The message from LEO is almost always that if you’re not cooperating, then you’re probably guilty, or at least hiding something. Most people are aware of this, and tend to be cooperative at first. But when an ‘investigation’ quickly begins to feel like harassment, and you just want to live your life, it seems like “obstruction” is just human nature, guilty or not.
They are searching for heads to sever and display, but their Stalinist tactics are clear, or more like a German show trial with democrats screaming obscenities at innocent men. Its scary to see soo many people on a panel searching for a crime 2 years and $30 million dollars later, they are disgusting, small minds, chickens pecking at corn.
Correct. Republicans simply don't behave like Trump does.
ESPECIALLY WHEN THE PRESS PROCLAIMS HIM GUILTY FIRST - INSTEAD OF “INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY”
More BS designed to hinder the speech and actions of President Trump. By the author's logic it is "inappropriate" to harshly call out someone, but it is entirely OK to order the death of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of people. If it is OK to order the invasion of foreign countries, or dropping an atomic bomb on a city, why isn't it OK for the President to use harsh language?
The left just hates hearing the truth, and is yet again trying to silence their opposition - even when they were guilty of spying on another candidate and then creating a fake investigation to cover it up.
Don McGann said he was asked but refused. If President Trump was serious he would have insisted and McGann would have quit or been fired. That’s pretty much proof that he was blowing off steam. The POTUS is always under stress, they all have different ways of handling it. Trump is like every CEO I know who rage and move on.
When a non-issue, non-crime occurs, how do you protect yourself ?
You'd be frustrated too !
How do you prove your innocence without emotional turmoil ?
You'd be pi$$ed too !
You can't prove innocence in a rumor.
Looks like the trending thought now is that in the future, if the government charges someone and he hires a defense attorney, he will be charged with obstruction of justice.
The agents of Satan would rather believe a lie than the simple truth.
The murder of Seth Rich continues to pay dividends if Mueller can continue to pretend that the Wikileaks emails were the result of Russian hacking.
More from the article:
The second volume of the Mueller report — dealing with 10 separate actions by Trump that could be construed as obstruction of justice — is less decisive.
It is clear from the report that an impetuous president with a famously Irish temper pondered aloud about firing people such as Mueller, suggested that witnesses stick to their stories, and sought leniency for some of his entangled aides. Senior advisers took extreme actions to ensure the president didn’t act on those impulses.
If he were a mob boss seeking to protect his racketeering empire, these actions would be slam-dunk evidence of obstruction.
But, as Volume 1 of the Mueller report made clear, Trump committed no crime that he was trying to cover up.
And that makes a motive for some of his ill-advised temper tantrums unclear, and his state of mind conflicted, from a prosecutorial perspective.
Because Trump refused an interview with Mueller, on the advice of his own attorneys, the only state-of-mind evidence that prosecutors had directly from him came from the president’s interview with NBC News’ Lester Holt, just a few short days after the president fired then-FBI Director James Comey.
In that interview, Trump made clear that he did not want to stop the Russia investigation and actually expected his actions would elongate it.
His motive, he said, was simply to get a more competent person in charge so that the probe would be “absolutely done properly” and the outcome would be the “right thing for the American people.”
That’s hardly the intentions of an obstructive criminal kingpin.
Most importantly, Trump did not ultimately take most of the formal actions he threatened — which he had the power to do under Article II of the Constitution — and thus did not actually thwart, end or impede the Mueller probe.
For the purpose of a court of law, Donald Trump neither committed a Russia collusion crime that he needed to cover up nor took formal action that actually impeded the probe.
And that left only a theoretical case for attempted obstruction. The report shows Mueller’s team so struggled with the issue that it offered novel theories of prosecution, and then abdicated the responsibility it was given to make the traditional charging decision.
They still aren’t dealing with the fact that Hillary and all her minions were colluding with the Russians (and Ukrainians, and Chinese, and Arabs, and everyone else...)
Fusion GPS was on contract with the Russians. Christopher Steele was on contract with the Russians. Podesta, the Clintons’ brain, fixer, and manager, was on contract with the Russians. And Hillary and Bill famously took money by the rail-car-load from the Russians.
If you want collusion, there is a good place to start. It’s way past time.
That’s basically what Giuliani said this morning.
I do not agree. The Presidency, before anything else, is a political office comprised of a bully pulpit.
The process has been politicized and the executive branch weaponized against President Trump.
A little perspective, Sir. You're smarter than this.
By the way, the president possesses the right to hire and Fire directors of minor bureaus like the FBI at will, for no reason at all. He can direct an investigation to be started or stopped. How exactly does a president interfere with the Department of Justice? He cannot be charged with that crime ever. If he does something corrupt, impeachment is the remedy, but he may not be prosecuted.
Color me dense maybe but I’m really having a difficult time discerning what this article is actually concluding.
You can get frustrated but you can’t obstruct justice. Good thing he hired good people who knew the difference.
Bookmark
There was no “collusion” therefore there was prima facie Obstruction. He maliciously did not “collude” which caused the finding of “no collusion” which makes his noncollusion to be pre-emptive Obstruction. IMPEACH HIM