Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
Yes they could. They could have said that the evidence was sufficient to presume obstruction of justice.
|
Not if the man running the investigation interpreted it differently. Sort of like Barr interpretation of the report, when since he came out to spin it to protect his boss, hundreds and hundreds of federal prosecutors have signed a letter stating anyone other than the sitting president would have been charged.
So if 1000 see it one way and 1 AG sees it another, sorry you can argue your case until your fingers bleed, guilty just not charged YET.
Looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duct, guess what.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device