He's correct. It is a crime to obstruct an investigation by a law enforcement agency. That the conspiracy didn't rise to cooperation by the Trump campaign changes nothing about the obstruction charge.That is incorrect.
Upvote
0
He's correct. It is a crime to obstruct an investigation by a law enforcement agency. That the conspiracy didn't rise to cooperation by the Trump campaign changes nothing about the obstruction charge.That is incorrect.
yes, I read it. And the only crimes it even implied in connection with either the Trump Campaign or the Trump Administration were were allegations of possible obstruction.
And for obstruction to be criminal, there has to be an underlying crime.
And the report admitted that the investigators had found zero evidence of an underlying crime.
Maybe you didn't hear, but after two years and over thirty million wasted dollars, all those Democrat lawyers found NO wrongdoing on the part of the President.
They did find evidence of criminal activity. Russian interference in the 2016 election. That was part of the main objective of the investigation. They also had the authority to charge anyone else for criminal activity which were found that were not part of the interference investigation. Trump attempting to impede the investigation affected those investigations as well.The report did not admit that they found "zero evidence of an underlying crime."
It doesn't matter that the investigation didn't find enough evidence that showed that the Trump campaign did not have activity which rose to cooperation with Russia in the conspiracy to interfere in the 2016 election. Mueller outlined several instances in which Trump tried to impede the investigation, which is illegal. That is fact and not wishful thinking.But we weren't talking about criminality, etc. on the part of the Russians. As for Trump or his staff, you are simply writing down your wishful thinking.
He had the goods on obstruction and outlined them in his report to the DOJ. He said he couldn't bring charges because of DOJ policy against filing criminal charges against a sitting President but that those could be filed after Trump leaves office.If he actually had the goods he would have said so. As you know, he couldn't.
But he admitted publicly that he had not found enough evidence to bring charges, even without that consideration.He had the goods on obstruction and outlined them in his report to the DOJ. He said he couldn't bring charges because of DOJ policy against filing criminal charges against a sitting President but that those could be filed after Trump leaves office.
And? That changes nothing. Mueller wasn't just investigating any involvement by the campaign, he was investigating Russian interference and he detailed just how Russia interfered and Trump's tried to impede that investigation.But he admitted publicly that he had not found enough evidence to bring charges, even without that consideration.
No, he detailed information that might indicate that Trump tried to impede that investigation.And? That changes nothing. Mueller wasn't just investigating any involvement by the campaign, he was investigating Russian interference and he detailed just how Russia interfered and Trump's tried to impede that investigation.
And? It is illegal to try to obstruct a Federal investigation.No, he detailed information that might indicate that Trump tried to impede that investigation.
Except an underlying crime is not required for obstruction to be criminal. A criminal investigation can find somebody innocent of any crime. That's part of the criminal justice system. So is somebody being charged with a crime. But disrupting the process at all, even if it will end up in the way you benefit from, is still obstructing the criminal justice system. Obstruction is a stand-alone crime, it's not an enhancement, which when you think about it makes sense. If Obstruction was an enhancement, then if you managed to successfully destroy evidence, intimidate a witness or whatnot, then you got off completely scot-free. It's about the process, not the end result.The key word here is "justice." A Witch hunt is not justice. And that is why an underlying crime is required for obstruction to be criminal.
But we have been round and round on this, and have beaten it to death. We will just have to wait and see who ends up in prison. And that will be mainly people who were attempting to frame the President.
We have been round and round on this, and I have pointed out that you are mistaken abut it. Over and Out!Except an underlying crime is not required for obstruction to be criminal. A criminal investigation can find somebody innocent of any crime. That's part of the criminal justice system. So is somebody being charged with a crime. But disrupting the process at all, even if it will end up in the way you benefit from, is still obstructing the criminal justice system. Obstruction is a stand-alone crime, it's not an enhancement, which when you think about it makes sense. If Obstruction was an enhancement, then if you managed to successfully destroy evidence, intimidate a witness or whatnot, then you got off completely scot-free. It's about the process, not the end result.
I know that you are having trouble grasping this simple concept. "There was an underlying crime. " Each head of all of the investigative units of our government all agreed that Russia interfered in the 2016 Presidential election. This is part of what Mueller was investigating and to which Trump's attempts to impede that investigation is beyond any doubt a crime.The key word here is "justice." A Witch hunt is not justice. And that is why an underlying crime is required for obstruction to be criminal.
As of yet, no one has presented any credible evidence that anyone has attempted to frame the President.We will just have to wait and see who ends up in prison. And that will be mainly people who were attempting to frame the President.