If There was NO Collusion, there can be NO Obstruction

[GURPS]

But now many of those same commentators have switched their attention to the issue of whether Trump obstructed the Russia investigation. On that, Mueller did not reach a conclusion. "For each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as 'difficult issues' of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction," Barr wrote. "The Special Counsel states that 'while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.'"

Instead of a Mueller conclusion, Barr himself, along with deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein, examined Mueller's findings and decided that "the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense."

One of the factors Barr and Rosenstein considered was the collusion finding. If there was no underlying crime, they reasoned, then there was less motive for the president to cover up. While that was "not determinative," Barr and Rosenstein concluded, the absence of evidence of an underlying crime "bears upon the President's intent with respect to obstruction." In other words, whatever Trump did, he wasn't trying to cover up evidence of collusion.

Not surprisingly, Democrats seized on Mueller's decision not to make a call on the obstruction issue as a reason for more investigation. They must have all of Mueller's evidence, Democrats said, to show the American people whether the president obstructed justice. Not that they have any doubts on the matter, remember that not long ago Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, stated flatly, "It's very clear that the president obstructed justice." Republicans, of course, also support the release of Mueller's evidence.

Byron York: Trump, falsely accused of collusion, faces new onslaught of obstruction accusations - Washington Examiner

A reasonable reading of Trump-Russia special counsel Robert Mueller's findings is that President Trump was falsely accused of conspiring or coordinating with Russia to fix the 2016 election. The same goes for people around Trump who were also falsely accused."The Special Counsel's investigation...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

 

[PsyOps]

Why are people ignoring the legal issues of what congress is demanding? There are aspects of the report that are potentially classified, and Barr has to go to the courts to get their permission to release that information. He would be breaking the law if he just outright released the whole thing. Congress knows this, and I don't know why they (in particular republicans) voted unanimously for its entire immediate release. I just doesn't work that way.

 

[SamSpade]

Why are people ignoring the legal issues of what congress is demanding? There are aspects of the report that are potentially classified, and Barr has to go to the courts to get their permission to release that information. He would be breaking the law if he just outright released the whole thing. Congress knows this, and I don't know why they (in particular republicans) voted unanimously for its entire immediate release. I just doesn't work that way.

I might not know the law that well but I am pretty sure that you're under no obligation to release the report IF there's no indictment.
If a person is innocent of charges, why should the public know all the material? Isn't an innocent party entitled to privacy?

That said, it might be a good idea to release it anyway, if only to stop the yapping that will certainly ensue from the left,
who placed so much faith in Mueller and not surprisingly are rabid about the result. It's just that we've endured more than two
years of their stories, and unless it is entirely public, they're sure to find SOME clause or paragraph to find fault with.

I mean, didn't we hear that there was indisputable, die-hard, iron-clad evidence of collusion? How come Mueller didn't find it?

 

[PsyOps]

I might not know the law that well but I am pretty sure that you're under no obligation to release the report IF there's no indictment.
If a person is innocent of charges, why should the public know all the material? Isn't an innocent party entitled to privacy?

That said, it might be a good idea to release it anyway, if only to stop the yapping that will certainly ensue from the left,
who placed so much faith in Mueller and not surprisingly are rabid about the result. It's just that we've endured more than two
years of their stories, and unless it is entirely public, they're sure to find SOME clause or paragraph to find fault with.

I mean, didn't we hear that there was indisputable, die-hard, iron-clad evidence of collusion? How come Mueller didn't find it?

I think the Attorney General is obligated, at a minimum to release it to the president; especially if the report pertains to the president. Congress is the people. The people demand transparency. Our government answers to the people. The report, as what can be released without exposing classified, should be released. I want to know. I think there is potentially a lot there that may expose Comey, Clinton, et al... of criminality.

 

[stgislander]

I imagine that the portions of the report referring to the items that are currently being investigated by the federal attorney's in the other districts will be redacted.

 

[Midnightrider]

I think the Attorney General is obligated, at a minimum to release it to the president; especially if the report pertains to the president. Congress is the people. The people demand transparency. Our government answers to the people. The report, as what can be released without exposing classified, should be released. I want to know. I think there is potentially a lot there that may expose Comey, Clinton, et al... of criminality.

I agree that they should release as much as possible according to the law. and then let the chips fall where they may.




Its nice to see an entire thread dedicated to Barr using 'intent' as the reason he isn't finding obstruction.............. sounds awful familiar

 

[BOP]

I agree that they should release as much as possible according to the law. and then let the chips fall where they may.




Its nice to see an entire thread dedicated to Barr using 'intent' as the reason he isn't finding obstruction.............. sounds awful familiar

At least it was the USAG this time, and not the director of the FBI.

 

[Midnightrider]

At least it was the USAG this time, and not the director of the FBI.

if you beleive the tarmac story it was the USAG last time too

 

[stgislander]

Steny surprised me with his statement.

I have been clear from the start of the Special Counsel’s investigation: Congress and the American people deserve to know what his investigation has uncovered, including information about Russia’s efforts to undermine our democracy, allegations of the President obstructing justice, and any other potential criminal conduct by government officials. Our nation is based on the rule of law and the involvement of citizens in decision-making about our future, and these require transparency in pursuit of truth and justice. That is why I brought a resolution to the Floor last week expressing the sense of the House that the Special Counsel’s report ought to be made public to the fullest extent of the law and that every Member of Congress ought to be allowed to read it in full. The House approved that resolution 420-0 in a powerful statement of bipartisan agreement.

And then he had to go add this in.

I urge the Attorney General to perform his duty to country and Constitution, ensure that this report is made available to Congress and the public, and resist any attempt by the White House to interfere. Russia and anyone involved in its efforts to undermine our elections or our democratic system of government must be held accountable and made to answer for their actions. I thank the Special Counsel and his team for their hard work, and I expect the Attorney General to move quickly to make the report available so that the Congress can then determine the best course forward.

He just can't help himself.

 

[Kyle]

Steny surprised me with his statement.

And then he had to go add this in.

He just can't help himself.

They can't help themselves.

 

[Hijinx]

made available to Congress and the public, and resist any attempt by the White House to interfere.

An inference that the White House might interfere. Just a sneak attack on the President.
Why would he interfere with his exoneration?

Steny you need to retire your brain is pickled.

 

[stgislander]

Regarding obstruction, I remember hearing a lawyer last night say that the bar is set lower (if not much lower) for impeachment verses a criminal indictment.

 

[transporter]

But now many of those same commentators have switched their attention to the issue of whether Trump obstructed the Russia investigation. On that, Mueller did not reach a conclusion. "For each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as 'difficult issues' of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction," Barr wrote. "The Special Counsel states that 'while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.'"

Instead of a Mueller conclusion, Barr himself, along with deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein, examined Mueller's findings and decided that "the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense."

One of the factors Barr and Rosenstein considered was the collusion finding. If there was no underlying crime, they reasoned, then there was less motive for the president to cover up. While that was "not determinative," Barr and Rosenstein concluded, the absence of evidence of an underlying crime "bears upon the President's intent with respect to obstruction." In other words, whatever Trump did, he wasn't trying to cover up evidence of collusion.

Not surprisingly, Democrats seized on Mueller's decision not to make a call on the obstruction issue as a reason for more investigation. They must have all of Mueller's evidence, Democrats said, to show the American people whether the president obstructed justice. Not that they have any doubts on the matter, remember that not long ago Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, stated flatly, "It's very clear that the president obstructed justice." Republicans, of course, also support the release of Mueller's evidence.

Byron York: Trump, falsely accused of collusion, faces new onslaught of obstruction accusations - Washington Examiner

A reasonable reading of Trump-Russia special counsel Robert Mueller's findings is that President Trump was falsely accused of conspiring or coordinating with Russia to fix the 2016 election. The same goes for people around Trump who were also falsely accused."The Special Counsel's investigation...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Keep spinning comrade!!! Keep spinning!

Make sure you find every article from every right wing source that takes the letter out of context.

If you were to actually read Barr's summary letter, you would CLEARLY see that he based his Comey-like decision regarding obstruction on intent. This is and should be the the debate around Barr's letter.

In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,” and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President’s intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President’s actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department’s principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-ofjustice offense

The fact that Mueller, according to Barr, could not prove Trump conspired does not bestow innocence on Trump on obstruction. Trump's own words after the firing of Comey and to the Russian officials in the WH should be enough to show his intent. But Barr was hired based on his memo that the President could not commit obstruction. He was hired to follow thru on that memo and he did.

Trump acted guilty during this entire episode. He still acts guilty. (Note his lack of tweets this weekend vs last...he didn't know if Mueller found anything...possibly more importantly he didn't know if Mueller didn't find the thing Trump was most afraid of.)

As usual, GURPS you've spun up the moron crew...with info and conclusions that are wrong...but typically motivated.

BTW...every bit of the report that can be released, should be released.

 

[This_person]

Why are people ignoring the legal issues of what congress is demanding? There are aspects of the report that are potentially classified, and Barr has to go to the courts to get their permission to release that information. He would be breaking the law if he just outright released the whole thing. Congress knows this, and I don't know why they (in particular republicans) voted unanimously for its entire immediate release. I just doesn't work that way.

Why? Because headlines and speeches do not play well if you offer up details and try to be reasonable and honest. In other words, you can't play to your crowd by saying, "I know you want it all, but legally that's not possible." You play to the crowd by saying, "hellz yeah they need to release it all, now!!!" The crowd is generally not informed, so it works well.

 

[Kyle]

 

[stgislander]

I love the Dems' new buzz phrase about Barr... "Trump's hand-picked AG." I heard it a lot last night.

Uhmmm... aren't all AGs "hand-picked" by the President?

 

[Kyle]

Uhmmm... aren't all AGs "hand-picked" by the President?

Yep.... But its not a Democrap this time.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Why are people ignoring the legal issues of what congress is demanding? There are aspects of the report that are potentially classified, and Barr has to go to the courts to get their permission to release that information. He would be breaking the law if he just outright released the whole thing. Congress knows this, and I don't know why they (in particular republicans) voted unanimously for its entire immediate release. I just doesn't work that way.

Congress voted on a non-binding resolution, so there's absolutely no legal issues.

Barr mentioned in his letter that some items will be redacted under Rule 6(e) and the Department is working on identifyign that material. Once complete, it'll be public.

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/documents/AG%20March%2024%202019%20Letter%20to%20House%20and%20Senate%20Judiciary%20Committees.pdf