by the way, his default is taciturn. so the notion that he would do something other than what he already said he would do when he gave his press conference, he said i m not going beyond my report. my report is my testimony. i have nothing to add. i understand that mr. barr opened the door. i get that. but i don t think it s in bob mueller s dna to do it. mm-hmm. it may not be in his dna, but doesn t he have to? i mean, this is a guy who oversaw this 22-month investigation, didn t reach a conclusion because of this legal barrier that he thought existed and then you have the attorney general saying i m your boss, that legal barrier doesn t exist. yeah. i think he s got to answer the question tomorrow. i would love to be wrong. neal katyal, chuck rosenberg, i know you two are going to be a key part of our footage our coverage of this as it unrolls over the course of tomorrow. which i know means you have to go home and go to sleep right this second. thank you so much for be
in which the attorney general, as neal says, has sort of redefined what the rules are and whether or not mueller should have said whether or not the president committed crimes. will robert mueller see those things that attorney general barr has said as the policy of the justice department that he should follow because they re proclamations by the a.g.? yeah, i think it puts bob in a very difficult spot. i mean, i ve learned to take that man at his word, having worked for him. by the way, his default is taciturn. so the notion that he would do something other than what he already said he would do when he gave his press conference, he said i m not going beyond my report. my report is my testimony. i have nothing to add. i understand that mr. barr opened the door. i get that. but i don t think it s in bob mueller s dna to do it. mmm-hmm. it may not be in his dna, but doesn t he have to? i mean, this is a guy who oversaw this 22-month investigation, didn t reach a conclusion becaus
crime. so it may have just been a slip of the tongue, but, you know, to say that, you know, many many yeah. did not appear to be obstruction. none would have been really clear. there were no instances. he also said, we didn t agree with the things that mueller said, we didn t agree legally with the things mueller said so we basically drew our own conclusions and presented it. again, it seems to be slight of hand or interesting language that says what we what william barr presented to the public is not what robert mueller seemed to have intended the public to consume. yeah. it s a little hard to analyze because it s, you know, lacking in specificity and it s a little inconsistent in the sense that on the one hand, he says he was the attorney general says he was surprised and seems to criticize the fact that the special counsel didn t reach a conclusion. but then on the other hand says we disagreed on the legal analysis or the conclusion. so which there was no con