With Trump as POTUS, and even before he became POTUS, what exactly has the democratic party done for their country other than attack your duly elected President and try to destroy him?
This is a trick question built upon two false premises. First off, if foreign powers use their military cyber capabilities to covertly campaign for their preferred candidate against the other partys nominee, the election is compromised. So to say that Trump was duly elected is already a denial of that reality. Secondly, to investigate the incident is the obligatory responsibility of
all Americans so as to protect the legitimacy of our elections,
especially our President who does not even acknowledge that Russia interferred. It obviously undermines our Republic and the unity of our Nation if we blame the party that got cheated by portraying the interference as a Democratic attempt to destroy a Republican President.
Without attempting to be cruel, I think everyone should be able to see that. So I am forced to believe that it requires some high level of dishonesty to not admit such an obvious Truth. And that type of dishonesty that would divide a nation to serve one's own personal vanity is on display by the current President every time he tells his blind followers that there was an attempted coup in this country.
Furthermore, it has cost your citizens millions in tax dollars and all it accomplished was making the Mueller team wealthy, so I can certainly understand why so many of your citizens are angry and want justice...many even want that money reimbursed by the democrats.
You're greatly mistaken sir and I wish to inform you why. Not all Americans are so foolish so as to not see that Russia was behind the attacks, and not the Democrats. We who are not so gullible also know that the Mueller investigation came about because of the firing of James Comey the head of the FBI. It is obstruction of justice to impede an investigation by firing someone like the FBI director with the corrupt intent of serving one's own personal self interests.
From the Mueller report:
An improper motive can render an actor’s conduct criminal even when the conduct would otherwise be lawful and within the actor’s authority. See United States v. Cueto, 151 F.3d 620, 631 (7th Cir. 1998) (affirming obstruction conviction of a criminal defense attorney for “litigation-related conduct’); United States v. Cintolo, 818 F.2d 980, 992 (1st Cir. 1987) ("any act by any party — whether lawful or unlawful on its face — may abridge S 1503 if performed with a corrupt motive").
Yet the obstruction-of-justice statutes do not aggrandize power in Congress or usurp executive authority. Instead, they impose a discrete limitation on conduct only when it is taken with the “corrupt” intent to obstruct justice. The obstruction statutes thus would restrict presidential action only by prohibiting the President from acting to obstruct official proceedings for the improper purpose of protecting his own interests. See Volume II, Section III.A.3, supra.
The appointment of a special counsel investigation was made by
a Republican Rod Rosenstein, who was
nominated by Donald Trump to be the deputy attorney general of the DOJ. The appointment of a special counsel was necessary because: (1) Upon request of the President, Rosenstein wrote a memorandum describing what he felt were valid reasons why Comey should be replaced. None of them had anything to do with How Comey was handling the Russia investigation. (2) The Whitehouse was publicly claiming that the firing of James Comey was the idea of Rod Rosenstein and also giving false pretenses for the firing. The President wanted Rosenstein to publicly lie and state the same. This left Rosenstein in the position of either compromising his integrity by hiding the fact that it was the Presidents idea and for his personal interest, thus becoming a participant in possible obstruction, or hiring a special counsel because he was now a witness in any potential obstruction case.
Hence if there is anger about the appointment of Mr. Mueller, the person ultimately responsible would be the President, who nominated Rod Rosenstein, had him write the memorandum, and then lied to the country that it was Rosenstein's idea to fire Comey.
No collusion (consequently means no obstruction because there was no crime to obstruct, which some people just don't seem to perceive) has shaken up many more in your country and around the world...and the outcome of how this whole thing started will shake up many more.
Not true on two counts: (1) There indeed was a crime to be obstructed, and that crime was that Russia interfered in our elections on the behalf of one candidate and against the other. (2) You need not be a party to that crime to obstruct the investigation as shown here in Mueller's report:
Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations. The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General’s recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony.
Allow me to point out that it would even be illogical to assume that a crime first had to be committed before an investigation into whether a crime was committed is considered legitimate. The very reason we investigate is to determine whether there was a crime committed. Subsequently any obstruction into the investigation which will determine that issue, is a crime.
Attempts and endeavors. Section 1512(c)(2) covers both substantive obstruction offenses and attempts to obstruct justice. Under general principles of attempt law, a person is guilty of an attempt when he has the intent to commit a substantive offense and takes an overt act that constitutes a substantial step towards that goal.
See United States v. Resendiz-Ponce, 549 U.S. 102, 106-107 (2007). “[T]he act [must be] substantial, in that it was strongly corroborative of the defendant’s criminal purpose.”
United States v. Pratt, 351 F.3d 131, 135 (4th Cir. 2003). While “mere abstract talk” does not suffice, any “concrete and specific” acts that corroborate the defendant’s intent can constitute a “substantial step.”
United States v. Irving, 665 F.3d 1184, 1198–1205 (10th Cir. 2011).
Thus, “soliciting an innocent agent to engage in conduct constituting an element of the crime” may qualify as a substantial step. Model Penal Code § 5.01(2)(g); see
United States v. Lucas, 499 F.3d 769, 781 (8th Cir. 2007).
The omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1503 prohibits an “endeavor” to obstruct justice, which sweeps more broadly than Section 1512’s attempt provision.
See United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 287, 302 (2d Cir. 2018);
United States v. Leisure, 844 F.2d 1347, 1366-1367 (8th Cir. 1988) (collecting cases).
“It is well established that a[n] [obstruction-of-justice] offense is complete when one corruptly endeavors to obstruct or impede the due administration of justice; the prosecution need not prove that the due administration of justice was actually obstructed or impeded.” United States v. Davis, 854 F.3d 1276, 1292 (11th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted).
It certainly appears that the democrats have a lot to answer for.
Continue praying for unity in your country as more and more comes to light...and may God Bless You all.
I study semantics sir, and I can assure you that any reasoning based upon falsehood ends in a contradiction. Hence these two statements are at odds because blaming the Democrats for what Russia did is participating in promoting lies that divide our country.
