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
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
What Barr says about obstruction of justice:
Obstruction of Justice.
The report's second part addresses a number of actions by the President – most of which have been the subject of public reporting – that the Special Counsel ... ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. ... The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
...
The Special Counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime.
...
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.
...
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.
The report's second part addresses a number of actions by the President – most of which have been the subject of public reporting – that the Special Counsel ... ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. ... The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
...
The Special Counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime.
...
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.
...
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.
------
Mueller left it open that obstruction could be charged.
This indicated that he thought there could be enough evidence for this but Barr and Rosenstein alone decided not to charge it.
This seems like something that other legal minds must investigate thoroughly.
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
