Let's roll back a little. The job of the special prosecutor, or any other prosecutor is to complete the investigation and either ask the grand jury to return the indictment or decline to charge the case. When prosecutor decline to charge, they made that decision because they do not believe that investigated conduct constitute the crime, for which all the elements can be proven to the satisfaction of the jury beyond reasonable doubt.
Prosecutors are not in business of establishing the innocence, or exonerating investigated person. In our justice system innocence is presumed, and there is never need for the prosecutor to determine weather someone is innocent. On the contrary, prosecutors are in business of proving crime, and Mueller failed to prove that crime existed.
The president doesn't have to prove that he's innocent. He is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and Mueller investigation, as his report states, does not provide proof of collusion, or obstruction of justice. Our criminal justice does not have "exoneration" in its vocabulary, therefore the "exoneration" statements are simply political statements, and being political is not part of prosecutor duties.
About "perjury trap"... Pelosi, and others, called Barr a liar. They filed complaints with Maryland and Virginia bars to try to get AG Barr punished and disbarred, and they're talking about his impeachment. The goal is to discredit him enough to prevent his investigation into Democrats, FBI, and others interfering into our elections.
Democrats are completely out of control and they're trying to remove or impeach anybody who threatens their agenda, pretty much every Republican. At this moment, their biggest problem is AG Barr who openly said that he will investigate everything and everyone connected to spying on Trump campaign, including issuing FISA warrants, etc. Bottom line, Barr did not lie. He poked into hornet nest, and they don't like it at all.
his report states, does not provide proof of collusion, or obstruction of justice.
Mueller report conclusion "quote" if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice , We Would State So
That a pretty clear and self explanatory statement that Mueller and his team believe that Trump committed obstruction of Justice (OOJ) or they would otherwise said so. The report is self states specific instances of OOJ.
Barr by saying that there was no obstruction of Justice misquoted an important part of the conclusion and the report itself
Barr is of no consequences to Congress because he has already shown that he is not up to the task of being the AG for the justice system. Instead he has shown himself to be Trumps boy. IF he cannot recluse himself when he is irrelevant
If he thinks he has something thing bring it on, Nobody is worried about it because he has to prove it not just say it , If he believes he can take down Mueller or the FBI , good luck with that.
Trump is the deep state that repubs fear
If trump is innocent then the process would clear him but since he has to lie, obstruct, and place people beside him who say things that he likes shows how insecure that he is in his decision making processes.
What specific instances of "obstruction of justice" are in report? Page number, please.
You don't like conclusions that AG reached. Who cares if you don't like it, or Democrats don't like it. Left claims that AG Barr misled American people, and that's another bogus claim. He did not, and why that even matters, since report is available for anyone to read.
The only thing that Mueller is objecting about seems to be that he wasn't getting the spin and narrative that he wanted. Well, that's not the role of the prosecutor, to write letter to AG because he's not happy the way media is treating his 4 page summary.
Back to AG Barr and hearing he refused to attend. What exactly is the point of that hearing?
The report has been released, with classified information being redacted, despite the fact that the regulations (laws) doesn't require it, despite the fact that AG is one who has final say, and despite the fact that Mueller didn't seek to indict the president, and he himself told AG and Deputy AG, and others in DOJ on more than one occasion that has nothing to do with DOJ position that they can't indict the sitting president.
Could Mueller objected to those DOJ opinions? Of course he could have, and could have made big issue if he had something to back it up. He could've said in his report "I wanted to indict the president, but because rules say I can't, DOJ opinion say I can't, AG say's I can't, so I didn't." Did he write anything like that?
No.
He didn't, because he couldn't find anything to indict the president, he had no basis for that. If president broke the law, that would be in report.Since he didn't, he wrote crap that insinuate to something, and left it to media and retards in Congress to try to make something out of it.
AG Barr did nothing wrong, quite opposite, he did everything by the law and that is what scares Democrats. He's coming after law breakers and this conspiracy to unseat the president goes quite high. This will be fun to watch.
