Fox News Senior Analyst: Mueller Said He Would Indict Trump if He Weren't President

Fox News’ legal analyst Andrew Napolitano summarizes Robert Mueller's Wednesday statement: ‘Basically he’s saying the president can’t be indicted, otherwise we would have indicted him’

Haaretz
Send in e-mailSend in e-mail
Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano on special counsel Robert Mueller's comments on the Russia investigation.
Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano on special counsel Robert Mueller's comments on the Russia investigation, May 29, 2019Credit: Screen grab / YouTube
Haaretz

Fox News’ Senior Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano dropped a bombshell after Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s eight-minute statement on the Trump-Russia probe and his subsequent report, noting: “Basically he’s saying the president can’t be indicted, otherwise we would have indicted him.”

Stunned Fox Business host, Stuart Varney, asked whether Mueller’s remarks were really that bad. Napolitano replied, “I think so.”

Read more: Trump attacks Mueller probe - inadvertently confirms Russia helped elect him

Napolitano argued that Mueller’s statement was a “parting shot at his soon-to-be former boss. Because this statement is 180 degrees from the four-page statement that Bill Barr issued at the time he first saw the report.” Mueller resigned from the Justice Department at the beginning of his remarks, marking his return to private life.

Mueller's evidence 'remarkably similar' to Nixon, Clinton charges: Napolitano

“Basically he’s saying the president can’t be indicted, otherwise we would have indicted him, and we’re not going to charge him with a crime because there’s no forum in which for him to refute the charges, but we could not say that he didn’t commit a crime — fill in the blank, because we believe he did,” he concluded.

Napolitano clarified that while he believes Mueller was primarily referring to the president obstructing justice, he argued that there is also room for the Democrats when it comes to the “conspiracy side,” because “he didn’t say there was no conspiracy; he just said we were not able to establish it beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Comments