Some are…some arent. Trump loses in 2020 you gonna call out your friends? Nope you wont
Complains about everyone parroting taking points… immediately gushes about his favorite pundit lawyer telling him what his new marching orders are. 
2 Likes
Haven’t you insisted OLC guidelines had absolutely nothing to do with the decision not to charge him? Did we not learn today that you couldn’t have been more wrong?
I apologize if I am confusing you with another poster.
Quote the passages you’re referring to.
Yeah. I thought it was hilarious. Barr was very careful in the language he used there. Very, very crafty. You had to parse it very carefully to understand that what he was saying is that he (Barr) did not find evidence to charge Trump with obstruction independent of the OLC guidance. What he really, really wanted you to think was that Mueller made the decision that way.
And, all the Trumpists fell in line, thinking it was Mueller’s language, not Barr’s.
Barr is good at what he does, which is covering for bad men.
1 Like
We are quoting Mueller… sorry if we don’t just make ■■■■ up out of thin air like… proclaiming a bit piece without providing evidence
What I have been saying is what he said today and what he said in the report. That those guidelines were the basis for not making a decision on whether or not the President committed a crime. That has been falsely represented as “but for the guidelines, Mueller would have charged Trump”. No, he did not say that in the report and did not say it today.
As far as going beyond that, we only have Barr’s statement that when he asked if Mueller would have charged Trump but for the guideline, Mueller said no. Was that a correct interpretation of what Mueller said or meant? Beats me. Mueller refused to take any questions or we might have the answer to that.
Ugh
The order appointing me Special Counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation and we kept the office of the Acting Attorney General apprised of the progress of our work.
As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.
We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime. The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision.
It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that too is prohibited.
The Special Counsel’s Office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.
1 Like
5 years sound about right?
Who was the larger fish?
Nope, Barr was misrepresenting something that never happened. Mueller never even considered the decision to charge because of the OLC policy, but Barr implied that he had.
At best, it means Barr effectively asked Mueller if the OLC policy effected a decision that was never made… of course it did not impact something that did not happen. 
See how that works?
No matter how many times you say it, not having confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime is not the same thing as saying you know that he did commit a crime. Its just not.
It is saying that maybe yes, but they are not going to look into it further.
And charging a crime should not be ambiguous.
The fact is, as Barr noted, it depends on “corrupt intent”. Barr decided there was none. Mueller didn’t have high confidence that there was no corrupt intent, but decided not to decide.
I tried it. They can’t stop hating long enough to think anything through. 
Neither you nor I were present in that conversation between Barr and Mueller.
Good thing Mueller spoke directly to us this morning!
Right. And he left us in basically the same spot we were in three years ago. Nuttin.
You read his speech and got that out of it?
Nope, he cleared up the false narratives on obstruction pretty well.
As for the weaklings in the Senate, yeah, still on course for 2020.
1 Like
Yes,
Well, not completely. He did make it clear that, after all the interviews, analysis and documents, they did not have enough evidence to say that anyone on the Trump Campaign cooperated/coordinated with the Russians.
He did leave it up in the air for others to decide if Trump were guilty of obstructing their useless investigation that found nothing. That’s ok. Barr, as head of the DOJ, stepped in to make the decision.
