What Is Your Bar For Impeachment?

[bripat9643]

They have no power to indict the President, and we all know impeachment is never going to happen.

I see you still have difficulty reading. The Congress wouldn't use the obstruction to indict Trump. They would use the power given to them as part of the system of check and balances to impeach him. It was not Barr's responsibility to make the decision if there was obstruction or not. Even if he decided there was obstruction, would he had said it publicly? What would he had done after that? He has NO POWER to do anything with it. The only power at this moment with any power to do anything is Congress. Learn the fucking laws.

As I already explained, dumbass, one of the basic functions of the AG is to make decisions about whether to prosecute. Who else do you believe is supposed to do it, Schiff for brains? Barr and Rosenstein both determined there was no evidence of obstruction. End of story.

So the AG, appointed by the President, and below the President, has oversight of the President? You need to back to junior high school and take Social Studies over again. BARR HAD NO REASON TO MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT ABOUT OBSTRUCTION! The President wasn't going to be indicted, and the AG doesn't have oversight to determine obstruction for impeachment. That's Congress's responsibility.

You can explain your side over and over a million times and it will be wrong every single time.

Mueller reports to the President. Are you saying he didn't have the authority to indict the President?

Impeachment is a political process, not a legal process. Congress can impeach Trump for whatever reason it likes.

No he didn't. He said he wouldn't even try due the the DoJ memo that said a sitting President could not be indicted.

So what's all this blather about obstruction of justice then?

 

[Bush92]

The "Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Let's all agree that if a President shoots a man on Fifth Avenue, he should be impeached, even if he committed the crime before he was President.

That's a pretty high crime.


But how low do you go with "Misdemeanors"? Why did our Founders use that word? I'm going to have to dust off some of my books to see if I can rediscover the reasoning behind that one.

The Republican party set the bar really, really low by impeaching a President over a blowjob.

Now, some will simp and say they impeached him over LYING about a blowjob, but come on. Why are you even asking him about a blowjob under oath, for chrissakes.

Everyone knows most of our Presidents screwed around. JFK was notorious, but even long before Kennedy, the private sex lives of Presidents were filled with mistresses. Yet we kept it private. You didn't make political hay out of it. Only if you were "caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl".


I can see how it would be tempting to force Trump to be put under oath and to ask him about Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal and what pussies he might have grabbed. But I personally really don't want us to go there again.

I do think we need to know if our President cheated on his taxes or defrauded investors or defrauded insurance companies. But even that would not be an impeachable offense in my book.

We need to know those kinds of things so we know something about the character of the man, and then we can decide for ourselves whether to vote him out democratically rather than remove him by force.


So for me, in this current climate, the only potential crime I can foresee which would be a high enough bar for me is money laundering.

Ill-gotten gains are acquired through murder and terrorism and human trafficking and other "high crimes", and anyone who plays a part in aiding and abetting those crimes should be forcibly removed from office.

What is YOUR bar for impeachment?

That an actual crime be committed.

 

[hjmick]

Now, some will simp and say they impeached him over LYING about a blowjob, but come on. Why are you even asking him about a blowjob under oath, for chrissakes.

Why did he, a licensed lawyer, commit perjury about a blowjob?

You may recall, the line of questioning came about through the Paula Jones investigation. Ken Starr uncovered the affair with Lewinsky, thus the questioning.

Personally, I don't give two shits about a president cutting off a little strange in the Oval Office (though it does speak to a man's character, especially if married... and yes, Trump has no character...), but don't lie about it while your pants are still down around your ankles...

Like I always told my kids, if I'm asking you the question, odds are I already know the answer so don't lie, that will just piss me off...

Yet Trump lies everyday continuously... His lawyers knew he lie so much they couldn't put him under Oath.. Not impeachable but it shouldn't there be a higher standard set by America...

You'd like to think so...

 

[hjmick]

Putting Russia’s interests ahead of the interest of United States while being commander in chief.

Can you name one instance of that happening. Be specific.

I trust you're not holding your breath...

 

[Lesh]

The "Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Let's all agree that if a President shoots a man on Fifth Avenue, he should be impeached, even if he committed the crime before he was President.

That's a pretty high crime.


But how low do you go with "Misdemeanors"? Why did our Founders use that word? I'm going to have to dust off some of my books to see if I can rediscover the reasoning behind that one.

The Republican party set the bar really, really low by impeaching a President over a blowjob.

Now, some will simp and say they impeached him over LYING about a blowjob, but come on. Why are you even asking him about a blowjob under oath, for chrissakes.

Everyone knows most of our Presidents screwed around. JFK was notorious, but even long before Kennedy, the private sex lives of Presidents were filled with mistresses. Yet we kept it private. You didn't make political hay out of it. Only if you were "caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl".


I can see how it would be tempting to force Trump to be put under oath and to ask him about Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal and what pussies he might have grabbed. But I personally really don't want us to go there again.

I do think we need to know if our President cheated on his taxes or defrauded investors or defrauded insurance companies. But even that would not be an impeachable offense in my book.

We need to know those kinds of things so we know something about the character of the man, and then we can decide for ourselves whether to vote him out democratically rather than remove him by force.


So for me, in this current climate, the only potential crime I can foresee which would be a high enough bar for me is money laundering.

Ill-gotten gains are acquired through murder and terrorism and human trafficking and other "high crimes", and anyone who plays a part in aiding and abetting those crimes should be forcibly removed from office.

What is YOUR bar for impeachment?

Misdemeanors was a much more serious term back then.

Explain

Misdemeanors I guess would best be described as class 4-3 felonies, and high crimes would be like our class 1-2 felonies.

Thanks for your opinion . Now show us how it relates to anything real. Like how misdemeanors we viewed in 1789

Sorry, the chapter on early American law that has been out of existence for 200 years is in the next chapter of my Things You Will Never Need to Know law text book. Btw that’s not opinion that misdemeanors were much heavier back in the day. Since there are 2 classes laid out, Hugh crimes and misdemeanors, it’s probably safe to assume misdemeanors were what we’d call a lower class felony (3-4).

So you're talking out your ass. Great

 

[sakinago]

Misdemeanors was a much more serious term back then.

Explain

Misdemeanors I guess would best be described as class 4-3 felonies, and high crimes would be like our class 1-2 felonies.

Thanks for your opinion . Now show us how it relates to anything real. Like how misdemeanors we viewed in 1789

Sorry, the chapter on early American law that has been out of existence for 200 years is in the next chapter of my Things You Will Never Need to Know law text book. Btw that’s not opinion that misdemeanors were much heavier back in the day. Since there are 2 classes laid out, Hugh crimes and misdemeanors, it’s probably safe to assume misdemeanors were what we’d call a lower class felony (3-4).

So you're talking out your ass. Great

No misdemeanors were indeed heavier charges back then, as opposed to today. That much is true. You’re talking about entirely different legal systems, with entirely different definitions, for fucks sake people could duel back then. It’s apples and oranges, I gave you the best estimation.

 

[Lesh]

Putting Russia’s interests ahead of the interest of United States while being commander in chief.

Can you name one instance of that happening. Be specific.

I trust you're not holding your breath...

Changing the GOP platform at the Convention from anti-Russia to more pro-Russia

Taking Putin's word over Trump's own intel...PUBLICLY

Removing sanctions on Derepaska

Not enacting other sanctions on Russia.

Saying nothing about the Russian mercenary attack on our forces in Syria

And just generally kissing Putin's ass

 

[Billy000]

The "Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Let's all agree that if a President shoots a man on Fifth Avenue, he should be impeached, even if he committed the crime before he was President.

That's a pretty high crime.


But how low do you go with "Misdemeanors"? Why did our Founders use that word? I'm going to have to dust off some of my books to see if I can rediscover the reasoning behind that one.

The Republican party set the bar really, really low by impeaching a President over a blowjob.

Now, some will simp and say they impeached him over LYING about a blowjob, but come on. Why are you even asking him about a blowjob under oath, for chrissakes.

Everyone knows most of our Presidents screwed around. JFK was notorious, but even long before Kennedy, the private sex lives of Presidents were filled with mistresses. Yet we kept it private. You didn't make political hay out of it. Only if you were "caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl".


I can see how it would be tempting to force Trump to be put under oath and to ask him about Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal and what pussies he might have grabbed. But I personally really don't want us to go there again.

I do think we need to know if our President cheated on his taxes or defrauded investors or defrauded insurance companies. But even that would not be an impeachable offense in my book.

We need to know those kinds of things so we know something about the character of the man, and then we can decide for ourselves whether to vote him out democratically rather than remove him by force.


So for me, in this current climate, the only potential crime I can foresee which would be a high enough bar for me is money laundering.

Ill-gotten gains are acquired through murder and terrorism and human trafficking and other "high crimes", and anyone who plays a part in aiding and abetting those crimes should be forcibly removed from office.

What is YOUR bar for impeachment?

To my understanding, impeachment doesn’t actually need to involve an actual crime to be committed to be warranted. It just needs to be egregious enough. I’ll have to double check if that is true, though. Assuming that is true, Trump’s collusion with Russia is more than enough to remove him from office.

God Trump is such a pile of shit. I don’t care what it takes to get him out of office, it just needs to happen for the betterment of mankind.

 

[Lewdog]

I see you still have difficulty reading. The Congress wouldn't use the obstruction to indict Trump. They would use the power given to them as part of the system of check and balances to impeach him. It was not Barr's responsibility to make the decision if there was obstruction or not. Even if he decided there was obstruction, would he had said it publicly? What would he had done after that? He has NO POWER to do anything with it. The only power at this moment with any power to do anything is Congress. Learn the fucking laws.

As I already explained, dumbass, one of the basic functions of the AG is to make decisions about whether to prosecute. Who else do you believe is supposed to do it, Schiff for brains? Barr and Rosenstein both determined there was no evidence of obstruction. End of story.

So the AG, appointed by the President, and below the President, has oversight of the President? You need to back to junior high school and take Social Studies over again. BARR HAD NO REASON TO MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT ABOUT OBSTRUCTION! The President wasn't going to be indicted, and the AG doesn't have oversight to determine obstruction for impeachment. That's Congress's responsibility.

You can explain your side over and over a million times and it will be wrong every single time.

Mueller reports to the President. Are you saying he didn't have the authority to indict the President?

Impeachment is a political process, not a legal process. Congress can impeach Trump for whatever reason it likes.

No he didn't. He said he wouldn't even try due the the DoJ memo that said a sitting President could not be indicted.

So what's all this blather about obstruction of justice then?

Congress doesn't need an indictment or a crime to impeachment the president... and it is up to them to look at the facts and decide obstruction, NOT Barr.

 

[Lesh]

No misdemeanors were indeed heavier charges back then, as opposed to today. That much is true.

You keep saying it..prove it

 

[Lesh]

The "Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Let's all agree that if a President shoots a man on Fifth Avenue, he should be impeached, even if he committed the crime before he was President.

That's a pretty high crime.


But how low do you go with "Misdemeanors"? Why did our Founders use that word? I'm going to have to dust off some of my books to see if I can rediscover the reasoning behind that one.

The Republican party set the bar really, really low by impeaching a President over a blowjob.

Now, some will simp and say they impeached him over LYING about a blowjob, but come on. Why are you even asking him about a blowjob under oath, for chrissakes.

Everyone knows most of our Presidents screwed around. JFK was notorious, but even long before Kennedy, the private sex lives of Presidents were filled with mistresses. Yet we kept it private. You didn't make political hay out of it. Only if you were "caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl".


I can see how it would be tempting to force Trump to be put under oath and to ask him about Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal and what pussies he might have grabbed. But I personally really don't want us to go there again.

I do think we need to know if our President cheated on his taxes or defrauded investors or defrauded insurance companies. But even that would not be an impeachable offense in my book.

We need to know those kinds of things so we know something about the character of the man, and then we can decide for ourselves whether to vote him out democratically rather than remove him by force.


So for me, in this current climate, the only potential crime I can foresee which would be a high enough bar for me is money laundering.

Ill-gotten gains are acquired through murder and terrorism and human trafficking and other "high crimes", and anyone who plays a part in aiding and abetting those crimes should be forcibly removed from office.

What is YOUR bar for impeachment?

To my understanding, impeachment doesn’t actually need to involve an actual crime to be committed to be warranted. It just needs to be egregious enough. I’ll have to double check if that is true, though. Assuming that is true, Trump’s collusion with Russia is more than enough to remove him from office.

God Trump is such a pile of shit. I don’t care what it takes to get him out of office, I just needs to happen for the betterment of mankind.

You're correct

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The "Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Let's all agree that if a President shoots a man on Fifth Avenue, he should be impeached, even if he committed the crime before he was President.

That's a pretty high crime.


But how low do you go with "Misdemeanors"? Why did our Founders use that word? I'm going to have to dust off some of my books to see if I can rediscover the reasoning behind that one.

The Republican party set the bar really, really low by impeaching a President over a blowjob.

Now, some will simp and say they impeached him over LYING about a blowjob, but come on. Why are you even asking him about a blowjob under oath, for chrissakes.

Everyone knows most of our Presidents screwed around. JFK was notorious, but even long before Kennedy, the private sex lives of Presidents were filled with mistresses. Yet we kept it private. You didn't make political hay out of it. Only if you were "caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl".


I can see how it would be tempting to force Trump to be put under oath and to ask him about Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal and what pussies he might have grabbed. But I personally really don't want us to go there again.

I do think we need to know if our President cheated on his taxes or defrauded investors or defrauded insurance companies. But even that would not be an impeachable offense in my book.

We need to know those kinds of things so we know something about the character of the man, and then we can decide for ourselves whether to vote him out democratically rather than remove him by force.


So for me, in this current climate, the only potential crime I can foresee which would be a high enough bar for me is money laundering.

Ill-gotten gains are acquired through murder and terrorism and human trafficking and other "high crimes", and anyone who plays a part in aiding and abetting those crimes should be forcibly removed from office.

What is YOUR bar for impeachment?

After the Clinton impeachment debacle that backfired on Republicans, we’ll likely never see another president impeached again.

Of course, if the Framers were alive today, they’d ask why the impeachment process hasn’t been used more often to rid the people of the incompetent idiots elected president over the years by the states – Trump being the prime example of that incompetence and idiocy.

It was not the intent of the Framers that the people be compelled to accept as president someone elected by the states the majority of the people believed to be unfit to hold that office, such as Trump.

Indeed, the purpose of the EC becomes clear when Article II is correctly perceived in its full context, where Section Four of the Article affords the people the means by which to tell the states they were wrong to have elected this person president, provide evidence to the states documenting why they were wrong, and allow the states to correct the mistake they had made.

 

[theHawk]

Putting Russia’s interests ahead of the interest of United States while being commander in chief.

Can you name one instance of that happening. Be specific.

I trust you're not holding your breath...

Changing the GOP platform at the Convention from anti-Russia to more pro-Russia

Taking Putin's word over Trump's own intel...PUBLICLY

Removing sanctions on Derepaska

Not enacting other sanctions on Russia.

Saying nothing about the Russian mercenary attack on our forces in Syria

And just generally kissing Putin's ass

Question. Why should we have any sanctions against Russia?
Do you want to start a war with Russia, or would you rather have peace?

 

[bripat9643]

As I already explained, dumbass, one of the basic functions of the AG is to make decisions about whether to prosecute. Who else do you believe is supposed to do it, Schiff for brains? Barr and Rosenstein both determined there was no evidence of obstruction. End of story.

So the AG, appointed by the President, and below the President, has oversight of the President? You need to back to junior high school and take Social Studies over again. BARR HAD NO REASON TO MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT ABOUT OBSTRUCTION! The President wasn't going to be indicted, and the AG doesn't have oversight to determine obstruction for impeachment. That's Congress's responsibility.

You can explain your side over and over a million times and it will be wrong every single time.

Mueller reports to the President. Are you saying he didn't have the authority to indict the President?

Impeachment is a political process, not a legal process. Congress can impeach Trump for whatever reason it likes.

No he didn't. He said he wouldn't even try due the the DoJ memo that said a sitting President could not be indicted.

So what's all this blather about obstruction of justice then?

Congress doesn't need an indictment or a crime to impeachment the president... and it is up to them to look at the facts and decide obstruction, NOT Barr.

The special counsel law requires Mueller to deliver the report to the AG, and no one else. Publishing any part of the report is solely at the AG's discretion. He can keep it all confidential if he wants. The law specifically bars him from releasing Grand Jury testimony and classified material, so you are wrong about 5 different ways to Sunday.

 

[bripat9643]

The "Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Let's all agree that if a President shoots a man on Fifth Avenue, he should be impeached, even if he committed the crime before he was President.

That's a pretty high crime.


But how low do you go with "Misdemeanors"? Why did our Founders use that word? I'm going to have to dust off some of my books to see if I can rediscover the reasoning behind that one.

The Republican party set the bar really, really low by impeaching a President over a blowjob.

Now, some will simp and say they impeached him over LYING about a blowjob, but come on. Why are you even asking him about a blowjob under oath, for chrissakes.

Everyone knows most of our Presidents screwed around. JFK was notorious, but even long before Kennedy, the private sex lives of Presidents were filled with mistresses. Yet we kept it private. You didn't make political hay out of it. Only if you were "caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl".


I can see how it would be tempting to force Trump to be put under oath and to ask him about Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal and what pussies he might have grabbed. But I personally really don't want us to go there again.

I do think we need to know if our President cheated on his taxes or defrauded investors or defrauded insurance companies. But even that would not be an impeachable offense in my book.

We need to know those kinds of things so we know something about the character of the man, and then we can decide for ourselves whether to vote him out democratically rather than remove him by force.


So for me, in this current climate, the only potential crime I can foresee which would be a high enough bar for me is money laundering.

Ill-gotten gains are acquired through murder and terrorism and human trafficking and other "high crimes", and anyone who plays a part in aiding and abetting those crimes should be forcibly removed from office.

What is YOUR bar for impeachment?

After the Clinton impeachment debacle that backfired on Republicans, we’ll likely never see another president impeached again.

Of course, if the Framers were alive today, they’d ask why the impeachment process hasn’t been used more often to rid the people of the incompetent idiots elected president over the years by the states – Trump being the prime example of that incompetence and idiocy.

It was not the intent of the Framers that the people be compelled to accept as president someone elected by the states the majority of the people believed to be unfit to hold that office, such as Trump.

Indeed, the purpose of the EC becomes clear when Article II is correctly perceived in its full context, where Section Four of the Article affords the people the means by which to tell the states they were wrong to have elected this person president, provide evidence to the states documenting why they were wrong, and allow the states to correct the mistake they had made.

Caca.

 

[harmonica]

...so he shoots a man in self defense and he should be impeached???!!!!??

 

[sparky]

Question. Why should we have any sanctions against Russia?

because that's how globalism rolls

Do you want to start a war with Russia, or would you rather have peace?

peace...but w/profit

~S~

 

[Lewdog]

So the AG, appointed by the President, and below the President, has oversight of the President? You need to back to junior high school and take Social Studies over again. BARR HAD NO REASON TO MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT ABOUT OBSTRUCTION! The President wasn't going to be indicted, and the AG doesn't have oversight to determine obstruction for impeachment. That's Congress's responsibility.

You can explain your side over and over a million times and it will be wrong every single time.

Mueller reports to the President. Are you saying he didn't have the authority to indict the President?

Impeachment is a political process, not a legal process. Congress can impeach Trump for whatever reason it likes.

No he didn't. He said he wouldn't even try due the the DoJ memo that said a sitting President could not be indicted.

So what's all this blather about obstruction of justice then?

Congress doesn't need an indictment or a crime to impeachment the president... and it is up to them to look at the facts and decide obstruction, NOT Barr.

The special counsel law requires Mueller to deliver the report to the AG, and no one else. Publishing any part of the report is solely at the AG's discretion. He can keep it all confidential if he wants. The law specifically bars him from releasing Grand Jury testimony and classified material, so you are wrong about 5 different ways to Sunday.

Yes, "deliver" it to him. He is then tasked with going over it to see if there are any parts that are part of grand jury testimony or any parts that divulge intelligence practices that can not be shared with anyone except those with the clearance to see it.

He is NOT tasked with reading it and then interpreting HIS opinion and making that opinion public. He overstepped his duties.

Are you trolling? I'm being serious, because this is not that difficult to understand.

 

[NightFox]

Read the damn law for yourself.

§ 600.8 Notification and reports by the Special Counsel.
(a)Budget.

(1) A Special Counsel shall be provided all appropriate resources by the Department of Justice. Within the first 60 days of his or her appointment, the Special Counsel shall develop a proposed budget for the current fiscal year with the assistance of the Justice Management Division for the Attorney General's review and approval. Based on the proposal, the Attorney General shall establish a budget for the operations of the Special Counsel. The budget shall include a request for assignment of personnel, with a description of the qualifications needed.

(2) Thereafter, 90 days before the beginning of each fiscal year, the Special Counsel shall report to the Attorney General the status of the investigation, and provide a budget request for the following year. The Attorney General shall determine whether the investigation should continue and, if so, establish the budget for the next year.

(b)Notification of significant events. The Special Counsel shall notify the Attorney General of events in the course of his or her investigation in conformity with the Departmental guidelines with respect to Urgent Reports.

(c)Closing documentation. At the conclusion of the Special Counsel's work, he or she shall provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel.

You tell me why there is no precedent for violating the law. Perhaps you're thinking about the Independent Counsel statute, it expired long ago.

.

Great, I didn't argue that part. I argued that it doesn't say the AG is supposed to make a decision and public say there was no obstruction, before Congress sees the report and decides if there is anything in the report worthy of impeachment.

What you seem to fail to understand is congress has no right to see the raw report. They said so in the law THEY passed, it is confidential between the Special Counsel and the AG. It's up to the AG to decide what to relay to congress if anything. The law was written in a manor to protect the rights of un-indicted individuals form the very political disparagement you commies are trying to pursue. Face it, all your fantasies have been dashed, deal with it.

.

WHY? Part of their Constitutional responsibilities is to be the monitoring branch of the President in the checks in balances system. Because of that, it was not up to Barr to publicly make a decision on his own to say the President did not obstruct the investigation. It's very simple and your post does not show that in the law.

Actually it IS up to Barr given that the Special Counsel wasn't able to draw a conclusion as to whether or not the evidence was sufficient to pursue a charge of Obstruction, however Barr did NOT say that "the President did not obstruct the investigation". What he actually said was that "after reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense."

In other words he made no determination of whether the President was innocent or guilty, He and Rosenstein determined that there was insufficient evidence in the report to justify moving forward on the question. This has NO bearing on whether or not the House of Representatives chooses to pursue impeachment on the matter, it just means the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE believes based on the evidence that action isn't justified.

Barr was well within the scope of his authority on this one since the Special Council punted the question of obstruction to him.

No, it isn't. It would be up to Barr if the President could be indicted. It isn't up to Barr to make a judgement on obstruction in this sense because the decision on whether to impeach Trump due to obstruction is up to Congress.

What you're saying makes no sense, the Attorney General has the authority and the responsibility to determine the position of the Department of Justice regarding the question of criminality for ANYBODY, that's what Barr did, the fact that Justice Department policy prohibits the indictment of a sitting President is completely immaterial. What would you have the AG do? Issue no opinion on the findings of an investigation that the DOJ itself initiated? It's unfortunate that Mueller punted on the question but it is what it is.

As far as what Congress does, that's still COMPLETELY up to Congress regardless of anything that the Department of Justice does or says.

 

[NightFox]

Barr and Rosenstein both determined there was no evidence of obstruction. End of story.

That's not what Barr said in his letter …

What he actually said was

"that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense."

See the difference?