3 ms·

This seems a good summary to me. After all, you cannot prove a negative.

• mcphage 8y ago
  It goes farther than that: > At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. So if it looks like he didn't commit obstruction of justice, they would have said that. They can't prove a negative, but if there hadn't been any evidence, they would have been willing to make a judgement that Trump was innocent. But they did find evidence, so they're unwilling to say he's not guilty of obstruction.
  • tim333 8y ago
    Yeah he probably tried to obstruct but they can't prove it.
    • mcphage 8y ago
      Seems like it’s “he tried to obstruct, here is the evidence, it’s Congress’s job to do something about it”