View Single Post
      06-10-2019, 08:12 PM   #107
Genieman
First Lieutenant
201
Rep
314
Posts

Drives: yes please
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwarzschild Radius View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwarzschild Radius View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdb View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
The primary point was that DESPITE the bias, they concluded that there was not sufficient conduct to warrant a recommendation of prosecution.
For conspiracy with the Russians, yes you are right, they concluded insufficient evidence -- or as Trump calls it, total exoneration. For the investigation into obstruction that is not the conclusion.
My understanding is that for an obstruction charge to be plausible, a person had to have tried to obstruct an action with corrupt intent. The corrupt intent being to conceal an underlying crime of which they are also guilty. In this case there was no evidence of conspiracy, the underlying crime also investigated and therefore no corrupt intent and therefore no obstruction charge. If there had been actual conspiracy, the same actions WOULD have led to an obstruction charge since the intent of the concealment was corrupt in nature in order to obstruct the discovery of an actual crime.
As I argued earlier, how do we know the obstruction didn't succeed?
Because the evidence collected thus far does not support that.

How do we know that you're not a serial killer who's hidden all the evidence of your crimes and avoided being caught? We don't, and we can't preemptively jail you on the off chance that that may be the case until evidence supporting it comes to light
Having said that, if conspiratorial evidence is found and therefore the corrupt intent necessary for obstruction is found, I would fully support adding obstruction to the conspiracy charges.
The reason people obstruct justice is to Conceal evidence of a crime. If they were successful in concealing the crime, should they still get off on the obstruction charge?
By definition (assuming the definition I'm using is correct) its only obstruction if there is an underlying crime. Therefore, if you don't have evidence of an underlying crime, then the subsequent action cannot be defined as obstruction. So to answer your question, if you commit a crime and then conceal the crime so that there is no evidence of it, then know one will know you committed a crime and the actions you took to conceal it are not criminal until the underlying crime is discovered. Ergo, to be a good criminal you need to be a good concealer.