I would read the law.
Even an attempt that fails, is still obstruction. Even if the investigation was tainted by certain investigators abusing their power, it is still obstruction of an investigation.
At the end of the day, i still hold to an opinion, that both trump and some that investigated him, abused their powers.
Read the link in Post 44. Should help you....
Even if an attempt fails.
Let’s think about this logically.
If I attempt to rob you. I am charged with attempted robbery, not robbery
If I attempt to murder you, the charge is attempted murder, not murder.
Is there any other crime that you can name, where just attempting it carries the same charges?
Here is the relevant statute from the USC.Even if an attempt fails.
Let’s think about this logically.
If I attempt to rob you. I am charged with attempted robbery, not robbery
If I attempt to murder you, the charge is attempted murder, not murder.
Is there any other crime that you can name, where just attempting it carries the same charges?
What you are quoting is a legal opinion, not part of penal law.
That opinion is just that, an opinion.
(c)Whoever corruptly—
record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
(2)
otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
Notice that "attempts to do so" is listed in the statute.
950 people having the same opinion is the same as one. It’s just an opinion.
Cite the penal code where attempted obstruction is part and particle the same as obstruction and you might have me.
bolded mineSomeone obstructs justice when that person has a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding. For a person to be convicted of obstructing justice, that person must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, but that person must know (1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and (2) there must be a connection between the endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding, and the person must have knowledge of this connection.
I see that, but in the link there is more to it also. And that is what I’m iffy about.
Even if an attempt fails.
Let’s think about this logically.
If I attempt to rob you. I am charged with attempted robbery, not robbery
If I attempt to murder you, the charge is attempted murder, not murder.
Is there any other crime that you can name, where just attempting it carries the same charges?
What you are quoting is a legal opinion, not part of penal law.
That opinion is just that, an opinion.
And you are basing that statement on your vast legal experience?FWIW, this argument assumes that there is some basis for a claim of obstruction. There isn't.
The whole show is about fabricating a talking point that the RESIST! folks can then use as cover for their attempt to impeach--that and a way to 'save face' after the two years and 30 plus millions of wasted dollars spent on the Mueller investigation which turned up nothing.
Are you referring to this?I see that, but in the link there is more to it also. And that is what I’m iffy about.
Because that's still pretty clear. With regards to the (1) and (2) items, those are addressed pretty concisely in these charts (which have been posted multiple times now):Someone obstructs justice when that person has a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding. For a person to be convicted of obstructing justice, that person must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, but that person must know (1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and (2) there must be a connection between the endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding, and the person must have knowledge of this connection.
§ 1503 applies only to federal judicial proceedings. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1505, however, a defendant can be convicted of obstruction of justice by obstructing a pending proceeding before Congress or a federal administrative agency. A pending proceeding could include an informal investigation by an executive agency.
Hardly. I think most of us are leaning towards voting him out and letting him be charged then, rather than impeachment. Pelosi seems to be leaning that way as well.FWIW, this argument assumes that there is some basis for a claim of obstruction. There isn't.
The whole show is about fabricating a talking point that the RESIST! folks can then use as cover for their attempt to impeach--that and a way to 'save face' after the two years and 30 plus millions of wasted dollars spent on the Mueller investigation which turned up nothing.
Are you referring to this?
Because that's still pretty clear. With regards to the (1) and (2) items, those are addressed pretty concisely in these charts (which have been posted multiple times now):
(Source)
(Source)
Both of these charts are analyses - by lawyers - of the evidence presented in Volume II of the Mueller Report. There are probably a few others floating around out there as well. While they do differ in a few details, there is significant agreement in their analyses, and our resident lawyer (@NotreDame) seems to agree.
Hardly. I think most of us are leaning towards voting him out and letting him be charged then, rather than impeachment. Pelosi seems to be leaning that way as well.
I'd be OK with this too, with the understand that Donald's kids aren't immune from prosecution when he is in office. Having them answering uncomfortable questions up in front of a House committee in the weeks leading up to the election seems like a reasonable timeline to shoot for.Seems the only sensible solution... the GOP (especially McConnell's Senate) is far too deep in Donald's pocket to ever convict him on the evidence.
Can you imagine that he will not pardon them proactively if there is a hint of prosecution? If they're to be prosecuted, it would have to be at a state level while Donald is in office (and possibly afterwards if he pulls a Ford).I'd be OK with this too, with the understand that Donald's kids aren't immune from prosecution when he is in office. Having them answering uncomfortable questions up in front of a House committee in the weeks leading up to the election seems like a reasonable timeline to shoot for.