Mueller has spoken. Finally, after two years he made a statement to the press yesterday, taking no questions from reporters and declaring that it was his “last public statement” regarding the report. Well, his confusing speech may have made that dream impossible as some are demanding he be subpoenaed, and he is already having to clarify yesterday’s statements. Conveniently, while both Barr and the President were out of town, Mueller took to the mics and said he was simply clarifying the two parts of the report. However, his delivery of the information in the report excited the salivating left calling for impeachment.
In speaking on Russian interference in the 2016 election, Mueller stated he never considered charging a sitting president with a crime and that doing so would be unconstitutional. However, some believe he was insinuating Trump would be charged with a crime had he not been a sitting president. Essentially, both parties believe Mueller’s statement was beneficial for their case; i.e., very confusing. Today the Washington Examiner writes “The Justice Department and its Office of Special Counsel put on a united front to end speculation that Robert Mueller contradicted Attorney General William Barr on the decision-making on whether President Trump could be charged with obstruction of justice during his public address.”
In a joint statement today from DOJ spokeswoman Kerry Kupec and Mueller spokesman Peter Carr said:
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. The Special Counsel’s report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination – one way or the other – about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements.
Just because the words “clear” and “no conflict” is said, does not make it so. For more information and analysis on Barr versus Mueller, including the timeline and history of their letters to Congress.