I am unsure. You may be right though.
On this, I don’t think intent matters. Unintentional obstruction would still count. Additionally, he would be the only one to know it was bogus. We still don’t know if it was or not.
He was never exonerated. Not being convicted is not the same as being exonerated. Exonerated would require proving he is innocent (which hasn’t been done).
It isn’t up to the left. It would be up to the DOJ and the new AG. These are supposed to be independent entities.
He was exonerated of all the crimes that were being investigated. Mainly that there was no Russia collusion, unless I’m mistaken. That’s what makes it a hard sell for me ethically. He may have been trying to obstruct an investigation, but it would be irrational to accuse him of trying to obstruct truth or justice. He would have been innocent of everything when he committed the crime to obstruct the investigation. So at worst he was trying to obstruct a corrupt investigation. That may qualify as criminal, but it’s somewhat more ethical at least. If he obstructed, he obstructed a which hunt.
I’m also unsure that it was obstruction when no action was taken. My memory is that he basically ranted about the investigation to many underlings and even told people to do criminal things, but that no-one actually did anything.
He would have been not guilty of it. That is separate from innocence. Because of this fact, a guilty verdict in collusion isn’t necessary for a guilty verdict in obstruction. It is irrelevant to the case.
Didn’t Mueller detail out the obstruction in the his report?
I think it’s more likely Trump has issues from New York and Deutsche than he does from the Mueller report.
He was paying a pool boy to bang his wife while he watched*, then offered money to said pool boy to bang him.
*it was going on for six years
In the Wiki I posted it is clear there are many legal things Trump is involved with. What will or won’t stick is the question. Perhaps none of it will. My position on the matter is that there is a higher possibility he becomes a defendant in a court case than say Obama or GWB after term because of the enormous list of legal liabilities he has.
Oh I wouldn’t disagree with that at all and don’t think anyone would. He’s facing more outside the presidency than Obama or Bush would.
The 11th commandment: Thou shall take thy pool boy if thy wife also taketh thy pool boy.
The 12th commandment: Thou shall compensate thy pool boy generously.
More heads must roll. We can’t get anything remotely specific out of these other than empty words? Show me some evidence GOP other than “we think he should have won therefore something must have been wrong.”
Why isn’t everyone contesting house and senate races? All the fraud magically happened just to the President? Perfectly content with all results but one.
He said it like 3-5 more times BEFORE the part I quoted. This is how pathetic some members of the press are.
While I think people should never, ever stand for their President calling a free press “fake news”, we should be calling them out whenever they are dishonest if we want proper information or they’ll all just turn into tabloids and then you’ll see people calling for government censorship of the press. It’s happened so many times elsewhere already. The US won’t be an exception if someone even worse than Trump takes control. Like Kamala.
Shit, you have people like conservatives now asking for the breaking up of social media companies while they used to call breaking up the banks “socialist”.
The scenario I mentioned isn’t that far fetched if you think about it.
Legally, I don’t know. Ethically, it’s relevant. Obstructing an unethical investigation is different than trying to cover up a crime.
I don’t think Mueller made anything clear. My memory is that there was some debate over whether it was obstruction because no action was actually taken to obstruct even though Trump ordered it.
Yet, AOC calls herself a POC.
Calling on the Sec. of State to resign? Cancel culture is getting out of control…
See this is where I think we would need to know he is innocent (which we do not currently). Not guilty isn’t the same as innocent. If we know he innocent we could say obstructing the investigation isn’t immoral (because we know it was a sham), we can’t say that with a not guilty verdict. It is still possible that he is guilty of collusion even if we can’t show it, and in that case obstruction is relevant. It is possible without obstruction he would be shown to be guilty. It is why they should prosecute people for obstruction even if they are found to be not guilty of the crime they are obstructing.
But, it could be a sign he is unfit.
I think you need to re-read some stuff on the report. Trump was exonerated on the investigation. The possible crime in discussion is during the investigation. The Mueller report wasn’t ambiguous on Russia collusion, the report concluded that it didn’t happen.
The updated story isn’t certain if it was a ‘glitch’ or human error, but it did happen. And nobody said 6000 votes would change the result, but it warrants investigating.
Know your history dude. Lot’s of elections results have been contested, including 2016. In GA, Abrams still hasn’t conceded the gubernatorial race. 2000 Presidential election had had many recounts, multiple times. Contested election results are nothing new. Especially when you are dealing with razor thing margins in some areas.
The 2016 election has been contested all the way up to January of this year. They investigated and we lived through 3 years of contesting the 2016 election, before finding nothing. So get out of here with that, ‘nobody else contests elections’ crap. The 2016 election was contested up to this year and yet it still persists.
It specifically says he wasn’t exonerated for obstruction. I could have the definition of exonerated incorrect from legal standpoint (if differs a bit when googling the word). What I am trying to convey is that he would have to be shown to be innocent for the obstruction of justice charge to be irrelevant (morally). That hasn’t happened. He may have been exonerated for collusion which legally may just mean not guilty? Sorry if I got definitions wrong.
Edit: after more googling it appears exonerate has to do with guilt not innocence. My bad.
There were problems with mail-in ballots in 2016 also. They had a 2X higher rejection rate of in person voting. Mail-in ballots are always more problematic.
And the BBC drops this little piece, I don’t know why as the BBC is fairly liberal, but they say:
You know what I think. Compiling lists of people who supported Trump, like that’s a sin to support the President? I belong on that list. There is no hell hot enough for people like this, as far as I am concerned. Absolute authoritarians.