Is Barr Going to Indict Trump? (bias, party, claims, administration)

[Ariadne22]

Originally Posted by kmarc

Barr made a conclusion, not a decision. Mueller left the issue open, and in doing so, has given Barr an opportunity to change his mind after releasing the report.

- BS. In what world do you actually believe this fairy tale?

"Conclusion/decision" - ridiculous hair-splitting semantics - one and the same since AG can indeed "rule" - in an attempt to prove pretzelogic. Barr will NEVER - NEVER - "change his mind. " roflmao....

Bar is Trump's fixer. Just look at him for G-d's sake. He's a lackey.

Barr was hired to be Trump's "Fixer." Barr's June 2018 "Mueller's 'Obstruction' Theory" proves it - which, if Eric Holder had been the author and later appointed AG and Obama under investigation and then his AG "concluded" in his favor - every r-winger would be screaming to high heaven.

[hbdwihdh378y9]

Originally Posted by burdell

Interfering with an investigation that ultimately finds no crime is still obstruction of justice which is itself a crime..

Trump didn't come close to interfering with any investigation.

[Camaro5]

There are a lot of theories that are floated out there, and the radical left is wrong about every single one.

All the left is doing is trying the spaghetti approach, throwing a lot of it at the wall and hoping something sticks.

[Hellion1999]

Originally Posted by Ariadne22

Barr was hired to be Trump's "Fixer." Barr's June 2018 "Mueller's 'Obstruction' Theory" proves it - which, if Eric Holder had been the author and later appointed AG and Obama under investigation and then his AG "concluded" in his favor - every r-winger would be screaming to high heaven.

1) Barr was hired to be AG and to uphold the Constitution and the law.

2) A President can't commit obstruction for exercising his constitutional powers.

3) Obstruction is destroying evidence (Hillary destroying 30,000 emails under subpoena) or telling people to lie under oath by paying them money or giving them jobs (like Nixon and Bill Clinton did) those are crimes on its own.....a President can't be charged with obstruction for firing any position under the executive branch for any reason or if he wants to pardon anybody. Those are his constitutional powers that he can't lose under any investigation.


4) Comey under oath told Congress that he told President Trump 3 TIMES that he wasn't personally under investigation. That kills another myth of yours. Trump fired him for other reasons which he has the constitutional power to do. The investigation into Russia didn't stop after Comey was fired so that kills another myth.

Take a break, you have been wrong since day 1.

[rbohm]

Originally Posted by burdell

Interfering with an investigation that ultimately finds no crime is still obstruction of justice which is itself a crime..

Originally Posted by James Bond 007

Geeze ... How many more times do we have to explain this? Yes, you can be charged with obstruction even if there was no crime. It even happened to Bill Clinton, who was charged with obstruction of justice for lying about having sex with Monica Lewinsky, even though having sex with somebody is not a crime.

you two are so wrong. understand that obstruction is a secondary crime. there HAS to be a crime before obstruction can be considered. clinton WAS charged with a primary crime, that of perjury, thus a charge of obstruction was a legitimate charge.


but since trump was NOT charged with a crime, then obstruction is not a legitimate charge. this is something the courts have ruled on time and time again. usually when first amendment auditors are arrested and charges obstruction because they refuse to give up their ID to cops on request. the cop gets their panties in a bunch, and the arrest the auditor for obstruction and resisting arrest without force, and the charges get thrown out because THERE WAS NO UNDERLYING CRIME.


something else to consider here, if, as you claim, obstruction can be a crime that trump can be charged with, then rosenstein must also be charged with obstruction because he was the one that wrote the memo recommending that comey be fired.


so once again no underlying crime, no obstruction, its that simple people.

[Cida]

Barr will never indict Trump unless at some point there is such overwhelming evidence of wrong-doing that he can't stand against the wave of revulsion.

[Ceece]

No obstruction, no collusion. Why is that so hard for people to accept?

[Hellion1999]

Originally Posted by rbohm

something else to consider here, if, as you claim, obstruction can be a crime that trump can be charged with, then rosenstein must also be charged with obstruction because he was the one that wrote the memo recommending that comey be fired.

they are silly....that means a President can never fire the FBI Director or AG because they are always investigating federal crimes 24/7.



Remember, Comey under oath told Congress that he told Trump that he wasn't under investigation personally. Trump asked him to say that publicly because of the leaks and fake news undermining his administration and Comey refused and behind his back was leaking to the press and he fired him. That's not obstruction.


A President can't be charged with a crime for exercising his constitutional powers of picking and firing anybody in the executive branch for any reason or giving a pardon to anybody convicted of a federal crime.


and a President doesn't get to lose his constitutional powers just because there is an investigation on his campaign which the Director of the FBI told the President 3 times that he wasn't under investigation personally.


Trump telling Comey to go easy on Flynn because he lied, is not obstruction. It's prosecutorial discretion and every DA in every state has that power just like the President.


That's like Obama telling his AG to no prosecute sanctuary cities and some immigration violations that he rather spend the resources on other things......again, that is not obstruction of justice.


Presidential obstruction is a President committing crimes to stop or change the outcome of an investigation like destroying evidence (like Hillary destroying 30,000 emails under subpoena) or telling others to lie to prosecutors or hush money or job offers for their silence like Bill Clinton and Nixon did. That is obstruction.

[Old Gringo]

Sadly, every day it's looking more like Barr sees his duty as "protecting" tRump.

And Trumplings talk about the "deep state."

[burdell]

Originally Posted by neko_mimi

Another liberal dream just came crashing down before their very eyes. LMAO!!!!

Yeah, expecting an unbiased AG in the Trump administration was just wishing for too much, eh?