Posted on 03/31/2019 10:24:43 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney claimed Sunday that special counsel Robert Mueller intended for Attorney General William Barr to determine whether President Donald Trump obstructed justice in the FBI’s investigation into Russian election interference.
“What you saw here is simply Mueller saying, ‘You know what? I’m going to let Barr call this one,’” Mulvaney said, discussing the final report on Mueller’s 22-month probe with host Jonathan Karl on ABC’s “This Week.”
“He had plenty of evidence to say on collusion, ‘Absolutely not,’ and he actually punted over to Barr,” Mulvaney continued. “Again, that’s the way the system can and does work.”
In a four-page letter delivered to Congress last weekend summarizing the “principal conclusions” of Mueller’s nearly 400-page report, Barr wrote that the special counsel “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities” during the 2016 White House race.
But the attorney general revealed that Mueller declined to rule on whether the president obstructed justice, including by firing FBI Director James Comey.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
MUELLER’S REPORT IN THE HANDS OF PIRANHAS PELOSI,
SCHIFF AND NADLER IMPERILS OUR SAFETY AND SECURITY
AMERICANS DEMAND ASSURANCES THEIR SAFETY AND SECURITY IS PROTECTED
NO DEMOCRAT SEES THE MUELLER REPORT UNTIL THESE CONDITIONS ARE MET:
<><> handover all communications from Obama WRT the Trump campaign;
<><> the public release of any and all communication about the decision not to indict Hillary Clinton.
<><> the appointment of a special counsel to investigate the particulars into Hillary Clinton’s email use;
<><> the release of all Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act applications related to Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.
<><> release of all opposition research the pee dossier compiled against candidate Trump;
<><> list the number of spies sent into the Trump campaign;
<><> a compilation of false accusations made against the Trump campaign;
<><> the release of all communications regarding the Obama apparat’s decision to promote fake allegations against the president;
<><> detailed legal assessment into whether there was misuse of elected office;
<><> a complete list of all the actors who constructed the Russian-collusion fairy tale;
<><> testimony under oath of Obama-era CIA Director John Brennan;
<><> testimony under oath of Obama’s former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper.
.
“Mueller declined to rule on”
I thought Mueller was supposed to be a prosecutor, not a judge. And not even that, a “Special Counsel”. He was in no position to make “rulings”.
“What you saw here is simply Mueller saying, ‘You know what? I’m going to let Barr call this one,’” Mulvaney said, discussing the final report on Mueller’s 22-month probe with host Jonathan Karl on ABC’s “This Week.”
Don’t think this was a very smart thing to say.
You are correct. Mueller’s job was to investigate and indict any people he discovered involved in criminal activity related to the campaign. His indictments had nothing to do with Trump’s campaign, he indicted no one in the campaign, and found nothing he could charge Trump with doing. He even gave Barr the opportunity to overrule him and charge Trump. Barr couldn’t find reason to do that.
The End.
Claiming obstruction while at the same time saying innocent of collusion wouldn’t go over very well. What the hell did he obstruct?
There was no crime to be covered up.
“He kept tweeting he was innocent!” Isn’t obstruction.
Trump apparently “obstructed” the effort to find him not guilty.
</sarcasm>
“...special counsel Robert Mueller intended for Attorney General William Barr to determine whether President Donald Trump obstructed justice” — In other words, Mueller tossed the hot potato to Barr as a way to force Barr to rule for or against Trump.
Of course, Comey took it on himself to make up his own ILLEGAL ruling at the FBI that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring the case against HRC.
The DOJ and SC have inconsistent rules and procedures depending on who is under investigation. This continued two-tier justice system is totally undermining our faith in blind justice.
You may be writing sarcasm there, but that is EXACTLY what all the liberal kooks believe. In their heads, there is NO WAY to exonerate somebody of a crime. To them, exoneration PROVES that the evidence was too well hidden by the alleged culprit. Seriously. Hence, the kangaroo “investigation” can continue forever.
Yes, was not Mueller’s job to “rule”.
And remember, Politico really does suck.
Absolutely...and that’s why he left the opening in his statement.
Yes, Mulvaney is all wet here.
Post of the day!!
The issue of obstruction is mute. Any number of people, both in power and out of power have said it was perfectly within Trumps role to fire Comey. The only folks making a stink about this is the media...….and Freepers shouldn’t be too concerned with what the Lamestream media is saying.
Claiming obstruction while at the same time saying innocent of collusion wouldn’t go over very well. What the hell did he obstruct?
This is also what Barr said. One of the required components of Obstruction of Justice is "corrupt intent". Barr wrote:
"the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense."Also on the obstruction, Barr states "most of (the actions by the President) have been the subject of public reporting ...". So, I don't expect there are any surprises there. Mueller is trying to twist Trump's tweets and public statements about firing Comey, or his alleged request that DOJ not go after Flynn (“I hope you can let this go”), as evidence of obstruction, but knows he is on thin ice and punts to Barr.
The whole issue of impeachment is completely off the table for good. But it will still be interesting to see what it says when the Mueller Report comes out.
How could anyone obstruct justice of a crime that never existed?
Mulvaney is correct. No obstruction according to either the SC or AG.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
