Democrats think they've got a slam-dunk obstruction case against Trump. They don't.

[dukkha]

On Wednesday, House Democrats will have a chance to breathe life into the Mueller report. Relatively few Americans have read the 448-page document in which special counsel Robert Mueller concluded the evidence did not establish that the Trump campaign and Russia engaged in a conspiracy or coordination to fix the 2016 election, and also declined to conclude whether or not President Trump obstructed justice. Democrats know the report has failed to capture the public imagination, and they hope bringing Mueller to Capitol Hill for questioning will catch the nation's attention.

"Not everybody is reading the book, but people will watch the movie," a House Judiciary Committee official told Politico's Playbook.

Mueller's testimony will be divided between the Judiciary Committee and the House Intelligence Committee. Judiciary will focus on Volume II of the report, which covered allegations of obstruction, and Intelligence will pursue Volume I, on conspiracy and coordination.

Democrats on the Intel committee will have the harder job, given the failure to establish conspiracy or coordination.
So it's likely most eyes will be focused on Judiciary. Many Democrats, and many in the press, believe the Mueller report proved the president obstructed justice. The report listed a number of episodes of possible obstruction, and according to press reports, Democratic aides recently told reporters the Judiciary Committee will focus on the top five.

"Democrats...intend to dwell heavily on five of the most glaring episodes of possible obstruction of justice that Mr. Mueller documented," the New York Times reported Saturday.

"They include Mr. Trump's direction to the former White House counsel Donald F. McGahn II to fire Mr. Mueller and then publicly lie about it; his request that Corey Lewandowski, a former campaign chief, ask Attorney General Jeff Sessions to reassert control of the investigation and limit its scope; and possible witness tampering to discourage two aides, Paul Manafort and Michael D. Cohen, from cooperating with investigators."

It's unclear whether there are actually five topics, or just three big topics with additional subheadings, but whatever the case, many Democrats believe they can make an overwhelming case against Trump. One committee Democrat promised to NBC that the Mueller hearing will highlight "truly shocking evidence of criminal misconduct by the president -- not once, but again and again and again."

But will it? It could be that the Mueller hearing, rather than showcasing a slam-dunk case against the president on obstruction of justice, will highlight how tenuous, subject to interpretation, and difficult to prove Mueller's allegations really are.

What's not there

The first thing to notice about the Democrats' choice of evidence is what is not included. If news reports are correct, the firing of FBI director James Comey, once treated in media discussions as Exhibit A in the case for obstruction, is not among the episodes Democrats will highlight. Nor are the conversations between Trump and Comey that Comey wrote up in his famous memos, including a talk in which Trump allegedly asked Comey to go easy on Michael Flynn -- another episode that was routinely discussed in the media as solid evidence of obstruction. Nor are the president's efforts to spin the public story of the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting -- yet another incident often characterized as obstruction.

Also important to remember is that the Muller investigation was not actually obstructed by the president, and neither was the FBI Trump-Russia investigation that preceded it. In the report, Mueller often argued that this or that act -- say, firing Mueller -- could have obstructed the investigation, had it actually occurred. But it did not. So the Democrats' accusations of obstruction will in fact be accusations of attempted obstruction.

Finally, it is important to recall that Mueller could never establish that the underlying crime he was assigned to investigate -- conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia -- actually took place. So in Wednesday's hearing,
Democrats will be showcase an investigation that was not obstructed into a crime that investigators could not establish actually happened.

And one more thing: The Mueller report includes a lengthy section headlined "Legal Defenses To The Application Of Obstruction-Of-Justice Statutes To The President." The section includes compelling arguments against the report's obstruction allegations. But the arguments are legal ones, some quite complicated, and it is important to keep in mind that the Judiciary Committee inquiry is not a legal proceeding, but a political one. The lawmakers are not prosecutors but rather members of Congress, some of whom are seeking to impeach the president. It is an entirely political process, and whether or not to impeach will be a political decision. So a lot of the legal analysis that dominates cable TV coverage won't really apply; the president's defenders can make commonsense defenses that appeal to the vast majority of Americans -- 324 million or so -- who are not lawyers.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...rump-they-dont

detailed aticle at link

[Rune]

Yet the committee members ARE lawyers you fucking mental midget.

[Earl]

No collusion...nothing to obstruct.

[Darth Omar]

[Getin the ring]

I'll tell you what the Democrats have, trouble, big trouble

[dukkha]

Yet the committee members ARE lawyers you fucking mental midget.

gawd almighty what are you desperately struggling to say?

[dukkha]

No collusion...nothing to obstruct.

lol @ "attempted obstruction"..it would be a freaking process crime at that

[Earl]

I'll tell you what the Democrats have, trouble, big trouble

Trouble right here in Silver City.

[Rune]

gawd almighty what are you desperately struggling to say?

Why does the simplest shit need to be broken down for you, moron?

Lawmakers are lawyers, they have no problem reading legalese. Fucking idiot, the only point in your entire wall of text and it is moot.

Stop trolling far right sites, you look like an idiot when you empty your slop buckets here.

[LV426]

Why did Trump order McGahn to lie to Congress?

Why did Trump order Cohen to lie to Congress?

[Rune]

lol @ "attempted obstruction"..it would be a freaking process crime at that

Attempted obstruction is the same thing as obstruction you useless retard.

[Rune]

lol @ "attempted obstruction"..it would be a freaking process crime at that

Attempted obstruction is the same thing as obstruction you useless retard.

[canceled.2021.2]

One wonders why the democrat party needs Muller to testify if everything they need is in his report and so easy to prove.

Seems odd

[canceled.2021.2]

Oh and wasn't there a vote on impeachment just a week ago that failed miserably? hardly any democrats voted for it

[dukkha]

Attempted obstruction is the same thing as obstruction you useless retard.

lol.. show us the statute