Obstruction Of Justice

[sfgdood]

If anyone is interested, the current controlling law in Obstruction of Justice cases was written by the Supreme Court in 2005 Arthur Andersen LLP v. The United States. The court held that the government cannot accuse someone of obstruction, even if they said or did something to impede the investigation UNLESS there was knowing dishonesty AND a corrupt intent. These are very difficult elements to prove and, IMO is the reason The Mueller Report does not make any reccommendation of indictment of President Trump. The Supreme Court found in favor of Arthur Andersen and against US Attorney Andrew Weissman--a top Mueller deputy--in a nearly unheard of 9-0 unanimous opinion. Arthur Andersen, as a result of Weissman's wreckless prosecution, went out of business and 80,000 people got put out of work. The SC decision couldn't undo that damage.

The Trump-hating democrats don't care about prosecuting him...they just want to damage him enough to get him out of office and undo the 2016 election. They don't care about the law. They are attacking Bill Barr because they are afraid of what he will find.

[sharksrog]

Randy, two and a half years later this looks even more bogus than it did at the time. Your statememt"The Trump-hating Democrats don't care about prosecuting him ..." is blatantly false. Also your comment "They don't care about the law."

You realize that the Mueller report didn't exonerate Trump, right? It specifically did not.

Your foolish condemnation of Mr. Zaidi in your name plate looks even more foolish now, as well. That's the thing: When wise people say things, they usually look even BETTER after time passes. When fools make false comments, time only proves them even more foolish.