[nathanbedford]

[RedMonqey]

Very true!

[gattaca]

I hold the media equally responsible.

[Lee'sGhost]

Bookmarked.

[DJ Frisat]

People who are not adjudicated as ‘not guilty’ are not declared ‘innocent’, either...

They’re simply acquitted.

[knarf]

HAH !

[Jim Noble]

I think the “underlying crime” reference means that a President CANNOT “obstruct justice” when the “justice” being “obstructed” is not prosecuting or investigating an actual crime.

Andy McCarthy has been saying this for months. The President can fire anyone, including James Comey, and he cannot thereby be obstructing justice UNLESS he does it to prevent Comey (or whomever) from completing an investigation of a crime by the President himself.

Since collusion is not a crime, even if Trump had fired Comey, Mueller, Weissman, McCabe, Baker, Preistap, Ohr, Strzok, Page, and all the rest, it could not have constituted “obstruction of justice” since there was no predicate crime in the first place - and they all knew it.

[Alas Babylon!]

You cannot obstruct for a crime that never existed.

If Trump says the crime is BS, is that obstruction?

Because that’s what the democrats and media now want people to believe.

But it WAS BS, Trump was right, and he had NO obligation to help them make up a crime that didn’t exist.

Attorney General Barr and Rod Rosenstein both agreed on this, and NOW the democrats and media want to say Barr “rushed to judgment”?

Get real!

No collusion means no obstruction.

[tflabo]

How much did Mule-herr get paid for his one sided walk the pony show? He did just enough around the Trump fringe damages to others to keep the liar Dems appetites jacked up in anticipation for the juicy steak entree that won’t be served after all. Mueller had to justify his paychecks somehow even if General Flynn, Manafort and Roger Stone were the whipping posts.
Mueller is a deep state hack but he knew laying a false charge on President Trump was a bridge too far.

[Drumbo]

"...it also does not exonerate him."

Having been falsely accused of 2 major felonies, indicted for the same, arrested, jailed, put on trial and acquitted by a jury, I know a little about our (in)Justice system.

The nightmare encompassed three and a half years of my life, destroyed my finances (defense attorneys), my livelihood (employers do not hire indicted felons) and cost me my home, sharing my son's childhood, my reputation and mental health. I was involved in so many motions, orders. discovery and legal hi-jinx that I should have earned my own law degree. In the end I won, but I lost everything in the process. I digress (simply to establish my bona fides).

Neither prosecutors, Grand Juries, investigators, juries or for that matter Special Councils or attorney generals exonerate. That is the sole function of a judge, after a trial and acquittal, but it is not automatic. Exoneration requires a motion to exonerate and in my case an additional motion to expunge the records of Federal, State and local authorities and law enforcement.

Only a judge can exonerate - after a trial and a verdict, therefore the statement "does not exonerate him" is true, but wasn't required. I can only surmise that Barr included it as a bone for the Dems to gnaw on. In my experience and MHO I believe the Dems are being set-up to continue their danse Macabre and die on that hill. The polls have turned and 50% believed "Witch Hunt" before the report dropped. If the Dems keep investigating (in the name of "oversight") and ignoring their legislative duties they will be creamed in 2020.

[Chode]

good stuff...

[Political Junkie Too]

The obstruction charge stems from two distinct acts by President Trump: 1) suggesting that Comey go easy on Flynn because he served his country honorably and has suffered enough, and 2) the firing of James Comey.

The reason that Mueller refused to find that no obstruction occurred is simply this: to do so would be an admission that Trump was right to fire Mueller's best friend James Comey.

Therefore, Mueller declined to make a conclusion on this point.

-PJ