(04-19-2019 06:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 11:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 10:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It is going to be interesting to see what comes out of the report, now that it is mostly released.

One quote I've seen already:

Quote: If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would state so. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the president's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him

That quote provides a lot more context to the statement Barr used in his summary. Very reminiscent of the Comey comments regarding Hillary.

actually Comeys comments tracked 'Hillary did x' point for point with the relevant statute provisions before his 'conclusion' that there would be no prosecution.

I don’t remember the Comey statement verbatim, but he outlined the actual statute provisions by US Code name/number?

My recollection was more that, like what I’ve seen so far in the Mueller Report, he explained her actions and how they related to the law in a way that a layperson could understand.

He did not. He recited the elements in the statute point by point without referring specifically to the statute. Glad he put it in a way that you would understand.

But he loftily tossed the culpability section into the fing dumpster (interestingly after stating Hillary acted with the appropriate level of culpability, but using a different word than 'gross')

The Mueller Report is more of the form:

Here is the law.
Under one stretch of the law x is a 'highly imaginative' interpretation of the law.
It might be that Orange Bad Man when performing act y actually met x.
Wash, rinse, repeat 9x more times.

All while ignoring other portions of rather set Constitutional law.

The reason that Mueller did not indict (which is his job, mind you) is because of those very high departures. Mueller made some tough calls in his other prosecutions, and did not hesitate to be liberal in some of those definitions in those charges. Noting the breadth and depth of the needed deviations in the 10 scenarios, I see why he did not.

The Mueller Report is an interesting primer on what 'obstruction' *might* be under the most exacting and imaginative definitional contortions. If one used the Mueller Report as a basis in taking a criminal law final exam or bar exam one would flunk that portion of the test.

To be blunt, the Mueller Report is more akin to the Rick Perry indictments than any 'real case' or any 'real application' of the law.

The problem with your viewpoint is that Mueller doesnt signify his rather large deviations from common practice, and the not so smart lay reader has no ability to note that departure. But feel free to think what you want to think. No skin off my back.

But no, the 'Mueller definitional' exercise is not in any way close to the Comey thingy to those whom have a modicum of expertise in the subject. But I sense another lad 'Verdun' here, so so be it.