It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
originally posted by: xuenchen
Smells like a Red Herring was launched 😎
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.
A Special Counsel shall comply with the rules, regulations, procedures, practices and policies of the Department of Justice.
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.
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.
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.
Team Mueller's spokeman just made that up?
Well as a Special Counsel, he was free to exercise his independent prosecutorial authority in spite of the guideline.
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.
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.