Except for releasing Grand Jury testimony and classified information, What he does with it is totally up to him.
Great, I didn't argue that part. I argued that it doesn't say the AG is supposed to make a decision and public say there was no obstruction, before Congress sees the report and decides if there is anything in the report worthy of impeachment.
What you seem to fail to understand is congress has no right to see the raw report. They said so in the law THEY passed, it is confidential between the Special Counsel and the AG. It's up to the AG to decide what to relay to congress if anything. The law was written in a manor to protect the rights of un-indicted individuals form the very political disparagement you commies are trying to pursue. Face it, all your fantasies have been dashed, deal with it.
.
WHY? Part of their Constitutional responsibilities is to be the monitoring branch of the President in the checks in balances system. Because of that, it was not up to Barr to publicly make a decision on his own to say the President did not obstruct the investigation. It's very simple and your post does not show that in the law.
Actually it IS up to Barr given that the Special Counsel wasn't able to draw a conclusion as to whether or not the evidence was sufficient to pursue a charge of Obstruction, however Barr did NOT say that "the President did not obstruct the investigation". What he actually said was that "after reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy 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."
In other words he made no determination of whether the President was innocent or guilty, He and Rosenstein determined that there was insufficient evidence in the report to justify moving forward on the question. This has NO bearing on whether or not the House of Representatives chooses to pursue impeachment on the matter, it just means the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE believes based on the evidence that action isn't justified.
Barr was well within the scope of his authority on this one since the Special Council punted the question of obstruction to him.
No, it isn't. It would be up to Barr if the President could be indicted. It isn't up to Barr to make a judgement on obstruction in this sense because the decision on whether to impeach Trump due to obstruction is up to Congress.
What you're saying makes no sense, the Attorney General has the authority and the responsibility to determine the position of the Department of Justice regarding the question of criminality for ANYBODY, that's what Barr did, the fact that Justice Department policy prohibits the indictment of a sitting President is completely immaterial. What would you have the AG do? Issue no opinion on the findings of an investigation that the DOJ itself initiated? It's unfortunate that Mueller punted on the question but it is what it is.
As far as what Congress does, that's still COMPLETELY up to Congress regardless of anything that the Department of Justice does or says.
The special council law says nothing about delivering it to Congress. You're just making that up.
Great, I didn't argue that part. I argued that it doesn't say the AG is supposed to make a decision and public say there was no obstruction, before Congress sees the report and decides if there is anything in the report worthy of impeachment.
What you seem to fail to understand is congress has no right to see the raw report. They said so in the law THEY passed, it is confidential between the Special Counsel and the AG. It's up to the AG to decide what to relay to congress if anything. The law was written in a manor to protect the rights of un-indicted individuals form the very political disparagement you commies are trying to pursue. Face it, all your fantasies have been dashed, deal with it.
.
WHY? Part of their Constitutional responsibilities is to be the monitoring branch of the President in the checks in balances system. Because of that, it was not up to Barr to publicly make a decision on his own to say the President did not obstruct the investigation. It's very simple and your post does not show that in the law.
Great, I didn't argue that part. I argued that it doesn't say the AG is supposed to make a decision and public say there was no obstruction, before Congress sees the report and decides if there is anything in the report worthy of impeachment.
What you seem to fail to understand is congress has no right to see the raw report. They said so in the law THEY passed, it is confidential between the Special Counsel and the AG. It's up to the AG to decide what to relay to congress if anything. The law was written in a manor to protect the rights of un-indicted individuals form the very political disparagement you commies are trying to pursue. Face it, all your fantasies have been dashed, deal with it.
.
WHY? Part of their Constitutional responsibilities is to be the monitoring branch of the President in the checks in balances system. Because of that, it was not up to Barr to publicly make a decision on his own to say the President did not obstruct the investigation. It's very simple and your post does not show that in the law.
Actually it IS up to Barr given that the Special Counsel wasn't able to draw a conclusion as to whether or not the evidence was sufficient to pursue a charge of Obstruction, however Barr did NOT say that "the President did not obstruct the investigation". What he actually said was that "after reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy 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."
In other words he made no determination of whether the President was innocent or guilty, He and Rosenstein determined that there was insufficient evidence in the report to justify moving forward on the question. This has NO bearing on whether or not the House of Representatives chooses to pursue impeachment on the matter, it just means the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE believes based on the evidence that action isn't justified.
Barr was well within the scope of his authority on this one since the Special Council punted the question of obstruction to him.
Great, I didn't argue that part. I argued that it doesn't say the AG is supposed to make a decision and public say there was no obstruction, before Congress sees the report and decides if there is anything in the report worthy of impeachment.
What you seem to fail to understand is congress has no right to see the raw report. They said so in the law THEY passed, it is confidential between the Special Counsel and the AG. It's up to the AG to decide what to relay to congress if anything. The law was written in a manor to protect the rights of un-indicted individuals form the very political disparagement you commies are trying to pursue. Face it, all your fantasies have been dashed, deal with it.
.
WHY? Part of their Constitutional responsibilities is to be the monitoring branch of the President in the checks in balances system. Because of that, it was not up to Barr to publicly make a decision on his own to say the President did not obstruct the investigation. It's very simple and your post does not show that in the law.
Actually it IS up to Barr given that the Special Counsel wasn't able to draw a conclusion as to whether or not the evidence was sufficient to pursue a charge of Obstruction, however Barr did NOT say that "the President did not obstruct the investigation". What he actually said was that "after reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy 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."
In other words he made no determination of whether the President was innocent or guilty, He and Rosenstein determined that there was insufficient evidence in the report to justify moving forward on the question. This has NO bearing on whether or not the House of Representatives chooses to pursue impeachment on the matter, it just means the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE believes based on the evidence that action isn't justified.
Barr was well within the scope of his authority on this one since the Special Council punted the question of obstruction to him.
No, it isn't. It would be up to Barr if the President could be indicted. It isn't up to Barr to make a judgement on obstruction in this sense because the decision on whether to impeach Trump due to obstruction is up to Congress.
"Insufficient evidence" means no evidence. You either obstructed or you didn't.
Er..umm... NO means zero and insufficient means NOT ENOUGH, they aren't synonymous in this context which probably explains why they're not used interchangeably.
That's not the question, the question for the investigation was "does sufficient credible evidence exist to reasonably justify the conclusion that he committed obstruction", which isn't the same thing as "guilty or not guilty" which is a question for the courts or in the case of a sitting President, The Senate.
I don't understand the point of the OP. G5000 and I both agreed that the odds of finding anything that would justify impeaching Trump were very small, but it is undeniable that Trump and Putin and Trump and Assange had some loose communications even if it was sending messages to each other via the media, like Russia find Hills emails, and Russia immediately increases hacking attempts.
Both Nixon and Clinton faced impeachment over obstruction of justice.
not happening. was never happening. Pelosi tried to warn people
Zero evidence is also "not enough," and that's what they have.
