Comments by "betabenja" (@betabenja) on "Russia probe review becomes a criminal investigation" video.

which one has come out as true here? Trump starting an investigation does not mean there have been any crimes, just like the investigation into trump only came up with obstruction of justice.
3
@fromdarktolight6353 No, it did not. The whole of the second volume was dedicated to 10 counts which would be obstruction of justice if Barr would allow Muller to say it was. Just because Barr disallowed Muller to actually charge Trump does not mean he did not find obstruction. HALF THE REPORT WAS DEDICATED TO IT. How about you get out of your echo chamber?
3
@mrdougeran1 No, a criminal investigation is not one surrounding a conviction. Hence the name 'investigation'. Why investigate if you already know enough to convict? Your premise is a tautology. You are also confusing Barr's Criminal investigation with Nancy's Impeachment investigation. One is concerned with breaking the law, the other is to impeach and includes 'misdemeanours' and 'behaviour unbecoming of the office of the President'. Sounds like I know more than you, at least.
3
@fromdarktolight6353 They didn't fail to prove obstruction - they just could not act on it because Barr would not let them deliver a guilty verdict against a sitting president, making him above the law. That is why Muller said Trump was not exonerated - he had evidence, a whole volume's worth, but not the power to prosecute. It is nothing to do with proof, proof was abundant; it was just shut down by the 'justice' dept.
3
@fromdarktolight6353 Yep. I'd concede that Barr - put in place specifically to interfere with the investigation because, from trump's own mouth, we wanted an AG who has not recused himself, the same that will not allow his officials to charge a sitting president with a Crime - that Barr - concluded there was not enough evidence for all those ten accounts in the whole second volume. I'm so glad Trump is draining the swamp.
2
subpoena? can't they just follow trump and not comply, now that we know it holds no weight?
1
@fromdarktolight6353 Also True - Exonerate meant nothing using the exact meaning of the word. But then again, Trump can't have committed a crime, because Barr does not allow it. Barr has made Trump above the law. In this situation, Exonerate means nothing because Trump can obstruct all the Justice he likes and not be committing any Crimes. He can use all of his power to hide anything bad he does, and if the only thing left is that he's trying to hide it, he still can't be indicted. Like, there is no Justice anymore, because he can't be brought to justice. Just the facts. As I say, I'm glad he's getting rid of that swamp.
1
@fromdarktolight6353 I think the evidence is pretty clear. 10 counts of clear obstructing of the Investigation, and Barr say he sees nothing. It's not just one or two. 10. Disallowing Trump to be indicted by his department. That's straight out abusing his office to bring about Political outcomes. Evidence and proof of corruption. Is it that you want some sort of bribes to be passing?
1
@fromdarktolight6353 I believe all points were independently verified or under oath. Is your argument 'they're all liars!'? Pretty shaky ground. Even Barr himself does not dispute the 10 points, merely suggesting they are insufficient. Sadly, his argument is also that there is no 'corrupt intent', and he solely decides that, for instance, trying to fire the investigator of the investigation into yourself is not corrupt. It clearly is.
1