The other main consideration in any case such as this, is obstruction of Justice, or the cover-up. Mueller found 10 instances where he investigated facts that could have been potential obstruction crimes. Mueller did not find reason to charge Trump et al with obstruction, but specifically called out that this was * not an exoneration.
If there was no crime, there can be no cover-up. Mueller's report itself states "Unlike cases in which a subject engages in obstruction to cover up a crime, the evidence we obtained did not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference...Although the obstruction statutes do not require proof of such a crime, the absence of that evidence affects the analysis of the President's intent and requires consideration of other possible motives for his conduct."
More succinctly, Mueller and his team in the opinion of AG Barr may have been seeking to criminalize normal political speech under the Obstruction statute, 18 USC §1512 (c), which states
(c) "Whoever corruptly--
(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a 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
Mueller's report presented no evidence that anything was altered, destroyed, mutilated or concealed, nor that Trump in any was was successful in impairing the investigation or any evidence reviewed by the investigation. It comes down to this: does political criticism in any way amount to obstruction of Justice. One would think not, not in a Country with freedom of speech.
Using the Obstruction statute, 18 USC §1512 (c) in this way only been done once previously, when DOJ prosecuting attorney Andrew Weissmann (who worked for Special Prosecutor Mueller) used it to convict Accounting Firm Arthur Anderson during the Enron scandal. The conviction was overturned 9-0 by the Supreme court, but not before AA went out of business and flushed 85,000 jobs down the toilet. So many, including AG Barr, view this legal interpretation as dubious
Even if the evidence were found to show Trump to have altered, destroyed, mutilated, impaired or concealed, Mueller would still need to show this was done corruptly, which itself is a dubious standard in defining a legal stature.
Mueller’s legal theory on Obstruction appears to be that Trump may have criminally violated 18 USC §1512 (c) by “corruptly...influencing” or “impeding” the FBI investigations into Flynn and Russian interference in the 2016 election. - Undercover Huber, @JohnWHuber
As Undercover Huber stated "That strongly suggests that Weissmann wanted to find the crime of Obstruction, and went through every statute to find something to pin on Trump, regardless of how shaky it was"
That sounds like the definition of a witch hunt to me.
Apr 18, 2019
What you need to know about the Mueller report
No Collusion, and therefore no obstruction * is the summary, but many will disagree over the *
Mueller found no evidence of collusion between any US citizen, including President Trump and his staff, with any Russians at any time during the 2016 Presidential election. No one was charged as an unregistered agent of the Russians, not even any campaign finance law violations were found.
Mueller: evidence shows Trump did not attempt to obstruct the investigation of the Trump tower June 9, 2016 meeting with Russian Lawyer
MUELLER: EVIDENCE DOESN'T SHOW COMEY FIRING TO COVER UP CONSPIRACY
MUELLER SAYS HAD ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO NOT SUBPOENA TRUMP
Mueller Report reveals that Trump campaign formally turned down 2 invitations to visit Russia during campaign and refused to provide a copy of Trump's passport for a visa
Paul Sperry @paulsperry_
This is as Trump declared an 'exoneration' of the whole Russia-gate theory pushed by a media and Democratic machine suffering from Trump derangement syndrome.
The other main consideration in any case such as this, is obstruction of Justice, or the cover-up. Mueller found 10 instances where he investigated facts that could have been potential obstruction crimes. Mueller did not find reason to charge Trump et al with obstruction, but specifically called out that this was * not an exoneration.
If there was no crime, there can be no cover-up. Mueller's report itself states "Unlike cases in which a subject engages in obstruction to cover up a crime, the evidence we obtained did not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference...Although the obstruction statutes do not require proof of such a crime, the absence of that evidence affects the analysis of the President's intent and requires consideration of other possible motives for his conduct."
More succinctly, Mueller and his team in the opinion of AG Barr may have been seeking to criminalize normal political speech under the Obstruction statute, 18 USC §1512 (c), which states
(c) "Whoever corruptly--
(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a 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
Mueller's report presented no evidence that anything was altered, destroyed, mutilated or concealed, nor that Trump in any was was successful in impairing the investigation or any evidence reviewed by the investigation. It comes down to this: does political criticism in any way amount to obstruction of Justice. One would think not, not in a Country with freedom of speech.
Using the Obstruction statute, 18 USC §1512 (c) in this way only been done once previously, when DOJ prosecuting attorney Andrew Weissmann (who worked for Special Prosecutor Mueller) used it to convict Accounting Firm Arthur Anderson during the Enron scandal. The conviction was overturned 9-0 by the Supreme court, but not before AA went out of business and flushed 85,000 jobs down the toilet. So many, including AG Barr, view this legal interpretation as dubious
Even if the evidence were found to show Trump to have altered, destroyed, mutilated, impaired or concealed, Mueller would still need to show this was done corruptly, which itself is a dubious standard in defining a legal stature.
Mueller’s legal theory on Obstruction appears to be that Trump may have criminally violated 18 USC §1512 (c) by “corruptly...influencing” or “impeding” the FBI investigations into Flynn and Russian interference in the 2016 election. - Undercover Huber, @JohnWHuber
As Undercover Huber stated "That strongly suggests that Weissmann wanted to find the crime of Obstruction, and went through every statute to find something to pin on Trump, regardless of how shaky it was"
That sounds like the definition of a witch hunt to me.
The other main consideration in any case such as this, is obstruction of Justice, or the cover-up. Mueller found 10 instances where he investigated facts that could have been potential obstruction crimes. Mueller did not find reason to charge Trump et al with obstruction, but specifically called out that this was * not an exoneration.
If there was no crime, there can be no cover-up. Mueller's report itself states "Unlike cases in which a subject engages in obstruction to cover up a crime, the evidence we obtained did not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference...Although the obstruction statutes do not require proof of such a crime, the absence of that evidence affects the analysis of the President's intent and requires consideration of other possible motives for his conduct."
More succinctly, Mueller and his team in the opinion of AG Barr may have been seeking to criminalize normal political speech under the Obstruction statute, 18 USC §1512 (c), which states
(c) "Whoever corruptly--
(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a 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
Mueller's report presented no evidence that anything was altered, destroyed, mutilated or concealed, nor that Trump in any was was successful in impairing the investigation or any evidence reviewed by the investigation. It comes down to this: does political criticism in any way amount to obstruction of Justice. One would think not, not in a Country with freedom of speech.
Using the Obstruction statute, 18 USC §1512 (c) in this way only been done once previously, when DOJ prosecuting attorney Andrew Weissmann (who worked for Special Prosecutor Mueller) used it to convict Accounting Firm Arthur Anderson during the Enron scandal. The conviction was overturned 9-0 by the Supreme court, but not before AA went out of business and flushed 85,000 jobs down the toilet. So many, including AG Barr, view this legal interpretation as dubious
Even if the evidence were found to show Trump to have altered, destroyed, mutilated, impaired or concealed, Mueller would still need to show this was done corruptly, which itself is a dubious standard in defining a legal stature.
Mueller’s legal theory on Obstruction appears to be that Trump may have criminally violated 18 USC §1512 (c) by “corruptly...influencing” or “impeding” the FBI investigations into Flynn and Russian interference in the 2016 election. - Undercover Huber, @JohnWHuber
As Undercover Huber stated "That strongly suggests that Weissmann wanted to find the crime of Obstruction, and went through every statute to find something to pin on Trump, regardless of how shaky it was"
That sounds like the definition of a witch hunt to me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
1 comment :
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
“Donald Trump was being framed, he fought back. That is not Obstruction.” @JesseBWatters I had the right to end the whole Witch Hunt if I wanted. I could have fired everyone, including Mueller, if I wanted. I chose not to. I had the RIGHT to use Executive Privilege. I didn’t!
Post a Comment