How does defending ones self from criminal, even treasonous, charges constitute obstruction of justice?
We have to stop imposing the Constitution upon their unique views; they have divorced themselves from Constitutional constraints.
I originally pointed this out in the Jussie Smollett case. They did not wish to consider facts. They demanded to identify 'truths' in the case and the 'truth' was that Jussie was a victim - no more, no less. This is common practice in authoritarian regimes all over the world. 'Facts' are only one consideration with justice, and facts are a matter of (convenient) interpretation.
FBI investigator Robert Mueller believed he had the right suspect in the anthrax case - and I imagine he still believes it today. Determining right and wrong, legal and criminal, depend on each individual case; it is much less inconvenient.
Of course I can only guess at Donald Trump's motive for his silence in the NY case but the DS police state was very effective in limiting his actions in many problems that he faced. In his first impeachment he was charged with doing the very thing that Joe Biden did in Ukraine. In the Mar-a-Lago affair once again he is charged with the very thing that Joe Biden did. Now Joe Biden's (pointless) defense is that his action was different, not as bad as, Trump's.
It is all the same value system as Jussie Smollett's case: don't sweat all the complicated 'details'; we will simply tell you the right and wrong, the legal and illegal principles involved.
The ignorant Harpies on The View do it every day! Why do they get paid so much to have all the intellectual depth of a freon spill? Because they are training their embarrassing audience to think the same way that they do - without guiding principles.
The ignorant Harpies on The View do it every day! Why do they get paid so much to have all the intellectual depth of a freon spill? Because they are training their embarrassing audience to think the same way that they do - without guiding principles.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
well put, bob