DOJ authority for "no need to provide" is DOJ regulations. The entire SC construct is DOJ created.
Nadler is engaged in making work for Barr and the DOJ. This is just another way to dilute the effectiveness of the Trump administration - "resist they much."
The use of "exonerate" at the investigative stage is misuse of legal terminology. More in a bit.
There are only two ways to fashion presumption in a binary system, a person can either be presumed innocent, and the accuser has the burden to prove guilt; or the person can be presumed guilty and the accused has the burden to prove "not guilt." In other words, at the investigation stage, the question is open, undecided, and the accused is either presumed innocent or is presumed guilty. The process flows that that beginning stance.
We run a system of presumed innocent, so the burden is on Mueller to make his case. He either asserts enough evidence to find guilt, or not. The public is engaged in argument over what Mueller concluded, but basically, he concluded nothing, he didn't do the job he was hired to do.
As for "exoneration," that's a code for wrongly convicted, later exonerated. Exoneration follows a miscarriage of justice, where the evidence did not support a conviction, but a conviction was attached anyway. The legal system would have you believe that is has impeccable integrity. It emphatically does not have impeccable integrity, it is one of the most dishonest fields of human endeavor in that is resists at all cost, admitting error.
Good summary. I differ only with obstruction wo/underlying crime isn't possible. Smollette obstructed justice.
I see no credible obstruction in the fact patterns in Mueller's report. Quite the opposite.
There is an inherent conundrum when resistance is offered to a corrupt investigator and prosecutor. The system is set up to protect its own corruption, but this is offensive to justice. This is why corrupt people gravitate to the justice system. The system tolerates a large amount of corruption rather than admit it is corrupt. It takes a high bar (Nifong comes to mind) to result in exposure. Mueller-level corruption is called "highest integrity," to get an idea of how the public should view the system. It is not high integrity, the system is lying about itself to prop up the myth that it is sound.
Action by a corrupt IC, FBI, DOJ and State Department had 10,000 times more impact on the election, than the Russians did.
The Russian activity might have swung 100 votes. Lies fed to public by the government, via leaks to the press and unethical case dealing (clear Hillary, accuse Trump) likely swung a few million votes.
Yes. Law is a social tool, a blunt instrument. It can be used for good, and it can be used for harm. Whichever way it is being used, it will always protect itself, even if it has to lie to maintain a fiction that it is being used for good.