18 U.S.C. § 1503 defines " obstruction of justice " as an act that "corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or ende 18 U.S.C. § 1503 defines " obstruction of justice " as an act that "corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or ende…
In this case, it would need to be shown that Trump acted corruptly.
He was not guilty of anything, whether you agree that the investigation was purely political or not. Now acting corruptly is a vague enough term by itself. Trying to influence an investigation that is baseless to begin with is sort of weak in the corrupt intent area.
Barr and Rosenstein disagreed on some on Mueller’s theories about what was and wasn’t a legal basis to charge, but BOTH AGREED that because the President was cleared of the charge of conspiracy his intent to cover up the charge - obstruction - doesn’t hold water.
They also said this was tossed over to other DoJ lawyers who agreed with them. This is pretty standard practice in the DoJ with respect to obstruction, which has a very high bar to indict.
If you’re not guilty of the crime you are supposed to be obstructing the idea of “corrupt intent” is very hard to prove, as you KNOW you are not guilty. Why would you try to hide that?
Barr correctly stated that there was plenty of other motives for the President to do the things some want to call obstruction. But he never intended to stop the investigation and in fact provided the investigation with EVERY SINGLE document they asked for and access to EVERY SINGLE person they wanted to talk to - without a single use of Executive Privilege to stop the investigators in any way.
That, if anything, shows a complete willingness to cooperate fully - NOT to obstruct anything.
If you’re just going to insist that you are right and I am wrong without any attempt to refute my reasoning and no intention to even read my reasons then we have NO REASON to keep talking.
It’s actually a little more severe then “just not guilty”. Mueller presented evidence of 10 instances in which Trump committed acts that may be construed as obstruction. Because he is prevented by DOJ guidelines from indicting the President, he created a roadmap within the report for Congress to impeach, or for prosecutors to indict Trump once he is out of office. That’s not “not guilty”, not yet. It sure as hell isn’t exoneration.
It’s in the Democratic majority house hands now, if they don’t move to impeach who’s fault is that?
At this point the house can either impeach or not, if they don’t it’s not Trumps, Mueller, or Barr’s fault.
