing before the House Judiciary Committee that a president, while not able to be charged while in office, could be later indicted on obstruction of justice or other changes.
"Could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?" Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) asked Mueller.
"Yes," Mueller replied.
Updated: This article has been updated from its original to include Mueller's later clarification of what he said to Rep. Lieu.
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. US voters have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. If you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Amid congressional testimony on Wednesday in which former special counsel Robert Mueller reiterated publicly that President Donald Trump "was not exculpated" of wrongdoing in his report, Democratic Congressman Ted Lieu of California also provided a succinct recap of why the only reason Mueller did not recommend charges against the president was because of an existing Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memo stating that a sitting president could not be indicted.
"The reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president. Correct?" Leiu asked.
And answered Mueller: "That is correct."
Watch:
Notably, after Leiu listed the "elements" of possible obstruction found in the report, Mueller said he wanted to be clear that just because those elements are listed does not mean that he would necessarily agree with Lieu's effort to prove that Trump did obstruct justice.
Despite that--even as Vox's Alex Ward warned it was not "exactly as big as you think it is"-- the exchange was treated as significant by many watching the hearing. As the progressive advocacy group Public Interest tweeted:
The exchange was characterized by some observers as "huge" and a "notable statement under oath" by Mueller:
Later in the day, during his appearance before the House Intelligence Committee, Mueller walked back a key portion of his response to Lieu:
Why did the exchange as it originally occurred matter? According to reporting by VICE News:
Mueller just told Lieu, for the first time, that government policy against indicting a sitting president was the key point that kept him from attempting to nail Trump for obstruction of justice.
An opinion by the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel argues that charging a sitting president would be unconstitutional -- although plenty of lawyers, including former Clinton investigator Ken Starr, think that view wouldn't survive a challenge in the Supreme Court.
Mueller is essentially confirming that he could say the president did not commit a crime but was blocked from saying the president did commit one, said Paul Rosenzweig, a former member of Starr's team, who's been watching the hearings closely.
"He viewed the OLC prohibition as a one-way ratchet," Rosenzweig said. "He could exonerate, but he could not indict."
Mueller may not have meant to go there today, but taken literally, he just pretty much stated that he would have indicted Trump if he'd been allowed to, Rosenzweig said.
While Mueller has stood by the mandate, he also stated during Wednesday's hearing before the House Judiciary Committee that a president, while not able to be charged while in office, could be later indicted on obstruction of justice or other changes.
"Could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?" Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) asked Mueller.
"Yes," Mueller replied.
Updated: This article has been updated from its original to include Mueller's later clarification of what he said to Rep. Lieu.
Amid congressional testimony on Wednesday in which former special counsel Robert Mueller reiterated publicly that President Donald Trump "was not exculpated" of wrongdoing in his report, Democratic Congressman Ted Lieu of California also provided a succinct recap of why the only reason Mueller did not recommend charges against the president was because of an existing Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memo stating that a sitting president could not be indicted.
"The reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president. Correct?" Leiu asked.
And answered Mueller: "That is correct."
Watch:
Notably, after Leiu listed the "elements" of possible obstruction found in the report, Mueller said he wanted to be clear that just because those elements are listed does not mean that he would necessarily agree with Lieu's effort to prove that Trump did obstruct justice.
Despite that--even as Vox's Alex Ward warned it was not "exactly as big as you think it is"-- the exchange was treated as significant by many watching the hearing. As the progressive advocacy group Public Interest tweeted:
The exchange was characterized by some observers as "huge" and a "notable statement under oath" by Mueller:
Later in the day, during his appearance before the House Intelligence Committee, Mueller walked back a key portion of his response to Lieu:
Why did the exchange as it originally occurred matter? According to reporting by VICE News:
Mueller just told Lieu, for the first time, that government policy against indicting a sitting president was the key point that kept him from attempting to nail Trump for obstruction of justice.
An opinion by the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel argues that charging a sitting president would be unconstitutional -- although plenty of lawyers, including former Clinton investigator Ken Starr, think that view wouldn't survive a challenge in the Supreme Court.
Mueller is essentially confirming that he could say the president did not commit a crime but was blocked from saying the president did commit one, said Paul Rosenzweig, a former member of Starr's team, who's been watching the hearings closely.
"He viewed the OLC prohibition as a one-way ratchet," Rosenzweig said. "He could exonerate, but he could not indict."
Mueller may not have meant to go there today, but taken literally, he just pretty much stated that he would have indicted Trump if he'd been allowed to, Rosenzweig said.
While Mueller has stood by the mandate, he also stated during Wednesday's hearing before the House Judiciary Committee that a president, while not able to be charged while in office, could be later indicted on obstruction of justice or other changes.
"Could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?" Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) asked Mueller.
"Yes," Mueller replied.
Updated: This article has been updated from its original to include Mueller's later clarification of what he said to Rep. Lieu.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy