Posted on Mar 24, 2019
AP Sources: Congress receiving Mueller report summary Sunday
1.31K
20
15
5
5
0
Posted 5 y ago
Responses: 6
I would wager that the Democrat members will not like it and will probably turn on Mueller.
(4)
(0)
SPC Erich Guenther
MAJ Bryan Zeski - Too early to come to that conclusion. Lets see what he wrote and based on what evidence. All we have is an Executive Summary written by both the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General. I will agree that so far it appears to be complete and total exhoneration of POTUS so far. Dems also will drag him in front of the Congress to cast doubt on whatever has been released so far by the Attorney General........cause thats what they do.
(1)
(0)
SSG Donald H "Don" Bates
Yes, that's what they do, and just read a bit and there will be plenty for them to continue their "investigations".
(0)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
SPC Erich Guenther - I agree that Mueller said there was no collusion, he was less emphatic about obstruction - he left that one open.
The easy answer here is to just release the report (minus National Security Classified info) and call it a day. Also, if there's no issues, I'm not sure how anything would be considered Classified.
The easy answer here is to just release the report (minus National Security Classified info) and call it a day. Also, if there's no issues, I'm not sure how anything would be considered Classified.
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
AG Barr's letter below. While Democrats are trying to find something in the report to show Trump committed a crime, the statement below seems to rule that out.
"Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense"
"we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that "the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference," and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President's intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of justice offense"
"Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense"
"we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that "the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference," and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President's intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of justice offense"
(2)
(0)
It was just as I feared it would be: No conclusion. (not to be confused with no collusion)
(1)
(0)
CPO (Join to see)
Give it no and collusion, no evidence that any American collude with Russians period. Now for obstruction, no conclusion, why because there was no evidence for or against Obstruction.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
CPO (Join to see) - Stan, you might want to reread the Barr letter. That is not what it says. Are you trying to land a job as an on air personality at MSNBC or something?
(2)
(0)
Read This Next