![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/APP-050119-Barr-blah.jpg\")
<\/p>\nRUSH: You can also look for the media to create a new chorus today, and that is that the attorney general lied and misrepresented what the special counsel told him. During his press conference announcing his analysis of the Mueller report, the Attorney General Barr said that he specifically asked Mueller if the Office of Legal Counsel guidelines (i.e., you can\u2019t indict a sitting president) played any role in your decision not to charge the president with any obstruction? Barr said that Mueller told him “no,” the guidelines had nothing to do with it.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
So Mueller goes out there today and says the exact opposite. Mueller went out there and had to say, “The only reason…” This is what he wants you to believe. “The only reason that we didn\u2019t name the president in any indictments is because we can\u2019t. The Office of Legal Counsel guidelines make it unconstitutional to indict a sitting president. We can\u2019t do it. We couldn\u2019t do it. We could never do it,” which is what leads me to ask: What the hell has this been for, then? I\u2019m asking that rhetorically, because everybody thought this was about finding out whether Trump was a traitor.<\/p>\n
Everybody thought that was the purpose, to find out if Trump had colluded with the Russians. Now, Mueller says today, “Well, even if we had found that, we couldn\u2019t accuse him of it because of the guidelines.” So Barr says, “No, Mueller told me it had nothing to do with the decision today.” Mueller said, “Yeah, it\u2019s the only reason that we didn\u2019t.” So you can look for CNN, New York Times, you name it, the Drive-By Media chorus to start dumping on Barr, and the purpose of that is gonna be to discredit whatever he comes up with in his investigation of the investigation.<\/p>\n
BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n
RUSH: You know, this is gonna be very interesting because I went back during the break, I went back to the archives out there, and I found the attorney general on two separate occasions — they were both in the press conference — when he announced that Mueller\u2019s report was in and that he had read the report and gave his four-page summary, it had some questions out there. The media asked questions. Of course, Mueller didn\u2019t deign to take any questions. And we know why. Mueller doesn\u2019t want any questions about the stuff he ignored.<\/p>\n
Anyway. This is gonna be a big bone of contention because Mueller made it plain today — in fact, I\u2019ve got three Mueller sound bites. I\u2019ve been looking for every reason in the world not to use them because they just tick me off. This is gonna be a big bone of contention because of what Barr has said on two separate occasions. I\u2019ll get to what Barr has said after I play for you Mr. Integrity, Mr. Boy Scout, Mr. Honorable, Mr. Impeccable, Mr. They Don\u2019t Come Any Better Than This, Robert S. Mueller III.<\/p>\n
MUELLER: As set forth in the report after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime. Beyond department policy we regarded by principles of fairness, it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge. So that was Justice Department policy, those were the principles under which we operated, and from them we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime. That is the office\u2019s final position, and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the president.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/APP-052919-CNN.jpg\")
RUSH: Now, he actually was more emphatic than that, even, on the Justice Department guidelines. By the way, Office of Legal Counsel is the lawyers for the lawyers. You know, DOJ is the Department of Justice, but even they have lawyers who tell the other lawyers what the law is and what procedures are, and it\u2019s the Office of Legal Counsel that determines what the DOJ can charge and not charge. They have determined since 1979 that you cannot indict a sitting president.<\/p>\n
And Mueller made it clear over and over again today that that\u2019s the reason they didn\u2019t pursue the president is because of those guidelines. Can\u2019t indict a sitting president, so why do it? That\u2019s why I was screaming when he said this. \u201cWhat the hell was this for then?\u201d If from the very beginning you were operating under guidelines that say you can\u2019t accuse him, you can\u2019t charge him, you can\u2019t indict him, then what the hell has been going on here?<\/p>\n
Well, Attorney General Barr on two separate occasions has said that Robert Mueller told him three different times Mueller specifically was asked by Barr, “Is your reason for not charging Trump anything to do with the Office of Legal Counsel guidelines?” And Barr says that Mueller said three times, “No, that has nothing to do with it.” Barr is on record on two occasions saying that Mueller told him three times the Office of Legal Counsel guidelines have nothing to do with his decision not to indict the president or not to link the president to crimes.<\/p>\n
And today Mueller goes out there and says the only reason we didn\u2019t — he implied — the only reason we didn\u2019t is because of those guidelines. And then what else he said here? You know, I promised I was gonna drop this, but I played this sound bite and I get revved up again. “As set forth in the report after the investigation, if we had confidence the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”<\/p>\n
Do you realize what an abomination of the justice system that is? I say this without any partisanship or favoritism toward Trump here at all. This just turns our system of justice on its head. It really does, folks. If we had confidence the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.<\/p>\n
How about this? “If we had confidence the president clearly did commit a crime, we would have said so.” That\u2019s the way it\u2019s supposed to be. “If we had evidence the president committed a crime, we would have damn well said so.” It\u2019s not, “If we had confidence the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so.” That\u2019s not what the job is. And then he goes on to say we couldn\u2019t have indicted him anyway because of Justice Department guidelines.<\/p>\n
But then this next: “We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.” Well, go tell that to Jerry Nadler and Elizabeth Warren and the rest, \u2019cause they sure as hell think that you have. “We did not make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.”<\/p>\n
Yes, you have! You have done everything you can to imply that he did and that you just couldn\u2019t find it! That\u2019s what makes me so livid. This guy in his righteousness sitting here saying that “We did not make a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”<\/p>\n
“Beyond department policy, which is the Office of Legal Counsel guidelines, we were guided by the principles of fairness.” Ha. What an absolute crock. There hasn\u2019t been anything fair about this from the moment it began! “It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the charge.”<\/p>\n
That didn\u2019t stop you from charging the Russians! They\u2019re not gonna get their day in court because you can\u2019t get them extradited, and you knew they weren\u2019t gonna come face your charges. That\u2019s why you could charge \u2019em with anything. You could charge them with blowing up human feces in San Francisco, and they wouldn\u2019t come face the charges because Russia wouldn\u2019t indict \u2019em.<\/p>\n
So you charged those Russians knowing full well they would never have a chance to refute and to prove their innocence. So what the hell do you care, Mr. Mueller, about somebody having a chance to prove their innocence? You clearly, by innuendo, wanted to destroy these Russian groups and give them no chance whatsoever to answer your charges. And yet that fairness is what prevents you from charging the president. “So that was Justice Department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated.” Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/APP-071618-Comey-Clapper-Brennan-Strzok-DEEP-STATE.jpg\")
Take a look here what has actually happened in this so-called investigation. James Comey, July 5th, 2016, press conference, lists all the crimes Hillary Clinton committed, lists all the crimes that they know she did! And then said, “But we\u2019re not charging her because we don\u2019t think she intended to do any of this.”<\/p>\n
Now, we move to the Trump investigation, “We can\u2019t find a damn thing the guy did, but we are certain he intended to.” What the hell is this, folks? They exonerate Hillary because they think she didn\u2019t intend to do what she did. They can\u2019t find that Trump did anything, but they think he intended to do what he didn\u2019t do, and so we need to impeach him.<\/p>\n
If this is the best Washington has, if this is the top of the heap when it comes to integrity and honor and decency and all that, then we have run out of decency and honor in Washington, D.C. This is such a crock, I can\u2019t even begin to aptly, accurately describe the anger, the rage, and the emotions here that I am feeling and not get profane in doing so.<\/p>\n
Honestly, folks. Hillary Clinton trafficking in illegal classified documents on an illegal home brew server running this foundation selling access to her imaginary on-the-come presidency. All of it the FBI uncovered. Comey lists the crimes in a July 5th press conference and then says, “But no reasonable prosecutor would ever bring these charges because we can\u2019t find that she intended to do it.” Even though the law doesn\u2019t require intent for prosecution or guilt.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, we\u2019ve looked for three years, we\u2019ve talked to 500 people, we\u2019ve ruined three other people, we\u2019ve threatened to ruin their families, we put prisoners in solitary confinement, we have subpoenaed and looked at over a million documents, and we can\u2019t find a single thing Trump did, but we know he intended to.<\/p>\n
This is the politicization and the weaponization of the Department of Justice and our legal system in the pursuit of an undesirable election winner. And that would be Donald Trump.<\/p>\n
So it looks like these Russians that Mueller indicted, these troll farms, these are the guys that were buying ads on Facebook, by the way, after the election. These Russians, who have been indicted, Mueller was talking about \u2019em today, these Russians who have been indicted, have more rights than Donald Trump. At least these Russians are presumed innocent until being found guilty in court, which they will not be because they\u2019ll not ever get to court.<\/p>\n
Trump, on the other hand, is guilty until somebody out there proves that he didn\u2019t do it. They may as well say Trump is guilty of every allegation in that dossier. Trump is guilty until he somehow proves himself innocent of every accusation in that dossier. ‘Cause if he can\u2019t prove that he didn\u2019t do it, we\u2019re gonna continue to operate on the premise that he did do it.<\/p>\n
So far, we haven\u2019t been able to find any evidence that he didn\u2019t. How do you find evidence that somebody didn\u2019t do something? You know, the old saw about proving a negative. So it\u2019s gonna be interesting to see how the Drive-Bys deal with this Barr and Mueller kerfuffle.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/Rush-Photos-SMALL-021.jpg\")
I\u2019m gonna tell you what it\u2019s about. Robert Mueller wanted to nail Donald Trump and couldn\u2019t. And so he\u2019s continuing to try to do so, and that\u2019s what this press conference today was all about. Now, Barr has announced an investigation of the investigation. And he\u2019s already got a guy looking into it, this guy Durham\u2019s already looking, been at it two months.<\/p>\n
So Barr is on record two different occasions saying that Mueller told him three different times that the office of legal counsel guidelines on not indicting a president had no impact on Mueller\u2019s decisions to name or not name Trump in his report. Mueller comes out today and says that\u2019s the only reason we didn\u2019t mention Trump. The only reason. Well, aside from fact we couldn\u2019t find any evidence to exonerate him, we couldn\u2019t anyway because the Justice Department guidelines say you can\u2019t indict a sitting president.<\/p>\n
So he and Barr, one of those two is lying big time. And who do you think the Drive-Bys are gonna conclude is lying? Barr. And why? So that they can discredit Barr\u2019s investigation of the investigation. You think Mueller doesn\u2019t know what he\u2019s doing. He went out there toda, and he threw Barr under the bus. He did it on purpose. These guys, we\u2019re told that they\u2019re lifelong, 30-years-long friends, wives go to Bible study together.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
RUSH: Look for the media to create a new chorus today, and that is that the attorney general lied and misrepresented what the special counsel told him. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":49,"featured_media":307893,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","ngg_post_thumbnail":0},"categories":[12,1],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\n