It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mueller Office and DOJ issue joint statement after Mueller statement

page: 2
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2019 @ 11:38 PM
link   
With loads of conflicting material in the Mueller Report and today's Statements, Some People are starting to wonder if some of the "evidence" listed in the "Obstruction" sections was planted after determining some of that "evidence" was deemed false.




posted on May, 29 2019 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Politico mentions the joint statement and then immediately gives a voice to those trying to explain it away...


Both Barr and Mueller on Wednesday evening sought to tamp down the fury over their perceived split. In a rare joint statement from Department of Justice spokeswoman Kerri Kupec and Special Counsel spokesman Peter Carr, the two said, “The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice. The Special Counsel’s report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination — one way or the other — about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements.”

That may technically be true. But Barr’s critics insisted Wednesday that it was a misleading characterization, one that gave the impression that Mueller had said the evidence did not support indicting Trump. Schiff’s statement insisted that Mueller “made clear that, because of the Department’s own policy, it is left it to Congress — not the attorney general — to evaluate and further investigate the president’s misconduct.”

Mueller allies said they thought the special counsel was seeking to clarify why he declined to reach a conclusion on whether the president obstructed justice rather than to pick a fight with the attorney general.


+4 more 
posted on May, 30 2019 @ 12:19 AM
link   



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 04:02 PM
link   
President Trump says something big is about to be implemented at the US Mexico border between now and Saturday.

m.theepochtimes.com...



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen


Smells like a Red Herring was launched 😎


Today President Trump called Mueller a Never Trumper.
He also said Mueller applied for the job of FBI Director
and did not get the job.

Wow, talk about a conflict of interest. Mueller should have
never been allowed to carry out this investigation.

The fact that President Trump allowed this, even
after knowing the conflict of interest is just mind
boggling...and still the SC came up with no collusion.

It is crystal clear at this point to see; Mueller was
part of the Insurance Policy. If Trump doesn't like
him that is all I need to know.



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

Mueller's boss, AG William Barr, said today that Bob Mueller could have made a determination whether or not President Trump committed any crimes of Obstruction.

www.foxnews.com...

Since Mueller could not bring himself to reach a decision, Barr and Rosenstein did. "NO ILLEGAL OBSTRUCTION".
edit on 5/30/2019 by carewemust because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Growing calls for Mueller himself to be investigated: dailycaller.com...

And Disbarred: twitter.com...



posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

I also am not able to source the quote, however, here are Bob Mueller's actual words:


First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could now be charged.

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.

And beyond Department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge.

So that was the Justice Department policy and those were the principles under which we operated. From them we concluded that we would not reach a determination – one way or the other – about whether the President committed a crime. That is the office’s final position and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the President.
www.justice.gov...

The bolded statement,
And beyond Department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge.
is the only possible thing that Mueller said that could be a reason to say that it wasn't only the DOJ opinion that bound Mueller to his decision, it was also his sense of fairness!

So that was the Justice Department policy and those were the principles under which we operated.

The DOJ employees and talking heads can say anything they want, gaslight and try to change your perception. It does change what Bob Mueller actually said, and what Bill Barr actually said.



posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 03:47 PM
link   
lol
read the rules
you are full of crap
mueller has no ability to go to congress or anyone else
he was a doj employee
www.law.cornell.edu...



A Special Counsel shall comply with the rules, regulations, procedures, practices and policies of the Department of Justice.

if mueller had an issue:



Should the Special Counsel conclude that the extraordinary circumstances of any particular decision would render compliance with required review and approval procedures by the designated Departmental component inappropriate, he or she may consult directly with the Attorney General.

so all the bs about telling congress is just that bs
also



The Special Counsel and staff shall be subject to disciplinary action for misconduct and breach of ethical duties under the same standards and to the same extent as are other employees of the Department of Justice.

if mueller steps outside the rules he is screwed
as to notification:
www.law.cornell.edu...



At the conclusion of the Special Counsel's work, he or she shall provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel.

this is why mueller will not say ANYTHING outside his report and will under no circumstances take questions

rules
how the left hates them



posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

So Team Mueller's spokeman just made that up? Or you continue to read something into Mueller's words that is not there... It's a tough call, but I'm going to go with the first thing...



Also, there are three sources which mention the joint statement from the special Counsel office and the DOJ listed in the thread. Two in the OP...
edit on 1-6-2019 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert




Team Mueller's spokeman just made that up?


I can't find anything official from the DOJ or the OSC on the quote, so maybe, However, team Mueller's spokesman's words don't override Bob Mueller's words, which were clear.
edit on 1-6-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 05:13 PM
link   
Well as a Special Counsel, he was free to exercise his independent prosecutorial authority in spite of the guideline. That's the whole point of a Special Counsel. For him to find and declare he has sufficient evidence to prosecute (or not).

That he chose not to do so is his own folly, but if he did chose not to make a decision before starting, as he alleges, then he definitely has not made a decision that a crime was committed but could not indict, right? So saying he really said that he found a crime would indict, but could not is not true. They apparently did not make any sort of decision by punting back to Barr.

Which is exceptionally odd because he was appointed to conduct investigative and prosecutorial decisions which would be independent of Barr... That's literally his only reason to exist as Special Counsel.



posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert




Well as a Special Counsel, he was free to exercise his independent prosecutorial authority in spite of the guideline.


Well, Mueller didn't disagree with the guidelines, so he didn't see any reason to defy policy. Mueller was appointed to work within the guidelines and policy of the DOJ. Barr would have overruled him anyway, just like he overruled Mueller's use of the guidelines and the official DOJ policy to refer the question of obstruction to Congress.


edit on 1-6-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

No, if Mueller overrode him, Barr would have to report to Congress that Mueller wanted to indict him for obstruction, but that he (Barr) sided with the OLC decision. That's Congress's opening. The statute is written so that Mueller has independence, and the decision-making is in his hands, or it heads to Congress so they can execute oversight. The whole set up is to keep the AG out of the decision-making loop or to have it drop in Congress's lap if the AG overrules the Special Counsel.

Instead Mueller handed it directly to Barr to make a decision. Curious, no?

If Barr was going to make decisions in the investigation and prosecution, there's no need tor a Special Counsel. You appoint a Special Counsel to take the AG/DOJ out of the loop and have an independent process re:decision-making.
edit on 1-6-2019 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 10:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha


and the official DOJ policy to refer the question of obstruction to Congress.

Site that policy
As there is none such

Mueller was to give info ONLY to barr
You are full of crap



posted on Jun, 6 2019 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen




Some People are starting to wonder if some of the "evidence" listed in the "Obstruction" sections was planted after determining some of that "evidence" was deemed false.


Some people like who? Nobody is wondering that and nobody is saying that the evidence was deemed false either.

But I like how you try to sow doubt by claiming this. Trump does this too. Gives false authentication to statements by saying some people say.... He's like a gossipy old man.



posted on Jun, 6 2019 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Ver̃y Inter̃estingk .......


(Aug 2, 2017) Mueller’s Role in Delivering Uranium to Russians Raises Questions


The "Ir̃ony"

While the revelation of a secret meeting involving Robert Mueller in the delivery of uranium to the Russians, by itself, does not prove anything of a criminal or unethical nature, it does raise questions that merit an investigation.
💥😁💥



posted on Jun, 6 2019 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

quite a few folks have forgot that this report CANNOT be a guideline for impeachment. It was never supposed to be PUBLIC, by law, that Democrats created.

Besides, the Democrats can't Impeach Trump, it will NEVER happen, because, to do so would mean they acknowledge Trump as the President of the United States.

that realization would send the snowflakes over the edge.

"Not MY President" 😊😊😁😁🤣🤣💋X_X:

[I stump for Trump, I squash Amash]
edit on 6-6-2019 by thedigirati because: Kick off to 2020 election



posted on Jun, 7 2019 @ 12:43 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Did anyone approach the Trump team that was NOT connected to the IC here, in the UK, or Australia? Wow



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join