PDA

View Full Version : The Two Faces of Robert Mueller, and Trump's Presumption of Guilt



High_Plains_Drifter
05-30-2019, 10:25 AM
Per hack Mueller's "statement" yesterday, this is pretty much it in a nut shell...

=========

GREGG JARRETT: The Two Faces of Robert Mueller, and Trump's Presumption of Guilt


Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller addressed the nation for the first time in two-years Wednesday; raising a series of new questions over his handling of the extensive investigation into allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

“Special Counsel Robert Mueller has peddled two different stories. Only one can be true,” writes Gregg Jarrett.

“In his final act before resigning his position, Mueller told the gathered media on Wednesday that his non-decision decision on whether the president obstructed justice was ‘informed’ by a long-standing opinion by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) at the Justice Department that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime. But according to William Barr, that’s not what Mueller told the attorney general and others during a meeting on March 5, 2017. Here’s what Barr told Senators during his May 1st testimony,” he adds.

“We were frankly surprised that they were not going to reach a decision on obstruction and we asked them a lot about the reasoning behind this. Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting, in response to our questioning, that he emphatically was not saying that but for the OLC opinion he would have found obstruction.”

“Yet, on Wednesday Mueller was telling a different tale. He seemed to argue that he could not have accused the president of obstruction because he was handcuffed by the OLC opinion. Why, then, did Mueller allegedly inform Barr that a special counsel can abandon the opinion if the facts merit it?” asked Jarrett.

“He refused to make a decision to charge the president in a court of law but was more than willing to indict him in the court of public opinion,” he adds. “His report was a non-indictment indictment. It was calumny masquerading as a report.”

Read Gregg Jarrett’s full analysis here...https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/gregg-jarrett-robert-mueller-trump-russia-investigation-report


https://hannity.com/media-room/gregg-jarrett-the-two-faces-of-robert-mueller-and-trumps-presumption-of-guilt/

STTAB
05-30-2019, 11:25 AM
Mueller did to Trump what Comey did to Hillary in 2016. Absolutely ridiculous in BOTH instances. Our justice system does not "clear" people of crimes. It either finds them guilty or not guilty, which does not mean innocent. What it doesn't do is say "well we couldn't prove this person didn't commit a crime"

Pathetic then, and pathetic now. And yes I realize some particulars are different than Hillary's situation. I am merely talking about how Comey handled that and Mueller handled this in press conferences.

High_Plains_Drifter
05-30-2019, 03:56 PM
AG Barr: Mueller Could Have Reached A Decision On Criminal Activity…But He Didn’t


During an exclusive interview with CBS News, Barr was asked about Special Counsel Robert Mueller statement on Wednesday. “I personally felt he could’ve reached a decision,” Barr said.

Referring to the Justice Department policy, Barr said that “The [OLC] opinion says you cannot indict a president while he is in office…but he could’ve reached a decision whether it was criminal activity, but he had his reasons for not doing it, which he explained.”

“I am not going to argue about those reasons but when he didn’t make a decision, the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I felt it was necessary for us as heads of the Department to reach that decision” concluded Barr.

https://saraacarter.com/ag-barr-mueller-could-have-reached-a-decision-on-criminal-activity-but-he-didnt/

Gunny
05-31-2019, 08:52 AM
How can you obstruct justice is the whole investigation from the beginning is a sham? How do you obstruct what isn't there?

And of course Mueller is tap-dancing all over the fence rail, trying to keep his fat ass from teetering off. If he so much as implies the Dems/left were off the rails from the beginning he, and we, already KNOW the crucifixion by Leftard/MSM will be sure to follow. The Dumbtards and MSM still want to blame Trump for something and Mueller is feeding it to keep the piranha off his own ass.

STTAB
05-31-2019, 11:54 AM
How can you obstruct justice is the whole investigation from the beginning is a sham? How do you obstruct what isn't there?

And of course Mueller is tap-dancing all over the fence rail, trying to keep his fat ass from teetering off. If he so much as implies the Dems/left were off the rails from the beginning he, and we, already KNOW the crucifixion by Leftard/MSM will be sure to follow. The Dumbtards and MSM still want to blame Trump for something and Mueller is feeding it to keep the piranha off his own ass.

Gunny , you most certainly CAN obstruct a bogus investigation. For example, If Trump had went into Mueller's offices and removed evidence, that is obstruction of justice because Trump doesn't have the legal authority to remove evidence. The fact that the charge that he worked with the Russians is bogus would have no bearing on that.

And likewise even if the investigation were 100% legit and Trump had fired Rosenstein to put someone in who would fire Mueller, well that's legal and would not be obstruction because Trump 100% has the legal authority to fire Rosenstein.

Gunny
05-31-2019, 06:31 PM
Gunny , you most certainly CAN obstruct a bogus investigation. For example, If Trump had went into Mueller's offices and removed evidence, that is obstruction of justice because Trump doesn't have the legal authority to remove evidence. The fact that the charge that he worked with the Russians is bogus would have no bearing on that.

And likewise even if the investigation were 100% legit and Trump had fired Rosenstein to put someone in who would fire Mueller, well that's legal and would not be obstruction because Trump 100% has the legal authority to fire Rosenstein.You would be correct at a technical level. At the what I consider abuse of authority level, it should all have been thrown out Day One. It's obvious what it was and the hangers-on to pipe dreams still wish it was.

And while you are technically, legally correct, I still take issue with the ability of ass-clown partisans to put anyone in such a position. The left is screwing us out of house and home with its wordsmithing/misinterpretations of the law. As I have staed in the past, the US Constitution was not designed to be a suicide pact and when it is being used it such, THAT is where the line needs to be drawn over who has what Rights.

Rosenstein should have been fired and Sessions too long ago. For the President's AG and Asst, they sure were helpful :rolleyes: