Having been embarrassed by Mueller’s mumblefest, it seems Democrats have merely cranked up their conspiracy theories in an effort to save themselves from mental health crises.
California Rep. Ted Lieu was the best example by far (which is saying something with Rep. Swalwell on the committee) as he gloated that, during his discussion with Special Counsel, Mueller dropped a potential bombshell that the reason he did not indict Trump for obstructing the Russia probe was because of a Justice Department office of legal counsel opinion that prohibits indicting sitting presidents.
“The reason again that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?” Lieu asked Mueller in the hearing.
“That is correct,” Mueller said.
This seemed to contradict Mueller’s own previous comments and his report, but nonetheless, Lieu excitedly took to Twitter to proclaim “nobody should be above the law” and various leftists quickly created memes suggesting #LockHimUp etc…
The Smoking Gun!?
FACT: There’s substantial evidence that @POTUS obstructed justice. It’s clear that anyone else would be facing criminal prosecution. The #MuellerReport does NOT exonerate the president. #RetweetTheReport #MuellerHearings pic.twitter.com/RrkX7gS0dS
— Rep. Ted Lieu (@RepTedLieu) July 24, 2019
But – and it’s a big but… as Daily Caller’s Chuck Ross notes, before Democrats could celebrate too much, Mueller corrected his testimony when he appeared hours later before the House Intelligence Committee for a second round of testimony about his Russia investigation…
“Now before we go to questions, I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning,” Mueller began in his opening remarks.
“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,” he said, adding, “as we say in the report, and as I said in the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”
Crushing the dreams of every leftist.
But – and here’s the leap towards the irrational and mentally ill – Lieu suggested to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer during an interview later in the day that “somebody got to” Robert Mueller to force the former special counsel to correct his testimony. “[Y]ou say Mueller fully understood your question. Doesn’t Mueller’s correction, which he later provided, prove otherwise?” Blitzer asked.
“This is what’s so odd about that exchange. Special counsel Robert Mueller agreed that the OLC opinion prevented a sitting president from being indicted, and then the Republican member after me asked him a series of questions to try to get him to walk it back, and he did not do that.”
“And then it wasn’t until there was a recess with the Intel committee that he started to walk some of it back,” said Lieu.
“I don’t know who got to him. I don’t know who talked to him, but that was very odd, what he did.”
Blitzer asked Lieu, “What are you suggesting? … Are you saying he only did that because of pressure from someone?”
“I don’t know,” said Lieu, “but he clearly answered the way he answered to me, and then he had numerous times to walk that back by the next Republican member who asked him a series of questions on the exact same issue trying to get him to walk it back.”
Lieu then took one more step towards his insanity by analogizing the entire episode to a ham sandwich!!! We shit you not!
Analogy: Mueller gives us a slice of bread, puts ham on it, and then another slice of bread. We say that's a ham sandwich. Mueller says I didn't make a determination whether or not it's a ham sandwich because I was instructed I can't call it that.
It's still a ham sandwich. https://t.co/5DYVsqSbp9
— Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) July 26, 2019
And finally, as further evidence of the level of cognitive dissonance among the various never-Trump-ers, Daily Caller’s Chuck Ross just reported that “Nadler just cited Mueller’s exchange with Ted Lieu – which he later corrected – but without noting that it was corrected.”