View Single Post
      06-10-2019, 04:59 PM   #102
Genieman
First Lieutenant
205
Rep
326
Posts

Drives: yes please
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by wdb View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
The primary point was that DESPITE the bias, they concluded that there was not sufficient conduct to warrant a recommendation of prosecution.
For conspiracy with the Russians, yes you are right, they concluded insufficient evidence -- or as Trump calls it, total exoneration. For the investigation into obstruction that is not the conclusion.
My understanding is that for an obstruction charge to be plausible, a person had to have tried to obstruct an action with corrupt intent. The corrupt intent being to conceal an underlying crime of which they are also guilty. In this case there was no evidence of conspiracy, the underlying crime also investigated and therefore no corrupt intent and therefore no obstruction charge. If there had been actual conspiracy, the same actions WOULD have led to an obstruction charge since the intent of the concealment was corrupt in nature in order to obstruct the discovery of an actual crime.