Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
On conspiracy, Trump is found not to have engaged in a criminal conspiracy.
|
No, the investigation did not find enough evidence to prove conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. It reached that result with no access to the foreign witnesses, no testimony from the president and no cooperation from the most likely actual participant (Manafort) and the one person who we know worked directly with a Russian intelligence asset.
Also, what you said here is no different from “exonerate.”
Quote:
|
On obstruction, Trump has been found to have engaged in acts which could support claims of obstruction but at this time do not warrant or merit prosecution under reasonable prosecutorial discretion.
|
No, that’s not right either. Can you read? OLC policy precludes prosecution. Given that, and thamks to post-Star special counsel rules that prohibit a referral for impeachment, Mueller did all he could actually do: present the evidence of obstruction.
ETA: I think the correct read is that Mueller would have referred obstruction to the House for impeachment if he was allowed to.
Quote:
That’s inartful, but the only way to phrase Mueller’s findings and Barr’s application of them
|
Nope, Barr simply ignored what Mueller actually said about obstruction and substituted his own judgment.
Threaded Mode