Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA
So I have to agree with your spin to read something correctly?
Trump clearly expressed his intent to obstruct justice twice: once to Lavrov and Kisylak, and again to Lester Holt. Both in public and on the record. It doesn't matter what Barr wrote. He is a partisan appointed by the accused, and he chose to ignore Trump's stated purpose to fire Comey to obstruct the investigation.
|
no I have to put up with your inability to read what Barr actually said.....Barr is not the special counsel....Mueller was....Barr is the attorney that decides the law
" The Special Counsel states that ?while this report does not conclude that I
the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.?
The Special Counsel?s decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation
without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it'to the Attorney General to determine whether the
conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. Over the course of the investigation, the
Special Counsel?s of?ce engaged in discussions with certain Department of?cials regarding many
of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel?s obstruction investigation. After
reviewing the Special Counsel?s ?nal report on these issues; consulting with Department of?cials,
including the Of?ce of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide
our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the
evidence developed during the Special Counsel?s investigation is not suf?cient to establish that
the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made Without
regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and
criminal prosecution of a sitting president."
"In making this determination, 'we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that ?the
evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to
Russian election interference,? and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence
bears upon the President?s intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and
sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a suf?cient nexus to
a pending or contemplated proceeding.
In cataloguing the President?s actions, many of which took
place in public View, the report identi?es no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive
conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent,
each of which, under the Department?s principles of federal prosecution guiding charging
decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-
justice offense."
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
