The ability to indict would have nothing to do with the ability to determine a crime had or had not occurred. Not being able to indict has nothing, zero, to do with the determination of a crime and is not a constraining factor.
It is unrelated.
The DOJ had no problem with this when they determined that obstruction did not take place.
And if you had actually listened to the press conference with Barr, you would know that Mueller was asked if he would have indicted except for the DOJ policy and he said he would not have done so.
Wrong again, he said and listed at least 10 instances where Trump tried to do so. Trump wasnt successful because those he tasked with doing so gave him the finger.
Once again, intent is the same as doing. Hes safe now, probably will be even when an ensuing admin comes around because it isnt worth the effort once a person is out of office.
Unfortunately for him hes got other issues to deal with such as his tax returns that arent going to be going away clear through the next election cycle, and even if he wins, if the dems stay in control of the house it will plague him another 4 years.
I observe that some seem to think this report means that this next year and half are gonna be just him getting to carry on with his proposed agenda, when in fact he wont and this report isnt gonna stop.
Read the report. Those were areas of potential obstruction.
If he considered those all to be obstruction, he would have said that Trump committed obstruction and not that he could not make a determinationā¦which was booted down to the DOJ to make the determination that there was no obstruction.
He listed plenty of instances. He mentioned the difficulties surrounding said instances. Current DOJ policy stipulates what happens next. This has already been pointed out.
You read the report. Ill be happy to keep doing this all night.
Btw i noticed you still havent answered the two questions posed.
A primary candidate? Oooh Iāve seen this movie. This is the pivotal scene.
We are just about at the point where Republicans strike William Weld down with all of their hatred, and their journey towards the dark side complete will be complete.
Hypothetically, if you were a person who was being investigated for a crime, and you happened to be the boss of the person who could fire the person investigating you. Lets say you ordered that person to do so.
Would one think that would fit the definition of obstruction of justice?
And a further question. If that person told you no i wont do that, and said person knew that you wouldnt do ā ā ā ā about it becauese the optics of which would be worse than the act itself, does that mean you still didnt give an unlawful order?
Go ahead, decline to respond to those. I think we will all get the picture.
