Why Mueller did not exonerate POTUS on Obstruction Of Justice charge?

[enhanced_deficit]

If there was no evidence of Obstruction Of Justice, why he left the door open for the OoJ charge?
Two years of investigations and deliberations ought to be enough, nation really needed a closure on this divisive issue to move on.


Update 1:

This does not seem like obstruction of justice:



March 24, 2019
Barr added that when he and Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein reviewed the full report, the pair concluded that the evidence is “not sufficient”...


Trump retweets meme calling for imprisonment of his own deputy attorney general

By Aaron Rupar Nov 28, 2018

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/IyRSfHau-jJLUhBrUwKeQ3lso1A=/1400x1050/filters:format(jpeg)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/13586038/2.jpg

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/28/18115986/trump-retweets-meme-imprisonment-rosenstein-obama-mueller


Michael Cohen's lawyer accuses Rudy Giuliani of 'witness tampering

He also said that “calling out a man's father-in-law and wife in order to intimidate the witness is not fair game and it needs to be investigated.”
Davis didn’t spare Trump either.
The lawyer said the president “indisputably intimidates and obstructs justice to prevent a witness from testifying.”

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/01/24/michael-cohens-lawyer-accuses-rudy-giuliani-of-witness-tampering-calls-him-unhinged/23651875/


On Eve of Michael Cohen’s Testimony, Republican Threatens to Reveal Compromising Information

“Hey @michaelc (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=42954)ohen212 - Do your wife & father-in-law know about your girlfriends? Maybe tonight would be a good time for that chat. I wonder if she’ll remain faithful when you’re in prison. She’s about to learn a lot,” Mr. Gaetz said on Twitter (https://twitter.com/mattgaetz/status/1100503846386835456).
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/26/us/politics/michael-cohen-testimony.html


Mueller refers sex misconduct scheme targeting him to FBI for investigation

Oct. 30, 2018By Brandy Zadrozny, Ben Collins and Tom Winter
Special counsel Robert Mueller last week asked the FBI to investigate a possible scam in which a woman would make false claims that he was guilty of sexual misconduct and harassment, after several political reporters were contacted about doing a story on the alleged misconduct.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/mueller-refers-sex-assault-scheme-targeting-him-fbi-investigation-n926301


Firm Linked to Israeli Intelligence Ran Pro-Trump Propaganda
Oct 10, 2018 - According to the NYT, Special Counsel Robert Mueller who ... had been revealed that Trump's team hired another Israeli spy firm – Black Cube.

Israeli spies tried to get dirt on Obama aides tied to the Iran deal
May 7, 2018 - Black Cube, a secretive Israeli intelligence firm enlisted by disgraced Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein to undermine women who made ...
https://www.vox.com/world/2018/5/7/17327278/ben-rhodes-black-cube-iran-deal

(https://www.vox.com/world/2018/5/7/17327278/ben-rhodes-black-cube-iran-deal)

(https://www.vox.com/world/2018/5/7/17327278/ben-rhodes-black-cube-iran-deal)


Un-Related


“Morning Joe” co-hosts claim that Jared Kushner attempted to blackmail them
Jared Kushner Told ‘Morning Joe': Apologize to Trump to Kill National Enquirer Story (Report) (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?524380-Leaked-Netanyahu-Tape-((WE))-Made-Trump-Cancel-the-Iran-Deal&p=6676416&viewfull=1#post6676416)
June 30, 2017

“Kushner told Scarborough that he would need to personally apologize to Trump in exchange for getting Enquirerowner David Pecker to stop the story,” Sherman wrote. “Scarborough says he refused, and the Enquirer published the story (http://www.nationalenquirer.com/photos/joe-scarborough-mika-brzezinski-affair/)in print on June 5, headlined ‘Morning Joe Sleazy Cheating Scandal



















Original MSM Story:




On the Mueller Investigation, the Barr Letter Is Not Enough

By John Cassidy
March 24, 2019

It took the White House about a half hour to start misrepresenting the contents of Attorney General William Barr’s letter to Congress about the results of the Mueller investigation. “The Special Counsel did not find any collusion and did not find any obstruction. AG Barr and DAG Rosenstein further determined there was no obstruction,” Sarah Sanders, the White House press secretary, tweeted shortly after 4 P.M. on Sunday. “The findings of the Department of Justice are a total and complete exoneration of the President of the United States.”

Actually, on the subject of Robert Mueller’s probe into whether Donald Trump obstructed justice, Barr’s letter said this: “The Special Counsel . . . did not draw a conclusion—one way or another—as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction.” The letter went on, “The Special Counsel states that, ‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.’ ” Barr’s letter, however, did contain a determination that Trump’s actions—which might include the firing of James Comey, the head of the F.B.I., and trying to fire Jeff Sessions, Barr’s predecessor—failed to rise to the level of obstruction of justice. But it was Barr and Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General, who made that determination. As it has done so often in the past, the White House was lying, when it said that Mueller exonerated Trump on the obstruction question.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-c...ion-of-justice


Nadler: Barr Will Be Called to Testify Before Congress on Mueller’s Obstruction of Justice Probe

Rep. Jerry Nadler, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, tweeted Sunday that the committee will call on Attorney General William Barr to testify before Congress and defend his conclusion that there’s “not sufficient” evidence Trump acted to obstruct justice. In the letter Barr submitted (https://www.thedailybeast.com/mueller-report-attorney-general-william-barr-gives-congress-summary) to congressional leaders Sunday outlining Mueller’s report, he wrote that the special counsel found “evidence on both sides” of the question of obstruction of justice, and did not make “a traditional prosecutorial judgement.” Barr added that when he and Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein reviewed the full report, the pair concluded that the evidence is “not sufficient” to establish that a crime was committed. Nadler slammed that decision in a series of tweets, writing that (https://twitter.com/RepJerryNadler/status/1109909950418038786) “Special Counsel Mueller worked for 22 months to determine the extent to which President Trump obstructed justice. Attorney General Barr took 2 days to tell the American people that while the President is not exonerated, there will be no action by DOJ.”
https://www.thedailybeast.com/nadler-barr-will-be-called-to-testify-before-congress-on-muellers-obstruction-of-justice-probe


Ex-federal prosecutor knocks Barr for not pursuing obstruction of justice charge against Trump


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YMdeuov7Pw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YMdeuov7Pw

Former federal prosecutor Gene Rossi on Monday criticized Attorney General William Barr's decision not to pursue an obstruction of justice charge against President Trump.
"Did Mueller say, 'I want you, Bill Barr, to make the decision?' Or did Robert Mueller say, 'It's a jump ball and I want Congress to make the decision,'"
"We had a jump ball. There were pros and cons as to whether to charge the president of the United States. That's in the letter," he continued. "It didn't say we could charge him. It didn't say we exonerate him."

"Bill Barr should not have decided that jump ball because ... he already determined that the possession arrow should go in favor of Donald Trump," Rossi said. "In June of 2018, he already said 'there's no obstruction.' So I have to criticize the attorney general — for whom I was very complimentary — that was a bad decision, and it taints this letter."








Related

Special counsel Robert Mueller scores a win in mystery fight at Supreme Court days after completing probe (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?532800-Special-counsel-Robert-Mueller-scores-a-win-in-mystery-fight-at-Supreme-Court&)

Mueller sends report on Trump investigation to AG Barr (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?532724-Mueller-sends-report-on-Trump-investigation-to-AG-Barr&)

[enhanced_deficit]

Even famous star lawyer for Jeffrey Epstein, OJ Simpson is saying Mueller didn't finish the job:

Alan Dershowitz: A prosecutor's job is to make decisions, Mueller didn't finish the job

By Alan Dershowitz | Fox News
How are special counsel Robert Mueller's findings on obstruction of justice different than James Comey's decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton, asks Alan Dershowitz, Harvard law professor emeritus.
Why couldn’t Special Counsel Robert Mueller, a former Marine, make up his mind about whether President Trump is or is not guilty of obstruction of justice?
The job of a prosecutor is to make decisions. To charge or not to charge. It is not to write law review essays that lay out "on the one hand, on the other hand."
Yet the summary of Mueller’s report on Russia’s interference in our 2016 presidential election that was sent to members of Congress on Sunday by Attorney General William Barr says that Mueller reached no decision as to whether Trump engaged in obstruction of justice.

In law, as in life, there are close cases, about which reasonable people can disagree. But the job of the prosecutor is to decide and close cases.
What Mueller did bears a striking resemblance to what his friend, former FBI Director James Comey, did at the end of the investigation of Hillary Clinton regarding her private email server.
Comey said, as he should have, that he was not going to indict Clinton, but then he went on to say that she had been guilty of being "extremely careless." This – like Mueller's vacillating conclusion about whether President Trump obstructed justice – split the baby in half.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/alan-dershowitz-a-prosecutors-job-is-to-make-decisions-mueller-didnt-finish-the-job




In the meantime some in media are trying to put cart atop the horse:

'Today' host Savannah Guthrie asks Sarah Sanders if Donald Trump owes Robert Mueller an apology

By Liam Quinn | Fox News

“Did Robert Mueller deserve better from the president than this kind of language and behavior?” Guthrie asked on “Today.”“For the last two years the president has absolutely eviscerated Bob Mueller, a lifelong public servant, a former Marine, a registered Republican.

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/today-host-savannah-guthrie-asks-sarah-sanders-if-donald-trump-owes-robert-mueller-an-apology

[pcosmar]

It was nothing but a Theatrical Witch Hunt.

not a poll option.

[Stratovarious]

When do we prosecute Mueller............

[shakey1]

I wonder what the cost to the american taxpayer was for this nothing burger? :confused:

[Todd]

When do we prosecute Mueller............

On what grounds? I'm genuinely curious on how this could come about. Seems people in positions of power who have invetigative powers delegated don't get prosecuted when they are wrong.

[Anti Globalist]

I wonder what the cost to the american taxpayer was for this nothing burger? :confused:
Millions of dollars.

[Stratovarious]

On what grounds? I'm genuinely curious on how this could come about. Seems people in positions of power who have invetigative powers delegated don't get prosecuted when they are wrong.

My dots = rhetorical. :frog:

No one at the top ever goes to prison, where they belong,
equal Justice means that if you are wealthy and connected
and are in a position as well as do inflict the most damaged to America,
you get a free pass , up to and including Murder.
Ergo; Hillary , Bill, lynch , Obama, Comey, Holder, Mueller etc.....

Mueller's likely crimes are; conspiracy, collusion, and , absolute abuse of power.

[Philhelm]

On what grounds? I'm genuinely curious on how this could come about. Seems people in positions of power who have invetigative powers delegated don't get prosecuted when they are wrong.

Seditious Conspiracy

[nikcers]

It helped the Dems win the house. That and they shut down social media by abusing spam filter algorithms and outright banning everyone on social media or attacking them personally. Trumps temporary tax cuts he passed were offset with permanent increases on the promise that they will pass more temporary cuts next year and now they can't pay up on their promise because of Nancy fucking pelosi.

[Superfluous Man]

On what grounds? I'm genuinely curious on how this could come about. Seems people in positions of power who have invetigative powers delegated don't get prosecuted when they are wrong.

Wrong about what?

Shouldn't people who think that Trump did nothing wrong be celebrating this just like Trump is?

[Superfluous Man]

Seditious Conspiracy

How does failing to find any collusion or obstruction do that?

Unless it was a conspiracy to make MSNBC look like fools.

[spudea]

As it has done so often in the past, the White House was lying, when it said that Mueller exonerated Trump on the obstruction question.

That's not what the White House said. The referenced tweet in the story does not say "Mueller exonerated Trump".

[Superfluous Man]

That's not what the White House said.

Here:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1109918388133023744?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5 Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1109918388133023744&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.politifact.com%2Ftruth-o-meter%2Farticle%2F2019%2Fmar%2F24%2Fdonald-trump-claims-complete-and-total-exoneration%2F

[spudea]

Here:
1109918388133023744

still doesn't say Mueller

[Superfluous Man]

still doesn't say Mueller

But we all know that's what it's talking about.

[enhanced_deficit]

That's not what the White House said. The referenced tweet in the story does not say "Mueller exonerated Trump".



Sarah Huckabee Sanders Calls Mueller Report a 'Complete and Total Exoneration' Despite Obstruction Uncertainty



http://time.com/5558023/trump-mueller-report-barr-sarah-sanders/


If they're not saying Mueller 'totally exonarated' POTUS.. who else they think did, AG Barr or Deputy AG Rosenstein?

Barr was already being accused of bias (not clear on what grounds) by Pelosi ( who 'loves America' and opposed impeachment) and many others.

[dannno]

Here:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1109918388133023744?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5 Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1109918388133023744&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.politifact.com%2Ftruth-o-meter%2Farticle%2F2019%2Fmar%2F24%2Fdonald-trump-claims-complete-and-total-exoneration%2F

Ya, I don't see where Trump said Mueller personally exonerated him anywhere in there.

The report Mueller wrote exonerated Trump, however, according to those who have read it.

If you are still confused, let me put this in some language you might understand.

If the claim is that it was Colonel Mustard in the Billiard Room with the Candlestick, and Mueller wrote a report about it - Mueller's report said that Colonel Mustard was never in the Billiard Room nor did he have a candlestick. However, Mueller never said that it wasn't Colonel Mustard who did "it"... so if in fact it was done in the Billiard Room with a Candlestick, we can deduce it was not Colonel Mustard based on Mueller's report, even if Mueller did not make the specific claim that Colonel Mustard has been exonerated.

[enhanced_deficit]

The report Mueller wrote exonerated Trump, however, according to those who have read it.



EM.


Who did such speed reading in 2 days of report developed over 22 months and arrived at the verdict that Mueller Report exonorated him totally.. any names?

Because AJ Barr, who unlike the 'Mexican Judge' is not supposed to be biased one way or the other, stataed this in his letter:


Barr’s letter said this: “The Special Counsel . . . did not draw a conclusion—one way or another—as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction.” The letter went on, “The Special Counsel states that, ‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.’

[Swordsmyth]

EM.


Who did such speed reading in 2 days of report developed over 22 months and arrived at the verdict that Mueller Report exonorated him totally.. any names?

Because AJ Barr, who unlike the 'Mexican Judge' is not supposed to be biased one way or the other, stataed this in his letter:
If you are investigated and they find nothing you have been exonerated, to claim anything else is to mock the meaning of the word.

[enhanced_deficit]

Are you implying AJ Barr is a mocker?
Because AJ Barr, who unlike the 'Mexican Judge' is not supposed to be biased one way or the other, stated this in his letter:

Barr’s letter said this: “The Special Counsel . . . did not draw a conclusion—one way or another—as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction.” The letter went on, “The Special Counsel states that, ‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.’

[Swordsmyth]

Are you implying AJ Barr is a mocker?
Because AJ Barr, who unlike the 'Mexican Judge' is not supposed to be biased one way or the other, stated this in his letter:

Barr’s letter said this: “The Special Counsel . . . did not draw a conclusion—one way or another—as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction.” The letter went on, “The Special Counsel states that, ‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.’
The special counsel is mocking the word, Barr just reported what RM said.

[Swordsmyth]

AJ Barr

Attorney Jeneral?

[enhanced_deficit]

The special counsel is mocking the word, Barr just reported what RM said.

Ok, then we don't need to argue.

My post was in response to this statement that seems to contradicts what one speed reader of the MR (AJ Barr) has told Congress:




The report Mueller wrote exonerated Trump, however, according to those who have read it.

[Swordsmyth]

Ok, then we don't need to argue.

My post was in response to this statement that seems to contradicts what one speed reader of the MR (AJ Barr) has told Congress:
Did Barr say it didn't exonerate Trump? Or did he just say that RM said it didn't?

[enhanced_deficit]

Did Barr say it didn't exonerate Trump? Or did he just say that RM said it didn't?

His letter said:


it (Mueller Report) also does not exonerate him


We're splitting hairs now.
Reminded me of this old video of Ken Starr ( whose report on Clinton lie about Monica romance led to Clinton's impeachment by the GOP led House and who is also being rehabilitated at Foxnews these day like various other neocons):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3ycYsehbHU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3ycYsehbHU



Un-Related


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE2XHYxkJgw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE2XHYxkJgw
CBS: Trump says he didn't know about Stormy Daniels payment



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXQFPY0JMLA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXQFPY0JMLA


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHp4g44nd8k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHp4g44nd8k

[Swordsmyth]

His letter said:





No, his letter said RM said it.

[dannno]

His letter said:




We're splitting hairs now.
Reminded me of this old video of Ken Starr ( whose report on Clinton lie about Monica romance led to Clinton's impeachment by the GOP led House and who is also being rehabilitated at Foxnews these day like various other neocons):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3ycYsehbHU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3ycYsehbHU


Will you PLEASE just read this shit and stop wasting our time??? I don't mind you posting all your long ass posts, but you sound like the god damn fake news media, please just read this yourself since you make such long posts all the time for us to read and end this nonsense..

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/documents/AG%20March%2024%202019%20Letter%20to%20House%20and %20Senate%20Judiciary%20Committees.pdf

There are two entire HUGE paragraphs after Barr says Mueller did not personally exonerate Trump from obstruction that describe in great detail how the report Mueller wrote led them to the conclusion that the President was totally exonerated from obstruction.

The report contains enough information to exonerate Trump, Mueller just didn't do it personally. In fact, as a bonus, it even says right there in the letter WHY that happened like that and there is a perfectly reasonable, legal explanation accompanying it!!!

[enhanced_deficit]

In the interest of brevity, I just asked names of any readers of report you were referring to in your statement. Reading full subjective opinion of Barr will not help IMO since quoted part clearly contradicts your statement. Many in their subjective (or maybe in objective as well if they have full view of the facts) views could see him 'totally exonerated', only issues was who is making that assessment and how biased/unbiased is that verdict.
Participation in these discusssions is optional, no need to get all worked up if your interpretation of 'facts' is challenged in the course of a discussion.

[Swordsmyth]

In the interest of brevity, I just asked names of any readers of report you were referring to in your statement. Reading full subjective opinion of Barr will not help IMO since quoted part clearly contradicts your statement. Many in their subjective (or maybe in objective as well if they have full view of the facts) views could see him 'totally exonerated', only issues was who is making that assessment and how biased/unbiased is that verdict.
Participation in these discusssions is optional, no need to get all worked up if your interpretation of 'facts' is challenged in the course of a discussion.
The quoted part isn't a quote from Barr, it is Barr reporting what RM said.

I already pointed that out, are you being dishonest on purpose?

[enhanced_deficit]

The quoted part isn't a quote from Barr, it is Barr reporting what RM said.


Level of emotions by some remind me of Bush-Cheney supporters unnecessarily high dedication to their leaders when their approval in GOP used to be 90% before Iraqi Freedom war.

This is being discussed here:



The report Mueller wrote exonerated Trump, however, according to those who have read it.

Do you understand if this is referring to AG Barr, Deputy AG Rosenstein or someone else?

That was the question I had.
In the interest of repetition. If POTUS is saying that his appointed AG (or his lawyers, supporters or he himself) 'totally exonarated' him on charges of obstruction of justice, then there is nothing to argue over here.

[Swordsmyth]

Level of emotions by some remind me of Bush-Cheney supporters unnecessarily high dedication to their leaders when their approval in GOP used to be 90% before Iraqi Freedom war.

This is being discussed here:



Do you understand if this is referring to AG Barr, Deputy AG Rosenstein or someone else?

That was the question I had.
In the interest of repetition. If POTUS is saying that his appointed AG (or his lawyers, supporters or he himself) 'totally exonarated' him on charges of obstruction of justice, then there is nothing to argue over here.
Dannno told you that Barr exonerated Trump and you tried to use Barr reporting that RM didn't to refute Dannno.

[dannno]

In the interest of brevity, I just asked names of any readers of report you were referring to in your statement. Reading full subjective opinion of Barr will not help IMO since quoted part clearly contradicts your statement. Many in their subjective (or maybe in objective as well if they have full view of the facts) views could see him 'totally exonerated', only issues was who is making that assessment and how biased/unbiased is that verdict.
Participation in these discusssions is optional, no need to get all worked up if your interpretation of 'facts' is challenged in the course of a discussion.

It doesn't contradict it, you just don't understand the english language well enough.

Go back to my post about Colonel Mustard.

The details of the report exonerate Colonel Mustard, even though the person who wrote the report did not specifically exonerate them (hint: it is an issue of them not having the authority to do so). I don't understand why you can't just read the link I posted of the letter, which is the subject of the discussion. It's extremely clear, no need to watch CNN for the interpretation.

This is not my opinion or interpretation, this is just how it is. You are still spreading fake news. Please quit being fake news.

[dannno]

It's pretty fucking simple. Mueller's report exonerates Trump. Mueller does not personally exonerate Trump in his report.

Both of those statements are factual, and neither are contradictory. If you don't know why, go back to my example of Colonel Mustard in the Billiard Room with the Candlestick.

The media is just using people who are too stupid to know the difference between these statements to make the claim that Trump said something incorrect, which, as usual, is fake news.

[enhanced_deficit]

LOL No worries, will read the linked PDF bit later.
Accurate unbiased legalistic determinations and their wording (after reading whole MR) vs your/mine/TV experts subjective assessments can also be different after reading a political AG's letter on things like OoJ.




Attorney Jeneral?

Damn Alex Jones :) Have fixed it.

[TheCount]

AJ=Alex Jones?

[enhanced_deficit]

AJ=Alex Jones?

No was a typo, meant AG. Was not Freudian slip, there are no similarities between current AG and AJ.

[TheCount]

No was a typo, meant AG. Was not Freudian slip, there are no similarities between current AG and AJ.

There are some similarities between AJ and Congress.

[ghengis86]

His letter said:




We're splitting hairs now.
Reminded me of this old video of Ken Starr ( whose report on Clinton lie about Monica romance led to Clinton's impeachment by the GOP led House and who is also being rehabilitated at Foxnews these day like various other neocons):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3ycYsehbHU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3ycYsehbHU



Un-Related


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE2XHYxkJgw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE2XHYxkJgw
CBS: Trump says he didn't know about Stormy Daniels payment



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXQFPY0JMLA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXQFPY0JMLA


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHp4g44nd8k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHp4g44nd8k


No, his letter said RM said it.


In the interest of brevity, I just asked names of any readers of report you were referring to in your statement. Reading full subjective opinion of Barr will not help IMO since quoted part clearly contradicts your statement. Many in their subjective (or maybe in objective as well if they have full view of the facts) views could see him 'totally exonerated', only issues was who is making that assessment and how biased/unbiased is that verdict.
Participation in these discusssions is optional, no need to get all worked up if your interpretation of 'facts' is challenged in the course of a discussion.


The quoted part isn't a quote from Barr, it is Barr reporting what RM said.

I already pointed that out, are you being dishonest on purpose?

“The Special Counsel states that, ‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.’

“The Special Counsel states that, ‘...it does not exonerate him.’

The Special Counsel states

The Special Counsel states


Pretty clear Barr was quoting Mueller.

[enhanced_deficit]

Dems are raising the 'bias' issue again, this time their top leadership. There had been bias noise before but not at this level.

Pelosi, Schumer: AG William Barr Is Not a ‘Neutral Observer’ of Mueller Report

Congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) released a statement Sunday slamming Attorney General William Barr for his “public record of bias” against Robert Mueller’s investigation, arguing that Barr is the wrong person to decide if President Trump tried to obstruct justice. The statement comes just hours after Barr released a memo on Mueller’s report (https://www.thedailybeast.com/mueller-report-attorney-general-william-barr-gives-congress-summary?ref=home), in which he stated that there’s “not sufficient” evidence to charge the president with obstructing investigations into his dealings. “Attorney General Barr’s letter raises as many questions as it answers,” the pair wrote, urging that the full report be made public “without any further delay.” “Given Mr. Barr’s public record of bias against the Special Counsel’s inquiry, he is not a neutral observer and is not in a position to make objective determinations about the report,” Pelosi and Schumer wrote. The pair also tore into Trump for saying the report completely exonerated him, noting that his claim “directly contradicts the words of Mr. Mueller and is not to be taken with any degree of credibility.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/pelosi-schumer-ag-william-barr-is-not-a-neutral-observer-of-mueller-report



'Mexican Judge' Bias Mindset
Although some from liberal side while back had brought up bias question with jewish appointments at DOJ leadership and POTUS with help of his Jewish son-in-law's bold leadership positioning himself as the 'most pro Isreal President ever' as reknowned foreign policy expert Deniel Pipes also claimed. But Dems top leadership has not raised such bias objection based on ethnic hertiage of AG Barr and Deputy AG Rosenstein, their argument is based on record of Barr's 'public opposition' to this investigation.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKwps5fjjCY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKwps5fjjCY


Expert reverses course, says Trump's ‘most pro-Israel president ever’
On January 30, in the aftermath of his discussion on the Wall Street Journal column with Ambassador to Israel David Friedman, Pipes wrote that Trump is “the most pro-Israel president ever".
By Meyer Shimon
February 3, 2019
Jerusalem Post









Pretty clear Barr was quoting Mueller.

Yep.



It's pretty $#@!ing simple. Mueller's report exonerates Trump. Mueller does not personally exonerate Trump in his report.


On review, I was replying without reading all the previous comments in the chain.

You're right, it's pretty simple.

Mueller in Mueller Report does not exonerate MAGA.

MAGA appointed AG Barr (who in 2018 before reading full MR had already said 'there's no obstruction.') says same after reading report.


"Bill Barr should not have decided that jump ball because ... he already determined that the possession arrow should go in favor of Donald Trump," Rossi said. "In June of 2018, he already said 'there's no obstruction.' So I have to criticize the attorney general — for whom I was very complimentary — that was a bad decision, and it taints this letter."

[dude58677]

Ya, I don't see where Trump said Mueller personally exonerated him anywhere in there.

The report Mueller wrote exonerated Trump, however, according to those who have read it.

If you are still confused, let me put this in some language you might understand.

If the claim is that it was Colonel Mustard in the Billiard Room with the Candlestick, and Mueller wrote a report about it - Mueller's report said that Colonel Mustard was never in the Billiard Room nor did he have a candlestick. However, Mueller never said that it wasn't Colonel Mustard who did "it"... so if in fact it was done in the Billiard Room with a Candlestick, we can deduce it was not Colonel Mustard based on Mueller's report, even if Mueller did not make the specific claim that Colonel Mustard has been exonerated.

This is the logical fallacy known as Appeal to Ignorance. Just because you can’t prove something didn’t occur. It is a logical fallacy to assume that something did occur.

[dannno]

This is the logical fallacy known as Appeal to Ignorance. Just because you can’t prove something didn’t occur. It is a logical fallacy to assume that something did occur.

No it isn't. Like I said, those who read the document said that the evidence in the report indicates that the President is exonerated from obstruction of justice. Mueller didn't personally exonerate him, but the evidence in the report he wrote did.

Did you read the letter? That is precisely what it says.

Don't be fake news.

[enhanced_deficit]

'Barr is wrong' media attacks on one of America's most respected AGs have already begun:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/03/26/barr-is-wrong-obstruction-justice-doesnt-require-another-underlying-crime/

[dude58677]

No it isn't. Like I said, those who read the document said that the evidence in the report indicates that the President is exonerated from obstruction of justice. Mueller didn't personally exonerate him, but the evidence in the report he wrote did.

Did you read the letter? That is precisely what it says.

Don't be fake news.

Enhanced_deficit and Democrats were making the logical fallacy.

[dannno]

Enhanced_deficit and Democrats were making the logical fallacy.

Ohhhh

[Superfluous Man]

Enhanced_deficit and Democrats were making the logical fallacy.

AG Barr is a Republican, not a Democrat.

[enhanced_deficit]

This is the logical fallacy known as Appeal to Ignorance. Just because you can’t prove something didn’t occur. It is a logical fallacy to assume that something did occur.

No it isn't. Like I said, those who read the document said that the evidence in the report indicates that the President is exonerated from obstruction of justice. Mueller didn't personally exonerate him, but the evidence in the report he wrote did.

Did you read the letter? That is precisely what it says.

Don't be fake news.


Opinions/interpretations technically can't be 'fakenews' as those are subjective.
But seems like one issue here is misunderstanding/communication of views here, I know I misread some partial views earlier by skipping some posts hurridly.

Having read all the views, following is my understanding of situation that I believe no one disagrees with. There are not verdicts being made and it is key summary of events, so any logical fallacy issue should not come into play unless folks start making additional deductions from these events.



Key Summary:

1. Mueller in Mueller Report does not exonerate MAGA on obstruction charge.

2. MAGA appointed AG Barr (who in 2018 even before reading full MR had already said 'there's no obstruction.') alongwith MAGA appointed Deputy AG Rosenstein read the report over a weekend and determined there was not sufficient evidence for OoJ charge to be looked into further.

3. Dems are alleging AG Barr is not an unbiased party





If anyone finds any statement in this summary inaccurate, feel free to correct.
If any one claims there 'was/was not obstruction' based on these events, that's a deduction and can be debated.

[dude58677]

Opinions/interpretations technically can't be 'fakenews' as those are subjective.
But seems like one issue here is misunderstanding/communication of views here, I know I misread some partial views earlier by skipping some posts hurridly.

Having read all the views, following is my understanding of situation that I believe no one disagrees with. There are not verdicts being made and it is key summary of events, so any logical fallacy issue should not come into play unless folks start making additional deductions from these events.



Key Summary:

1. Mueller in Mueller Report does not exonerate MAGA on obstruction charge.

2. MAGA appointed AG Barr (who in 2018 even before reading full MR had already said 'there's no obstruction.') alongwith MAGA appointed Deputy AG Rosenstein read the report over a weekend and determined there was not sufficient evidence for OoJ charge to be looked into further.

3. Dems are alleging AG Barr is not an unbiased party





If anyone finds this summary inaccurate, feel free to correct.


“1. Mueller in Mueller Report does not exonerate MAGA on obstruction charge.”

This is the logical fallacy I mentioned above.

[dude58677]

AG Barr is a Republican, not a Democrat.


The Democrats interpretation of the obstruction claiming it doesn’t exonerate Donald Trump and his associates as well as family. Arguing that it doesn’t exonerate anyone is the appeal to logic fallacy and if you knew what I meant then this is a straw man fallacy.

[enhanced_deficit]

“1. Mueller in Mueller Report does not exonerate MAGA on obstruction charge.”

This is the logical fallacy I mentioned above.

That statement ( or rather restatement of Mueller Report) was made by AG Barr, that's best information we have since MR has not been made public yet.
So were you saying that AG Barr used fallacious logic when he wrote this letter or Mueller did ?
Both Barr and Mueller are Republicans.

Quote:
Barr’s letter said this: “The Special Counsel . . . did not draw a conclusion—one way or another—as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction.” The letter went on, “The Special Counsel states that, ‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.’


Using common logic, author of a report is generally considered a bigger authority on the reports findings than a reader of the report but that's a separate topic.

[dude58677]

That statement ( or rather restatement of Mueller Report) was made by AG Barr, that's best information we have since MR has not been made public yet.
So were you saying that AG Barr used fallacious logic when he wrote this letter or Mueller did ?
Both Barr and Mueller are Republicans.



Quote:
Barr’s letter said this: “The Special Counsel . . . did not draw a conclusion—one way or another—as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction.” The letter went on, “The Special Counsel states that, ‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.’

Barr, Mueller, CNN, and you are making this fallacious argument. It doesn’t matter if it done deliberately or not or by whom because the fallacy is still being used.

[enhanced_deficit]

Barr, Mueller, CNN, and you are making this fallacious argument. It doesn’t matter if it done deliberately or not or by whom because the fallacy is still being used.

Ok, I can't speak for Barr and Mueller, they might soon have opportunity to defend their logic in Congressional hearings.


But I tried to separate statements of events from any opinios/arguments in above post with final summary, if you can specify which fallacious argument I made, would try to defend it or correct the logic.

[dude58677]

Ok, I can't speak for Barr and Mueller, they might soon have opportunity to defend their logic in Congressional hearings.


But I tried to separate statements of events from any opinios/arguments in above post with final summary, if you can specify which fallacious argument I made, would try to defend it or correct the logic.

If you are simply stating what they said then you are not using the fallacy. However, if you were to agree with their view then you would be.

[dannno]

Opinions/interpretations technically can't be 'fakenews' as those are subjective.
But seems like one issue here is misunderstanding/communication of views here, I know I misread some partial views earlier by skipping some posts hurridly.

Having read all the views, following is my understanding of situation that I believe no one disagrees with. There are not verdicts being made and it is key summary of events, so any logical fallacy issue should not come into play unless folks start making additional deductions from these events.



Key Summary:

1. Mueller in Mueller Report does not exonerate MAGA on obstruction charge.

2. MAGA appointed AG Barr (who in 2018 even before reading full MR had already said 'there's no obstruction.') alongwith MAGA appointed Deputy AG Rosenstein read the report over a weekend and determined there was not sufficient evidence for OoJ charge to be looked into further.

3. Dems are alleging AG Barr is not an unbiased party





If anyone finds any statement in this summary inaccurate, feel free to correct.
If any one claims there 'was/was not obstruction' based on these events, that's a deduction and can be debated.

The issue was the fake news media saying Trump's statement that he was exonerated by the report was inaccurate because the report specifically said Mueller did not exonerate him. It is true that Mueller did not exonerate him, but he also didn't do the opposite of exonerate, he simply laid out evidence on both sides. The two folks who gave a summary of the report indicated that the evidence in the report exonerated him.

[dannno]

It's really sad that Democrats are so obsessed with charging the President for obstruction of justice on a case where he has been found innocent.

When Nixon obstructed Justice, he, or at minimum people in his administration were guilty of the charges.

Saying Trump obstructed justice is like saying a guy who put out his tobacco cigarette and threw it away while the cops came up from behind him is guilty of obstructing justice or destruction of evidence because the cops thought it was a joint... well it wasn't a joint, if there is no crime, except for the fact that they are harassing you.. how can you obstruct justice?

[Superfluous Man]

The Democrats interpretation of the obstruction claiming it doesn’t exonerate Donald Trump and his associates as well as family. Arguing that it doesn’t exonerate anyone is the appeal to logic fallacy and if you knew what I meant then this is a straw man fallacy.

But it's not just Democrats. It's Barr, Trump's own AG. And it's not just arguing that it doesn't exonerate Trump, but quoting the report itself, which explicitly refrains from exonerating him. It's not a logical fallacy, just a factual claim about something the Mueller report says in it.

[Swordsmyth]

But it's not just Democrats. It's Barr, Trump's own AG. And it's not just arguing that it doesn't exonerate Trump, but quoting the report itself, which explicitly refrains from exonerating him. It's not a logical fallacy, just a factual claim about something the Mueller report says in it.

It's NOT Barr.
That is Fake News.

[Swordsmyth]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cVsmuxOj28

[Superfluous Man]

It's NOT Barr.
That is Fake News.

It's Barr referring to what the Mueller report says.

[Swordsmyth]

It's Barr referring to what the Mueller report says.
Barr reported what RM said, he didn't concur.

[Superfluous Man]

Barr reported what RM said

That's all that I claimed.

But it's not just Democrat spin, or some kind of fallacy. It's just a factual claim about the Mueller report that has also been made by Barr.

[Swordsmyth]

That's all that I claimed.

But it's not just Democrat spin, or some kind of fallacy. It's just a factual claim about the Mueller report.
You reported that he concurred and he did not.
Then you cut off my statement that he didn't concur when you quoted me.

[Superfluous Man]

You reported that he concurred and he did not.

No I didn't.

[Dr.3D]

I wonder what the cost to the american taxpayer was for this nothing burger? :confused:

https://s16-us2.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http:%2F%2Fthepeoplescube.com%2Fima ges%2Fvarious_uploads%2FTrump_Russia_Nothingburger _OpenWide.jpg&sp=6d8a974f54e473fa37ccffc0c522550a

[Swordsmyth]

No I didn't.

Yes you did:


But it's not just Democrats. It's Barr, Trump's own AG. And it's not just arguing that it doesn't exonerate Trump, but quoting the report itself, which explicitly refrains from exonerating him. It's not a logical fallacy, just a factual claim about something the Mueller report says in it.

[Superfluous Man]

Yes you did:

You said that I claimed Barr concurred. Nowhere in that quote or anywhere else have I claimed that.

All I have ever said is that Barr made a matter-of-fact claim about something that the Mueller report says in it. I'm not even sure what there is to concur or not concur with about that.

[Swordsmyth]

You said that I claimed Barr concurred. Nowhere in that quote or anywhere else have I claimed that.

All I have ever said is that Barr made a matter-of-fact claim about something that the Mueller report says in it. I'm not even sure what there is to concur or not concur with about that.
:rolleyes:

[Philhelm]

How does failing to find any collusion or obstruction do that?

Unless it was a conspiracy to make MSNBC look like fools.

I don't believe that the deep state actors actually believed in Russian collusion; that was for the morons to gobble up. Either Mueller thought he would find something or, believing that Trump was brash, they believed that Mueller's investigation would be cut short so that they could push the obstruction angle that they were already harping on. Either way, I find it difficult to believe that Mueller was there, in good faith, to investigate bona fide Russian collusion, whatever that might entail. In other words, it's more likely than not that Mueller was part of a conspiracy against the President.

[enhanced_deficit]

Now the questions are already being raised why Deep State is now okay with their 'biggest opponent' and did not move to find him 'impeachable'. There are no MSM reports of any secret deals on foreign wars, Syria, Israel etc.




If you are simply stating what they said then you are not using the fallacy. However, if you were to agree with their view then you would be.

I was citing what was being reported, have not reached to the point of making any informed deductions.


The issue was the fake news media saying Trump's statement that he was exonerated by the report was inaccurate because the report specifically said Mueller did not exonerate him. It is true that Mueller did not exonerate him, but he also didn't do the opposite of exonerate, he simply laid out evidence on both sides. The two folks who gave a summary of the report indicated that the evidence in the report exonerated him.

Fakenews media does what it does and in MAGA they have met their match. He's also shown skill for stretching/taking positions on multiple sides of many issues as convenient politically.

[enhanced_deficit]

This reporting is by Foxnows, a notorious fakenews outlet that hosts disgraced neocons tools like Hannity, Levin, Judith Miller etc. So should be cautious until report is confirmed by other reliable sources.
But if confirmed as non-fakenews, this is bold move by Romney even if he's not positioning for a contigency 2020 run secretly:



Published 2 hours ago

Romney: Mueller report did not show obstruction, 'I don't think impeachment is the right way to go'

By Ronn Blitzer | Fox News

Flashback: Biden mocks Romney over Russia threat (http://video.foxnews.com/v/6030338003001)

Former Vice President Joe Biden's attacks on Mitt Romney for his 2012 warning about Russia resurfaces.

Soon after Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich. (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/lawmaker-breaking-with-gop-accuses-trump-of-obstruction-impeachable-conduct), went against the GOP consensus by claiming President Trump committed "impeachable conduct" in the form of obstruction of justice, another known Trump critic took the opposite position.
Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, acknowledged that while he has called out Trump (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sen-romney-to-vote-against-trumps-emergency-declaration) when he's deemed it appropriate, he does not believe the Mueller report provided evidence that supports impeaching the president.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/romney-impeaching-trump-not-the-right-way-to-go

[Working Poor]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cVsmuxOj28


LOL I love the Hitler videos

[enhanced_deficit]

This Europe Nationalist shift could be a potentially concerning development for MAGA support base and funding if Russia narrative got replaced with more damaging narratives:


In what could be seen as a major boost for EU/UK nationalist movement and potentially a blow to American Jewish billionaire neoconservative Adelson funded GOP-MAGA movement, 'Believe in Britain' party of nationalist politician Farage who had criticized 'disproportionate Jewish influence' in US politics ( Newsweek: Jews Should Concern Americans More Than Russian Influence, Nigel Farage Says (https://www.newsweek.com/trump-russia-jewish-farage-brexit-698486) ) has taken lead in EU vote. What would be ramifications for US nationaist/America First movements?
Would Farage get congratulatory tweet from MAGA or rebuke or silent treatment?


Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party set to win most UK seats in EU vote

Published 2 hours agoUpdated 2 hours ago
Sam Meredit

Brexit has gripped British society for more than three years, splintering both the ruling Conservative Party and the opposition Labour party into warring factions since the country’s EU referendum in June 2016.
The U.K. participated in European Parliamentary elections on Thursday after failing to leave the EU at the end of March.
The European Parliament’s first estimate of the overall turnout in the elections was somewhere between 49% and 51%. That’s up from 43% in the 2014 election.


Nigel Farage, leader of the Brexit Party, reacts as he speaks to members of the media at a European Parliamentary elections count centre in Southampton, U.K., on Sunday, May 26, 2019.

[eleganz]

This Europe Nationalist shift could be a potentially concerning development for MAGA support base and funding if Russia narrative got replaced with more damaging narratives:

A tremendous amount of mental ninja power is needed to twist literally every piece of news as bad for MAGA.

Its so goofy and kinda sad.

[nikcers]

A tremendous amount of mental ninja power is needed to twist literally every piece of news as bad for MAGA.

Its so goofy and kinda sad.

Its hard to look at the Trump presidency as a conservative and find a lot of positives, but I think a lot of people are looking at it in the context that Clinton would be even worse on debt and military spending. "we came we saw we conquered" I believe is what Clinton said famously.

[Philhelm]

On what grounds? I'm genuinely curious on how this could come about. Seems people in positions of power who have invetigative powers delegated don't get prosecuted when they are wrong.

Let's start with his leadership of the FBI when some people did something on September 11, 2001, and investigate the remainder of his life until we find something.

[enhanced_deficit]

Here we go again:


PELOSI BALKS ON IMPEACHMENT... (https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/29/politics/democrats-mueller-reaction-congress-impeachment/index.html)
Professor who correctly predicted 9 elections says Trump in 2020, unless... (https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/446136-professor-who-has-correctly-predicted-nine-presidential-elections-says)
WIRE: Biggest threats are economic... (https://news.yahoo.com/biggest-threats-trump-election-110013193.html)
BARR: Mueller 'could've reached decision' on obstruction... (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/william-barr-interview-attorney-general-says-mueller-couldve-decided-whether-trump-obstructed-justice-exclusive/)



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D70u-0IUEAAPXTl.jpg
TWEETWRECK! (https://www.mediaite.com/trump/trump-deletes-tweet-admitting-russia-helped-him-get-elected-while-lashing-out-at-mueller/) https://www.drudgereport.com/i/logo9.gif





Mueller declares his Russia report did not exonerate Trump


By ERIC TUCKER, MICHAEL BALSAMO and CHAD DAYyesterday

Special counsel Robert Mueller speaks at the Department of Justice Wednesday, May 29, 2019, in Washington, about the Russia investigation. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Special counsel Robert Mueller said Wednesday that charging President Donald Trump with a crime was “not an option” because of federal rules, but he used his first public remarks on the Russia investigation to emphasize that he did not exonerate the president.
“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” Mueller declared.
The special counsel’s remarks stood as a pointed rebuttal to Trump’s repeated claims that he was cleared and that the two-year inquiry was merely a “witch hunt.” They also marked a counter to criticism, including by Attorney General William Barr, that Mueller should have reached a determination on whether the president illegally tried to obstruct the probe by taking actions such as firing his FBI director.
Mueller made clear that his team never considered indicting Trump because the Justice Department prohibits the prosecution of a sitting president.
“Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider,” Mueller said during a televised statement (https://apnews.com/43490346c43c41e2b6556c81c8fd19e1) . He said he believed such an action would be unconstitutional.
Mueller did not use the word ’impeachment,” but said it was the job of Congress — not the criminal justice system — to hold the president accountable for any wrongdoing.

https://apnews.com/94323cfc164c4759ba6bf84ad2a46203

[oyarde]

On what grounds? I'm genuinely curious on how this could come about. Seems people in positions of power who have invetigative powers delegated don't get prosecuted when they are wrong.

Oh that seems easy , congress can probably get a special prosecutor to investigate the special prosecutor at taxpayers expense without any real grounds .

[eleganz]

Its hard to look at the Trump presidency as a conservative and find a lot of positives, but I think a lot of people are looking at it in the context that Clinton would be even worse on debt and military spending. "we came we saw we conquered" I believe is what Clinton said famously.

Sure, I guess, but what does any of that have to do with my post though?