https://canuckscorner.com/forums/
“So, Mr. Mueller, do you stand by your joint statement that you issued on May 29th as you sit here today?” Lesko asked. Mueller declined to stand by the official statement from his own office from less than two months ago.
“I would have to look at it more closely before I said I agree with it,” Mueller said.”
too sweet Doc, lets go back to
...again...https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... ging-trump
This is what you and the cunt want the world to believe he said but that is not all that was said nor all that Mueller himself said.Robert Mueller provides'correction'
“Now, before we go to questions, I want to add a correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said Wednesday afternoon. “I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu who said, and I quote, ‘You didn't charge the president because of the OLC opinion.’”
Mueller, who had agreed with Rep. Ted Lieu in the first hearing, said he now disagreed with that framing.
“That is not the correct way to say it,” Mueller said. “As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”
Barr and the cunt are in damage control over this .. what? Apparent Gaff?In his appearance before the House Judiciary Committee, Mueller caused confusion (for Trump supporters) when he appeared to contradict Attorney General William Barr and declined to stand by a previous official statement from his own special counsel’s office regarding the decision-making behind not charging Trump with any crimes as part of his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Lieu asked him, “I’d like to ask you the reason, again, you did not indict Donald Trump is because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?”
“That is correct,” Mueller said in reply.
Mueller’s report did not reach a determination on obstruction of justice in his 448-page report, although he laid out 10 possible instances of obstruction. Mueller’s report referenced a longtime Office of Legal Counsel opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted, but his report did not explicitly claim that that was the only reason Trump wasn’t charged in the investigation. Moreover, Barr said in April that Mueller told him that Mueller was not saying that he would have charged Trump with a crime but for the Office of Legal Counsel opinion and, in addition, a joint statement from the offices of Mueller and Barr in May reiterated that point.
But Wednesday morning, Mueller reversed course, saying that he would have charged Trump with a crime if not for the Office of Legal Counsel opinion.
here it comes doc...Republican Rep. Debbie Lesko of Arizona pressed him on this after his comments to Lieu, saying “that is not what you said in the report and that is not what you told Attorney General Barr.” Lesko also pointed to the joint statement he put out earlier this year, saying there was no daylight between himself and Barr on that issue. She quoted from that statement, reading, “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.”
WAIT WHAT ??“So, Mr. Mueller, do you stand by your joint statement that you issued on May 29th as you sit here today?” Lesko asked. Mueller declined to stand by the official statement from his own office from less than two months ago.
“I would have to look at it more closely before I said I agree with it,” Mueller said.
BOOM the other shoe drops...“So, Mr. Mueller, do you stand by your joint statement that you issued on May 29th as you sit here today?” Lesko asked. Mueller declined to stand by the official statement from his own office from less than two months ago.
“I would have to look at it more closely before I said I agree with it,” Mueller said.
After Mueller's roughly nine-minute statement, politicians, pundits, and journalists interpreted Mueller’s remarks as a clear break from what Barr stated, suggesting that Mueller was saying that the only reason he didn’t charge Trump was the Office of Legal Counsel opinion.
Yes, it is clear to all now that the Dims have gone full pink.
... if we just believe it hard enough!"Ha ha ha ha, man are you a riot.Strangelove wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 3:09 pmYes, it is clear to all now that the Dims have gone full pink.
Which means, among other things, they are prisoners of their own delusions.
They heavily invested in believing Donny would be found guilty of some crime as a result of the Mueller Report.
When it became evident to sane folk after $25M spent that Lord Trump has come out smelling like a rose
... well sadly the poor pinkos only became even further detached from reality.
"He's guilty of... something somehow
Sounds rather cultist wot, complete with the twisting of sacred text and glassy-eyed enthusiasm...
