FTFY. I disagree with your interpretation. There is a lot of lawyerly hair-splitting going on but he didn't call Barr a liar.
Mueller told Barr the DOJ policy did not enter into his inability to conclude that obstruction occurred. He could have concluded there IS enough evidence to support a charge of obstruction - but he didn't. Either way he couldn't indict.
Originally Posted by lustylad
I don't like the inconsistencies between Starr's ability to draw conclusions during the Clinton investigation & Mueller's ability during Trump's.
Mr. Starr did and faced no consequences for drawing those conclusions that I am aware of, anyway.
The rules haven't changed have they?
I think if anyone prevented the investigation from discovering relevant evidence, they could have really cranked down on them to compel them.
That really didn't happen so it seems they were able to look under all the rocks and found nothing.
You all know me, I would have LOVED for something to be found. I fucking cannot stand trump. Apparently, I must learn to live with the embarrassing manner in which the person in the oval office acts.
Unless the unredacted report reveals something, I'm not certain what crime could be charged to justify impeachment or removal from office. Those who lied under oath should be removed. To my knowledge, while Trump does nothing but lie, I don't believe he has ever done so under oath.