'That isn't what he said!' Fox News host laughs in Mick Mulvaney's face as he brazenly lies about Mueller's testimony
When former Special Counsel Robert Mueller testified before Congress on Wednesday, Democrats had him thoroughly debunk President Donald Trump's lies about his investigation. The president wasn't exonerated, the special counsel didn't conclude there was "no obstruction," it wasn't "witch hunt," and Russia interference in the 2016 election wasn't a "hoax," Mueller confirmed.
So when White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney appeared on Fox News Sunday morning in an interview with Chris Wallace, he decided to invent new lies to tell about Mueller.
"Mueller answered the single, one oustanding question," Mulvaney said. "They asked him: Would you have indicted the president if he were not the president, and Mueller said, 'absolutely not.' He would not do that."
"No, no, no — that's not what he said," Wallace said, rightly correcting Mulvaney.
"He did!" Mulvaney interjected, lying, again.
"No, that isn't what he said!" Wallace continued. "He said: We didn't, because of the OLC — the Office of Legal Counsel guidelines — he said we didn't even make a decision on that."
But Mulvaney kept digging in to his obvious distortion of the testimony.
"I actually just think you're wrong on that," Mulvaney said. "If they could have indicted him —"
"The record will show what it shows. I promise you're wrong," Wallace responded, laughing at Mulvaney's bogus defense.
"If they had the evidence to indict the president, they would have done it," Mulvaney falsely said. yet again. "And they don't, because there was no obstruction." Again, this is completely untrue and absolutely contrary to what Mueller said. Mueller determined that he would not assess whether charges were warranted against the president because a sitting president cannot be charged according to the Justice Department. Additionally, he laid out hundreds of pages of evidence indicating that the president almost certainly did obstruct justice. And Mueller said that if, as Mulvaney suggested, there were no evidence Trump obstructed justice, the special counsel would have said that.
As the conclusion of the Mueller report makes clear:
Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
Watch the clip below:
MICK MULVANEY: Mueller answered the biggest Q. He said he wouldn't have indicted POTUS if he wasn't POTUS CHRIS WA… https://t.co/EVbijsOjBn— Aaron Rupar (@Aaron Rupar) 1564332314.0