Mueller defends Barr: Says no contradiction on obstruction

S

Stretch

New member
Mueller defends Barr: Says no contradiction on obstruction, releases document to provide more context
by Jerry Dunleavy
& Daniel Chaitin
| May 29, 2019 02:38 PM
| Updated May 29, 2019, 03:27 PM

Special counsel Robert Mueller released a document comparing his assertions about obstruction of justice to what Attorney General William Barr said about it.

Mueller delivered a public address about his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election on Wednesday, after which some politicians and pundits argued the special counsel contradicted Barr.

Hours later, NBC News obtained a copy of the document and shared it on MSNBC.

"He [Mueller] did not contradict. We went back to the Special Counsel’s Office today and said, “Did you contradict what the attorney general said when he said that ‘if it had not been for that opinion, you would have charged’?” NBC News' Julia Ainsley said on MSNBC.

"And they said, 'We’re not contradicting, but we’re providing more context that' — It’s not even point. They didn’t even make a decision because they didn’t look at this like a prosecution. They didn’t walk down that road because they stopped because of this opinion," she added.

continued at https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ion-releases-document-to-provide-more-context
 
"If we had had the confidence that the president had not clearly committed a crime,
we would have said so," Mueller announced. He once again pointed to inconclusive evidence.
They did not have that confidence. They did not have that evidence to indict.

Therefore, if Mullet DID conclude he committed a crime, he would indict. Oh wait......he did NOT indict. :cool:
 
Stretch said:
"If we had had the confidence that the president had not clearly committed a crime,
we would have said so," Mueller announced. He once again pointed to inconclusive evidence.
They did not have that confidence. They did not have that evidence to indict.

Therefore, if Mullet DID conclude he committed a crime, he would indict. Oh wait......he did NOT indict. :cool:
Click to expand...

No, illiterate dumbfuck. He did not point to inconclusive evidence. He pointed out 10 instances. That Trump can not be criminally prosecuted does not mean the evidence is inconclusive. How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that indictment was never an option?

What a fucking dense moron. And liar.
 
Stretch said:
Mueller defends Barr: Says no contradiction on obstruction, releases document to provide more context
by Jerry Dunleavy
& Daniel Chaitin
| May 29, 2019 02:38 PM
| Updated May 29, 2019, 03:27 PM

Special counsel Robert Mueller released a document comparing his assertions about obstruction of justice to what Attorney General William Barr said about it.

Mueller delivered a public address about his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election on Wednesday, after which some politicians and pundits argued the special counsel contradicted Barr.

Hours later, NBC News obtained a copy of the document and shared it on MSNBC.

"He [Mueller] did not contradict. We went back to the Special Counsel’s Office today and said, “Did you contradict what the attorney general said when he said that ‘if it had not been for that opinion, you would have charged’?” NBC News' Julia Ainsley said on MSNBC.

"And they said, 'We’re not contradicting, but we’re providing more context that' — It’s not even point. They didn’t even make a decision because they didn’t look at this like a prosecution. They didn’t walk down that road because they stopped because of this opinion," she added.

continued at https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ion-releases-document-to-provide-more-context
Click to expand...

This will be BURIED by the FAKE NEWS, and IGNORED by the LYING LEFT....
 
domer76 said:
No, illiterate dumbfuck. He did not point to inconclusive evidence. He pointed out 10 instances. That Trump can not be criminally prosecuted does not mean the evidence is inconclusive. How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that indictment was never an option?

What a fucking dense moron. And liar.
Click to expand...

The only reason Mueller didn't bring criminal charges against Trump was because of OLC rules that he lays out in the Executive Summary of Volume II.

Anyone who has read the report will know that.
 
Adolf_Twitler said:
You are one lying bitch! LOL!
Click to expand...

Mueller defends Barr: Says no contradiction on obstruction, releases document to provide more context
by Jerry Dunleavy
& Daniel Chaitin
| May 29, 2019 02:38 PM
| Updated May 29, 2019, 03:27 PM

Special counsel Robert Mueller released a document comparing his assertions about obstruction of justice to what Attorney General William Barr said about it.

Mueller delivered a public address about his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election on Wednesday, after which some politicians and pundits argued the special counsel contradicted Barr.

Hours later, NBC News obtained a copy of the document and shared it on MSNBC.

"He [Mueller] did not contradict. We went back to the Special Counsel’s Office today and said, “Did you contradict what the attorney general said when he said that ‘if it had not been for that opinion, you would have charged’?” NBC News' Julia Ainsley said on MSNBC.

"And they said, 'We’re not contradicting, but we’re providing more context that' — It’s not even point. They didn’t even make a decision because they didn’t look at this like a prosecution. They didn’t walk down that road because they stopped because of this opinion," she added.

continued at https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...e-more-context
 
Last edited:
Stretch said:
Mueller defends Barr: Says no contradiction on obstruction, releases document to provide more context
by Jerry Dunleavy
& Daniel Chaitin
| May 29, 2019 02:38 PM
| Updated May 29, 2019, 03:27 PM

Special counsel Robert Mueller released a document comparing his assertions about obstruction of justice to what Attorney General William Barr said about it.

Mueller delivered a public address about his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election on Wednesday, after which some politicians and pundits argued the special counsel contradicted Barr.

Hours later, NBC News obtained a copy of the document and shared it on MSNBC.

"He [Mueller] did not contradict. We went back to the Special Counsel’s Office today and said, “Did you contradict what the attorney general said when he said that ‘if it had not been for that opinion, you would have charged’?” NBC News' Julia Ainsley said on MSNBC.

"And they said, 'We’re not contradicting, but we’re providing more context that' — It’s not even point. They didn’t even make a decision because they didn’t look at this like a prosecution. They didn’t walk down that road because they stopped because of this opinion," she added.

continued at https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...e-more-context
Click to expand...

Have you read the actual document to which they're referring for yourself?
 
LV426 said:
The only reason Mueller didn't bring criminal charges against Trump was because of OLC rules that he lays out in the Executive Summary of Volume II.

Anyone who has read the report will know that.
Click to expand...

LIE and LAME. The reason is there is insufficient evidence to support such a moronic claim.
 
LV426 said:
Have you read the actual document to which they're referring for yourself?
Click to expand...

I have; and it is apparent that even if a low IQ whiny little cunt like you read it a million times, you still wouldn't actually comprehend what it says.
 
Stretch said:
"If we had had the confidence that the president had not clearly committed a crime,
we would have said so," Mueller announced. He once again pointed to inconclusive evidence.
They did not have that confidence. They did not have that evidence to indict.

Therefore, if Mullet DID conclude he committed a crime, he would indict. Oh wait......he did NOT indict. :cool:
Click to expand...

Because he wouldn't indict a sitting president, he said it would be unconstitutional.

Do you understand this sentence: "If we had confidence that the president had clearly not committed a crime we would have said so...”

It can be read as "if the president had clearly not committed a crime, we would have said so.

IOW it's not clear that he didn't commit a crime.
 
THE most significant thing he said: "...if (IF) we had had confidence that the president clearly DID NOT commit a crime, we would have said so. (caps added to reflect his emphasis) ...under long-standing department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office....Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider."

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...pBsABBE-lGsKX5b7SnT2lim5RWi2ncyRqhgE-2kTypf4c
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top