Mueller Spokesman Issues Clarification: OLC Opinion Had NO Impact On Mueller Decision

[easyt65]

There were over 10 separate instances where the President allegedly obstructed justice in the Mueller report, spelled out clearly, that even a third grader would understand...READ IT

I did read it, troll. You are repeating yourself...

Mueller made it clear no collusion and a decision not to rule either way on Obstruction in the 1st half of his report.

That is all he was tasked to do - make those decisions. Nothing was stopping him from declaring the President committed a crime. A decision to indict / the power to indict was never his - only to report.

His job was not to provide Trump-hating Democrats in Congress with ammo that could not indict but could help to Impeach Trump, but that is what he attempted to do in the 2nd part of his report and in his ' drive-by' presser.

In the presser Mueller declared if he thought the President had not committed any crime he would have said so. THAT IS NOT THE SSNE THING AS CLEARLY DEVLARING THE PRESIDENT BROKE THE LAW, WHICH HE NEVER DID. HE GAVE INNUENDOS AND INSINUATIONS BUT WOULD NOT MAKE THE SIMPLE CALL HIMSELF.

Again, join with me in supporting Democrats Nadler, Schiff, and Jeffries who have declared Mueller needs to testify under oath before Congress to settle this once and for all....

...and in the meantime we will wait for the US IG's report on the exposed FISA Court Abuses, and the results of the DOJ's investigations into Comey admittedly leaking clazsified, Schiff admittedly leaking classified, McCabe being recommended for indictment and under investigation...

My dear, 'IT' is FAR from 'OVER'!

BWUHAHAHAHA....

 

[Doc7505]

It's already clear on what Mueller is stating on that....

OBVIOUSLY NOT...

Democrats Nadler, Schiff, and Jeffries have all declared it is NOT and that they want Mueller to testify.

Funny how the very Democrats you seek to defend contradict your claims and prove you have only your own opinion, not fact.

Mueller suggested it be handed off, to the ONLY group of people who can do anything on it that our constitution provides, the congress... he did not make a decision on it, one way or the other.... it's up to others to decide wrong doing or not.... that's Congress.

Oh, and impeachment is not the only way for Congress to act, they could simply sanction a president for wrong doing,

YOU keep trying to claim 'this is what Mueller really meant / said' when Nadler, Schiff, and Jeffries have all said Mueller's report is NOT enough and that he needs to testify under oath and answer questions....

Why are you and Mueller so against that?

I am NOT against Mueller testifying before congress silly one! I WANT him to.


--------------------------------------------
impeachment proceedings, is simply the grand jury gathering evidence, to determine if a law was broken and an indictment issued if there was.... like in any criminal case...

only with a president, it is the congress judicial committee that is the grand jury, and instead of indictments, it is articles of impeachment drawn up.... then the case goes to a criminal court, if a grand jury and not a president.... and if congress, it goes to the senate.

so, impeachment articles, is the same as indictments/charges, and the court where the accused can defend themselves, is in the senate, with our chief justice as the judge overseeing the trial, and each senator, is the 'jury'. IF convicted on the articles/indictments by 2/3's of the Senators, then, and only then, a president is removed from office. Nothing else can be done by congress.... they CAN NOT send anyone to jail for being impeached and/or removed

mueller is not ordering congress to write articles of impeachment, he is simply saying it is out of his hands, he investigated, he gathered the facts, now it is up to congress to decide on wrong doing or not.... is how I read it.

~~~~~~
In this case according to Mueller and his team, there wasn't sufficient evidence to charge him with Obstruction. But that's no problem for a Democrat majority committee. Like Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria they'll find a crime to fit the man.

"Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime"

Obviously the Progressive Marxist Socialist/DSA Jerry Nadler is taking a page from Beria.

 

[Lesh]

In this case according to Mueller and his team, there wasn't sufficient evidence to charge him with Obstruction

Completely untrue.

He laid out mountains of evidence of Obstruction and stated CLEARLY that DOJ policy prevented him from charging and that there are OTHER appropriate means to do so. Those other means are Congressional oversight and Impeachment.

He laid out a roadmap for Impeachment

 

[BlindBoo]

Joint DOJ?

That's BARR speaking...and we know he's a blatant liar

No Barr didn't lie. Mueller didn't say "But for the OLC opinion, I would have found the President obstructed justice."

We know precisely what he said. He wrote it down for everyone to read.

The rubes needed some red meat and Donnie needs a little butthurt cream.

Mueller stated that if he believed the President had not committed a crime he would have said so....which infers if he had thought the President had committed a crime he WOULD have said so, which he never clearly stated..

He also went to great lengths to insinuate it was because of the OCL that he did not declare Trump has committed a crime and why he did not indict him.

Mueller's spokesman, not the DOJ released the 'clarification' that Mueller did not mean that the OCL decision had anything to do with Mueller's final decision.

Instead of doing what you snowflakes usually do, which is defend the conspirators and claim Trump is lying and Barr is covering up for him, why don't you have Nadler settle this once and for all by subpoenaing Mueller and force him to testify? That way he can clear the air, say what he really meant, and answer some questions about his investigation!

Oh wait...that's right - Mueller begged Nadler not to call him to testify before Congress during his Press Conference...

The last place wants to find himself is under oath before Congress....

Mueller is spinning so furiously that he's going to drill himself right into the ground.

Actually his written record speaks for itself. It's like the spindle on the old vinyl record players, everything is spinning around it.

 

[easyt65]

Actually his written record speaks for itself. It's like the spindle on the old vinyl record players, everything is spinning around it.

...and yet Democrats Nadler, Schiff, and Jeffries all contradict your statement by having declared Mueller's report is NOT enough, that questions remain, and that Mueller needs to testify under oath.

 

[bripat9643]

It's already clear on what Mueller is stating on that....

OBVIOUSLY NOT...

Democrats Nadler, Schiff, and Jeffries have all declared it is NOT and that they want Mueller to testify.

Funny how the very Democrats you seek to defend contradict your claims and prove you have only your own opinion, not fact.

Mueller suggested it be handed off, to the ONLY group of people who can do anything on it that our constitution provides, the congress... he did not make a decision on it, one way or the other.... it's up to others to decide wrong doing or not.... that's Congress.

Oh, and impeachment is not the only way for Congress to act, they could simply sanction a president for wrong doing,

Where did he state the decision should be "handed off?"

when he said he could not do it in the criminal sense but the Constitution provides the way, a process in which a president can be addressed for wrong doing... no one is above the law.
THAT is CONGRESS, the constitution gives that power and process, to congress.

Do what? please quote what he said that you believes supports your claim.

 

[BlindBoo]

It's already clear on what Mueller is stating on that....

OBVIOUSLY NOT...

Democrats Nadler, Schiff, and Jeffries have all declared it is NOT and that they want Mueller to testify.

Funny how the very Democrats you seek to defend contradict your claims and prove you have only your own opinion, not fact.

Mueller suggested it be handed off, to the ONLY group of people who can do anything on it that our constitution provides, the congress... he did not make a decision on it, one way or the other.... it's up to others to decide wrong doing or not.... that's Congress.

Oh, and impeachment is not the only way for Congress to act, they could simply sanction a president for wrong doing,

Where did he state the decision should be "handed off?"

when he said he could not do it in the criminal sense but the Constitution provides the way, a process in which a president can be addressed for wrong doing... no one is above the law.
THAT is CONGRESS, the constitution gives that power and process, to congress.

Please quote what he actually said.

Here he was talking about the OLC opinion. "And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing."

 

[BlindBoo]

Actually his written record speaks for itself. It's like the spindle on the old vinyl record players, everything is spinning around it.

...and yet Democrats Nadler, Schiff, and Jeffries all contradict your statement by having declared Mueller's report is NOT enough, that questions remain, and that Mueller needs to testify under oath.

Considered part of the everything spinning. Trumpublicans said they want him to testify in the Senate too.

 

[bripat9643]

Joint DOJ?

That's BARR speaking...and we know he's a blatant liar

No Barr didn't lie. Mueller didn't say "But for the OLC opinion, I would have found the President obstructed justice."

We know precisely what he said. He wrote it down for everyone to read.

The rubes needed some red meat and Donnie needs a little butthurt cream.

Mueller stated that if he believed the President had not committed a crime he would have said so....which infers if he had thought the President had committed a crime he WOULD have said so, which he never clearly stated..

He also went to great lengths to insinuate it was because of the OCL that he did not declare Trump has committed a crime and why he did not indict him.

Mueller's spokesman, not the DOJ released the 'clarification' that Mueller did not mean that the OCL decision had anything to do with Mueller's final decision.

Instead of doing what you snowflakes usually do, which is defend the conspirators and claim Trump is lying and Barr is covering up for him, why don't you have Nadler settle this once and for all by subpoenaing Mueller and force him to testify? That way he can clear the air, say what he really meant, and answer some questions about his investigation!

Oh wait...that's right - Mueller begged Nadler not to call him to testify before Congress during his Press Conference...

The last place wants to find himself is under oath before Congress....

Mueller is spinning so furiously that he's going to drill himself right into the ground.

Actually his written record speaks for itself. It's like the spindle on the old vinyl record players, everything is spinning around it.

His written record says "no collusion. No obstruction."

 

[bripat9643]

OBVIOUSLY NOT...

Democrats Nadler, Schiff, and Jeffries have all declared it is NOT and that they want Mueller to testify.

Funny how the very Democrats you seek to defend contradict your claims and prove you have only your own opinion, not fact.

Mueller suggested it be handed off, to the ONLY group of people who can do anything on it that our constitution provides, the congress... he did not make a decision on it, one way or the other.... it's up to others to decide wrong doing or not.... that's Congress.

Oh, and impeachment is not the only way for Congress to act, they could simply sanction a president for wrong doing,

Where did he state the decision should be "handed off?"

when he said he could not do it in the criminal sense but the Constitution provides the way, a process in which a president can be addressed for wrong doing... no one is above the law.
THAT is CONGRESS, the constitution gives that power and process, to congress.

Please quote what he actually said.

Here he was talking about the OLC opinion. "And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing."

No, that doesn't say anything about "handing off" the determination.

 

[Doc7505]

In this case according to Mueller and his team, there wasn't sufficient evidence to charge him with Obstruction

Completely untrue.

He laid out mountains of evidence of Obstruction and stated CLEARLY that DOJ policy prevented him from charging and that there are OTHER appropriate means to do so. Those other means are Congressional oversight and Impeachment.

He laid out a roadmap for Impeachment

~~~~~~
Conclusion of Mueller Report
"if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

 

[easyt65]

Here he was talking about the OLC opinion. "And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing."

Speaking of 'spinning'.....

Mueller (and snowflakes) claims he could not accuse the President of wrong-doing...but his entire 2nd page of his report was listing events and innuendos to insinuate the President engaged in wrong-doing while officially refusing to make that call.

Even YOU admit Mueller claimed he could not OFFICIALLY accuse the President of wrong-doing but UN-OFFICIALLY DID SO in that 2nd page of his report, a report in which the bottom line conclusion was NO collusion & NO DECISION made on obstruction.

 

[BlindBoo]

Mueller suggested it be handed off, to the ONLY group of people who can do anything on it that our constitution provides, the congress... he did not make a decision on it, one way or the other.... it's up to others to decide wrong doing or not.... that's Congress.

Oh, and impeachment is not the only way for Congress to act, they could simply sanction a president for wrong doing,

Where did he state the decision should be "handed off?"

when he said he could not do it in the criminal sense but the Constitution provides the way, a process in which a president can be addressed for wrong doing... no one is above the law.
THAT is CONGRESS, the constitution gives that power and process, to congress.

Please quote what he actually said.

Here he was talking about the OLC opinion. "And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing."

No, that doesn't say anything about "handing off" the determination.

I don't think anyone claimed those were his exact words did they? How about a "quick pitch" to the running back on an end sweep. Perhaps, he "passed" the ball......Oh I know, a "bounce pass"?

But the ball is in the House's "court", so to speak. Now about that redacted material in Muellers' report......

 

[bripat9643]

Where did he state the decision should be "handed off?"

when he said he could not do it in the criminal sense but the Constitution provides the way, a process in which a president can be addressed for wrong doing... no one is above the law.
THAT is CONGRESS, the constitution gives that power and process, to congress.

Please quote what he actually said.

Here he was talking about the OLC opinion. "And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing."

No, that doesn't say anything about "handing off" the determination.

I don't think anyone claimed those were his exact words did they? How about a "quick pitch" to the running back on an end sweep. Perhaps, he "passed" the ball......Oh I know, a "bounce pass"?

But the ball is in the House's "court", so to speak. Now about that redacted material in Muellers' report......

Spin, spin, spin.

 

[BlindBoo]

Here he was talking about the OLC opinion. "And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing."

Speaking of 'spinning'.....

Mueller (and snowflakes) claims he could not accuse the President of wrong-doing...but his entire 2nd page of his report was listing events and innuendos to insinuate the President engaged in wrong-doing while officially refusing to make that call.

Even YOU admit Mueller claimed he could not OFFICIALLY accuse the President of wrong-doing but UN-OFFICIALLY DID SO in that 2nd page of his report, a report in which the bottom line conclusion was NO collusion & NO DECISION made on obstruction.

It was his job to investigate an provide the evidence he found. He clearly stated his reasons for not accusing a sitting president. What is not in the report is that there was "no collusion" and "no obstruction". That's Trumpyberra and Barr's spin, because Mueller refused to accuse the "Dirty" Don.

 

[easyt65]

It was his job to investigate an provide the evidence he found.

He was appointed Special Counsel (when neither an investigation or his appointment was warranted) to investigate and report to the DOJ if a crime had been committed or not. His decision was NO crime of collusion and NO decision on obstruction.

Again, Mueller was pissed his and his hand-picked bias team's 2nd page analysis and list of innuendos and insinuations of guilt - meant to incite House Democrats to Impeach the President - was omitted from Barr's summary of Mueller's bottom line.

Initially the report was only supposed to be seen by the US AG.

I find it peculiar that Mueller and his team wrote that 2nd page seemingly specifically to incite the Democrats - who were not even going to see the report - only to have Democrats make this massive public push to see the entire report, as if they were tipped off by someone who knew what was in that 2nd page and told 'make sure that comes out in public'.

1. Mueller claimed he could not OFFICIALLY report a President committed a crime or indict...but snowflakes continue to declare that is exactly what Mueller UN-OFFICIALLY did in the 2nd page of his report

2. Mueller's 'analysis' does NOTHING to change his overall decision in his report: NO collusion, NO decision on obstruction (meaning NO proof of guilt was provided, especially since Guilt can ONLY be found in a court of law).

 

[BlindBoo]

It was his job to investigate an provide the evidence he found.

He was appointed Special Counsel (when neither an investigation or his appointment was warranted) to investigate and report to the DOJ if a crime had been committed or not. His decision was NO crime of collusion and NO decision on obstruction.

Again, Mueller was pissed his and his hand-picked bias team's 2nd page analysis and list of innuendos and insinuations of guilt - meant to incite House Democrats to Impeach the President - was omitted from Barr's summary of Mueller's bottom line.

Initially the report was only supposed to be seen by the US AG.

I find it peculiar that Mueller and his team wrote that 2nd page seemingly specifically to incite the Democrats - who were not even going to see the report - only to have Democrats make this massive public push to see the entire report, as if they were tipped off by someone who knew what was in that 2nd page and told 'make sure that comes out in public'.

1. Mueller claimed he could not OFFICIALLY report a President committed a crime or indict...but snowflakes continue to declare that is exactly what Mueller UN-OFFICIALLY did in the 2nd page of his report

2. Mueller's 'analysis' does NOTHING to change his overall decision in his report: NO collusion, NO decision on obstruction (meaning NO proof of guilt was provided, especially since Guilt can ONLY be found in a court of law).

The introduction to Vol 2 has the answers you seek.

Begins on page 213.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

 

[Zorro!]

Hilarious...Mueller's Office backtracked / issued a 'clarification' of what Mueller claimed in his 'Drive-By' press conference yesterday (and his report), contradicting his own statements while shooting a huge hole in the snowflake narrative of how Trump was not found / declared 'guilty' because of the OLC decision that sitting Presidents can not be indicted....

"Mueller refused to allege a crime. So evidence of something -- something that wasn’t prosecutable right now, and that Mueller refused to suggest amounted to a crime for the future. Mueller himself said the investigation was justified because perhaps it would have resulted in evidence that “could be used if there were co-conspirators who could be charged now.” But Mueller didn’t charge co-conspirators in obstruction."

"Mueller’s second justification is more obvious: he essentially said he was doing Congress’ impeachment groundwork for them. “The Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing,” Mueller stated. This is an invitation to impeachment."

"A criminal investigation that cannot possibly result in charges is a conflict in terms. Mueller never should have agreed to such an investigation under the law, and Mueller’s own standard makes that clear."

DOJ, Mueller’s Office Release Joint Statement Clarifying Mueller’s Comments

Barr already told us that this is what the lying sonofabitch Mueller said at the time.

‘Not Exonerated’ Is Not a Standard Any Free Country Should Accept

http://bit.ly/2HJhYnt via @CharlesCWCooke

Robert Mueller attacks the foundation of American Liberal Democracy:

“If we had had confidence that the president had clearly not committed a crime we would have said so.” ~Dirty Bob Mueller
​

That’s not how it works in America. Investigators look for evidence that a crime was committed, and, if they don’t find enough to contend that a crime was a committed, they say “We didn’t find enough to contend that a crime was committed.” They don't look for evidence that a crime was not committed and then say, “We couldn’t find evidence of innocence.”

For the architect of an investigation to keep saying “We aren’t exonerating our target” is extraordinary. Innocence is the default position in this country. If a person doesn’t have enough evidence that someone committed a crime to contend that a crime was committed, he is obliged to presume his innocence. “Not exonerated” is not a standard in our system, and it shouldn’t be one in our culture, either.

 

[easyt65]

The introduction to Vol 2 has the answers you seek. Begins on page 213.
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

Actually NOT! The only answer Mueller was tasked to give in his report was 'DID THE PRESIDENT COMMIT CRIMES OF COLLUSION AND OBSTRUCTION?' Mueller's answer was, 'NO CRIME OF COLLUSION, NO DECISION EITHER WAY ON OBSTRUCTION'.

End of story.

AGAIN, as I have proven numerous times with numerous links and quotes from Mueller, Mueller declared Barr did not say anything false, inaccurate, or misleading in his summary of his bottom line finding regarding collusion and obstruction: 'NO collusion, NO decision on obstruction'.

What Mueller was pissed about was that Barr's summary omitted his entire 2nd page of events written to provide innuendos and insinuations of 'guilt', a decision he made clear in his 1st page he refused to make. He was pissed because that entire 2nd page was written to incite House Democrats into Impeaching the President, and by not releasing that 2nd page to the public Barr had prevented Mueller from 'stirring the pot' and inciting the Democrats.

Mueller actually claimed he and his team went into their investigation with the (false) understanding they could not REPORT a President had broken the law or indict a sitting President...except that entire 2nd page is a VIOLATION of what Mueller claimed he and his team understood they could NOT do.
-- Snowflakes continue to make the same contradictory argument - 'Mueller could not report a President committed a crime while declaring Mueller did just that in the 2nd page of his report.


At the end of the day, at the end of Mueller's investigation (that should NOT have taken 2 years), what is left is THIS:

1. NO COLLUSION WAS PROVEN, NO DECISION (OF GUILT...OR INNOCENSE) WAS MADE ON OBSTRUCTION.
-- 'In America, citizens are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, which did not happen here, which means Trump is innocent due to a decision by Mueller not to make a decision either way and based on the fact that Trump was not found guilty of any crime.

2. MUELLER HAS DECLARED THE INVESTIGATION IS OVER - HE HAS RESIDNED AND 'CLOSED SHOP'.

3. WHILE LEAVING BEHIND A COMPLETE MESS OF CONTROVERSY AND UN-ANSWERED QUESTIONS, HE PLEADED WITH HOUSE DEMOCRATS NOT TO SUBPOENA HIM TO TESTIFY AND ANSWER QUESTIONS BEFORE CONGRESS.
-- Democrats Nadler, Schiff, and Jeffries have stated Mueller's report is not enough, questions remain, and he needs to testify under oath before Congress....and for that to happen THEY are going to have to subpoena Mueller to do so...or Senate Republicans will need to.

4. House Democrats - without the answer Nadler, Schiff, and Jeffries insist need to be answered - are going to have to make the decision to proceed or not with Impeachment proceedings against the President...or let it go...while waiting for the US IG to release his report on exposed FBI/DOJ FISA Court Abuses and for the DOJ to wrap up their investigations of potential Democrat crimes.

 

[easyt65]

‘Not Exonerated’ Is Not a Standard Any Free Country Should Accept'

Democrats and snowflakes also attempted to declare during their ruthless political, yet shameful, assault on Judge Kavanaugh that in THEIR America Conservatives are 'GUILTY until Proven Innocent' and that the 'burden of proof' was on the ACCUSED, not the accuser.

Thank God we do not actually live in THEIR America, that they have failed to 'fundamentally change' the United States into what they want it to be.