The Answer to Whether Trump Obstructed Justice Now Seems Clear

[mobeau69]

Most white-collar prosecutions turn on the issue of criminal intent. These cases involve behavior that would, in ordinary circumstances, be totally legal—if not for the intent of the defendant.

The golf-dues matter was obviously trivial; the law firm’s representation of Kushner, which did not involve Mueller at all, could only have biased the special counsel in favor of the President’s family; and Trump’s willingness to interview Mueller for the F.B.I. position showed how much the President trusted Mueller, not that he believed the former F.B.I. director harbored any animosity toward him.

McGahn recognized the key fact—that Trump wanted to fire Mueller for the wrong reasons. Trump wanted to fire Mueller because his investigation was threatening to him.

This was an improper purpose, and McGahn clearly saw that the same improper purpose underlay Trump’s determination to fire Mueller. So McGahn issued the ultimatum that prompted the President to back down.

Abundant questions remain about Trump’s fate in the Mueller investigation. Can or will a sitting President be indicted? What, if anything, will the House of Representatives do with respect to its impeachment powers? In what forum and format will the public see the full range of the evidence against the President? But on perhaps the most important question of all—whether the President of the United States committed the crime of obstruction of justice—the answer now seems clear.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-answer-to-whether-trump-obstructed-justice-is-now-clear

[sofa king]

1. There is an interesting logical twist to all of this, too.

The reason why the penalties for obstruction of justice are so high is because the act of obstruction reveals the intent to conceal a still larger crime. Interfering in an investigation is, in its own non-legal way (we'll need a lawyer to explain how it works, legally), an automatic admission of guilt in some crime that carries an equal or larger penalty than obstruction itself.

At least, most of the time it is. Almost always.

But in this case, the subject at the center of the investigation is a ruthless runaway narcissist at the apex of his self-aggrandizement, with a failing intellect that was never very strong to begin with.

We can assume with high confidence that even though he's been told a hundred times by now, Donald Trump has no clear idea of what obstruction of justice even is. He is continuing to behave in his usual Machavellian way, which is all he knows.

So, it seems to me, both possibilities--that Trump obstructed because he is acting in the service of his Russian owners, or Trump obstructed because he's a combative, ruthless, amoral fool--are still possible, even though the obstruction itself is now obvious.

Both possibilities should make it manifest that Trump is unqualified to be Commander in Chief.

[JayhawkSD]

2. Intent is part of the crime, yes.

But without action it is not a crime. Just like, in some cases, action without intent is not a crime. It should be noted, that intent is not always an element of crime; negligent homicide, for instance, by definition does not involve intent. Intent without action, however, is never a crime. We do not punish thought crimes in this nation, even after 1984.

Well, after 2001 we do. Thinking about harming the US gets a Hellfire missile landing on your head.

[mobeau69]

3. It is in a conspiracy.

Conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime whether the conspirators attempt the actual crime or not. However, I'm not a lawyer but I play one on DU.