Barr Says Mueller Was Wrong, ‘Could’ve Reached a Decision’ on Obstruction

[Weatherman2020]

Can you post the paragraph in the Mueller report where he recommended criminal proceedings?

I didn’t think so.

Where did I say he recommended criminal proceedings? Mueller said the Office of Legal Counsel rule states that he can not criminally charge and try a president, the constitution provides the method to account for the wrong doings of a president.....

That is impeachment inquiries/proceedings.

What’s that have to do with recommendations?

Ethics protocol states you can't accuse a person of a crime, without bringing charges, so they can defend themselves in a court of law of the justice dept accusations...

And that is understandable.... As example, the alleged Atlanta Olympics bomber was accused by the law enforcement in the media, the guy was innocent with no way to defend himself.... he ended up winning a huge lawsuit, if memory serves...

Let’s run with that.

Why was Mueller given tens of millions of dollars?

To investigate the attack by Russians on our democratic elections and if any of the Trump campaign workers in constant contact with these Russians were unwittingly or wittingly working with them, and if the President tried to interfere in this on going official investigation, and to prosecute any unrelated crimes that were exposed by the investigation.

Are you really trying to argue that Mueller should have accused Trump of crimes without charging him?

You’re saying Mueller had nothing to do with Trump?

I did not expect this spin, very creative.

 

[bullwinkle]

BARR: Right, he could have reached a conclusion. The opinion says you can not indict a president while he's in office, but he could have reached a decision about whether it was criminal activity. He had his reasons for not doing it, which he explained. I'm not going to argue about those reasons, but when he didn't make a decision, the deputy attorney general and I felt it was necessary for us, as the heads of the department, to reach that decision.

First of all, I can imagine Barr's response if Meuller HAD announced the conclusion that he announced...the one where he said he could NOT say the President did not engage in criminal activities. The clever wordsmith Barr would have filled the air with gobbledygook that would turn the announcement of criminality upside down and backwards, just as he does all his public announcements. Of course, that is guesswork on my part, but since you believe Mueller made NO conclusions just because he didn't indict because he can't, I figured I'd offer you an opposing judgement.

I do not trust Barr. And I wonder what the 25-30 year old William Barr, law student, would think of the William Barr we see today scurrying to cover the corrupt butt of our first America-destroying President.

 

[SAYIT]

BARR: Right, he could have reached a conclusion. The opinion says you can not indict a president while he's in office, but he could have reached a decision about whether it was criminal activity. He had his reasons for not doing it, which he explained. I'm not going to argue about those reasons, but when he didn't make a decision, the deputy attorney general and I felt it was necessary for us, as the heads of the department, to reach that decision.

First of all, I can imagine Barr's response if Meuller HAD announced the conclusion that he announced...the one where he said he could NOT say the President did not engage in criminal activities. The clever wordsmith Barr would have filled the air with gobbledygook that would turn the announcement of criminality upside down and backwards, just as he does all his public announcements. Of course, that is guesswork on my part, but since you believe Mueller made NO conclusions just because he didn't indict because he can't, I figured I'd offer you an opposing judgement.

I do not trust Barr. And I wonder what the 25-30 year old William Barr, law student, would think of the William Barr we see today scurrying to cover the corrupt butt of our first America-destroying President.

Your post, ironically, is the very "gobbledygook" you claim Barr "would have filled the air with" but not only DO I NOT BELIEVE Mueller made NO conclusions, I have often posted his 11 word conclusion which I believe any first year law student could and would employ successfully in any US court of law: "...this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime..." - R. Mueller III

We do not prosecute nor should congress persecute any American who - after an exhaustive and expensive 2 year witch-hunt - is found to have NOT committed a crime. Agree?