you're denser than the combination of all that gold your ancestors took from the people they shipped off on one-way train trips, fender aka heinrich von goebbels

do you have a report or file that exonerates you from not being exonerated for such actions? we don't have any evidence that shows you do not do these dastardly actions. until such proof is provided we cannot deem you innocent by any means

<---- Licensed social worker. Vetted and tested and deemed appropriate through comprehensive background and character checks to be a protector and caregiver for the most vulnerable people in my state.


This post was edited by Skinned on May 29 2019 07:14pm

New joint statement from Peter Carr (spokesman for Mueller's office) and Kerri Kupec (spokeswoman for the DoJ Office of Public Affairs), just a few minutes ago:



Note: This is effectively confirmation that Barr was telling the truth (duh)
There is no conceivable scenario in which Mueller's office puts out a statement affirming Barr's account as having no conflict with Mueller's statement, if Mueller knew Barr was lying. Like I said originally, if Barr was lying, Mueller would have said so at the time- but for him to make an official statement with the DoJ affirming 'no conflict', is implicit confirmation.

So yes: Mueller definitely said he would not have found Trump obstructed justice even without the OLC precedent, but it was Mueller's position that he didn't want to make a conclusion one way or the other, which precluded saying publicly what he told Barr. And Barr was accurate in what he said

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/446050-did-brits-warn-about-steeles-credibility-before-muellers-probe-congress

"Multiple witnesses have told Congress that, a week before Trump’s inauguration in January 2017, Britain’s top national security official sent a private communique to the incoming administration, addressing his country’s participation in the counterintelligence probe into the now-debunked Trump-Russia election collusion.

Most significantly, then-British national security adviser Sir Mark Lyall Grant claimed in the memo, hand-delivered to incoming U.S. national security adviser Mike Flynn’s team, that the British government lacked confidence in the credibility of former MI6 spy Christopher Steele’s Russia collusion evidence, according to congressional investigators who interviewed witnesses familiar with the memo."

Well, it has to be understood, that w/e the British Govt. believed at the time the Steele Dossier was delivered, they would NOW have to conclude that they lacked confidence in the Dossier.
Any other statement, NOW, would open a whole can of International Politics worms, that they definitely won't want to open.

You might be misreading that
They are saying that Mark Lyall Grant delivered a memo- which has been officially preserved- saying they lacked confidence in Steele at the time. As in, in or around January 13th, 2017, before Comey was fired, before Mueller was appointed. But after the Steele dossier was used to justify the wiretaps on Page and added to the 'annex labeled unverified' in the intelligence briefings.

The claim is very specific about the date and that it can be verified because the memo was immediately archived

This post was edited by Goomshill on May 29 2019 08:42pm

No, I understand what the article... claimed. We as "the people" have zero proof of this. In other words, this memo was not shown to exist... publicly, in January 2017.
If I'm not mistaken, this is the first we have heard about this memo.

uh, I dont think the bolded part is a valid logical conclusion.

the way I understand it, and the way it's phrased in the joint statement, is that Mueller never aimed at reaching a conclusion on obstruction, one way or the other, because of the OLC policy.
since Mueller in his report explicitly states that he doesnt really agree with this policy and thinks that a sitting president could very well be indicted if there was compelling enough evidence, what he really reaffirmed here is the following:

the OLC precedent was not the only thing keeping Mueller from finding Trump guilty of obstruction, correct. but rather in the sense that the evidence for trump's guilt was not so overwhelming that it would have prompted Mueller to challenge/defy the precedent. this is a much weaker statement than "would surely not have indicted even without this policy".
at the same time, there also was not such an overwhelming lack of evidence of obstruction that Mueller could have come to a clear conclusion that Trump did not obstruct justice. hence the "... does not exonerate... otherwise, we would have said so"-stance.


so, simply put, the evidence for obstruction by Trump was somehwere in the middle, not strong enough to overcome the OLC precedent, not strong enough to exonerate Trump. since Mueller felt bound to the precedent under these circumstances, he didnt bother coming to a definitive conclusion on this question because it wouldnt be able to lead to an indictment anyway, and because the investigation of possible obstruction was conducted without aiming at coming to such a conclusion in the first place.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on May 29 2019 09:53pm

But Barr's statement that Mueller agreed with, that he would not find a crime 'but for the OLC precedent', doesn't follow from a consideration of whether he could overcome the OLC precedent. If we're looking into a hypothetical 'but for the OLC precedent', you'd have to remove it from consideration, that's the point. It wouldn't speak to whether Mueller considered overriding a precedent he may or may not have agreed with, and chose to obey in actuality- under the hypothetical, that precedent doesn't exist, and yet he'd still not 'find a crime'.

If Mueller's only thought on the hypothetical was that he wouldn't know whether he'd charge 'but for the precedent'- then that would have been his answer to Barr, not an affirmation. And Mueller not having an opinion would beggar belief, because the man's been wrapped up in it for 2.5 years and even if he set out intending not to draw a conclusion, it was clearly his consideration and he had all the time in the world to make up his mind. So if Mueller tells Barr he wouldn't find a crime but for the OLC opinion, and Mueller affirms Barr's account- we can only conclude that Mueller had sufficient reasons to conclusively state he would not conclusively state Trump had committed a crime. Nevermind the tortured double negative and how this all makes my head spin.

Now we can debate what led Mueller to conclude he wouldn't charge anyway. His own personal feels on appropriate role of the DoJ. Some other legalese precedent. Desire for congress to present the constitutional option. Lack of evidence. Whatever.
But its clear he had a reason. And having read the Mueller Report, its abundantly clear that they simply lacked any evidence of intent. The whole thing boiled down to "Trump has taken actions which aren't inherently criminal and aren't inherently unethical, most of which are constitutional powers of the president like firing Comey, and we have no way to know whether Trump intended to obstruct justice with these actions, and thus we can't charge him". And that lack of intent evidence would readily explain both Mueller's unease with making determinations, his punting to congress and the awkward statements. He can't be a mindreader after all. And it also shows Barr's point of contention over the law with Mueller: Barr's legal theory is that the president can't commit a crime by exercising presidential powers, because the alternative is giving the DoJ authority to second guess the intent of the president. If the DoJ is saying that an inherent power of the presidency becomes illegal when the DoJ determines its intent to be corrupt, then the DoJ is usurping the judgment of the president and ruling with their own discretion. Mueller disagreed with that.

In the end I think it shows Mueller's team ascribing to more a bureaucratic philosophy while barr is more of a constitutionalist politician.

Barr reported that Mueller could not substantiate claims of collusion and reached no conclusion on obstruction. That's quite literally what Mueller found.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-attorney-general-barr-letter-mueller-report

Barr asked Mueller specifically whether or not he'd have indicted the president had it not been for the Justice department memo (re: indictment of a sitting president), Mueller responded in the negative, saying that was not what he was saying. I.e. Even had Mueller been able to indict, he was not saying that he would have.

Mueller saying "I can't clear the president" is inane. That's quite obviously not the role of the prosecutor. Not bringing charges is tantamount to there being insufficient evidence to substantiate those charges, and it is perfectly ok for Trump to consider that vindication in a vacuum.