[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Based on what Mueller stated in the report, it’s shocking to me Barr could possibly state definitively there is no evidence to support obstruction of justice.

He didn't say, definitively or otherwise, that there is NO evidence. He said the evidence is not sufficient to establish obstruction. And he laid out legitimate reasons for his conclusion. He certainly established that the evidence supported the belief that Trump did not act out of a motive to obstruct, but that, as Mueller acknowledged in his report, there is substantial evidence to show that the President was frustrated and angered by his "sincere" belief that his presidency was being undermined by his political opponents and fueled by illegal leaks. And that even so, the White House fully cooperated with the investigation, took no act to deprive the special counsel of the documents and witnesses to complete his investigation.

It is legally required to prove the corrupt motivation to obstruct justice. The evidence was substantial (again as acknowledged in Mueller's report) that Trump's motivation was non-corruptive but frustration and anger at what he perceived as an attempt to destroy his presidency. In other words, his motivation was not to obstruct justice, but to fight for it. After all, he knew that he had not conspired with the Russians--as was concluded by Mueller's report.

And, basically, how can you reasonably argue that it is obstructive to fight against a lie.

Trump ran for president to promote the Trump brand plan and simply and brought his private sector criminal behavior to the Oval Office. If any of us did what Trump did as reported, you would be looking for a good lawyer.

OK . . . that is an opinion, not an actual proven fact. Putting words in Barr's mouth as you did above, then piling on with negative personal opinion is a shady way of making an argument.

The DOJ position you can not indite a sitting president clearly is why Mueller decided to put this in the hands of congress, in spite of all the evidence to support it; in spite of Barr’s boot licking spin.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you can't indict a sitting President, what is the point of the investigation? Isn't it to find sufficient evidence of criminal behavior? And if sufficient evidence is not found, as it apparently was not since Mueller could not conclude that obstruction was proven, what is there to hand over to Congress other than another politically biased hunt to find conclusive evidence (as if the exhaustive search by Mueller's team was not capable of doing so). The point of a prosecutorial investigation is to determine if there is enough evidence to prosecute. If the prosecutor (the special counsel in this case)cannot find enough evidence to prosecute, that should be the end of it. A prosecutor should not leave it up in the air by making a nebulous comment saying in effect that it could be one way or the other. By doing so, Mueller is abandoning his responsibility to conclude if there is sufficient evidence to prosecute. And that inaction vitiates the whole purpose of prosecution. That destroys the whole concept that it is not up to the defendant to prove innocence, but up to the prosecution to prove guilt. If the prosecution cannot prove such, or is unwilling to do so, or willing to say he is unable to, then it is OVER. Defendant wins.

In any case, Congress doesn't need Mueller's invitation. It can concoct whatever argument it wants to impeach. If Mueller is trying to give Congress some cover for doing so, even if he could not conclude a crime was committed after an exhaustive investigation, then it is he, not Barr who is a acting politically--boot licking as you so graciously and objectively put it.