They will pounce on the obstruction charge as inconclusive. But it only looks like a Trump weakness by contrast with the definitive “No collusion” statement.While Mueller was weak in his obstruction findings, I found Barr's wording almost a slap at Mueller, reciting basic LAW 101: if there is no evidence of a crime, there can be no obstruction. Pretty simple, and many here have said that about the obstruction charge from day 1.
“reciting basic LAW 101: if there is no evidence of a crime, there can be no obstruction”
Absolutely not true by statute and by DOJ policy.
DOJ has prosecuted multiple parties for obstruction, and prevailed, when there was no underlying crime.
I’m not saying it’s right, but that it has occurred.
>>While Mueller was weak in his obstruction findings, I found Barr’s wording almost a slap at Mueller, ...<<
It probably was a slap of sorts. I think Mueller put his conclusion that way (or non-conclusion) to signal that the entire report contains statements that the Dems can use to continue harassing President Trump. No doubt the MSM and Nadler and Schiff, etc., will pull those statements out and use them without context to continue to paint Trump as an obstructionist.
AG Barr, however, made it quite clear that none of the three requirements for an obstruction charge were met, and all three of them have to be met to bring such a charge.
The most interesting statement by Barr in that regard is at the beginning of the third paragraph of the obstruction section. Essentially, in that paragraph he’s saying that since Trump and his campaign did nothing wrong they’d have no reason to corruptly obstruct an investigation into a conspiracy, so why would he do so?
On the other hand, he could, as Chief Executive, say the entire matter was a waste of time and shut down the investigation. That wouldn’t be obstruction because he would lack corrupt intent. He would just be saving the taxpayers money, knowing the charge was bogus.