(03-26-2019 11:33 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 11:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 10:42 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 10:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 10:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Did Owl#s lie when he said the evidence was clear that Hillary committed a crime? If we go solely off of a summary of what Comey said, she was cleared of any criminal wrong doing.

And we are back to OJ.

An acquital does not mean innocent.

Owl@s has no incentive to lie.

Schiff does.

The incentive to lie doesn't matter. This is all about being consistent with how you judge people.

You're trying to use the fact Mueller did not find Trump and Co. guilty of collusion to say that Schiff must be lying when he said the evidence was clear. So by the exact same logic, if Clinton was not found guilty of mishandling classified information, then Owl#s must be lying when he says the evidence is clear that she mishandled classified information.

I see no reason why Schiff can't say the evidence is clear, yet Mueller can come to the conclusion that there is not enough evidence to legally convict Trump and Co. of the crime, as this happens all of the time.

Like I said, Schiff has incentive to make a case against Trump, as he has established himself as a leader in the Get Trump wing of your party, and his future political career could rest on it. I have no doubt that President Schiff sounds good to him. If the evidence is clear, present it. That's what a prosecutor would do, and he sounds like a prosecutor, he acts lie prosecutor, he must be a duck.

BTW, Clinton was not found Not Guilty, as you say - there was no prosecution. Same exact case your team is trying to make regarding OOJ. If not prosecuting means not guilty , then we are done here. Of course, their viewpoint is largely, that if he was not exonerated by Mueller, then he must be guilty and Barr is just covering for him out of gratitude to Trump for his job. Funny how everybody Trump appoints to anything - SCOTUS, Cabinet, any job - is deemed to be willing to do anything for him, while the Obama appointees cannot be swayed from the path of righteousness by mere gratitude.

Clinton was not found guilty in the same way Trump wasn't - an investigation was conducted into possible misdeeds, and the lead investigator (Comey and Mueller) felt that the evidence they uncovered did not warrant prosecution.

The main difference is we know far less, right now, of what evidence Mueller relied on. We'll know that in due time, and my guess is that many on the right who are hemming and hawing over Clinton's outcome will not be doing the same about Trump's, regardless of what information comes to light.

And OOJ is much less clear based on what Barr said as compared to the Russia conspiracy. While Barr has said that Mueller put a nail in the coffin regarding whether or not Trump and Co. were conspiring with the Russian government, Mueller did not do so with respect to OOJ.

The main difference is in the relative characters of Comey and Mueller. Comey purposefully leaked. Mueller never leaked. I choose Mueller. You can have Comey.

If not prosecuting means innocent, then the OOJ case is closed.

The obstruction of justice case is closed? Hahahahahaha.

The Barr Report says: "The Special Counsel did not draw a conclusion - one way or the other - as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel view as "difficult issues" of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that" - and here we just one of two extended direct quotations from the Mueller Report in the Barr Report - "'while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.'"

The Barr Report, not the Mueller Report, concludes that the President did not obstruct justice. This conclusion should not surprise us: in his application for the job of Attorney General, way back in June 2018, Sir Barr told us he would reach this conclusion. He's doing what he was hired to do. Hooray!

We have the Barr Report. Let's see the Mueller Report. It's been almost four days since it was submitted. Is there any principled reason for delay? The Trump Apologists have none.

(03-26-2019 12:24 PM)Boston Owl Wrote:  The obstruction of justice case is closed? Hahahahahaha.

The Barr Report says: "The Special Counsel did not draw a conclusion - one way or the other - as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel view as "difficult issues" of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that" - and here we just one of two extended direct quotations from the Mueller Report in the Barr Report - "'while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.'"

The Barr Report, not the Mueller Report, concludes that the President did not obstruct justice. This conclusion should not surprise us: in his application for the job of Attorney General, way back in June 2018, Sir Barr told us he would reach this conclusion. He's doing what he was hired to do. Hooray!

We have the Barr Report. Let's see the Mueller Report. It's been almost four days since it was submitted. Is there any principled reason for delay? The Trump Apologists have none.

You need to read the whole exchange. Lad was saying Hillary was not guilty because she was not charged, and I was saying if that is the case, then ,oh, never mind, there is none so blind...

Bar and Rosenstine had three weeks notice that Mueller was not going to get off the fence. They spent that time analying the evidence in relation to the standards and practices of the DOJ. They consulted a lot of people. I guess if you are predetermined to object to the conclusion, you can hang your hat on that statement.

Application for a Cabinet level job? Did Eric Holder fill one out too?

You don't have to agree with me to get my attention. But you do need to be fair. So far, you just come off as an unthinking hater.

(03-26-2019 12:24 PM)Boston Owl Wrote:  The obstruction of justice case is closed? Hahahahahaha.

The Barr Report says: "The Special Counsel did not draw a conclusion - one way or the other - as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel view as "difficult issues" of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that" - and here we just one of two extended direct quotations from the Mueller Report in the Barr Report - "'while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.'"

The Barr Report, not the Mueller Report, concludes that the President did not obstruct justice. This conclusion should not surprise us: in his application for the job of Attorney General, way back in June 2018, Sir Barr told us he would reach this conclusion. He's doing what he was hired to do. Hooray!

We have the Barr Report. Let's see the Mueller Report. It's been almost four days since it was submitted. Is there any principled reason for delay? The Trump Apologists have none.

The Barr report? Is that what MSNBC is calling it?

Bar released a summary of the Mueller Report, including quotes.

(03-26-2019 02:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 12:24 PM)Boston Owl Wrote:  The obstruction of justice case is closed? Hahahahahaha.

The Barr Report says: "The Special Counsel did not draw a conclusion - one way or the other - as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel view as "difficult issues" of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that" - and here we just one of two extended direct quotations from the Mueller Report in the Barr Report - "'while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.'"

The Barr Report, not the Mueller Report, concludes that the President did not obstruct justice. This conclusion should not surprise us: in his application for the job of Attorney General, way back in June 2018, Sir Barr told us he would reach this conclusion. He's doing what he was hired to do. Hooray!

We have the Barr Report. Let's see the Mueller Report. It's been almost four days since it was submitted. Is there any principled reason for delay? The Trump Apologists have none.

You need to read the whole exchange. Lad was saying Hillary was not guilty because she was not charged, and I was saying if that is the case, then ,oh, never mind, there is none so blind...

Bar and Rosenstine had three weeks notice that Mueller was not going to get off the fence. They spent that time analying the evidence in relation to the standards and practices of the DOJ. They consulted a lot of people. I guess if you are predetermined to object to the conclusion, you can hang your hat on that statement.

Application for a Cabinet level job? Did Eric Holder fill one out too?

You don't have to agree with me to get my attention. But you do need to be fair. So far, you just come off as an unthinking hater.

I am aware that Barr was given a 3 weeks notice. I was not aware that Barr was given the Mueller report with his findings (i.e. evidence) 3 weeks in advance. Did I miss that report?

(03-26-2019 02:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 02:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 12:24 PM)Boston Owl Wrote:  The obstruction of justice case is closed? Hahahahahaha.

The Barr Report says: "The Special Counsel did not draw a conclusion - one way or the other - as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel view as "difficult issues" of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that" - and here we just one of two extended direct quotations from the Mueller Report in the Barr Report - "'while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.'"

The Barr Report, not the Mueller Report, concludes that the President did not obstruct justice. This conclusion should not surprise us: in his application for the job of Attorney General, way back in June 2018, Sir Barr told us he would reach this conclusion. He's doing what he was hired to do. Hooray!

We have the Barr Report. Let's see the Mueller Report. It's been almost four days since it was submitted. Is there any principled reason for delay? The Trump Apologists have none.

You need to read the whole exchange. Lad was saying Hillary was not guilty because she was not charged, and I was saying if that is the case, then ,oh, never mind, there is none so blind...

Bar and Rosenstine had three weeks notice that Mueller was not going to get off the fence. They spent that time analying the evidence in relation to the standards and practices of the DOJ. They consulted a lot of people. I guess if you are predetermined to object to the conclusion, you can hang your hat on that statement.

Application for a Cabinet level job? Did Eric Holder fill one out too?

You don't have to agree with me to get my attention. But you do need to be fair. So far, you just come off as an unthinking hater.

I am aware that Barr was given a 3 weeks notice. I was not aware that Barr was given the Mueller report with his findings (i.e. evidence) 3 weeks in advance. Did I miss that report?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/25/politics/...index.html

And whether expected by Justice officials or not, the new timeline now emerging means that Barr had a head start on developing his own analysis on obstruction of justice well before Mueller delivered his confidential report to the attorney general on Friday. Rosenstein's office has also been heavily involved in overseeing the investigation since he appointed the special counsel in May 2017.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...stice.html

(03-26-2019 12:24 PM)Boston Owl Wrote:  The Barr Report, not the Mueller Report, concludes that the President did not obstruct justice. This conclusion should not surprise us: in his application for the job of Attorney General, way back in June 2018, Sir Barr told us he would reach this conclusion. He's doing what he was hired to do. Hooray!

That’s not an accurate characterization of Barr’s 2018 memo. The memo is a long argument that the obstruction statute should not be construed to cover Presidential conduct that is lawful on its face, such as dismissing an agency head. The memo does not argue that other acts by the President — e.g witness tampering, evidence destruction — would not violate the obstruction statute. Thus, it is not true that the memo indicates an intent to exonerate the President under all circumstances.

(03-26-2019 03:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 02:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 02:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 12:24 PM)Boston Owl Wrote:  The obstruction of justice case is closed? Hahahahahaha.

The Barr Report says: "The Special Counsel did not draw a conclusion - one way or the other - as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel view as "difficult issues" of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that" - and here we just one of two extended direct quotations from the Mueller Report in the Barr Report - "'while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.'"

The Barr Report, not the Mueller Report, concludes that the President did not obstruct justice. This conclusion should not surprise us: in his application for the job of Attorney General, way back in June 2018, Sir Barr told us he would reach this conclusion. He's doing what he was hired to do. Hooray!

We have the Barr Report. Let's see the Mueller Report. It's been almost four days since it was submitted. Is there any principled reason for delay? The Trump Apologists have none.

You need to read the whole exchange. Lad was saying Hillary was not guilty because she was not charged, and I was saying if that is the case, then ,oh, never mind, there is none so blind...

Bar and Rosenstine had three weeks notice that Mueller was not going to get off the fence. They spent that time analying the evidence in relation to the standards and practices of the DOJ. They consulted a lot of people. I guess if you are predetermined to object to the conclusion, you can hang your hat on that statement.

Application for a Cabinet level job? Did Eric Holder fill one out too?

You don't have to agree with me to get my attention. But you do need to be fair. So far, you just come off as an unthinking hater.

I am aware that Barr was given a 3 weeks notice. I was not aware that Barr was given the Mueller report with his findings (i.e. evidence) 3 weeks in advance. Did I miss that report?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/25/politics/...index.html

And whether expected by Justice officials or not, the new timeline now emerging means that Barr had a head start on developing his own analysis on obstruction of justice well before Mueller delivered his confidential report to the attorney general on Friday. Rosenstein's office has also been heavily involved in overseeing the investigation since he appointed the special counsel in May 2017.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...stice.html

That quote says nothing about evidence being given to Barr early. I haven't seen any reports that indicate the DOJ had Mueller info ahead of Mueller passing him the report on Friday.

Them knowing that there would be no recommendation did allow for them to prepared to review information, understanding that they may or may not need to recommend charges.

I have a sneaking suspicion that BosOwl doesnt give a rat's ass that his comments are mischaracterizations.

(03-26-2019 03:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I have a sneaking suspicion that BosOwl doesnt give a rat's ass that his comments are mischaracterizations.

BO is a caricature of the left. His statements sound as if he copied them off the MSNBC teleprompter.

(03-26-2019 03:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I have a sneaking suspicion that BosOwl doesnt give a rat's ass that his comments are mischaracterizations.

BO is a caricature of the left. His statements sound as if he copied them off the MSNBC teleprompter.

(03-26-2019 03:04 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 12:24 PM)Boston Owl Wrote:  The Barr Report, not the Mueller Report, concludes that the President did not obstruct justice. This conclusion should not surprise us: in his application for the job of Attorney General, way back in June 2018, Sir Barr told us he would reach this conclusion. He's doing what he was hired to do. Hooray!

That’s not an accurate characterization of Barr’s 2018 memo. The memo is a long argument that the obstruction statute should not be construed to cover Presidential conduct that is lawful on its face, such as dismissing an agency head. The memo does not argue that other acts by the President — e.g witness tampering, evidence destruction — would not violate the obstruction statute. Thus, it is not true that the memo indicates an intent to exonerate the President under all circumstances.

Regarding the Barr letter to Congress and obstruction of justice, a most interesting phrase:

"the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment."

Seems within the scope of his mandate to have done so.

Look forward to hearing directly from Mueller on that point.

(03-26-2019 08:12 PM)ausowl Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 03:04 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 12:24 PM)Boston Owl Wrote:  The Barr Report, not the Mueller Report, concludes that the President did not obstruct justice. This conclusion should not surprise us: in his application for the job of Attorney General, way back in June 2018, Sir Barr told us he would reach this conclusion. He's doing what he was hired to do. Hooray!

That’s not an accurate characterization of Barr’s 2018 memo. The memo is a long argument that the obstruction statute should not be construed to cover Presidential conduct that is lawful on its face, such as dismissing an agency head. The memo does not argue that other acts by the President — e.g witness tampering, evidence destruction — would not violate the obstruction statute. Thus, it is not true that the memo indicates an intent to exonerate the President under all circumstances.

Regarding the Barr letter to Congress and obstruction of justice, a most interesting phrase:

"the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment."

Seems within the scope of his mandate to have done so.

Look forward to hearing directly from Mueller on that point.

That sentence caught my eye too. I think it’s a long-form way of saying Mueller punted. I wonder how much detail the report gives for that play call.

(03-26-2019 08:12 PM)ausowl Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 03:04 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 12:24 PM)Boston Owl Wrote:  The Barr Report, not the Mueller Report, concludes that the President did not obstruct justice. This conclusion should not surprise us: in his application for the job of Attorney General, way back in June 2018, Sir Barr told us he would reach this conclusion. He's doing what he was hired to do. Hooray!

That’s not an accurate characterization of Barr’s 2018 memo. The memo is a long argument that the obstruction statute should not be construed to cover Presidential conduct that is lawful on its face, such as dismissing an agency head. The memo does not argue that other acts by the President — e.g witness tampering, evidence destruction — would not violate the obstruction statute. Thus, it is not true that the memo indicates an intent to exonerate the President under all circumstances.

Regarding the Barr letter to Congress and obstruction of justice, a most interesting phrase:

"the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment."

Seems within the scope of his mandate to have done so.

No doubt. This was, in fact, what he was 'hired' to do.

He made several 'non-traditional' prosecutorial judgments leading up the final act, mind you.

I read it as implying that Mueller really wishes to have brought charges, but both factual issues (i.e. no underlying corrupt intent) and Constitutional issues (whether a President can be dinged for exercising a discretionary and lawful power) leave him in the weakest position possible to consider that.

Which, when you note the zealousness that he extended indictments to others, and the liberal extent to the definition of some of those charges (i.e. the 'sandbag' of Flynn, the elevation of a 'he didnt sign a piece of paper, and the submission of the paper with a 3k fine is the punishment'-level offense to various felony indictments ('conspiracy against the United States', numerous money laundering, and a bevy of process crimes), indictments of corporations that werent even in existence at the alleged time), and the liberal manner in the prosecution of some of those matters (the refusal to move forward when a corporation had the temerity to actually answer and request expedited proceedings, refusal to accept the counsel of record as being able to respond in court), then yes, I am both surprised at the punt, yet at the same time not surprised at it.

(03-26-2019 03:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I have a sneaking suspicion that BosOwl doesnt give a rat's ass that his comments are mischaracterizations.

You may be right. He almost makes At Ease look reasonable.

(03-26-2019 06:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 12:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 10:21 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  I liked what Lindsey Graham had to say today.

Yup

What did he say?

Perfectly summarizes the left. Not well-covered on Don Lemon or Rachael Maddow. Surprise.

TL;DR for you: Lindsey is currently one guy in government willing to do his job correctly. God Bless America (with no apologies to Rev. Wright.)

(03-27-2019 11:03 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 06:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 12:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 10:21 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  I liked what Lindsey Graham had to say today.

Yup

What did he say?

Perfectly summarizes the left. Not well-covered on Don Lemon or Rachael Maddow. Surprise.

TL;DR for you: Lindsey is currently one guy in government willing to do his job correctly. God Bless America (with no apologies to Rev. Wright.)

Lol, great summary!

Still have no idea what Graham said that y'all are referencing (and I doubt it's because CNN or MSNBC didn't cover it - the only news I've listened to or read the last few days is Morning Edition on the way to work, which hasn't had a ton of Trump related news).

A quick Google says that Graham has talked about the DOJ releasing the report without Trump's review and inviting Barr to talk to the Senate. Both are great things.

(03-27-2019 11:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 11:03 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 06:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 12:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 10:21 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  I liked what Lindsey Graham had to say today.

Yup

What did he say?

Perfectly summarizes the left. Not well-covered on Don Lemon or Rachael Maddow. Surprise.

TL;DR for you: Lindsey is currently one guy in government willing to do his job correctly. God Bless America (with no apologies to Rev. Wright.)

Lol, great summary!

Still have no idea what Graham said that y'all are referencing (and I doubt it's because CNN or MSNBC didn't cover it - the only news I've listened to or read the last few days is Morning Edition on the way to work, which hasn't had a ton of Trump related news).

A quick Google says that Graham has talked about the DOJ releasing the report without Trump's review and inviting Barr to talk to the Senate. Both are great things.

he also talked about investigating the DOJ and FBI to learn how this witch hunt (my words) got started, in particular the use of the dossier. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

I don't care if Trump reviews it or not. it's not like he is going to revise it and Mueller reamin quiet.

(03-27-2019 09:20 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 08:12 PM)ausowl Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 03:04 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 12:24 PM)Boston Owl Wrote:  The Barr Report, not the Mueller Report, concludes that the President did not obstruct justice. This conclusion should not surprise us: in his application for the job of Attorney General, way back in June 2018, Sir Barr told us he would reach this conclusion. He's doing what he was hired to do. Hooray!

That’s not an accurate characterization of Barr’s 2018 memo. The memo is a long argument that the obstruction statute should not be construed to cover Presidential conduct that is lawful on its face, such as dismissing an agency head. The memo does not argue that other acts by the President — e.g witness tampering, evidence destruction — would not violate the obstruction statute. Thus, it is not true that the memo indicates an intent to exonerate the President under all circumstances.

Regarding the Barr letter to Congress and obstruction of justice, a most interesting phrase:
"the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment."
Seems within the scope of his mandate to have done so.

No doubt. This was, in fact, what he was 'hired' to do.
He made several 'non-traditional' prosecutorial judgments leading up the final act, mind you.
I read it as implying that Mueller really wishes to have brought charges, but both factual issues (i.e. no underlying corrupt intent) and Constitutional issues (whether a President can be dinged for exercising a discretionary and lawful power) leave him in the weakest position possible to consider that.
Which, when you note the zealousness that he extended indictments to others, and the liberal extent to the definition of some of those charges (i.e. the 'sandbag' of Flynn, the elevation of a 'he didnt sign a piece of paper, and the submission of the paper with a 3k fine is the punishment'-level offense to various felony indictments ('conspiracy against the United States', numerous money laundering, and a bevy of process crimes), indictments of corporations that werent even in existence at the alleged time), and the liberal manner in the prosecution of some of those matters (the refusal to move forward when a corporation had the temerity to actually answer and request expedited proceedings, refusal to accept the counsel of record as being able to respond in court), then yes, I am both surprised at the punt, yet at the same time not surprised at it.

I don't know whether Mueller truly "wishes have brought charges," but it is pretty clear that he found neither factual nor statuary basis for so doing. As you note, given his willingness to go full bore on prosecuting things unrelated to the nominal scope of his investigation, one can scarcely believe he would have punted anything within that scope.

And Boston Owl's gross mischaracterization of Barr's 2018 has set a forum record for disingenuity. .

(03-27-2019 09:20 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 08:12 PM)ausowl Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 03:04 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 12:24 PM)Boston Owl Wrote:  The Barr Report, not the Mueller Report, concludes that the President did not obstruct justice. This conclusion should not surprise us: in his application for the job of Attorney General, way back in June 2018, Sir Barr told us he would reach this conclusion. He's doing what he was hired to do. Hooray!

That’s not an accurate characterization of Barr’s 2018 memo. The memo is a long argument that the obstruction statute should not be construed to cover Presidential conduct that is lawful on its face, such as dismissing an agency head. The memo does not argue that other acts by the President — e.g witness tampering, evidence destruction — would not violate the obstruction statute. Thus, it is not true that the memo indicates an intent to exonerate the President under all circumstances.

Regarding the Barr letter to Congress and obstruction of justice, a most interesting phrase:
"the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment."
Seems within the scope of his mandate to have done so.

No doubt. This was, in fact, what he was 'hired' to do.
He made several 'non-traditional' prosecutorial judgments leading up the final act, mind you.
I read it as implying that Mueller really wishes to have brought charges, but both factual issues (i.e. no underlying corrupt intent) and Constitutional issues (whether a President can be dinged for exercising a discretionary and lawful power) leave him in the weakest position possible to consider that.
Which, when you note the zealousness that he extended indictments to others, and the liberal extent to the definition of some of those charges (i.e. the 'sandbag' of Flynn, the elevation of a 'he didnt sign a piece of paper, and the submission of the paper with a 3k fine is the punishment'-level offense to various felony indictments ('conspiracy against the United States', numerous money laundering, and a bevy of process crimes), indictments of corporations that werent even in existence at the alleged time), and the liberal manner in the prosecution of some of those matters (the refusal to move forward when a corporation had the temerity to actually answer and request expedited proceedings, refusal to accept the counsel of record as being able to respond in court), then yes, I am both surprised at the punt, yet at the same time not surprised at it.

I don't know whether Mueller truly "wishes have brought charges," but it is pretty clear that he found neither factual nor statuary basis for so doing. As you note, given his willingness to go full bore on prosecuting things unrelated to the nominal scope of his investigation, one can scarcely believe he would have punted anything within that scope.

And Boston Owl's gross mischaracterization of Barr's 2018 memo has set a forum record for disingenuity. .