Barr should not be nominated.OK, here is a copy from another source of the actual memoIs that the best that you can do?? Stupid question, of course that is your best shot. Now prove that Barr did not say what they are reporting.William Barr thinks otherwise....Beyond the fact that you are stupid for beleiving every "source with knowledge" bulshit story we've heard despite 3 years of it never panning out there is the obvious. If Trump , or anyone else for that matter, conspired to get a witness to lie to Congress, that would be illegal, but it wouldn't be "obstruction of justice"
The 1 Line That William Barr Wrote About Obstruction That Could Haunt Trump | HuffPost
“
As things stand, obstruction laws do not criminalize just any act that can influence a ‘proceeding,’” he wrote in a document shared on Twitter by The Daily Beast’s Justin Miller. “Rather, they are concerned with acts intended to have a particular kind of impact.”
Barr then spelled out what would constitute obstruction, such as witness tampering. And he specifically said that even the president could be guilty in that case:
“Obviously, the President and any other official can commit obstruction in this classic sense of sabotaging a proceeding’s truth-finding function. Thus, for example, if a President knowingly destroys or alters evidence, suborns perjury, or induces a witness to change testimony, or commits any act deliberately impairing the integrity or availability of evidence, then he, like anyone else, commits the crime of obstruction.”
HuffPo??
Nuff said.
Prove that he did?? HuffPo?? Really??
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...4c05e39318dd2d136b3/optimized/full.pdf#page=1
enjoy!!