We demanded a judgment from an independent, unbiased arbiter on the legality of Trump’s and his campaign’s actions regarding Russia’s criminal conspiracy into the 2016 campaign and whether his subsequent actions constituted obstruction of justice.
And, based on what I know right now, the American people got that from the Department of Justice.
Now it goes to Congress to make a political decision on impeachment and conviction and / or the electorate to make a political decision on re-elected Trump for another four years. And the House should attend to its oversight responsibilities so sadly neglected for the past two years.
But, as John Adams said in defending the British soldiers in the Boston Massacre (again, not a popular cause):
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. John Adams
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/john_adams_134175
For all the consternation being shown by my fellow never-Trumpers on MSNBC and elsewhere, Mueller's and Barr's decisions seem transparent.
There were acts that might have been obstruction. Mueller decided to not render a decision on whether or not they were criminal instead listing each instance and reasons for / against prosecution as a crime that could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt... and booted the decision to Barr.
Barr looked at the list and decided that no single instance could be proved according to federal statutes stipulating that for the action to be a criminal offence the prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt 1) engaged in obstructive conduct 2) with the corrupt intent 3) to obstruct an impending legal proceeding.
To put this in an extreme way… Trump could have acted 100 times and each and every time have met two of the three conditions beyond a reasonable doubt but with insufficient evidence on the third and Barr would be justified in his decision.
Barr determined that, regarding obstruction, there was insufficient evidence to charge Trump with a violation of the obstruction of justice statutes.
Maybe it will turn out that Barr is on Russia's payroll and has Mueller bound and gagged at Guantanamo (which Mueller would probably count as a vacation at this point).
But until such time as someone gives me some really good reason to believe that, I am going with the independent DOJ decision that Trump committed no obstruction of justice CRIME that he could be successfully prosecuted for irrespective of DOJ policy against indicting a sitting president.
From Barr’s Summary..."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."
