Mueller to make statement on Russia probe

[TreeFrogTrader]

Barr’s lying ass was as far away from that press conference as possible. That fat tool bag told the American people the OLC’s opinion that a president cannot be indicted played no role in Trump not being charged. That was a total lie.

Not to forget that Rosenstein sided with Barr in Barr's conclusion and Rosenstein was in on everything. Mueller reported to him and he was in on all conversations with Mueller and Barr.

Mueller's position is a complete crock. If he felt that there was a sufficient basis for prosecuting it was his duty to make that finding and then present it to the AG, acknowledging the existence of the OLC determination and then letting the AG decide how he wants to proceed. As Ken Starr did, just two months after that OLC advisory opinion was rendered, and he subsequently got a guilty plea (on the filing of an information, without an indictment) from Clinton, WHILE HE WAS A SITTING PRESIDENT.

But no, not with Mueller, he did not even give a judgement of whether there was sufficient basis for indictment but for the OLC opinion. WHICH RAISES THE QUESTION: WHAT THE FUCK DID WE NEED HIM FOR THEN? He knew from the beginning that the OLC opinion was in effect before he even started.

 

[wjk]

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

In a legal situation, this shouldn't even be stated if guilt was not proven, IMO. In this country, you are innocent until proven guilty. There is no grey area. Or at least it used to be that way.

 

[UsualName]

Not to forget that Rosenstein sided with Barr in Barr's conclusion and Rosenstein was in on everything. Mueller reported to him and he was in on all conversations with Mueller and Barr.

Mueller's position is a complete crock. If he felt that there was a sufficient basis for prosecuting it was his duty to make that finding and then present it to the AG, acknowledging the existence of the OLC determination and then letting the AG decide how he wants to proceed. As Ken Starr did, just two months after that OLC advisory opinion was rendered, and he subsequently got a guilty plea (on the filing of an information, without an indictment) from Clinton, WHILE HE WAS A SITTING PRESIDENT.

But no, not with Mueller, he did not even given a judgement of whether there was sufficient basis for indictment but for the OLC opinion. WHICH RAISES THE QUESTION: WHAT THE FUCK DID WE NEED HIM FOR THEN? He knew from the beginning that the OLC opinion was in effect before he even started.

Ok but Barr is still a lying ass tool bag.

 

[UsualName]

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

In a legal situation, this shouldn't even be stated if guilt was not proven, IMO. In this country, you are innocent until proven guilty. There is no grey area. Or at least it used to be that way.

Well Mueller is dealing with a situation in which a person is guilty but is supposedly protected by the constitution from indictment. This does not fit in the innocent until proven guilty category.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Ok but Barr is still a lying ass tool bag.

I am all in favor of having dems continue to piss Barr off, because he has massive, massive power now to get even by weaponizing the release of information about the swamp.

And that will be a beautiful thing to watch.

 

[wjk]

Well Mueller is dealing with a situation in which a person is guilty but is supposedly protected by the constitution from indictment. This does not fit in the innocent until proven guilty category.

Then Mueller should have stated that Trump committed a crime(s) but can't be indicted because of constitutional restraints. To say that we don't have confidence that he didn't commit a crime is not the same as saying he is protected by the constitution. It sounds like they can't prove he committed a crime. Again, just my opinion.

(This is not quite the same, but I went before a judge on a traffic violation but the cop didn't show so my case was tossed, but not before the judge lectured me for 5 minutes about my guilt and that I was only getting off because the cop didn't show. He was an asshole. I wouldn't have gone to court if I had committed the offense because being found guilty meant paying the court costs. I had no prior violations.)

 

[UsualName]

I am all in favor of having dems continue to piss Barr off, because he has massive, massive power now to get even by weaponizing the release of information about the swamp.

And that will be a beautiful thing to watch.

Read this carefully:

The Attorney General of the United States lied to the American people about a material fact in an investigation conducted by the Department of Justice that involved a potential crime by the President of the United States.

Why in the hell would anyone think Barr having any power to “weaponize” confidential information is a good idea after knowing that he purposely lied to the American people about a critical fact.

Something is really wrong with you.

 

[UsualName]

Then Mueller should have stated that Trump committed a crime(s) but can't be indicted because of constitutional restraints. To say that we don't have confidence that he didn't commit a crime is not the same as saying he is protected by the constitution. It sounds like they can't prove he committed a crime. Again, just my opinion.

(This is not quite the same, but I went before a judge on a traffic violation but the cop didn't show so my case was tossed, but not before the judge lectured me for 5 minutes about my guilt and that I was only getting off because the cop didn't show. He was an asshole. I wouldn't have gone to court if I had committed the offense because being found guilty meant paying the court costs. I had no prior violations.)

I agree with you in a way. Mueller should have been clear in stating something like this office would have pursued to indict Donald Trump had he not been a sitting president.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Read this carefully:

The Attorney General of the United States lied to the American people about a material fact in an investigation conducted by the Department of Justice that involved a potential crime by the President of the United States.

Why in the hell would anyone think Barr having any power to “weaponize” confidential information is a good idea after knowing that he purposely lied to the American people about a critical fact.

Something is really wrong with you.

You think that the info that Barr will release will not speak for itself?

Good luck wit dat. Yeh, because everyone looked to Jeff Session's character to be able to evaluate Page's and Strzok's texts, for example.

 

[Cuddles]

He was, he was cleared that:
A. Barr is a liar and the report did not exonerate Trump on obstruction.
B. Mueller was not willing to indict as there's a provision in the constitution to bring a president to justice (aka Impeachment).
and
C. He would not comment further on the matter voluntarily. He made no mention about not being compelled to do so and disobeying a lawful subpoena.

Was he clear to you?

Oh look, Nadler agrees 2/3. Also, good move on Mueller resigning. Now DOJ can't block a subpoena.