General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAfter calling for Trump's impeachment, Justin Amash (R-MI) lays out the case for obstruction.
And explains why those arguing that Trump's situation lacks the required underlying crime are wrong.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1130533752508157954.html
People who say there were no underlying crimes and therefore the president could not have intended to illegally obstruct the investigationand therefore cannot be impeachedare resting their argument on several falsehoods:
1. They say there were no underlying crimes.
In fact, there were many crimes revealed by the investigation, some of which were charged, and some of which were not but are nonetheless described in Muellers report.
2. They say obstruction of justice requires an underlying crime.
In fact, obstruction of justice does not require the prosecution of an underlying crime, and there is a logical reason for that. Prosecutors might not charge a crime precisely *because* obstruction of justice denied them timely access to evidence that could lead to a prosecution.
If an underlying crime were required, then prosecutors could charge obstruction of justice only if it were unsuccessful in completely obstructing the investigation. This would make no sense.
SNIP
Tiggeroshii
(11,088 posts)Not sure how, but he needs support.
elleng
(130,872 posts)like him or not.
unblock
(52,205 posts)donald fraud's claim is even more specific, that obstruction isn't obstruction unless *he* committed an underlying crime.
but that's complete nonsense, he committed obstruction if he impeded an investigation into flynn's crimes or the russians' crimes or cohen's crimes anyone else's crimes, it doesn't have to be *his* crimes.