Mueller defends Barr: Says no contradiction on obstruction

Stretch said:
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.
Click to expand...

Believe it or not but I have TV news on right now and Mueller is saying it's against DOJ policy to indict a sitting president.

A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution

Date of Issuance: Monday, October 16, 2000

Headnotes:

The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.

Attachment:

op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/sitting-president%E2%80%99s-amenability-indictment-and-criminal-prosecution
 
Stretch said:
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.
Click to expand...

Something is up with that dude.

My opinion of Mullet has never been very high ever since *he ignored DOJ regulations* regarding conflicts of interest in his investigation. That said, Mullet is by no means incompetent.

What’s up with the weasel-wording? He had to know it would do nothing but sew more confusion.
 
dumb y 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...

Can Trump be indicted after he leaves office? If Mueller had a case, why wouldn't he lay it out for possible future justice? Because he had no case, that's why.
 
Darth Omar said:
Something is up with that dude.

My opinion of Mullet has never been very high ever since *he ignored DOJ regulations* regarding conflicts of interest in his investigation. That said, Mullet is by no means incompetent.

What’s up with the weasel-wording? He had to know it would do nothing but sew more confusion.
Click to expand...
Bingo. that was his motive -since he can't find collusion/conspiracy and the obstruction requires an act if there is no underlying crime what's his motive? *shit-stirring*
 
anatta said:
Bingo. that was his motive -since he can't find collusion/conspiracy and the obstruction requires an act if there is no underlying crime what's his motive? *shit-stirring*
Click to expand...

Seems we’re not alone. Here’s Dershowitz—he’s defended Mullet in the past but he jumped ship after today:

Until today, I have defended Mueller against the accusations that he is a partisan. I did not believe that he personally favored either the Democrats or the Republicans, or had a point of view on whether President Trump should be impeached. But I have now changed my mind. By putting his thumb, indeed his elbow, on the scale of justice in favor of impeachment based on obstruction of justice, Mueller has revealed his partisan bias. He also has distorted the critical role of a prosecutor in our justice system.

Virtually everybody agrees that, in the normal case, a prosecutor should never go beyond publicly disclosing that there is insufficient evidence to indict. No responsible prosecutor should ever suggest that the subject of his investigation might indeed be guilty even if there was insufficient evidence or other reasons not to indict.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judicia...eeding-his-role?amp&__twitter_impression=true
_____________

The left will take a wrecking ball to our justice system in order to get rid of Trump. And Mullet has been a willing player in it.
 
anatta said:
translate this for for me please. I can't do Mueller-speak
Click to expand...

It's regarding the DOJ policy and OLC opinion....mainly though about the fact that both
Barr and Mullet said basically the same thing...........that Mullet had not determined
that a crime was committed.
So, Mullet was backing up what Barr had said.
Barr is not a liar.
They spoke in agreement. :cool:

D7wJ8fbXoAA6IrM.jpg:large
 
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...

You are one of the nastiest fucking cunts on here, a real piece of work!!
 
christiefan915 said:
Believe it or not but I have TV news on right now and Mueller is saying it's against DOJ policy to indict a sitting president.

A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution

Date of Issuance: Monday, October 16, 2000

Headnotes:

The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.

Attachment:

op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/sitting-president%E2%80%99s-amenability-indictment-and-criminal-prosecution
Click to expand...

Mullet's supposed to be smart. He surely knew this when he began this witch hunt. He just wasted 2 years and a lot of money.
It's over.
 
Stretch said:
It's regarding the DOJ policy and OLC opinion....mainly though about the fact that both
Barr and Mullet said basically the same thing...........that Mullet had not determined
that a crime was committed.
So, Mullet was backing up what Barr had said.
Barr is not a liar.
They spoke in agreement. :cool:

D7wJ8fbXoAA6IrM.jpg:large
Click to expand...

Why did Mueller refrain from claiming anything about a crime? Why did he not charge?

Try to not lie this time.
 
Stretch said:
Mullet's supposed to be smart. He surely knew this when he began this witch hunt. He just wasted 2 years and a lot of money.
It's over.
Click to expand...


Several of Trump’s inner circle in prison. Manafort paid for the investigation.

Roadmap to impeachment.

Anything but over, moron.
 
Darth Omar said:
Something is up with that dude.

My opinion of Mullet has never been very high ever since *he ignored DOJ regulations* regarding conflicts of interest in his investigation. That said, Mullet is by no means incompetent.

What’s up with the weasel-wording? He had to know it would do nothing but sew more confusion.
Click to expand...

Yup. And, the Dems can spin it all day Sunday and across 7 counties to mold it the way they want. That was the plan, especially since he's known since early on there was nothing there on Trump. That's why all the OTHER weird tangents and winding roads to process crimes. But, he had to keep up appearances and spend the money allotted to him and continue fishing for one big last pay day before retiring.
 
Stretch said:
Yup. And, the Dems can spin it all day Sunday and across 7 counties to mold it the way they want. That was the plan, especially since he's known since early on there was nothing there on Trump. That's why all the OTHER weird tangents and winding roads to process crimes. But, he had to keep up appearances and spend the money allotted to him and continue fishing for one big last pay day before retiring.
Click to expand...

10 instances of obstruction.

https://www.apnews.com/e0d125d737be4a21a81bec3d9f1dffd8

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obstru...p-may-have-obstructed-justice-mueller-report/
 
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...

Not true horsey face!
 
Stretch said:
Mullet's supposed to be smart. He surely knew this when he began this witch hunt. He just wasted 2 years and a lot of money.
It's over.
Click to expand...

You must be thinking that Mueller never looked at evidence. Guess you're forgetting that something did come out of the investigation, like 34 people getting indicted with eight convictions. A lot of these people were pretty close to trump.
 
Darth Omar said:
Mullet providing a road map was the point all along, wasn’t it.

That’s why he was appointed, wasn’t it.
Click to expand...

Nope, dumbfuck. He investigated the Russian connection to the attempt to “damage one candidate”. His words.

And, in contradiction to the liars Barr and Trump, he did not determine there was no evidence of conspiracy. He determined there was insufficient evidence.

Try to summon up all your English skills and try to figure out the difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top