>> Except for "no obstruction".
You know, I've not read the report but I did sit down and read a couple of recounts of the alleged "possible" obstruction items and the brief rationale presented for them.
I don't see it.
I would ask you and other claimants of "obstruction" to briefly note in specific what basis you have for any claim that obstruction occurred. I see broad allegations, a lot of allegations that are a reach, a lot of politically motivated stuff, and nothing that there isn't a plausible alternative explanation for.
I'm not saying Trump wasn't a jerk along the way, but, for example, being concerned about how the investigation would wreck his ability to get things done is not proof of, or even evidence of, obstruction of justice. Particularly given there is no underlying crime.
The left, on this board as well as cable news, is way, way ahead of itself on this. Perhaps Mueller's testimony can bring out more rationale, but what's written does not seem to sufficient evidence to move forward with any obstruction claim. (Oh, Mueller said that, didn't he?)
Some of the behavior was careless, but you would expect that from someone who isn't a seasoned politician, and that doesn't suggest criminal, or even inappropriate, behavior.
If Trump said, "Well, we got rid of Flynn so that Russia problem is no longer around," that is simply a statement of his belief that the Russia problem has a connection to Flynn. That in no way suggests that the "Russia Problem" is the reason for firing Flynn. That is simply a logical fallacy. This is repeated over and over in Mueller's document.
Bottom line, I'm sure Mueller tried to be fair but I do think he looked at it the way prosecutors do: solely from the point of view of a prosecutor trying to find reason to charge someone -- even though he knew he couldn't do it (by law) and would have to leave it to Barr.
Prosecutors do not look for exculpatory evidence. They just don't. At best, someone has to point it out to them. |
