Maybe he did say that. Maybe the report says "Trump is guilty as fuck and needs to be executed ASAP." The problem is that only Barr has read the Report, and Mueller's team is prohibited from speaking out. The Starr Report was published in full and sold in book stores, but Mueller is not allowed to publicly speak out. Mueller's silence doesn't prove Barr's summary is accurate, it proves Mueller and his team are unusually disciplined and able to prevent leaks.Joe K wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2019 3:04 pmIt may very well be true that Mueller did not think he had the authority to indict Trump. But I haven’t seen anyone say that Mueller lacked the authority to say something like “but for the Constitutional issues about indicting a sitting President, the evidence here is sufficient to support a charge of obstruction of justice.” In fact there are multiple reports that DOJ is frustrated with Mueller for not answering that question. And Mueller had to have known that if he just laid out the facts, without making such a conclusion, that it would make it much easier for Barr to clear Trump and for Congress to pass on impeachment. All of which leads me to think that Mueller didn’t think there was a clear case of obstruction here. (But apparently some of his team members did, based on the reports earlier this week.)The Sybian wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2019 2:48 pm1.) My understanding is that Mueller didn't have the authority to indict Trump for obstruction, and all he could do was lay out the facts on obstruction. The explanation I've heard that makes the most sense, is that Mueller laid out all the evidence for and against obstruction, and left it for Congress to decide. Back when Mueller was first appointed, there were several former prosecutors who worked with Mueller who said they did not think Mueller believed a Special Counsel had the authority to indict a sitting President, and he would lay out the evidence for Congress to decide whether to impeach.Joe K wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2019 1:16 pm The questions about Barr/Mueller that I have for everyone criticizing my view on this are as follows:
1. Given that Barr had already signaled a very pro-Executive power view on obstruction, why did Mueller punt on concluding whether Trump committed the offense? Had Mueller concluded that obstruction occurred, wouldn’t it have made it much harder for Barr and/or Congress to give Trump a pass?
2. What specific statement(s) in the Barr letter do you believe are lies or misrepresentations?
You guys can criticize my views on Russiagate all you want (I’m certainly used to it by now), but I have yet to see a convincing answer to either of these questions.
I don't know what the Report says, but I have absolutely no reason to trust Barr and Trump's PR victory lap, but we have 2 years of constant lies and open crimes showing we have every reason NOT to believe Barr's letter until someone trustworthy reads the Report. Maybe there is no evidence Trump personally colluded with Russia, but his campaign staff did, and we know this. 100%. Like TV+B said, I can't comprehend your giving Bar the benefit of the doubt, and assuming he is on the level until prove otherwise. He was appointed for the purpose of protecting Trump, so of course I doubt his summary. If a genuinely neutral person not appointed by Trump wrote the same summary, I'd give it more benefit of doubt,