(04-20-2019 09:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-20-2019 07:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  In the Mueller Report, there are numerous instances that show there were issues with how Trump acted with respect to obstruction of justice and how the campaign acted with respect to Russian interference. It clearly shows there was sufficient evidence in both cases to warrant an investigation, but the evidence found fell short of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that crimes were committed in both cases.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but there is a wide gap between finding no evidence and finding insufficient evidence to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt.

Tanq did a really thorough job of explaining collusion/conspiracy. I'll take a shot at obstruction.

It's a very specific gap, however wide or not wide it may be. Mueller made it clear in his report (volume 2, starting at page 9) that to establish obstruction, you must prove three things:
1) An obstructive act
2) Nexus to a pending or contemplated official proceeding
3) Corrupt or criminal intent.

What has been alleged is a whole bunch of stuff that may or may not satisfy element 1), and very possibly element 2). But element 3) is the problem, and without that you don't get obstruction.

With the finding of no collusion/conspiracy with "the Russians," I think element 3) goes out the window. If there is no underlying crime, then Trump presumably knew there was no underlying crime, and thus could have acted because of frustration with what he reasonably considered to be a witch hunt that was interfering with his ability to govern. There's nothing corrupt or criminal about wanting an unjustified investigation to end.

This is easily distinguished from both Nixon with Watergate and Hillary with her server. With Watergate, there was an underlying crime, which Nixon clearly knew about, and therefore corrupt or criminal intent is easily shown. With Hillary, the crimes associated with mishandling classified information do not require criminal intent as an element, plus the conduct of Hillary and/or her team included destruction of evidence (wiping computers, "losing" emails, smashing cell phones) which would be primary indicia of intent.

The law is very specific in this and many other areas. If the elements of a crime are a, b, and c, then you must have exactly a AND b AND c to have a crime. No matter how much evidence you have of a and b (and in this case I don't think even that evidence is all that impressive), without c you have nothing.

But the Mueller Report clearly states that Trump was afraid of the investigation uncovering potential crimes unrelated to the Russian interference, which gave him reason to want to obstruct the investigation so that those potential issues weren’t uncovered. So would it matter if the issues he didn’t want Mueller to investigate were unrelated to the topic that started the investigation, and was within the scope of the investigation?