Барр писал про это в своем изначальном письме. “In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that ‘the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,’ and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President’s intent with respect to obstruction.”
Но юристы (в том числе республиканский конгрессмен Джастин Амаш) этот тезис легко опровергают.
In fact, there were many crimes revealed by the investigation, some of which were charged, and some of which were not but are nonetheless described in Mueller’s report.
не имеет значения для обвинений в obstruction of justice
In fact, obstruction of justice does not require the prosecution of an underlying crime, and there is a logical reason for that. Prosecutors might not charge a crime precisely *because* obstruction of justice denied them timely access to evidence that could lead to a prosecution.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2019-06-03 05:20 pm (UTC)Барр писал про это в своем изначальном письме. “In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that ‘the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,’ and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President’s intent with respect to obstruction.”
Но юристы (в том числе республиканский конгрессмен Джастин Амаш) этот тезис легко опровергают.
не имеет значения для обвинений в obstruction of justice