American Politics Discussion Thread

[Cyneheard]

Of course undermining an investigation on a possible crime is obstructing justice.
What the Trump campaign did with regards to Russia fell just short of being a crime, good for him, but it's very clear that Trump's team wasn't certain of that during the investigation.

Also, according to pretty much everyone, you don't need to be covering up a crime to be obstructing justice.

What the Trump campaign did with regards to Russia that Mueller was able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt while being obstructed fell just short of being a crime, good for him

FTFY.

[Gavagai]

Of course undermining an investigation on a possible crime is obstructing justice.
What the Trump campaign did with regards to Russia fell just short of being a crime, good for him, but it's very clear that Trump's team wasn't certain of that during the investigation.

Also, according to pretty much everyone, you don't need to be covering up a crime to be obstructing justice.

By this logic every time a sitting president closes an investigation, he "obstructs justice". Even Mueller does not claim that.

[Bacchus]

The "report" is a political document masquerading as a legal one. There is no option to contest it in a formal setting.

This is precisely the reason Mueller said up front that he is NOT in a position to indict, charge, or otherwise lay a clear claim to criminality. He very clearly understood the problem you are describing and he dealt with it as good as he could, given that he was mandated to, you know, investigate and report.

And no, you are not meant to treat the report as an official final word on the matter. As Mueller also makes clear, the authority and the forum to bring charges against a sitting President for his actions is Congress. The final word would be the outcome of congressional hearings, provided Congress finds anything chargeable.

[Gavagai]

To obstruct justice you need to have a criminal motive. This is uncontroversial. Mueller, however, believes that one can have a criminal motive even if he is not trying to cover up a crime. This is what he says about Trump's criminal motive: "the evidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal and political concerns". In other words, he believes that if a person does not want the police to know about his past for whatever reason - this is already a "criminal motive". Does anyone here really support this idea? Are you totally eager to disclose to the police everything about your past? Especially on the condition that whatever you have disclosed will be most likely made public?

[Gavagai]

The "report" is a political document masquerading as a legal one. There is no option to contest it in a formal setting.

This is precisely the reason Mueller said up front that he is NOT in a position to indict, charge, or otherwise lay a clear claim to criminality. He very clearly understood the problem you are describing and he dealt with it as good as he could, given that he was mandated to, you know, investigate and report.

And no, you are not meant to treat is as an official word on the matter. As Mueller also makes clear, the authority and the forum to bring charges against a sitting President for his actions is Congress. The final word would be the outcome of congressional hearings, provided Congress finds anything chargeable.

I don't blame Mueller here. I believe that his report should have never been published because of the reasons I have stated. Those who insisted on publishing it are in the wrong.

[Gavagai]

So... if the Congress decides not to impeach Trump does it mean that "no obstruction, no collusion, fully exonerated"? If not then how Trump can possibly "exonerate" himself?

[Bacchus]

Firstly, intent, not motive. Secondly, under most States' laws, intentionally concealing evidence from the police in the course of their investigation, even if this evidence has no bearing on your guilt is indeed an offense. You can plead the Fifth and refuse to make any positive statement, but, say, burning all your clothes could be chargeable in itself, even if you are not guilty. The point is exactly that your actions may have rendered any establishment of guilt impossible.

E.g. https://www.gorelick-law.com/destroying-...california

[Gavagai]

"This is precisely the reason Mueller said up front that he is NOT in a position to indict, charge, or otherwise lay a clear claim to criminality" - right in this thread Cyneheard states that Mueller has proven something "beyond a reasonable doubt" and that the only reason Mueller did not indict Trump was that what he has proven fell "just short of being a crime". It is obvious that the public treats Mueller report as a final word on the matter and pretty much ignores Mueller's caveats.

[Gavagai]

Secondly, under most States' laws, intentionally concealing evidence from the police in the course of their investigation, even if this evidence has no bearing on your guilt is indeed an offense.

Then those are stupid laws.

[darrelljs]

Secondly, under most States' laws, intentionally concealing evidence from the police in the course of their investigation, even if this evidence has no bearing on your guilt is indeed an offense.

Then those are stupid laws.

Not when you take into account that the irrelevance of the evidence is often only clear post facto.

Darrell