Fox News reports Rep Nadler of NY claims the only reason Trump was not indicted was he was a sitting president. Nadler references a specific exchange between Mueller and Rep. Ted Lieu of California as his support.
“He told us in a remarkable exchange with Mr. Lieu that but for the Department of Justice policy prohibiting [him] from doing so, he would have indicted President Trump,” Nadler said.
The truth perceived versus the truth of what happened…
The problem with the assertion is Mueller went out of his way to debunk the claim. He did so when the Socialists began treating it as the Holy Grail of Impeachment. In the exchange, Rep Lieu asked Mueller to clarify his decision not to indict Trump.
Lieu asking, “the reason that you did not indict the president is because of the OLC opinion that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?” To which Mueller responded, “Correct.”
What happened next?
Unfortunately for the Socialists, it was simply too good to be true. In the afternoon session, Mueller took it upon himself to clarify his response.
He said, “I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning… I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the president because of the OLC opinion.’ That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”
The Socialists and the media are getting desperate. The Office of Legal Counsel opinion that Lieu referenced is important. It is not however, relevant to know whether or not a sitting president can be indicted. The Socialists are worried about the wrong thing. Values and principles matter.
The issue isn’t whether a sitting president can be charged. The correct question should have been form the start: Did Trump commit an act for which he should be charged. Is there a basis, was there a bad act? Well, no… there was no Russia collusion.
We spent two years and tens of millions of dollars investigating. A handpicked group of more than two dozen prosecutors did the work. The result according to the Mueller report, the answer is “no” on both counts.
The president isn’t a saint. You might not invite him over for dinner. But in the end it is clear Mueller et al could not come to the conclusion there was a crime.
Now, undeterred by the facts, Nadler continues to violate the first rule of holes. When you are in one… stop digging. He’s so committed to proving his belief true he is willing to ignore the facts and the law. The unfortunate thing for him is that the facts keep getting in his way. What’s worse is he has turned the presumption of innocence on its head in his fervor for prosecution.
Conclusion:
Vote early, vote often.
