You don't have to be the target for obstruction charges

[edhopper]

Trump and his gang don't seem to understand that.
He obstructed justice when he interfered in the Russia investigation.
It doesn't matter who the investigation was targeting at the time.

Another of those simple things of which he has no understanding.

[jmg257]

1. Do they understand he has to be impeached before he can be charged?

Maybe they get that and are banking on it?

[edhopper]

2. Probably

[Persisted]

3. Um no....he doesn't have to be impeached before he can be

charged with a criminal act.

[jmg257]

4. Tell MSNBC - they said it like 5 times this AM.

[Persisted]

7. It's the latest rightwing talking point. Ken Starr already proved them wrong. nt

[dumbcat]

10. How so?

[jmg257]

5. You could be right though, this from '98

''It is an open and substantial question whether an incumbent President is subject to indictment,'' Mr. Jaworski's brief said. ''Resort to constitutional interpretation, history and policy does not provide a definitive answer to the question of whether a sitting President enjoys absolute immunity from the ordinary processes of the criminal law.''

But then again - this from 2017...

"But would the Constitution allow Mr. Mueller to indict Mr. Trump if he finds evidence of criminal conduct?
The prevailing view among most legal experts is no. They say the president is immune from prosecution so long as he is in office."

[edhopper]

8. Could Congress ignore

him being named an unindicted co-conspirator?

[Cracklin Charlie]

6. He is very simple.

[YCHDT]

9. There doesn't even need to be a crime committed, just enough evidence to investigate a crime