Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Here's the letter (Original Post) blogslut Mar 2019 OP
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSs shenmue Mar 2019 #1
K&R MelissaB Mar 2019 #2
"It does not exonerate him" dalton99a Mar 2019 #3
Yeah, let's see the full report, asshole. GoCubsGo Mar 2019 #4
How does a letter saying the report "Does not exonerate him" musicblind Mar 2019 #5
That's on the obstruciton accusations, which Mueller has left to Barr to determine. Barr says in the DontBooVote Mar 2019 #6
If there was no collusion coeur_de_lion Mar 2019 #7
That's Barr's argument, in a nutshell. Igel Mar 2019 #8
 

DontBooVote

(901 posts)
6. That's on the obstruciton accusations, which Mueller has left to Barr to determine. Barr says in the
Sun Mar 24, 2019, 04:10 PM
Mar 2019

letter that there's not enough clarity one way or another that tRump obstructed justice.

Do you really think that tRump's fate, left to Barr, will be anything more than this letter states?

Igel

(35,197 posts)
8. That's Barr's argument, in a nutshell.
Sun Mar 24, 2019, 04:27 PM
Mar 2019

If you say, as boss, "I'm innocent" that could be obstruction. Or it could be a person just saying, "I'm innocent."

If it's a regular person, the usual laws apply. If it's the President, it's potential obstruction.

But at the same time, saying, "Hey, Prez, we can hurl accusations against you that are politically charged and you know what--you just have to let the accusations, founded or unfounded, go unchallenged. Enjoy!"

That strikes me as something I really didn't like in those much lower-stakes instances when Obama kept silent.

My uninformed opinion that has no bearing on anything outside my own dura mater is that it's reasonable reasoning. It's not valid reasoning, because there's some squish in it. Where, exactly?

If he's found to have nothing to obstruct by virtue of information of the crime being investigated simply not being locatable, then he'd still be obstructing justice because he, presumably, would know he did something wrong.

At the same time, if there were other crimes that weren't noticed and he had those in mind, it would count as obstruction. So again, squish.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Here's the letter