Connect with us

CORRECTIONS & RETRACTIONS

Bob M Caught In Major Lie According To AG Barr [Updated]

Opinion| Listening to former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s quivering voice deliver a tortured  revision of the 448-page report that carries his name, painted a picture of a man well past his prime.

As we watched and listened we wondered whether Mueller provided anything more than his name, and the imprimatur of his alleged Republican registration, to the collection of swamp protecting Democrats that had been assembled to investigate their own wrongdoing.   

Mueller’s rejection of long standing DOJ policy regarding the inviolate principle of innocent until proven guilty was revolting, but even that paled in comparison to his willingness to smear an innocent man after having failed to even find probable cause that a crime had been committed.

Mueller, who read his 9:39 minute statement, appeared to be reciting words that had been prepared for him by others lending credence to the suggestion that the team of “angry” Democrats had selected Mueller rather than the other way around.

Legal expert Gregg Jarrett has written a fantastic piece examining the foundational legal principles that Mueller ignored, or twisted, while delivering his statement.  I’d advise everyone read it.

Jarrett called attention to this agonizing statement Mueller made yesterday:

“If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”

Jarrett then noted:

“In a singular sentence, Mueller managed to reverse the legal duty that prosecutors have rigidly followed in America for centuries.  Their legal obligation is not to exonerate someone or prove an individual’s innocence. Nor is any accused person required to prove his or her own innocence.

So what was Mueller sent out to do by his handlers?  

For the answer we cite this passage from Mueller’s statement:

We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime. The introduction to the volume two of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that too is prohibited. 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.

Mueller, suggested that his non-decision decision on whether the president obstructed justice was “informed” by the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime

In doing so Mueller had contradicted what Attorney General William Barr testified to under oath.  

Barr told senators, when asked about whether the OLC opinion had been a consideration for Mueller’s decision not to seek an indictment, Mueller had assured him that it wasn’t:

“We were frankly surprised that they were not going to reach a decision on obstruction and we asked them a lot about the reasoning behind this. Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting, in response to our questioning, that he emphatically was not saying that but for the OLC opinion he would have found obstruction.”  

“We specifically asked him about the OLC opinion and whether or not he was taking a position that he would have found a crime but for the existence of the OLC opinion. And he made it very clear several times that was not his position.”

Barr noted the presence of others who were present when Mueller told that to him.

So why would an experienced lawman like Mueller, even if he’s lost ten steps, who still knows that he was contradicting his prior statements, do such a thing?

Consider the defensive strategy being implemented by House Democrats is to impugn and them impeach Barr as the embark on further impugning and then impeaching President Trump.

Mueller’s statement opens the door wide for House Democrats to now claim the necessity of determining who is lying – Mueller or Barr – and to begin hearings.

Hearings where Mueller would logically be the first witness called to testify but that won’t be the case.

Realize, Mueller was not under oath when he made his statement.  Barr was. Notice also, that Muller said he was done talking and would not be available to testify.  Testimony that would necessarily been under oath.

Regardless, the media ran roughshod over A.G. Barr last night.

It’s become evident that Mueller will never be called to testify by any House committee – as long as those committees are controlled by Democrats – because he couldn’t withstand scrutiny under threat of perjuring himself.

We are more sure of that that we were before after Mueller walked off the stage yesterday.

Still, impeachment-minded Democrats got what they wanted yesterday.

Remember this isn’t about the legal prosecution of President Trump.  It never has been. It’s about creating the political circumstances for justifying his removal… or damaging his re-election chances prior to 2020.

UPDATE:

Mueller Backtracks: Along With A.G. Barr Issues ‘Clarification’ of Role of OLC Opinion

Kerri Kupec, spokeswoman for the Department of Justice and Peter Carr, spokesman for the Special Counsel’s Office, have released a joint statement hoping to neuter Mueller’s seeming attempt to incriminate President Trump with his statement yesterday.

Here’s what Special Counsel Robert Mueller said yesterday:

We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime. The introduction to the volume two of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that too is prohibited. 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.

When coupled with the rest of Mueller’s statement it appeared that Mueller had deliberately left listeners with the impression that, but for the Office of Legal Counsel opinion, he would have brought charges against President Trump.

That would have contradicted this earlier statement made under penalty of perjury by Attorney General William Barr:

“We were frankly surprised that they were not going to reach a decision on obstruction and we asked them a lot about the reasoning behind this. Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting, in response to our questioning, that he emphatically was not saying that but for the OLC opinion he would have found obstruction.”  

“We specifically asked him about the OLC opinion and whether or not he was taking a position that he would have found a crime but for the existence of the OLC opinion. And he made it very clear several times that was not his position.”

Now here’s the clarifying statement:

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.

In other words, Mueller agreed to temper the intended takeaway from yesterday’s statement.

I imagine the conversation that took place between the two old friends, Mueller and Barr, went something like this:

“Bob, I listened to your statement this morning.  Are you sure you want to go this route? I’ve been reviewing declassified documents and, friend to friend, we both know this won’t end well for you, if you do.”

“Bill, tell me what we’re looking at if you would, old friend?”  

A.G. Barr brings him up to date on the evidence U.S. Attorney John Durham and Inspector General Horowitz have uncovered so far after which Mueller asks his old friend:

“Bill, what can you do for me?

Barr let’s him sign on to the latest statement that, tortured as it is, reconciles the two contradictory statements.

All of this seems to confirm our suspicions that Mueller was reciting words that had been prepared for him by others.  It appears that the team of “angry” Democrats were using the aging prosecutor for their own corrupt political purposes.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

To Top