Not sure how he determined that without looking at the underlying evidence.
Easy. He accepted Muellers statements in the report as true.
Once again, Barr’s determination is not how obstruction of justice works. You, I or anyone else can be convicted of obstruction of justice and no other crime.
Then he also accepts the statement that if they thought Trump was exonerated, he would say so.
Barr can’t accept Muellers report and then write a summary that misrepresented Muellers report.
Oh and Mueller said that there was evidence destroyed and that’s Trumps written answers were inadequate.
Yep. And to do that we would have to commit perjury, try to get a witness to lie etc. Trump, according to Barr, could be convicted of obstruction based on bad acts like those alone without an underlying crime…just like us.
The difference is when the action itself, applying you constitutional right to appoint and dismiss employees is involved. Then, per barr, there is not bad act by itself but it must then be proven that there was something being covered up.
Read the reference…his memo to Rosenstein.
Did he say who destroyed this evidence or how it was destroyed?
Sometimes you just can’t get people to say what you want them to say.
1 Like
The bottom line, before he got the job, Barr severely limited how Trump could be accused of obstruction of justice.
Your entire argument rests on a person Trump handpicked for the job and not on the actual report.
Culpable intent lol. So what you are saying is the multiple instances listed in the report of potential obstruction attempts were just Trump being a dumbass and not realizing what he was doing could be illegal?
I hope you say yes because that will just confirm what a lot of people already knew about him. If you say no, well we know where that will lead too.
So I’ll leave it to you to decide. Did trump know what he was doing could be illegal or is he just a dumbass?
This is gonna be fun to see a response to.
You need to tell him that.
In any case, Barr accepted that facts as stated in the report…I don’t recall his denying any of the fact findings. He just had a different legal interpretation.
Which neither he nor Mueller can act on. It’s pointless
I think he didn’t think it was illegal…and the AG seems to agree, so I guess it was a good call.
You really need to read Volume 2, Section II, item I ( The President Orders McGahn to Deny that the President Tried to Fire the Special Counsel) of the Mueller report. Might change your tune (probably not, I know you disregard Mueller’s findings).
Trump and thinking shouldn’t even be in the same sentence. As far as what the AG thinks, well I guess you’ll be in agreement that what Loretta Lynch agreed with was fine too. Glad we could get that ironed out.
Well Mueller certainly made it clear that the Russians he indicted for the $160K social media ads that were pro & con for both candidates were considered “innocent until proven guilty” but he didn’t give the President of the Unites States the same judicial rights that he gave foreigners, just what the heck is that about?
Yeah…Youre right, its is a rather weak argument. All of this disagreement with McGahn centers around what McGahn would say to the media in regard to a leaked story. Mueller recognized a nexus problem with the actual investigation and covers that with the argument that he knew McGahn would probably be asked questions by the special counsel at some time. That is an awful weak link to the investigation. Lyng to the NYTs is perfectly legal, as is general political lying. Mueller never even charges that Trump explicitly asked McGahn to lie to investigators.
It seems whether it was with Mueller’s report or his speech the other day the man (intentional or not) lays out a rorschach test to the public in which each sides picks and chooses the pieces that best fit their politics.
Just some random thoughts here.
RedState is not a legitimate new source.
Robert Mueller never “backtracked” in his solo press conference. He simply re-hashed what he wrote in his report.
William Barr and Robert Mueller do not necessarily see eye-to-eye on the Trump-Russian connection.
Mueller made it clear multiple times here: It’s beyond his parameters to cast judgment on Mr. Trump. That is up to the congress to figure out.
Trump shouldn’t be a little whiner when it comes to Mueller and his report. Mueller never stepped outside of his original role and pretty much stayed in his required lane. For that, Trump should be thankful. He should also be thankful that Don McGahn, doesn’t believe Trump obstructed justice.
I was watching the Jimmy Kimmel show, and they had on Nancy Pelosi. When you watch the segment, you will see that Pelosi is very hesitant to go down the impeachment lane. She is waiting for MORE evidence to come out, as in, what she has is insufficient. This is great news for the Party of Trump, formerly the Republican party. Trump has been in office for about 2.5 years, and Democrats do not have enough evidence to launch a criminal indictment or at least have the congressional sessions about potential crimes committed.
1 Like
They do have enough evidence, Trump is simply not your regular politician. Mitch Mcconnel has indicated that he will try to squash impeachment hearings as much as he can if it gets to the Senate. Trump said he could shoot someone on 5th avenue and not lose a single voter because he knows most of his supporters don’t care if he’s corrupt as long as he sticks it to Mexico, Crooked Hillary or whoever else they don’t like. The republicans in congress won’t abandon Trump as long as his supporters don’t.
There are still several ongoing investigations into Trump and associates from Congress, SDNY and other agencies… so Nancy’s making the calculation that it’s better to let it play out rather than going the impeachment route.
He gives background, evidence, and then discusses how Trump met the three requirements for obstruction, including telling McGahn to change his story. I’m not sure how that is “weak” but that’s the reply I expected.
