Did you read the report? Mueller tells you exactly why he would not give an opinion of guilt.
Prosecutors of a case expressing an opinion of guilt? How can they do that without allowing Trump a defense?
Incorrect statement. Barr in fact said a president can indeed commit obstruction of justice by the same bad acts that others use to commit obstruction…perjury, destroying documents, trying to get others to lie. Barr did say that, since it was in his authority as part of his job that replacing personnel would not be obstruction. That to make that act into obstruction you would have to prove not just the intent of the President but that something was being obstructed…such as if Trump had been guilty of something being investigated.
Once again, Mueller says that he feels that it would be unfair to say someone is guilty of a crime when they can’t defend themselves in court.
Mueller basically took the role of someone there to just present the facts of the investigation. He wasn’t there to indict Trump, since that was not within his authority.
They could say "We think Trump is guilty because of XXX but we can’t indict him.
Too easy.
Trump isn’t shy to defend himself…i.e. twitter
Which is exactly what Trump tried to do.
You think that is fair? That a DOJ prosecutor can lay an accusation of guilt on anyone, when they have no ability to defend themselves?
Whom did Trump try to get to lie?
Obstruction of justice doesnt require an underlying crime, period.
I made no reference to fairness. The statement was made that this would be against doj guideliness. I asked for some evidence of that.
If, as you and other Dems seem to think, the facts as laid out by Mueller are clearly obstruction, then it is disingenuous to claim that one is worried that Trump might have to defend himself.
Too easy
TRUMP ORDERS WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TO DENY THAT PRESIDENT TRIED TO FIRE MUELLER
In an Oval Office meeting in February 2018, Trump told McGahn to “correct” a New York Times story that reported Trump had earlier instructed McGahn to fire Mueller. Trump also asked why McGahn had told Mueller’s investigators about the directive to remove Mueller. McGahn told Trump he had to tell the investigators the truth.
I’m not worried about his ability to defend himself in the court of public opinion. But the DOK isn’t a Fox News opinion show. Prosecutors can’t go assigning guilt to people who cannot defend themselves.
Neither Mueller nor Barr said that Trump was guilty or not guilty. That is because they have no ability to assign guilt or innocence on a sitting president
By lie, that is of course going to have to be lying under oath, such as the FBI or to Congress. Lying to the NYTs is not obstruction…its playing the media and public relations. If lying were ipso facto obstruction, Washington would be empty except for the jails.
I think you need to read Barr’s four page letter.
“Trump also asked why McGahn had told Mueller’s investigators about the directive to remove Mueller. McGahn told Trump he had to tell the investigators the truth.“
Why would Trump ask why McGahn told the prosecutors the truth, if he didnt expect him to lie?
I’ve read it. Can’t find where he said Trump is not guilty of obstruction.
Barr says a ton of outlandish garbage in this memo. First of all, he’s saying that in order to obstruct justice, Trump must be guilty of collusion or some other “real crime.” This is bonkers. Obstructing justice is the very thing that can make it difficult if not impossible to gather evidence in a timely fashion to convict a person.
Next Barr begins attempts to limit obstruction of justice to things concerning a trial. If Trump is not on trial, how could he obstruct justice within that scope? The only gate Barr leaves open is if Trump is caught red-handed destroying evidence.
It states that there was not sufficient evidence to determine that Trump is guilty of obstruction. It is a word game to ask them to say “we proved he is not guilty of obstruction”. That isn’t going to happen. That is not what prosecutors do.
The letter that had Trump saying Mueller was a good guy before people read the Mueller report and then Trump attacking Mueller after people read the Mueller report?
No. He is not saying that. If Trump committed perjury or instructed witnesses to lie or…as you say…destroyed evidence…then Trump would be guilty of obstruction even if the investigation had not found Trump guilty of anything.
He is saying that relying on “Culpable intent” as opposed to a bad act, does require more…that there is really a crime that one was trying to obstruct.
