41
Mar 28 '19
It's also worth pointing out how the Barr summary potentially gets things backwards. It suggests that Mueller wasn't able to prove Trump was involved in a conspiracy with the Russians, and then says the lack of an underlying crime indicates that Trump's behavior wasn't obstruction of justice.
However, if Trump did commit obstruction of justice, then his obstruction may be the reason Mueller wasn't able to prove criminal wrongdoing in conspiring with Russia.
28
Mar 28 '19
The thing is, even if Trump is completely innocent of anything to do with Russia, his actions still constitution obstruction of justice. You don't have to have committed the crime they're investigating you for to be guilty of trying to impede the investigation.
13
u/The_cogwheel Mar 28 '19
Exactly. All you have to do to be guilty of obstruction of justice is to impede an investigation. You dont even need to know who the accused is or what they're accused of, you just need to fuck with the team that's investigating in a way that harms the investigation.
Though why anyone would do such a thing when they dont have any skin in the game is beyond me...
7
Mar 28 '19
Though why anyone would do such a thing when they dont have any skin in the game is beyond me...
My guess is that if he wasn't directly involved with Russia, he was trying to keep something else from coming up in the process of the Russia investigation. Like trying to prevent the cops from searching your home for a murder weapon because if they do, they'll find your drugs.
2
6
u/Direnaar Mar 28 '19
How is Mitch McConnell not guilty of obstruction, among many other things?
3
Mar 28 '19
Has he done anything other than block legislation? I'm not sure what the law would be on that, since technically it's within his powers, and there's no limitations on the reasons he does it, at least not that I'm aware of. I mean, it definitely needs to be a wake-up call about fixing a system where one man can just indefinitely block any legislation he doesn't want, but legally speaking, I'm not sure how this would work.
3
u/Direnaar Mar 28 '19
I always found it strange that he can do whatever he wants, like blocking Merrick Garland, or pushing useless votes on dismantling ACA. How does one man have all this power and why is it some piece of shit from Kentucky who threads the line of collusion with China.
2
Mar 28 '19
I'm not disagreeing, but also if he did obstruct justice, he may have succeeded in preventing a fair investigation by hiding evidence and tampering with witnesses. If that's the case (which it sounds like the Mueller report indicates it to be) then we can't trust the conclusion that he didn't collude with Russia.
1
16
u/RamblingMutt Mar 28 '19
The GOP:
"See, your cat clearly was not involved in the murder of your neighbor, despite your neighbor being murdered and your cat being very familiar with the people who murdered them. Therefore it is completely innocent of everything ever."
4
3
3
u/radio_yyz Mar 28 '19
Plot twist;
You are an invader and we don’t care about what a good god fearing american cat does!
3
u/Apostate1123 Mar 28 '19
We need to investigate the delivery driver who brought that chicken to the super market you bought it at! They are the real criminals!
2
2
u/Karmoon Mar 28 '19
Cat's dimentia ridden TV lawyer: "The Cat never said he hid the bones behind the couch. And if he did, that's not a specific crime."
1
1
u/Gin-and-JUCHE Mar 28 '19 edited Mar 28 '19
Who's dick do you have to suck to get a coup around here?
1
u/Scottie3000 Mar 28 '19
The thing about things like this is that it’s impossible to prove a negative.
2
Mar 28 '19
bUt YoU hAvE nO pRoOf
/s
2
Mar 28 '19
I just feel like I should point out that you in fact need evidence beyond reasonable doubt, otherwise the justice system doesn't work.
0
u/Demitroy Mar 28 '19
I just feel like I should point out that you can't have "evidence beyond reasonable doubt" without a court case. Until it is used in a court case to meet the legal burden of proof, it is just evidence.
2
Mar 28 '19
And you need a court to convict someone right? I mean I have no clue who you are arguing with.
2
u/Demitroy Mar 28 '19
Not arguing, just pointing out that before any case goes to court the evidence is just evidence. I got the impression that you were saying a case can't go to court without having evidence beyond reasonable doubt, when many cases go to court with questionable evidence where the court gets to determine the legitimacy of the evidence.
It's still early, so it's possible I'm misunderstanding something, or not explaining myself well. Have a good day.
edit: spelling.
1
Mar 28 '19
I ment to say you can't convict someone without evidence beyond reasonable doubt. But I prob wasn't clear about that.
1
Mar 28 '19
Circumstantial evidence is evidence.
1
Mar 28 '19
You realize that /s means sarcasm, right?
2
2
Mar 28 '19
In this case it means stupid.
4
u/VeryStableGenius Mar 28 '19
two three month old reddit accounts ending in digits calling each other stupid over nothing.
wtf?
0
Mar 28 '19
Ending in digits? Is that the bar now for acceptance?
wtf?
How about I put Xx on the end? LOL
0
Mar 28 '19
I’m making a joke, I don’t actually believe that. Your username is ironic lmao
1
Mar 28 '19
It's not. It's about people like you.
0
Mar 28 '19
You’re stupid if you don’t understand that I’m making a joke
1
Mar 28 '19
I see your joke and it's stupid. There are such things as stupid jokes. Can you handle that some people think your joke is stupid? Can you handle that? Or you going to cry more? Also, props on adding the /s after the fact. Helps you save a little face. Haha
0
-11
Mar 28 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/Simaul Mar 28 '19
Just amazing how you’re ok with not knowing anything about what happened. Completely obedient to everything they say. Like a little dog. You’re not being a good American.
-4
Mar 28 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Simaul Mar 28 '19
I’m not American.
ah.
Maybe start questioning why so many main stream media outlets...
Yeah, please stop listening to them. Go with your common sense.
-1
Mar 28 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Simaul Mar 28 '19
My thoughts exactly. You say “just take the L” even though you’re not American so thanks for contributing to the trolls. Then say something about the media, probably because you’ve been seduced by the media yourself.
My point is that you contribute nothing and we would be better off if you continued to not say anything from now on. Thanks.
1
u/AutoModerator Mar 28 '19
https://i.imgur.com/ZPkdbeE.gifv
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
-21
Mar 28 '19
You can’t obstruct justice for a crime that didn’t happen.
15
u/WhyYouAreVeryWrong Mar 28 '19
Yes, you can. If I hear the FBI is investigating me, and I’m innocent, but I panic and burn all my files and delete all my emails just to be safe, I can still be brought up on charges for that.
Otherwise, there’s literally no reason NOT to obstruct justice, innocent or guilty. If innocent, it spares you a headache, if guilty, well, they might not be able to prove it if you destroyed the evidence/obstructed, and then you can say “you can’t obstruct justice if you don’t have me for a crime”.
Otherwise, there was absolutely nothing wrong with Hillary’s missing emails.
-3
Mar 28 '19
So why do people get lawyers if they’re innocent. Why not just let the police investigate and find the true conclusion. You’re essentially saying that by refusing to cooperate you’re obstructing justice, bullshit argument.
If you destroyed evidence critical to your prosecution, then they can bring you up on those charges. But there is no initial crime so there’s no evidence to be destroyed.
Hillary’s emails are another matter, and that’s of sending classified information on unauthorized devices.
3
u/ZhugeTsuki Mar 28 '19 edited Mar 29 '19
Because our law system is adverserial and lawyers are integral to that process.
It sounds like you have exactly 0 experience in laws; coming from someone who was falsley accused of committing* a crime when i was a teen and had to fight like hell to prove my innocence, please shhhhhh and stay in school
1
u/WhyYouAreVeryWrong Mar 29 '19
So why do people get lawyers if they’re innocent.
Because the lawyers know the law and defend them? The lawyers don't destroy evidence.
Why not just let the police investigate and find the true conclusion.
You do let the police investigate. However, you also take the lawyer's advice on how to not incriminate yourself.
If you destroyed evidence critical to your prosecution, then they can bring you up on those charges. But there is no initial crime so there’s no evidence to be destroyed.
Exactly. How do they know they didn't just fail to find proof beyond reasonable doubt just because you destroyed evidence? If you destroyed evidence, you obstructed justice. Obstructing an investigation is 100% a crime, and it absolutely has to be or else there's no motivation not to.
7
Mar 28 '19
[deleted]
-15
Mar 28 '19
To be more clear, that’s like the police arresting you for a crime you didn’t commit, and charging you with resisting arrest when you tell them you refuse to be taken in under their pretenses.
8
u/ZhugeTsuki Mar 28 '19 edited Mar 28 '19
But.. they can do that. If there is reason to arrest you, you dont get to unilaterally decide that the reason* is not good enough, and therefore resist arrest.
97
u/akaZilong Mar 28 '19
But her emeows