General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsshenmue
(38,503 posts)MelissaB
(16,420 posts)dalton99a
(81,073 posts)GoCubsGo
(32,061 posts)("Asshole" being Barr, not you, blogslut.)
musicblind
(4,484 posts)supposedly exonerate him?
DontBooVote
(901 posts)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?
coeur_de_lion
(3,666 posts)what would trump need to obstruct?
Igel
(35,197 posts)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.