Not a problem. Nothing in those summaries is going reverse the fact that no prosecution was recommended and no evidence of conspiracy between Camp Trump and Russia was found. Do whatever you need to do to keep the dream alive. Incidently, Barr just testified that when he called Mueller after Mueller sent his snitty letter, that Mueller said he was upset about how the press was responding to his summary of the findings. So there goes you earlier denial of that. Barr also said there were several other people in the room and notes were taken. So if you think that he would have stated that knowing that Mueller was probably coming in at some point GOOD LUCK WIT DAT. Oh, and just to kick you while you are down, Barr was directly asked if he was going to recuse from the cases before the SDNY, and he replied "no, I will supervise them." Damn, you know that's good stuff right theya. BILL BARR DID A GREAT JOB.
One last pointing as I have been proven correct ad nauseum on this board with regard to this subject.-----This president has been more than forthcoming with Mr Mueller and has not impeded the investigation at any juncture. --He may have wanted to fire Mueller and I would have too if I hadn't committed a crime. --Fact is that he didn't fire Mueller-----By the way he would not have needed Don McGann to fire Trump,--he could have done it himself. ----and he would be constitutionally allowed top do so for any reason or for no reason. --Obstruction of Justice?- ---Laughable.
You've said a lot. Let's start here: None of the laws that I've read exclude the President. Please provide us a credible link to where we can read for ourselves that The President can legally break laws that are on the books.
I don't need to. I know existentially from history that no charges were ever filed against Nixon, Clinton, Reagan, F. Roosevelt, A. Johnson or L. Johnson.(or any others) ----Presidents are above the law---
Hillary might be above the law as well, that is a different scenario------but we are about to find out with the new investigations forthwith.
Mueller played a classic game of dog in the manger. He withheld any comment when offered the opportunity to critique Barr's summary, then after Barr went public, he made a grandstand play claiming ludicrously that his role had essentially not been lionized enough. I'm sure Mueller and his team of dem activists are back-slapping each other at how well he pulled it off.
The Constitution provides the sole way to remove the President. Once his term is over or he leaves office, he can be prosecuted for crimes. Otherwise, to allow a state or federal prosecution of the president would be clearly contrary to the Constitutional scheme. We have seen the havoc that rogue district court judges have been able to do. Allowing a criminal prosecution of the president would be far worse. Both parties have generally refrained from prosecuting members of the former administration, in light of how easily it could turn into banana republic-style cycles of payback. That truce seems likely to collapse however, another causality of our decent into third world status.
Mueller got a little dose of some game playing himself today. Lindsay Graham sat there watching Barr answer question after question about Mueller by saying "you will have to ask him" and then at the end of the hearing Graham announced that would not be having Mueller before the committee unless he responded in writing saying that he disagreed with anything that Barr said. So now if he does not respond then he has agreed with everything Barr said and if he does respond he just signed up for 4-5 grueling hours before the Committee. That was rather well played too. It's rough out there on the playground.