Mueller defends Barr: Says no contradiction on obstruction

[Heff]

"The attorney general then concluded that it was appropriate to provide our report to Congress and to the American people. At one point in time, I requested that certain portions of the report be released and the attorney general preferred to make — preferred to make the entire report public all at once and we appreciate that the attorney general made the report largely public. And I certainly do not question the attorney general’s good faith in that decision."

From the horse's mouth this morning. Anything about lying or misrepresenting the report? Nope, there is no such thing outside the fevered anti-Trump mind.

 

[Stretch]

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.

I know you just got here, but have you gone back and seen the posts on this already first?

 

[christiefan915]

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

Exactly. Mueller could have said "We had confidence that the president had clearly not committed a crime...” Obviously his innocence wasn't clear despite what RWNJs are crowing about.

 

[christiefan915]

I know you just got here, but have you gone back and seen the posts on this already first?

Mueller could have said "We had confidence that the president had clearly not committed a crime...” Obviously his innocence wasn't clear despite what RWNJs are crowing about.

 

[Stretch]

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.

"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.

There was no confidence that he committed any crime.

 

[domer76]

"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.

There was no confidence that he committed any crime.

Why didn’t he indict, dumbfuck?

Try to not lie this time.

 

[Darth Omar]

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.

How many of Mullet’s witnesses are they going to recall just to see if Trump obstructed an investigation that produced no crime?

And no one knows whether or not it’s unconstitutional to indict a sitting president—because no one ever has. It’s some people’s *opinion* that you can’t indict a president. If Mullet felt strongly that Trump was guilty of a crime [that would not exist but for the investigation, itself] he should have indicted him and allowed SCOTUS to determine the constitutional question. That’s the whole point to having the Supreme Court.

Mullet is either spineless or he had nothing. Pick one.

 

[Old Trapper]

"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.

One of the things that is relevant in the world of dumb f**ks is that one be able to ignore reality, and facts. That is how he draft dodging lying coward go as many votes as he did. He relied on the ignorance of the American voter just as he is not with the Mueller Report, and his authorizing of his lapdog Barr to investigate anyone that opposes him.

If you had honestly read the article, and God knows you doing anything honestly strains ones credulity, you would have seen this, and understood it:

"In his first and only public address about his 22-month-long Russia investigation, Mueller said: "As set forth in the report after that investigation,
if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime we would have said so."

Citing long-standing Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel policy, Mueller said he never considered charging a sitting president with a crime and noted that doing so would be unconstitutional.

"The special counsel's office is part of the Department of Justice, and by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider," he said. "The department's written opinion explaining the policy makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation."

Although Mueller declined to make a decision on obstruction, despite laying out 10 possible scenarios in his report, Barr said he and former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein concluded there was insufficient evidence to establish a crime." (That was a lie)

But even after all of that you had to edit the article to suit your own lies, and mental illness. The article itself says:

"if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime we would have said so."

But you in your state of lack of integrity posted this:

"If we had had the confidence that the president had not clearly committed a crime, we would have said so,"

Even your grammar is like that of a dumb f**k.

Trump committed crimes. Mueller was not allowed to report those crimes.

 

[jimmymccready]

Trumpsplainin going on

 

[Cinnabar]

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

"If we had had confidence that the president clearly DID NOT commit a crime, we would have said so."

Worth repeating over and over and over again.

 

[Stretch]

One of the things that is relevant in the world of dumb f**ks is that one be able to ignore reality, and facts. That is how he draft dodging lying coward go as many votes as he did. He relied on the ignorance of the American voter just as he is not with the Mueller Report, and his authorizing of his lapdog Barr to investigate anyone that opposes him.

If you had honestly read the article, and God knows you doing anything honestly strains ones credulity, you would have seen this, and understood it:

"In his first and only public address about his 22-month-long Russia investigation, Mueller said: "As set forth in the report after that investigation,
if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime we would have said so."

Citing long-standing Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel policy, Mueller said he never considered charging a sitting president with a crime and noted that doing so would be unconstitutional.

"The special counsel's office is part of the Department of Justice, and by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider," he said. "The department's written opinion explaining the policy makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation."

Although Mueller declined to make a decision on obstruction, despite laying out 10 possible scenarios in his report, Barr said he and former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein concluded there was insufficient evidence to establish a crime." (That was a lie)

But even after all of that you had to edit the article to suit your own lies, and mental illness. The article itself says:

"if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime we would have said so."

But you in your state of lack of integrity posted this:

"If we had had the confidence that the president had not clearly committed a crime, we would have said so,"

Even your grammar is like that of a dumb f**k.

Trump committed crimes. Mueller was not allowed to report those crimes.

He didn't indict. It's over.
Where's the bad grammar? LOL

 

[christiefan915]

How many of Mullet’s witnesses are they going to recall just to see if Trump obstructed an investigation that produced no crime?

And no one knows whether or not it’s unconstitutional to indict a sitting president—because no one ever has. It’s some people’s *opinion* that you can’t indict a president. If Mullet felt strongly that Trump was guilty of a crime [that would not exist but for the investigation, itself] he should have indicted him and allowed SCOTUS to determine the constitutional question. That’s the whole point to having the Supreme Court.

Mullet is either spineless or he had nothing. Pick one.

The bottom line is that Mueller did not say "we had confidence that the president did not commit a crime."

So I think your celebration is premature.

 

[Legion]

 

[Moosakofsky]

The bottom line is that Mueller did not say "we had confidence that the president did not commit a crime."

Does this mean this is it? Finally? Because Mueller did not say "we had confidence that the president did not commit a crime"?

So I think your celebration is premature.

I will celebrate when dims go through with impeachment. Not before. But I'm not holding my breath. They seem to enjoy floundering around . I enjoy watching them.

 

[domer76]

How many of Mullet’s witnesses are they going to recall just to see if Trump obstructed an investigation that produced no crime?

And no one knows whether or not it’s unconstitutional to indict a sitting president—because no one ever has. It’s some people’s *opinion* that you can’t indict a president. If Mullet felt strongly that Trump was guilty of a crime [that would not exist but for the investigation, itself] he should have indicted him and allowed SCOTUS to determine the constitutional question. That’s the whole point to having the Supreme Court.

Mullet is either spineless or he had nothing. Pick one.

Who said there was no crime?

 

[christiefan915]

Does this mean this is it? Finally? Because Mueller did not say "we had confidence that the president did not commit a crime"?I will celebrate when dims go through with impeachment. Not before. But I'm not holding my breath. They seem to enjoy floundering around . I enjoy watching them.

I'm not supporting impeachment until the evidence is rock solid. And if I were a RW I'd be worried that the investigation didn't clear trump beyond the shadow of a doubt.

 

[Moosakofsky]

I'm not supporting impeachment until the evidence is rock solid.

You must feel lonely being on the left and sane.

And if I were a RW I'd be worried that the investigation didn't clear trump beyond the shadow of a doubt.

I doubt any of them are the least bit worried.

 

[Stretch]

I'm not supporting impeachment until the evidence is rock solid. And if I were a RW I'd be worried that the investigation didn't clear trump beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Back to the logic again......................

"If we 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.

He chickened out on everything. He drew no firm conclusion and punted to Barr & Rosenstein. It's over.

 

[anatta]

Exactly. Mueller could have said "We had confidence that the president had clearly not committed a crime...” Obviously his innocence wasn't clear despite what RWNJs are crowing about.

innocence is never clear to a prosecutor. they indict or not,
Saying they can't indict so they won't make a call shows the entire report is dog and pony show

 

[anatta]

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'

translate this for for me please. I can't do Mueller-speak