(04-20-2019 12:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-20-2019 11:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(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?

Then the report should state those underlying 'potential crimes' to complete the circle. Without that one can play the 'just suppose x' all fing day --- and the specific portions that reference this topic do just this --- they say essentially 'let us suppose' when you actually read the thoroughly.

And if Mueller had evidence of those 'potential crimes' Mueller: a) had a mandate to pursue them; b) had an obligation to pursue them; and c) if there were actual evidence of such 'underlying crimes', had a both a mandate and an obligation to pursue them criminally.

Just waving your hands and saying 'well *maybe* there are (unspecified) *other* crimes' doesnt even come close enough to the smell test to even laugh at. But considering that the 'let us just suppose with a lot of wing flapping' has been part and parcel of the standard that the entire investigation has taken in the eyes of the liberals, the democrats, and the media to this point, I am not surprised that this is still the last bastion of the Verdun perimeter here for that.

(Heh, I seem to have delineated the media as somehow distinct and separate from 'liberals' and Democrats..... wow my head cold and ear infection has seemingly made me daffy.... pardon that terrible logical oversight....)

A few things - we know from the report there were 14 criminal referrals made by the Special Counsel’s Office. So we know that Mueller did find a number of activities they felt were prosecutable.

But it would seem weird to me for there to need to be definitive proof of a crime for obstruction of justice to be an issue, because if that definitive proof was known, then the investigation would be over. Let’s take a hypothetical - person A is accused of murdering person B. Person A is also the chief of police, but did not commit the crime, yet there is evidence that they did commit the murder. Why wouldn’t it be obstruction of justice if they attempted to stop the investigation? It’s not as if investigations only start if people are already known to be guilty...

This WashPo article outlines numerous cases where obstruction of justice charges were brought against individuals who did not commit a crime themselves.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2...0776952327