Either Barr of Mueller is lying. Clear cut, there is no room to wiggle here.

www.cnn.com...

"I will say that when we met with (Mueller) ... we specifically asked him about the OLC opinion and whether or not he was taking the position that he would have found a crime but for the existence of the OLC opinion," Barr told reporters. "And he made it very clear several times that that was not his position. He was not saying that but for the OLC opinion he would have found a crime. He made it clear that he had not made the determination that there was a crime."

and:

He continued, "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."

So one or the other is full of sh!t. This is kind of important, and doesn't need to be swept under the rug.
In the interest of Truth, and not partisan crybaby garbage, I hope this is cleared up, and explained.

originally posted by: network dude
NOTICE: AboveTopSecret.com management is now enforcing new standards for the opening posts of threads.

Opening posts that contain minimal content, links with little or no explanation, YouTube videos with no commentary, images with little or no commentary, and similar nominal content may be removed without warning or explanation. If your topic is important to you, make sure you explain why, with links and supporting material so that our members may offer more relevant contributions, and ultimately, better threads. In fact, if you have less to say than this simple notice, then you probably do not have enough to start a new thread. Thank you for your assistance in helping to create great threads on ATS.

When you click this form-field, this message will disappear.

nice!

a reply to: shooterbrody

It's karma. I am usually "that guy" when it happens to someone else. Derp on me.

a reply to: network dude

Don't ya just hate it when that happens ?

The only way to clear this up, would be to have a transcript of Barr's meeting with Mueller, or second hand verification from Rosenstine, which would be worth what second hand information usually is. Both men claim to be super virtuous and good, oozing with integrity, so I would expect one, or both of them to clear this up. Publicly.

a reply to: network dude

They are saying the same thing: that the question of whether a crime occured was not even a consideration, so no real comment one way or the other can be made.

We have to remember: Trump was not the target of the investigation (according to Comey and Rosenstein). It makes perfect sense that, when considered under the lens of reality, that someone who isn't the target of an investigation would not have criminality weighed against them. And if an inclination was present to do so, departmental policy would have prohibited it.

All Mueller was saying was "We didn't consider it in any form as it would be a waste of time even if it was something we wanted to do".

a reply to: network dude

In the interest of Truth, and not partisan crybaby garbage, I hope this is cleared up, and explained.

They (the doj) issued a statement yesterday that said barr and mueller were in agreement.
What they tell reporters will be vastly different than what is said under oath.
One has testified under oath; one publicly said he would not.
I would like to know the truth, but I do not think we will find that out.

It's karma. I am usually "that guy" when it happens to someone else. Derp on me.

no worries
at least people are interested in the content you create

a reply to: DAVID64

Yea, just after you hit enter, you go into panic mode, trying to stave off the attack from "that guy", all the while, knowing it's coming. Like seeing the fresh pile of dog crap, just as you are about to complete your step, knowing you are going to get it all over you as, it's just too damn late.

Or maybe they all working together and pretending they're on different sides.

Reality is too strange to rule out anything at this point.

a reply to: network dude

Like seeing the fresh pile of dog crap

dam
I am sorry

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: network dude

They are saying the same thing: that the question of whether a crime occured was not even a consideration, so no real comment one way or the other can be made.

We have to remember: Trump was not the target of the investigation (according to Comey and Rosenstein). It makes perfect sense that, when considered under the lens of reality, that someone who isn't the target of an investigation would not have criminality weighed against them. And if an inclination was present to do so, departmental policy would have prohibited it.

All Mueller was saying was "We didn't consider it in any form as it would be a waste of time even if it was something we wanted to do".

I don't see it that way. If that was the case, the entire investigation was an exercise in futility. Investigate Trump, knowing you can't do anything about it. Unless it was just to gin up some reasons for impeachment.

But Barr clearly stated that Mueller said the rule about charging a sitting president wasn't a factor. That part is clear. Then Muller said, it was a big deal, and the current policy was to not charge a sitting president.

I think Mueller juiced up his statement to appease the dems in the house and push them to impeach, or at least provide the public with some blood in the water. But that is the partisan side of me I believe. If Barr lied, it would ruin his street cred. I sure hope there is some backup on this, so we don't just live with he said/he said.

a reply to: shooterbrody

no worries, like I said, I deserve it. I've been "that guy" a few times. It's all good.

Mueller or Iran Contra, Iraq war, Patriot act Barr. The same man who already had a reputation for lying to get people in his party off the hook.

I know who my money is on.

I'm sure you all disagree though.

a reply to: network dude

Mueller sold out to the 4th Reich years ago. I hope and want him to testify before Congress as these guys need to talk more often so they get caught up in their own lies.

a reply to: underwerks

at this point, it's 50/50. The limiting factor is proof. Barr didn't attend that meeting by himself, so there are witnesses. I sure hope this is rehashed and the chips fall where they landed. I know what I want to believe, but I also want the truth.

a reply to: underwerks

You left out all the nations that Obama invaded. Why did you forget that? "Fast and Furious"? Iraq war? That's nothing as compared to taking out Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and others. Mueller set this up so he himself could not be put in prison. That's why he punted to Congress as he knows there is nothing there, but spun the "is god real" mystery card.


www.nbcnews.com...

U.S. Bombed Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia in 2016

Barr gave his summation of what Mueller says in his report. Mueller gives us what he really said. It's like when you say something in a group setting and someone in the group paraphrases what you said to the rest of the group. The paraphrase is wrong so you address the crowd directly to clarify what you said. Would you rather believe the source of the information or a 3rd party review of the source?

a reply to: lostbook

Mueller pulled a fast one in his report. I wish that he has to testify to Congress under oath.

originally posted by: lostbook
Barr gave his summation of what Mueller says in his report. Mueller gives us what he really said. It's like when you say something in a group setting and someone in the group paraphrases what you said to the rest of the group. The paraphrase is wrong so you address the crowd directly to clarify what you said. Would you rather believe the source of the information or a 3rd party review of the source?

Barr claimed that Mueller told him he did not believe the summary was "misleading or inaccurate" but that the press coverage did not capture the essence of his report.

thehill.com...


Be sure you know more than what CNN tells you. Barr may be lying, but this is what he said, and it's not what the letter was about. Mueller was wanting 11 pages released to clarify his position, and instead, Barr released the entire report, less redactions a couple weeks later.

a reply to: network dude

The investigation wasnt on Trump. It was on Trump's associates. Trump was, ostensibly anyway, considered a "victim". Of course, we know what the reality is, and how everything was portrayed. But that was the stance of Comey and Rosenstein: the investigation was into election meddling, and targeted (among others) people in the Trump campaign.

Not making that point clear from the beginning was the "bait and switch" which landed us here today.