If Mueller would have 'had the goods' on Trump he would have indicted him.

[bripat9643]

He did NOT.

NO EVIDENCE
NO CRIME
NO RUSSIAN COLLUSION
NO OBSTRUCTION...

THUS...

NO INDICTMENTS FOR COLLUSION
NO CONVICTIONS FOR COLLUSION
NO INDICTMENTS FOR OBSTRUCTION
NO CONVICTIONS FOR OBSTRUCTION.

'Nuff time wasted.

'Nuff said.

NEXT!

A central reason for the Mueller team’s failure to make that judgment, despite the overwhelming evidence of obstruction they have reported, is two opinions rendered by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) — one from 1973 and another from 2000 — which say that the indictment of an incumbent President is “impermissible.” Mueller concluded that as an operative of the Department of Justice (DOJ), he was bound to follow that guideline, and he lateralled the decision to Congress.

There is disagreement on this issue of whether a sitting president can be indicted. But it was Mueller's prerogative to use the OLC opinion to decline indictment. Lack of evidence doesnt even enter into the equation. There is boatloads of it.

How long are you Trump hating morons going to peddle this lie? It's already been debunked 10,000 times.

Mueller did in fact follow the OLC decision on indicting sitting president.

Mueller said you are guilty until proven innocent. That proves he's a Stalinist and a douchebag. All those who defend this despicable nonsense are no better.

 

[bripat9643]

He did NOT.

NO EVIDENCE
NO CRIME
NO RUSSIAN COLLUSION
NO OBSTRUCTION...

THUS...

NO INDICTMENTS FOR COLLUSION
NO CONVICTIONS FOR COLLUSION
NO INDICTMENTS FOR OBSTRUCTION
NO CONVICTIONS FOR OBSTRUCTION.

'Nuff time wasted.

'Nuff said.

NEXT!

A central reason for the Mueller team’s failure to make that judgment, despite the overwhelming evidence of obstruction they have reported, is two opinions rendered by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) — one from 1973 and another from 2000 — which say that the indictment of an incumbent President is “impermissible.” Mueller concluded that as an operative of the Department of Justice (DOJ), he was bound to follow that guideline, and he lateralled the decision to Congress.

There is disagreement on this issue of whether a sitting president can be indicted. But it was Mueller's prerogative to use the OLC opinion to decline indictment. Lack of evidence doesnt even enter into the equation. There is boatloads of it.

How long are you Trump hating morons going to peddle this lie? It's already been debunked 10,000 times.

Mueller did in fact follow the OLC decision on indicting sitting president.

He himself denied that was the reason for his decision in front of witnesses three fucking times.

You imbeciles are totally fucking shameless when it comes to lying.

 

[dudmuck]

He did NOT.

NO EVIDENCE
NO CRIME
NO RUSSIAN COLLUSION
NO OBSTRUCTION...

THUS...

NO INDICTMENTS FOR COLLUSION
NO CONVICTIONS FOR COLLUSION
NO INDICTMENTS FOR OBSTRUCTION
NO CONVICTIONS FOR OBSTRUCTION.

'Nuff time wasted.

'Nuff said.

NEXT!

A central reason for the Mueller team’s failure to make that judgment, despite the overwhelming evidence of obstruction they have reported, is two opinions rendered by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) — one from 1973 and another from 2000 — which say that the indictment of an incumbent President is “impermissible.” Mueller concluded that as an operative of the Department of Justice (DOJ), he was bound to follow that guideline, and he lateralled the decision to Congress.

There is disagreement on this issue of whether a sitting president can be indicted. But it was Mueller's prerogative to use the OLC opinion to decline indictment. Lack of evidence doesnt even enter into the equation. There is boatloads of it.

How long are you Trump hating morons going to peddle this lie? It's already been debunked 10,000 times.

Mueller did in fact follow the OLC decision on indicting sitting president.

He himself denied that was the reason for his decision in front of witnesses three fucking times.

You imbeciles are totally fucking shameless when it comes to lying.

This is Mueller saying it right here..
You claim that Mueller denied saying what he just said here?

 

[easyt65]

It's simple, snowflakes - have Nadler subpoena Muller, and have Mueller testify UNDER OATH before Congress to explain EXACTLY what he is saying, defend his investigation, and answer some simple questions?

What is so hard with that?

Why is Mueller, who forced over 100 people interrogated under oath during his investigation, so afraid / determined NOT to do so?

Why are snowflakes so reluctant to demand Nadler subpoena Mueller and have him testify?

It is clearly NOT the US AG preventing him from testifying. As everyone who saw the press conference saw / knows, it's all Mueller refusing to do so...

 

[MAGAman]

He did NOT.

NO EVIDENCE
NO CRIME
NO RUSSIAN COLLUSION
NO OBSTRUCTION...

THUS...

NO INDICTMENTS FOR COLLUSION
NO CONVICTIONS FOR COLLUSION
NO INDICTMENTS FOR OBSTRUCTION
NO CONVICTIONS FOR OBSTRUCTION.

'Nuff time wasted.

'Nuff said.

NEXT!

A central reason for the Mueller team’s failure to make that judgment, despite the overwhelming evidence of obstruction they have reported, is two opinions rendered by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) — one from 1973 and another from 2000 — which say that the indictment of an incumbent President is “impermissible.” Mueller concluded that as an operative of the Department of Justice (DOJ), he was bound to follow that guideline, and he lateralled the decision to Congress.

There is disagreement on this issue of whether a sitting president can be indicted. But it was Mueller's prerogative to use the OLC opinion to decline indictment. Lack of evidence doesnt even enter into the equation. There is boatloads of it.

How long are you Trump hating morons going to peddle this lie? It's already been debunked 10,000 times.

Mueller did in fact follow the OLC decision on indicting sitting president.

Snowflakes need to learn that saying, "If we had confidence that the President did not commit a crime we would have said so' is NOT the same thing as officially reporting, "The President of the United States committed a crime!"

The fact is Mueller never had any evidence that a crime was ever committed involving the President or anyone associated with him that warranted an investigation being opened or a Special Counsel being appointed...

That is why not 1 single person was ever indicted / convicted of illegal collusion or Obstruction as a result of Mueller's investigation.

That is why Mueller was forced to broadcast his innuendoes and insinuations of possible crimes having been committed in an attempt to incite Trump-hating Democrats into initiating Impeachment proceedings to do what he and his team of 19 hand-picked DNC/Hillary supporters and donors could not do - take down the President.

That is also why Mueller declared he refuses to testify or answer questions about his investigation under oath before Congress.

There are plenty of crimes in the mueller report.
These are the top 10 crimes.

The reason Mueller doesnt want to testify is because he'll just say the same stuff thats in his report. Personally, I think he should testify. He just wants to avoid political spectacle.

Mueller didn't prove beyond any doubt that Biden didn't commit pedophilia either.

In America citizens are innocent until proven otherwise.

Clearly you'd be happier in NAZI Germany, the USSR, or some other Progressive Shithole that doesn't have a Bill of Rights

 

[bripat9643]

A central reason for the Mueller team’s failure to make that judgment, despite the overwhelming evidence of obstruction they have reported, is two opinions rendered by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) — one from 1973 and another from 2000 — which say that the indictment of an incumbent President is “impermissible.” Mueller concluded that as an operative of the Department of Justice (DOJ), he was bound to follow that guideline, and he lateralled the decision to Congress.

There is disagreement on this issue of whether a sitting president can be indicted. But it was Mueller's prerogative to use the OLC opinion to decline indictment. Lack of evidence doesnt even enter into the equation. There is boatloads of it.

How long are you Trump hating morons going to peddle this lie? It's already been debunked 10,000 times.

Mueller did in fact follow the OLC decision on indicting sitting president.

Snowflakes need to learn that saying, "If we had confidence that the President did not commit a crime we would have said so' is NOT the same thing as officially reporting, "The President of the United States committed a crime!"

The fact is Mueller never had any evidence that a crime was ever committed involving the President or anyone associated with him that warranted an investigation being opened or a Special Counsel being appointed...

That is why not 1 single person was ever indicted / convicted of illegal collusion or Obstruction as a result of Mueller's investigation.

That is why Mueller was forced to broadcast his innuendoes and insinuations of possible crimes having been committed in an attempt to incite Trump-hating Democrats into initiating Impeachment proceedings to do what he and his team of 19 hand-picked DNC/Hillary supporters and donors could not do - take down the President.

That is also why Mueller declared he refuses to testify or answer questions about his investigation under oath before Congress.

There are plenty of crimes in the mueller report.
These are the top 10 crimes.

The reason Mueller doesnt want to testify is because he'll just say the same stuff thats in his report. Personally, I think he should testify. He just wants to avoid political spectacle.

Mueller didn't prove beyond any doubt that Biden didn't commit pedophilia either.

In America citizens are innocent until proven otherwise.

Clearly you'd be happier in NAZI Germany, the USSR, or some other Progressive Shithole that doesn't have a Bill of Rights

These leftwing scum who believe Trump is guilty until proven innocent should all be deported.

 

[bripat9643]

He did NOT.

NO EVIDENCE
NO CRIME
NO RUSSIAN COLLUSION
NO OBSTRUCTION...

THUS...

NO INDICTMENTS FOR COLLUSION
NO CONVICTIONS FOR COLLUSION
NO INDICTMENTS FOR OBSTRUCTION
NO CONVICTIONS FOR OBSTRUCTION.

'Nuff time wasted.

'Nuff said.

NEXT!

A central reason for the Mueller team’s failure to make that judgment, despite the overwhelming evidence of obstruction they have reported, is two opinions rendered by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) — one from 1973 and another from 2000 — which say that the indictment of an incumbent President is “impermissible.” Mueller concluded that as an operative of the Department of Justice (DOJ), he was bound to follow that guideline, and he lateralled the decision to Congress.

There is disagreement on this issue of whether a sitting president can be indicted. But it was Mueller's prerogative to use the OLC opinion to decline indictment. Lack of evidence doesnt even enter into the equation. There is boatloads of it.

How long are you Trump hating morons going to peddle this lie? It's already been debunked 10,000 times.

Mueller did in fact follow the OLC decision on indicting sitting president.

He himself denied that was the reason for his decision in front of witnesses three fucking times.

You imbeciles are totally fucking shameless when it comes to lying.

This is Mueller saying it right here..
You claim that Mueller denied saying what he just said here?

He said precisely the opposite in front of witnesses three fucking times, shit for brains.

 

[dudmuck]

A central reason for the Mueller team’s failure to make that judgment, despite the overwhelming evidence of obstruction they have reported, is two opinions rendered by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) — one from 1973 and another from 2000 — which say that the indictment of an incumbent President is “impermissible.” Mueller concluded that as an operative of the Department of Justice (DOJ), he was bound to follow that guideline, and he lateralled the decision to Congress.

There is disagreement on this issue of whether a sitting president can be indicted. But it was Mueller's prerogative to use the OLC opinion to decline indictment. Lack of evidence doesnt even enter into the equation. There is boatloads of it.

How long are you Trump hating morons going to peddle this lie? It's already been debunked 10,000 times.

Mueller did in fact follow the OLC decision on indicting sitting president.

He himself denied that was the reason for his decision in front of witnesses three fucking times.

You imbeciles are totally fucking shameless when it comes to lying.

This is Mueller saying it right here..
You claim that Mueller denied saying what he just said here?

He said precisely the opposite in front of witnesses three fucking times, shit for brains.

I showed you a video of Mueller saying that if he had confidence the president hadnt committed a crime, he would have said so.
You claim he said the opposite, but you have nothing to back it up. Play the tapes.

 

[bripat9643]

How long are you Trump hating morons going to peddle this lie? It's already been debunked 10,000 times.

Mueller did in fact follow the OLC decision on indicting sitting president.

He himself denied that was the reason for his decision in front of witnesses three fucking times.

You imbeciles are totally fucking shameless when it comes to lying.

This is Mueller saying it right here..
You claim that Mueller denied saying what he just said here?

He said precisely the opposite in front of witnesses three fucking times, shit for brains.

I showed you a video of Mueller saying that if he had confidence the president hadnt committed a crime, he would have said so.
You claim he said the opposite, but you have nothing to back it up. Play the tapes.

Mueller Takes a Parting Shot at the President, Reinvigorating Dems’ Impeachment Efforts | Conservative Angle

Mueller’s comments regarding his team’s conclusion on obstruction seemed to contradict Attorney General William Barr’s assertion last month that Mueller told him that he “was not saying that but for the OLC opinion, he would have found a crime.”

During a press conference on April 18, Barr noted that there were two other Justice Department officials with him when Mueller “made it clear” that that was not his position.

I would leave it to his description in the report, the special counsel’s own articulation of why he did not want to make a determination as to whether or not there was an obstruction offense.

But I will say that when we met with him, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein and I met with him, along with Ed o’Callaghan, who is the principal associate deputy, on March 5th. We specifically asked him about the OLC opinion and whether or not he was taking a position that he would have found a crime but for the existence of the OLC opinion. And he made it very clear several times that that was not his position. He was not saying that but for the OLC opinion, he would have found a crime. He made it clear that he had not made the determination that there was a crime.

The discrepancy between Mueller’s remarks Wednesday, and what Barr says he and two other top DOJ officials heard in April, is glaring, to say the least.​

 

[bripat9643]

How long are you Trump hating morons going to peddle this lie? It's already been debunked 10,000 times.

Mueller did in fact follow the OLC decision on indicting sitting president.

He himself denied that was the reason for his decision in front of witnesses three fucking times.

You imbeciles are totally fucking shameless when it comes to lying.

This is Mueller saying it right here..
You claim that Mueller denied saying what he just said here?

He said precisely the opposite in front of witnesses three fucking times, shit for brains.

I showed you a video of Mueller saying that if he had confidence the president hadnt committed a crime, he would have said so.
You claim he said the opposite, but you have nothing to back it up. Play the tapes.

The issue under discussion, shit for brains, is his claim that he didn't make a determination solely because DOJ policy prevented him from doing so. That was clearly a lie since he told Barr in front of multiple witnesses that it wasn't the case.

Please quit lying. You're only making a fool of yourself.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Mueller did in fact follow the OLC decision on indicting sitting president.

He himself denied that was the reason for his decision in front of witnesses three fucking times.

You imbeciles are totally fucking shameless when it comes to lying.

This is Mueller saying it right here..
You claim that Mueller denied saying what he just said here?

He said precisely the opposite in front of witnesses three fucking times, shit for brains.

I showed you a video of Mueller saying that if he had confidence the president hadnt committed a crime, he would have said so.
You claim he said the opposite, but you have nothing to back it up. Play the tapes.

The issue under discussion, shit for brains, is his claim that he didn't make a determination solely because DOJ policy prevented him from doing so. That was clearly a lie since he told Barr in front of multiple witnesses that it wasn't the case.

Please quit lying. You're only making a fool of yourself.

No, Barr said he told him. And Barr has no cred on this anymore. Mueller's take on things have never changed. It's been dead on with the report and he has never deviated. Since you, obviously, haven't bothered to read the report, you are just parroting what your handlers tell you to say. In otherwords, you are repeating a lie. And repeating a lie over and over, it's still a lie. I read the Mueller Report, as painful as that was. And I know Mueller is shooting straight and Barr is lying out his ass.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

How long are you Trump hating morons going to peddle this lie? It's already been debunked 10,000 times.

Mueller did in fact follow the OLC decision on indicting sitting president.

Snowflakes need to learn that saying, "If we had confidence that the President did not commit a crime we would have said so' is NOT the same thing as officially reporting, "The President of the United States committed a crime!"

The fact is Mueller never had any evidence that a crime was ever committed involving the President or anyone associated with him that warranted an investigation being opened or a Special Counsel being appointed...

That is why not 1 single person was ever indicted / convicted of illegal collusion or Obstruction as a result of Mueller's investigation.

That is why Mueller was forced to broadcast his innuendoes and insinuations of possible crimes having been committed in an attempt to incite Trump-hating Democrats into initiating Impeachment proceedings to do what he and his team of 19 hand-picked DNC/Hillary supporters and donors could not do - take down the President.

That is also why Mueller declared he refuses to testify or answer questions about his investigation under oath before Congress.

There are plenty of crimes in the mueller report.
These are the top 10 crimes.

The reason Mueller doesnt want to testify is because he'll just say the same stuff thats in his report. Personally, I think he should testify. He just wants to avoid political spectacle.

Mueller didn't prove beyond any doubt that Biden didn't commit pedophilia either.

In America citizens are innocent until proven otherwise.

Clearly you'd be happier in NAZI Germany, the USSR, or some other Progressive Shithole that doesn't have a Bill of Rights

These leftwing scum who believe Trump is guilty until proven innocent should all be deported.

Yes, deport me to the United States. I'll gladly leave whatever hell hole you live in and go back to America. It's just going to take a little time to get there.

 

[bripat9643]

He himself denied that was the reason for his decision in front of witnesses three fucking times.

You imbeciles are totally fucking shameless when it comes to lying.

This is Mueller saying it right here..
You claim that Mueller denied saying what he just said here?

He said precisely the opposite in front of witnesses three fucking times, shit for brains.

I showed you a video of Mueller saying that if he had confidence the president hadnt committed a crime, he would have said so.
You claim he said the opposite, but you have nothing to back it up. Play the tapes.

The issue under discussion, shit for brains, is his claim that he didn't make a determination solely because DOJ policy prevented him from doing so. That was clearly a lie since he told Barr in front of multiple witnesses that it wasn't the case.

Please quit lying. You're only making a fool of yourself.

No, Barr said he told him. And Barr has no cred on this anymore. Mueller's take on things have never changed. It's been dead on with the report and he has never deviated. Since you, obviously, haven't bothered to read the report, you are just parroting what your handlers tell you to say. In otherwords, you are repeating a lie. And repeating a lie over and over, it's still a lie. I read the Mueller Report, as painful as that was. And I know Mueller is shooting straight and Barr is lying out his ass.

He said it in front of multiple witnesses, shit for brains. He said exactly the opposite of what he said in his press conference. Mueller is talking out of both sides of his mouth.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

This is Mueller saying it right here..
You claim that Mueller denied saying what he just said here?

He said precisely the opposite in front of witnesses three fucking times, shit for brains.

I showed you a video of Mueller saying that if he had confidence the president hadnt committed a crime, he would have said so.
You claim he said the opposite, but you have nothing to back it up. Play the tapes.

The issue under discussion, shit for brains, is his claim that he didn't make a determination solely because DOJ policy prevented him from doing so. That was clearly a lie since he told Barr in front of multiple witnesses that it wasn't the case.

Please quit lying. You're only making a fool of yourself.

No, Barr said he told him. And Barr has no cred on this anymore. Mueller's take on things have never changed. It's been dead on with the report and he has never deviated. Since you, obviously, haven't bothered to read the report, you are just parroting what your handlers tell you to say. In otherwords, you are repeating a lie. And repeating a lie over and over, it's still a lie. I read the Mueller Report, as painful as that was. And I know Mueller is shooting straight and Barr is lying out his ass.

He said it in front of multiple witnesses, shit for brains. He said exactly the opposite of what he said in his press conference. Mueller is talking out of both sides of his mouth.

You seem to believe that if you repeat a lie enough times it becomes the truth. Newsflash: It never does.

 

[dudmuck]

Mueller did in fact follow the OLC decision on indicting sitting president.

He himself denied that was the reason for his decision in front of witnesses three fucking times.

You imbeciles are totally fucking shameless when it comes to lying.

This is Mueller saying it right here..
You claim that Mueller denied saying what he just said here?

He said precisely the opposite in front of witnesses three fucking times, shit for brains.

I showed you a video of Mueller saying that if he had confidence the president hadnt committed a crime, he would have said so.
You claim he said the opposite, but you have nothing to back it up. Play the tapes.

Mueller Takes a Parting Shot at the President, Reinvigorating Dems’ Impeachment Efforts | Conservative Angle

Mueller’s comments regarding his team’s conclusion on obstruction seemed to contradict Attorney General William Barr’s assertion last month that Mueller told him that he “was not saying that but for the OLC opinion, he would have found a crime.”

During a press conference on April 18, Barr noted that there were two other Justice Department officials with him when Mueller “made it clear” that that was not his position.

I would leave it to his description in the report, the special counsel’s own articulation of why he did not want to make a determination as to whether or not there was an obstruction offense.

But I will say that when we met with him, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein and I met with him, along with Ed o’Callaghan, who is the principal associate deputy, on March 5th. We specifically asked him about the OLC opinion and whether or not he was taking a position that he would have found a crime but for the existence of the OLC opinion. And he made it very clear several times that that was not his position. He was not saying that but for the OLC opinion, he would have found a crime. He made it clear that he had not made the determination that there was a crime.

The discrepancy between Mueller’s remarks Wednesday, and what Barr says he and two other top DOJ officials heard in April, is glaring, to say the least.​

You're relying on Barr's account of what Mueller said.
But, since Barr lied to congress, can anything Barr says be trusted?

We can only trust what Mueller actually said.

 

[easyt65]

'Mueller refused to indict because he was bound by law / precedence'

When did the LAW ever stop Mueller from doing anything?

Did the 'LAW' stop Prosecutor Mueller from withholding evidence proving the 4 individuals he was trying to prosecute were innocent?
-- Hell No! He withheld the evidence and sent these men to prison, stealing more than 10 years of their life from them...and he was never held accountable for doing so.
** Not So Honorable: Docs Show Mueller’s FBI Denied Justice To Four Innocent Men

Did the 'LAW' stop FBI Director Mueller from hiding Russian crimes of extortion, intimidation, and bribery as early as 2009?
-- Hell No! "Before the Obama administration approved a controversial deal in 2010 giving Moscow control of a large swath of American uranium, the FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States."
** FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow

Did the 'Law' stop FBI Mueller totally disregard for FISA Court laws and turn a blind eye to his FBI engaging in FISA Court abuses until he was called before a FISA court to explain 75 cases of FISA Court abuses by his FBI?
-- Hell No! "Robert Mueller, the former FBI director and current special prosecutor in the Russia case, once was hauled before the nation’s secret intelligence court to address a large number of instances in which the FBI cheated on sensitive surveillance warrants, according to evidence gathered by congressional investigators. For most of the past 16 years, Mueller’s closed-door encounter escaped public notice because of the secrecy of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC).
** SECRET COURT SAYS F.B.I. AIDES MISLED JUDGES IN 75 CASES
** Mueller hauled before secret FISA court to address FBI abuses in 2002, Congress told


And after telling US AG Barr on 3 separate occasions that the decision that a sitting President can not be indicted' had NOTHING to do with his final decision / report, Mueller suddenly claims it had everything to do with it, that he and his team entered the investigation knowing they could not report the President committed a crime (which snowflakes now insist Mueller did anyway) and they could not refer him for indictment.
--- Barr testified under oath before Congress to Mueller telling him this 3 times. Snowflakes attempting to defend Mueller by making opinionated statements and attacking Barr is WORTHLESS. The ONLY ONE who can prove what Barr claims is a 'lie' is the weasel who just declared he has no intention of testifying under oath before Congress and begged Nadler and others not to call him to do so.


So after ALL of this, Mueller's claim that this rule is the reason he could no indict Trump - OR ANYONE ASSOCIATED WITH HIM - for collusion OR obstruction - is more than 'a little hard to swallow'. The only way he can even attempt to prove what he is claiming is true is to do the #1 thing he is afrain to do / refuses to do: TESTIFY UNDER OATH BEFOFE CONGRESS!

 

[easyt65]

You're relying on Barr's account of what Mueller said. But, since Barr lied to congress, can anything Barr says be trusted? We can only trust what Mueller actually said.

The claim that the US AG lied under oath before Congress is a lie, one meant to discredit him before he and his DOJ can release their investigation findings against exposed Democrat crimes. If Democrats SERIOUSLY believed Barr perjured himself - and could prove it - they would have taken action to charge him with perjury and have him removed as US AG. Instead their momentary accusation was like a fart in the wind - almost immediately after it was released it evaporated and no more serious effort to prove it or act on it was made.

Unlike Mueller, Barr has never hidden evidence to send 4 innocent men to prison for over a decade, has never hidden Russian crimes, never oversaw FISA Court abuses until having to answer for them after the abuses were discovered, never accepted money from millionaire Russian oligarchs to run an operation, etc...

Unlike Mueller, Barr HAS testified under oath before Congress...voluntarily...and answered their questions freely.

But nice attempt to spin, trying to flip reality where you somehow argue Mueller's history in any way shows he has been an 'innocent' 'straight-arrow'...

 

[dudmuck]

You're relying on Barr's account of what Mueller said. But, since Barr lied to congress, can anything Barr says be trusted? We can only trust what Mueller actually said.

The claim that the US AG lied under oath before Congress is a lie, one meant to discredit him before he and his DOJ can release their investigation findings against exposed Democrat crimes. If Democrats SERIOUSLY believed Barr perjured himself - and could prove it - they would have taken action to charge him with perjury and have him removed as US AG. Instead their momentary accusation was like a fart in the wind - almost immediately after it was released it evaporated and no more serious effort to prove it or act on it was made.

Unlike Mueller, Barr has never hidden evidence to send 4 innocent men to prison for over a decade, has never hidden Russian crimes, never oversaw FISA Court abuses until having to answer for them after the abuses were discovered, never accepted money from millionaire Russian oligarchs to run an operation, etc...

Unlike Mueller, Barr HAS testified under oath before Congress...voluntarily...and answered their questions freely.

But nice attempt to spin, trying to flip reality where you somehow argue Mueller's history in any way shows he has been an 'innocent' 'straight-arrow'...

Barr lied to Charlie Crist when asked about being aware of any concerns that Mueller’s investigators might have expressed about his four-page summary of Mueller’s findings.
Mueller himself wrote to the attorney general, saying he was worried that Barr’s summary “threatens to undermine ... public confidence” in the Russia probe.

Mueller: You misrepresented what I wrote in my report.

Barr: No, I didn't.

Mueller: I wrote it. I know what I said.

Barr: No, I didn't.

REPEAT

Trump supporters: Complete exoneration!

Mueller: That's not what I or my report said? My report says the exact opposite!

Trump supporters: Complete exoneration! Also, Mueller is a liar and nobody should believe him! WITCH HUNT!

REPEAT

And just now, Barr doesnt even care about his reputation.

 

[easyt65]

Barr lied to Charlie Crist when asked about being aware of any concerns that Mueller’s investigators might have expressed about his four-page summary of Mueller’s findings.
Mueller himself wrote to the attorney general, saying he was worried that Barr’s summary “threatens to undermine ... public confidence” in the Russia probe.

Mueller: You misrepresented what I wrote in my report.

I appreciate your leftist interpretation of what happened / what was said.

Please provide the link to and the exact quote where Mueller told the US AG, "You misrepresented what I wrote in my report".

I will wait before proceeding further...

 

[dudmuck]

Barr lied to Charlie Crist when asked about being aware of any concerns that Mueller’s investigators might have expressed about his four-page summary of Mueller’s findings.
Mueller himself wrote to the attorney general, saying he was worried that Barr’s summary “threatens to undermine ... public confidence” in the Russia probe.

Mueller: You misrepresented what I wrote in my report.

I appreciate your leftist interpretation of what happened / what was said.

Please provide the link to and the exact quote where Mueller told the US AG, "You misrepresented what I wrote in my report".

I will wait before proceeding further...

"The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions," Mueller wrote in the letter on March 27