HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Barr says if a crime wasn...

Mon Mar 25, 2019, 05:14 PM

 

Barr says if a crime wasn't found to have been committed, then there was not obstruction, however...

if the obstruction was successful, then you would not be able to prove the crime beyond a shadow of a doubt. This is why Bill Barr can not be the one to determine the results of the Mueller report.

4 replies, 714 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 4 replies Author Time Post
Reply Barr says if a crime wasn't found to have been committed, then there was not obstruction, however... (Original post)
PeeJ52 Mar 2019 OP
coti Mar 2019 #1
PeeJ52 Mar 2019 #2
Jarqui Mar 2019 #3
AncientGeezer Mar 2019 #4

Response to PeeJ52 (Original post)

Mon Mar 25, 2019, 05:15 PM

1. If he really used that as reasoning, he's flat out wrong about the law itself and should have

recused himself on the grounds of not being able to correctly apply the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coti (Reply #1)

Mon Mar 25, 2019, 05:19 PM

2. that's what I say. He's trying to use 3rd grade logic. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeeJ52 (Original post)

Mon Mar 25, 2019, 05:32 PM

3. That's BS

For example, if the obstruction was that the person destroyed evidence that was needed to prove a crime, they couldn't be convicted. Therefore, a criminal would have nothing to lose by destroying evidence because if he was successful, they couldn't convict him of the crime and therefore, the obstruction.

That is not how it works for obvious reasons.

In Trump's case, there was evidence of a crime. Just read the media reports that remain unchallenged or the facts in the indictments and guilty pleas. Trump could well have obstructed Mueller from finding the evidence Mueller needed to prove conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. If there was absolutely no evidence a conspiracy took place, Mueller would not have been asked to look into it. He has better things to do. From what I've seen in the media, there may not have been evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt but it sure looked like they could meet the civil standard of the preponderance of the evidence for conspiracy. The campaign manager giving the Russians the campaign's data might be enough right there along with all the indictments of Russians.

Because there was evidence a potential crime was committed - enough that it justified a special counsel of Mueller's stature to look into it - that is ample to cite as a basis for obstruction.

Then Mueller would move to examine if obstruction took place. And he left it for congress to decide as he should. Barr should not have made the decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeeJ52 (Original post)

Mon Mar 25, 2019, 05:43 PM

4. Legally he can...."..determine the results of .." that's his role as AG

 

Having consulted with Mueller and Rosenstein... Barr isn't going to hang his ass out to dry in the Dumpster crap storm....he knows how to not be a Cohen or Avenatti

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread