On the morning of July 24, 2019, and running well into the afternoon hours, the most anticipated congressional hearing of the Trump era took place. Ex-special counsel Robert Mueller sat before the cherry-picking, slow-pitching, Democrat congressmen and, in stark contrast, the hard-ball, no-nonsense, Republican titans to face questions pertaining to his controversial investigation and proceeding report.
Despite what some may think, calling the Democrats cherry pickers and slow pitchers does not come from a place of partisan slander; instead, it comes from a place of understanding in concert with objectivity derived from said understanding. The groundwork must be set. CNN published an article acknowledging that the Mueller hearing would either make or break the Democrats. We are at a point where this is common knowledge.
The Democrats, in order to appease their increasingly left-wing constituents, made Robert Mueller their savior. This isn’t because Robert Mueller could walk on water, heal the sick, or cause the blind to see—it was because he was the last hope of legitimately removing the sitting Republican President by using (perhaps abusing would be the better term) the judicial branch. The best-case scenario would have the President in handcuffs and sitting in a jail cell; the worst case would have articles of impeachment unanimously passing through the House and the Senate. All things considered, it was believed that Mueller’s involvement, in addition to a blank check written to him, with an attached love note that read ‘carte blanch,’ would make it inevitable that Trump’s presidency was over.
The Democrats did exactly what I predicted they would in the 21st episode, season 2 of my podcast. They would be selective with the facts they brought forth-- theorizing that the only reason Mueller did not formally charge the President was due to the long-standing Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion that states a sitting President could not be charged. By making this the pivot point of their argument, they, in effect, insinuated, without a modicum of factual evidence, that the President did commit an unknown crime, but couldn’t be charged criminally due to a technicality; ergo, insinuating that President Trump was a guilty man shielded by the supremacy of his office.
Ted Lieu, Representative of California’s 33rd district, was one of the many Democrat representatives to play out my prophecy. Lieu confirmed with Mueller that the reason that Mueller did not charge Trump was because of the OLC opinion. It wasn’t until the second half of the hearing, about 4 hours in, that Mueller retracted his statement and single-handedly dismantled the entire left-wing conspiracy theory.
Here are Mueller’s own words:
“Now before we go to questions, 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.”
Ted Lieu tried to do damage control by only furthering the left-wing conspiracy by stating the only reason Mueller corrected his statement was because he wanted to ‘avoid calling Trump a felon.’
The unprecedented nature of Mueller’s actions toward the President can only be understood when a holistic approach is taken to the investigation. The foundation of American justice is that one is innocent until proven guilty. Period. The mainstream media strategically ran the headline, “MUELLER: TRUMP WAS NOT EXONERATED” as a way to continue to push their fantasy. If you ever wanted an example on media spin—this is it. Ironically, it is true that Trump was not exonerated; however, they conveniently forget to add two facts. First, by his own statement, Mueller found no crime. And secondly, Mueller does not even have the power to exonerate!
Representative Mike Turner said during the hearing:
“The President pardons, he doesn’t exonerate. Courts and juries don’t declare innocent, they declare not guilty. They don’t even declare exoneration. The statement about exoneration is misleading and it’s meaningless and it colors this investigation one word out of the entire portion of your report… and it’s a meaningless word that has no legal meaning, and it has colored your entire report.”
Rep. John Ratcliffe of Texas reminded us during his questioning period that the bedrock principle of the American justice system is the presumption of innocence. The willingness of the Democrats to unapologetically disregard this principle when politically expedient should raise great concern. If these stances can be boldly taken by elected members of government against the most powerful man on planet earth, what level of jeopardy does the common man and woman face when the glare of the State is fixated upon them. Are we merely at the mercy of the pendulum of power? Luckily there are arbiters of truth and titans of justice that preside in government acting as a floodgate-- holding back the voracious waves of disregard for civil liberties and our inalienable rights. Thankfully the President was correct when he tweeted, “Truth is a force of nature.”