Mueller Office and DOJ issue joint statement after Mueller statement

Joint statement from Special Counsel office and DOJ

But a joint statement by Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec and Peter Carr, a spokesman for Mr. Mueller, disputed that the special counsel contradicted Mr. Barr.

“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,” they said.
There is no conflict between these statements,” the statement continued.

So Mueller did not say he would indict, but could not because of policy... Which is odd, because I've seen exactly that statement from politicians and talking heads on television all day. But this joint statement from Mueller's office and the DOJ to clarify has not been mentioned at all in the coverage.


The Washington Post mentions it in a blurb, but strips it of all context which would combat the false narrative:

After the news conference, spokespeople for the Justice Department and the special counsel’s office issued a joint statement saying there was “no conflict” between Barr’s and Mueller’s previous statements on how Mueller decided he would not reach a conclusion on whether Trump obstructed justice.

a reply to: RadioRobert

Imagine that.....
What he really meant was.......

Pffft
No charges recommended
Not then
Not today

a reply to: RadioRobert

I guess the DOJ forgot to list this joint statement on its website?

In other words: The President will never be charged, will never be impeached, will never be indicted, WILL be running in 2020 and will win by an even larger margin than the whackjob leftists fear.

The future’s looking up.

originally posted by: RadioRobert
Joint statement from Special Counsel office and DOJ

But a joint statement by Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec and Peter Carr, a spokesman for Mr. Mueller, disputed that the special counsel contradicted Mr. Barr.

“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,” they said.
There is no conflict between these statements,” the statement continued.

So Mueller did not say he would indict, but could nor because of policy... Which is odd, because I've seen exactly that statement from politicians and talking heads on television all day. But this joint statement from Mueller's office and the DOJ to clarify has not been mentioned at all in the coverage.

There is no reason for it to be, for the Democrat party and the MSM.

It isn't part of the gift that Mueller gave them today.

It's like a CNN retraction 11pm on a Sunday night.

They already injected what they needed into the sphere of public opinion.

It will take a life of its own and the actual facts just kind of...

Get in the way of the narrative.

BAMN.

Mueller stated he was not prosecuting Trump because of the "Policy".

Great.

If the "Policy" prevents prosecution of a sitting President (Mueller also said it's unConstitutional), then why leave it up to the AG when the same "Policy" applies ?

Why not "Refer" the "Matter" to Congress in writing and in plain English with some hard evidence attached like they did with Clinton ?

Smells like a Red Herring was launched 😎

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
In other words: The President will never be charged, will never be impeached, will never be indicted, WILL be running in 2020 and will win by an even larger margin than the whackjob leftists fear.

The future’s looking up.

I think he might lose one state's electorals that he got in 16, but might have 2 states turn red. County wise, he'll have an even wider margin. Sadly, it doesn't really matter who the democrat super delegates chose. They have literally no one that can come up with a cohesive, non pandering plan to actually refute trump.

I'd like to see the footage of this, as well:

NBC News' Julia Ainsley further explained the document during a segment on MSNBC.

"He [Mueller] did not contradict. We went back to the Special Counsel’s Office today and said, 'Did you contradict what the attorney general said when he said that "if it had not been for that opinion, you would have charged"?'” Ainsley said. "And they said, 'We’re not contradicting, but we’re providing more context that' 

[url=https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/mueller-defends-barr-says-no-contradiction-on-obstruction-releases-document-to-provide-more-context]link[ /url]

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: RadioRobert

I guess the DOJ forgot to list this joint statement on its website?

The alt-right Washington Post made the story up, too, I guess?


ETA: updated OP with link

The Washington Post mentions it in a blurb, but strips it of all context which would combat the false narrative:

After the news conference, spokespeople for the Justice Department and the special counsel’s office issued a joint statement saying there was “no conflict” between Barr’s and Mueller’s previous statements on how Mueller decided he would not reach a conclusion on whether Trump obstructed justice.

originally posted by: MisterSpock

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
In other words: The President will never be charged, will never be impeached, will never be indicted, WILL be running in 2020 and will win by an even larger margin than the whackjob leftists fear.

The future’s looking up.

I think he might lose one state's electorals that he got in 16, but might have 2 states turn red. County wise, he'll have an even wider margin. Sadly, it doesn't really matter who the democrat super delegates chose. They have literally no one that can come up with a cohesive, non pandering plan to actually refute trump.

I'm wondering why nobody has yet brought suit against the states that have voted to give all their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote.

After what is coming, I wonder exactly what the Democratic party will look like to their base, much less the independents in 2020?

It would be ironic if Trump won the popular vote in that instance...

He would sweep California and New York.

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: RadioRobert

I guess the DOJ forgot to list this joint statement on its website?

The alt-right Washington Post made the story up, too, I guess?

Those types of posters use Voxx, Vanity Fair and Snopes as links but when you post something they need to have a government link to prove it.

It's a sign of weakness.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: MisterSpock

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
In other words: The President will never be charged, will never be impeached, will never be indicted, WILL be running in 2020 and will win by an even larger margin than the whackjob leftists fear.

The future’s looking up.

I think he might lose one state's electorals that he got in 16, but might have 2 states turn red. County wise, he'll have an even wider margin. Sadly, it doesn't really matter who the democrat super delegates chose. They have literally no one that can come up with a cohesive, non pandering plan to actually refute trump.

I'm wondering why nobody has yet brought suit against the states that have voted to give all their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote.

After what is coming, I wonder exactly what the Democratic party will look like to their base, much less the independents in 2020?

It would be ironic if Trump won the popular vote in that instance...

He would sweep California and New York.

Actually, tim pool laid out that problem pretty well. Most of the states opting for the "all our electorals goto popular vote" are historically blue. So in most cases they would actually swing a trump election harder because if he didn't win the popular, they would have sent their votes to blue either way, whereas if he won, they would have to give him their electorals.

It's just another example of shortsighted pandering that will backfire in the end.

a reply to: MisterSpock

A 538-0 election would be amazingly funny.

Can you imagine the amount of sky-screaming videos?

The total melt-downs, Hollywierd finally giving up and moving to BC (so we could get better actors!), the CNN realtime suicides?

Talk about an epic daydream.

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: MisterSpock

A 538-0 election would be amazingly funny.

Can you imagine the amount of sky-screaming videos?

The total melt-downs, Hollywierd finally giving up and moving to BC (so we could get better actors!), the CNN realtime suicides?

Talk about an epic daydream.

I wouldn't go that far, with the electoral outcome.

But the CNN pundits committing suicide would be about the only thing to bump up their ratings and save them from month over month double digit viewership loses.

Not suggesting they try that, but at this point they need something. Otherwise by 2020, they'll be lucky to have 5 digit total viewership totals in primetime.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Mueller stated he was not prosecuting Trump because of the "Policy".

Yeah, this actually says that's not true. But crickets from the media.

Also, if you read the statutes Mueller is free to follow his independent judgement. He just has to confer with Barr if he disagrees with policy and wanted an indictment. Barr then has to decide. If he decided against Mueller, Barr has to immediately notify Congress of what the Special Counsel decision was, and why he (Barr) disagreed and overruled him. That's how it gets to Congress for Congressional oversight. Mueller reports to Barr; he does not refer to Congress. Barr reports the decision to Congress.

So hypothetically, Mueller could have said to Barr, "The President committed obstruction when ... This office seeks an indictment based on: these facts/this evidence. Because this is outside of the OLC policy, I need the approval of the AG."

Barr can then say, "Yes, indict. The President is not above the law" or "the policy protects the smooth operation of the Executive, and so I decline to agree to an indictment.".

If he declined, he'd have to report to Congress and explain himself. That's how the law is set up. It is designed to take decision-making power and any hint or appearance of conflict of interest away from Barr. Mueller makes the decision. Congress decides whether oversight is necessary if Barr contradicts the decision. Mueller or Congress get the final say.

Instead Mueller handed it to Barr and said, "I am not going to decide. You do it". If Barr was going to decide, there was no reason for a Special Counsel appointment. Could have been a normal FBI investigation headed by the DOJ.

a reply to: RadioRobert

Facts?
You bring facts to the mudslinging?
Th dems don't understand or need facts.

Mueller said of the indicted Russians..."They receive the presumption of innocence until proven guilty".

But he didn't say that same thing about President Trump.

Last weekend's MSM: Trump sided with Kim Jong against former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden!

Makes perfect sense to me.

If one divorces themselves from wanting to see Donald Trump found guilty or innocent; it becomes painfully clear that Mueller, and others involved, have taken the middle of the road approach. They decided at some point during the investigation that indicting a president was not allowed and so turned their attention to investigation only. They would present the evidence they found but would offer no opinion as to Trump's guilt or innocence (not to mention all the other important stuff they where investigating ... like Russian interference).

The Mueller Report is an account of the evidence they found; with the added verbiage needed to explain that the report was neither seeking to find guilt or innocence. That it was their best attempt at accounting the facts as the investigation team came to know them.

Barr's initial summary states factually that based on the report DOJ would not be indicting the President because the report did not recommend it. Unfortunately the media in its unwavering zeal to sensationalize current events spent the next few days trying to out scoop each other proclaiming the report exonerated the President because it did not recommend indictment.

These low brow tactics by the media clearly upset Mueller because he took the time to make it painful clear that his report was not meant to find guilt or innocence; but instead was a straight accounting of the facts as his investigation came to know them. He was upset with Barr for leaving the door open for the media to miss represent the report; hence the Mueller/Barr letter/phone-call fuss.

Today Mueller again tried to make it painfully clear that his report was not seeking to find guilty or innocence; but instead is meant as an accounting of the facts as his investigation came to know them. And again the media in its unending attack on sensablity tried to turn the message into a rift between DOJ and Mueller where none exists.

I simply do not find it possible that there are two diabolical factions in this story as the media is portraying it; a big guilty bad guy team and a squeaky clean good guy team. (Who is on which team completely depends on the media you watch and the bias you subscribe to.) Our government is simply to dysfunctional and self serving to pair themselves off in this manner. Individual players certainly have their agendas and personal biases; Its possible Mueller was too critical of a president he doesn't like and its possible Barr was trying to spin his factual initial summary to favor the President ... but such is the political game. And neither action comes close to demonstrating some big scheming as our media masters would like us to believe.

So the Mueller report doesn't attempt to answer guilt or innocence. Anyone reading into it in that vein is simply a commodity that the media sells to their advertisers. Its just an accounting of facts as the investigation team came to know them.

You as the reader can decide if you think the President is guilty or not; although I would venture to guess most of us here aren't experienced in law enough to give a coherent opinion on the mater ... much better, and intellectually honest, for you as the reader allow the report to dictate your political opinion of the president rather than an opinion of his lawful guilt or innocence.

Congress is also now free to do the same; their political opinions of course carrying a few more teeth than your one vote.

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: RadioRobert

I guess the DOJ forgot to list this joint statement on its website?

The DOJ had probably closed for the day. They're not like the MSM...providing constant updates.

BTW...only Trump and Republican-friendly websites are reporting on the joint Barr/Mueller "statement of agreement" this evening.

Google Search Results: www.google.com...:d&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKz7OescLiAhUQTawKHXtZClcQpwUIJA&biw=1536&bih=751

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: RadioRobert

I guess the DOJ forgot to list this joint statement on its website?

I guess your upset because your narrative of Barr lying has just been destroyed?

Asking for a concerned friend