HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Mueller told Justice Dept...

Mon Mar 25, 2019, 01:32 PM

Mueller told Justice Dept. three weeks ago he couldn't reach a conclusion on obstruction

By: CNN Newsource

Roughly three weeks ago the special counsel's team told Attorney General Bill Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein that Robert Mueller would not be reaching a conclusion on obstruction of justice, according to a source familiar with the meeting.

The source said that conclusion was "unexpected" and not what Barr had anticipated.

The information also means that Barr had a head start on developing his analysis on obstruction of justice well before Mueller delivered his report to the attorney general on Friday. Rosenstein's office has also been heavily involved in overseeing the investigation since its inception.

The meeting wasn't about obstruction alone, the source added, and the special counsel's team asked for more time to finish their work, which was granted. The source described it as purely administrative.

This story is breaking and will be updated.

https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/national/mueller-told-justice-dept-three-weeks-ago-he-couldnt-reach-a-conclusion-on-obstruction

12 replies, 1915 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to gldstwmn (Original post)

Mon Mar 25, 2019, 01:43 PM

1. Barr's reasoning he stated in the summary are legally falacious at best. He just pulled crap out...

... of his butt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #1)

Mon Mar 25, 2019, 01:45 PM

2. He apparently thinks it's OK if you just try to obstruct justice but don't actually succeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #2)

Mon Mar 25, 2019, 01:47 PM

3. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gldstwmn (Original post)

Mon Mar 25, 2019, 01:53 PM

4. "could not" and "would not" are two entirely different things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to niyad (Reply #4)

Mon Mar 25, 2019, 02:04 PM

6. My thought exactly- couldn't, or didn't want to? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gldstwmn (Original post)

Mon Mar 25, 2019, 02:04 PM

5. That's what one "source" said. And yet Barr could read the whole report in one weekend

and easily make the determination. What a guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #5)

Mon Mar 25, 2019, 02:35 PM

9. Why didn't when the Republicans selected Mueller also put a democrat investigator in with him?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gldstwmn (Original post)

Mon Mar 25, 2019, 02:08 PM

7. I never thought obstruction would be proved. Too circumstantial

The conspiracy and emoluments and enriching and treason and selling of and giving of secrets etc is where the meat is

Thatís where the state level investigations will hopefully bear fruit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gldstwmn (Original post)

Mon Mar 25, 2019, 02:33 PM

8. 3 weeks ago? Mueller and Barr are both dirty. This was a white wash from the beginning.

Look if I was wrong any time about this I would say it. But history proves otherwise. Now goes down in history that Republicans are traitors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rockfordfile (Reply #8)

Mon Mar 25, 2019, 02:39 PM

11. Given his track record I have a hard time

thinking Mueller is dirty. Made to finish? Yes. Honestly I don't know what to think any more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gldstwmn (Original post)

Mon Mar 25, 2019, 02:37 PM

10. Great tweet from Dan Rather:

[link:<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">I've covered enough big news stories to know that sometimes the headlines from the first day can evolve considerably as more information comes to light.</p>ó Dan Rather (@DanRather) <a href="
?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 24, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>|

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gldstwmn (Original post)

Mon Mar 25, 2019, 02:55 PM

12. "would not" : what's that supposed to mean?

Does it mean he doesn't yet have enough evidence or that he could not establish intent or what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread