General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsUnderstanding Obstruction of Justice:
There's a really excellent twitter thread about it here:
Link to tweet
Some important points from the thread:
Obstruction of Justice IS a legal term and federal criminal statute. It has a strict legal definition. It is NOT open to interpretation.
Obstruction of Justice is NOT a political term. Politicians may NOT define it in whatever way pleases them or may advantage their party.
The federal Obstruction of Justice statute does NOT take into accountor care about whatsoeverhow a defendant's actions made you FEEL.
The Obstruction of Justice statute ALSO does NOT take into accountor care about at allwhether an investigation was in FACT obstructed.
Questions tomorrow about how Trump's actions made Jim Comey FEELor about whether those actions IMPEDED an investigationare IRRELEVANT.
Therefore any Obstruction of Justice case against President Trump IS aboutalmost exclusivelythe nature of the words he said to Comey.
If the words Comey CONTEMPORANEOUSLY RECORDED as having been said by Trump were indeed said, Trump IS guilty of Obstruction of Justice.
Another lie you'll hear tomorrow is Obstruction of Justice is hard to prove. It isn'tat all. Because it's NOT a specific intent crime.
If you're looking for a shorthand for tomorrow: in Obstruction of Justice, WORDS and their CONTEXT matter; FEELINGS and EFFECTS do not.
Please check out the whole thread, it's extremely in-depth and informative.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)we can take whatever comes next with a grain of salt?
brush
(53,474 posts)the pressure of the Russian investigation no salt is needed.
Saviolo
(3,270 posts)I think that it is meaningless. What he felt, what he thought Trump was trying to get him to do, any unease, those are all irrelevant to the legal proceedings. Obstruction of Justice is a procedural infraction, so it 100% has to do with the words that Trump said.
IANAL, I'm just going by what I've read here and other sources.
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)Obstruction of justice is not at play, further more we must not ignore the "abuse of power" element as well...the firing of comey falls into that.
Saviolo
(3,270 posts)(17) The reason the GOP must misinform us about what Obstruction of Justice is? THEY establishedwith Clintonit IS an impeachable offense.
(24) On this record, NO reasonable juror could conclude Trump didn't commit Obstruction of Justiceespecially as Trump won't deny the words.
(25) What this means is, Mueller WILL report to Congress thatwere Trump not presidentMueller would indict him for Obstruction of Justice.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,085 posts)And that pretty much explains Rogers and Coats behavior yesterday.
I think they were afraid of being subjected to perjury. But testifying about a subjective opinion--i.e. whether or not they felt like Trump was pressuring them--gives a lot more wiggle room on interpretation than what was actually said to them.
So, in attempt to not anger their boss, they said they didn't *feel* pressured, but they refused to say what was actually said to them. Which could have possibly been examined as to whether or not it could constitute obstruction legally.