(09-05-2018, 09:25 PM)TJBender Wrote:

(09-05-2018, 08:31 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: 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.

Things enter a new arena when you go onto Twitter and publicly criticize your Attorney General for bringing indictments against Republicans right before an election. You look at that and see a boss criticizing his subordinate. I look at it and see a President publicly telling his AG not to bring any more indictments until after the election. You see nothing wrong with that, I see it as interfering in a criminal investigation for political purposes. Maybe that's the point at which our understanding breaks down.

I understand your point-of-view. I understand why you think it's obstruction.

I'm just saying that the code section doesn't give special exception to Twitter or Trump (the President) in regarded to criticism of investigations by subordinates. It's either illegal or it's legal. Criticism should be expected from superiors during criminal investigations. Putting that criticism in the public arena doesn't make it any less legal.

---