Déjà vu: Mueller again causes confusion on his reason for not charging Trump

.

Robert Mueller caused confusion during his testimony in front of the House Judiciary Committee as he appeared to contradict Attorney General William Barr, as well as declined to stand by a previous official statement from his own special counsel’s office, related to the decision-making behind not charging President Trump with any crimes.

Mueller’s report did not reach a determination on obstruction of justice in his 448-page report, although he laid out 10 possible instances of obstruction. Mueller’s report referenced a longtime Office of Legal Counsel opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted, but his report did not explicitly claim that that was the only reason Trump wasn’t charged in the investigation. Moreover, Barr said in April that Mueller told him that Mueller was not saying that he would have charged Trump with a crime but for the Office of Legal Counsel opinion and, in addition, a joint statement from the offices of Mueller and Barr in May reiterated that point.

But Wednesday, Mueller appeared to reverse course, appearing to say that he would have charged Trump with a crime if not for the Office of Legal Counsel opinion.

Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu of California asked, “I’d like to ask you the reason, again, you did not indict Donald Trump is because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?”

“That is correct,” Mueller said.

Republican Rep. Debbie Lesko of Arizona pressed him on this, saying “that is not what you said in the report and that is not what you told Attorney General Barr.” Lesko also pointed to the joint statement he put out earlier this year, saying there was no daylight between himself and Barr on that issue. She quoted from that statement, reading, “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.”

“So, Mr. Mueller, do you stand by your joint statement that you issued on May 29th as you sit here today?” Lesko asked.

Mueller declined to stand by the official statement from his own office from less than two months ago.

“I would have to look at it more closely before I said I agree with it,” Mueller said.

“My conclusion is that what you told Mr. Lieu really contradicts what you said in the report and what you said apparently repeatedly to Attorney General Barr,” Lesko replied. “And then you issued a joint statement on May 29.”

Lesko was referencing a nearly identical controversy which took place following Mueller’s press conference in late May. “The special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice, and by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider,” Mueller said at that time. “The department’s written opinion explaining the policy makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation.”

After Mueller’s roughly nine-minute statement, politicians, pundits, and journalists interpreted Mueller’s remarks as a clear break from what Barr stated, suggesting that Mueller was saying that the only reason he didn’t charge Trump was the Office of Legal Counsel opinion.

But Barr said in April that he and then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein met with Mueller in early March and that they “specifically asked him about the OLC opinion and whether or not he was taking a position that he would have found a crime but for the existence of the OLC opinion.”

“And he made it very clear several times that that was not his position,” Barr said in April. “He was not saying that but for the OLC opinion, he would have found a crime. He made it clear that he had not made the determination that there was a crime.”

Barr and Rosenstein concluded that obstruction had not occurred.

After the May press conference, the Justice Department and the Office of Special Counsel put on a united front that was intended to end speculation that Mueller contradicted Barr on the decision-making on whether Trump could be charged with obstruction of justice during his public address.

“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 — about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements,” a joint statement from Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec and Mueller spokesman Peter Carr said at the time.

Before the joint statement came out, Mueller’s office released a handout comparing his assertions about obstruction of justice to what Barr said about it. The document, which apparently sought to provide context, contained quotes from Barr’s press conference before the release of Mueller’s report in which he said Mueller repeatedly assured him that he did not think they would have found a crime if not for the Office of Legal Counsel opinion.

Related Content

Related Content