(09-05-2018, 07:06 PM)TJBender Wrote:

(09-05-2018, 04:38 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: So, he hypothetically obstructed justice? I don’t know who isn’t telling you thos violates the code section but they’re wrong.

There's nothing hypothetical about it. A President telling a member of his cabinet that the indictments his office has brought (and not just on "Obama-era" investigations, by the way) are politically inconvenient is a statement designed to dissuade that person from letting future indictments come through. He's trying to influence the day-to-day operation of the Justice Department to improve his party's chances in the election. That is obstructing justice, I don't care what your spray tan-colored glasses show you.

I swear Trump could pour gas on a puppy and set it on fire on live TV, and some of you would be defending him because all he did was toss a match. The match killed the puppy, and it probably voted for Hillary too.

Firstly, included in many of Trump’s privledges is influencing the day-to-day operations of the DOJ. He’s been largely absent so as to avoid the appearance of influence into his case. He’s allowed to direct them. Don’t you remember the IRS and conservatives? DOJ targeting police departments?

Secondly, nothing you said constitutes obstructing. You can’t assign intent and then change the letter of the law to meet your criteria. Criticizing Sessions and his investigations isn’t obstruction. It does not meet the code section requirements. Would it be obstruction if Sessions criticizes Rosenstein? Or if Rosenstein criticizes a field agent? Of course not. 

Trump’s statement isn’t smart but it isn’t illegal.

---