Peter1469
10-14-2018, 11:16 AM
Three reasons Mueller may not charge Trump with obstruction (https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/411289-three-reasons-mueller-may-not-charge-trump-with-obstruction)
I have dismissed obstruction charges out of hand as being ridiculous. This article offers three substantive reasons why there may be no obstruction charges.
1. Case law does not support it. Each of the relevant criminal laws relating to obstruction have been narrowly interpreted by the courts and simply do not match up with Trump and his tweets.
2. The wrong people are at the table. Muller interviewed for Comey's job and is therefore a witness. He can't bring a charge as a witness.
3. Obstruction is left out of the written questions provided to team Trump.
Obstruction seems to have been used to feed the MSM and the base rather than a serious investigation.
Washington is in another frenzy over the disclosure that President Trump (https://thehill.com/people/donald-trump)’s lawyers are preparing answers (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/11/trumps-legal-team-is-preparing-to-answer-muellers-questions.html) to written questions from special counsel Robert Mueller (https://thehill.com/people/robert-mueller). Observers are speculating on the meaning of this move, as anticipation grows for the investigation’s culmination.If the suspense is killing you, a bigger surprise may await.
The most significant aspect of this story may be what it did not contain: questions about obstruction. Mueller is asking about Russian collusion, rather than the driving force (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/26/mueller-trump-obstruction-of-justice-russia-216532) behind his appointment after the firing of former FBI Director James Comey (https://thehill.com/people/james-comey). Indeed, ample reasons exist to question whether there is a serious obstruction charge in the making — the focus of so much media attention since Comey was ignobly dispatched on May 10, 2017.
ADVERTISEMENT
Director Alfred Hitchcock once chastised fans (https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/728496-there-is-a-distinct-difference-between-suspense-and-surprise-and) not to confuse suspense with surprise. Hitchcock described a scene with two people “having a very innocent chat” with a bomb under their table — and then it explodes. That is surprise; as Hitchcock put it, “Nothing happens, and then all of a sudden, ‘Boom!’ ”
Now take the same scene and allow it to go longer with a bomb set to go off with a clock on the wall. Hitchcock explained: “The public is aware the bomb is going to explode. ... In these conditions, the same innocuous conversation becomes fascinating because the public is ... longing to warn the characters on the screen: ‘You shouldn't be talking about such trivial matters. There is a bomb beneath you and it is about to explode!’ ” The suspense comes from the waiting.
Mueller’s obstruction investigation could well prove to be the suspense of the bomb that never goes off. Indeed, there is ample reason to question whether Mueller ever seriously believed obstruction had the capability of exploding into a criminal charge.
For two years, the public has watched this figurative bomb beneath a table at the Oval Office, waiting (and, in some cases, openly praying) for it to explode. Their wait has been fueled by commentators who scream “Boom!” with every disclosure, great or small. Former Watergate prosecutor Nick Akerman (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/08/no-question-trump-involved-in-obstruction-of-justice-former-watergate-prosecutor.html) and former Attorney General Eric Holder (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/7/eric-holder-says-trump-committed-obstruction-justi/) have categorically declared that Trump committed obstruction of justice. Others have cited his tweets as a compelling basis for an obstruction charge. University of Notre Dame professor Jimmy Gurulé (http://law.nd.edu/directory/jimmy-gurule/) even suggested it was obstruction for Trump to extend his “appreciation and greetings” to special counsel Mueller. Boom.
The claim of an impending explosion contrasts sharply with the actual scene unfolding in Washington. Consider just three indicators that there is more suspense than surprise in this Hitchcockian scene.
I have dismissed obstruction charges out of hand as being ridiculous. This article offers three substantive reasons why there may be no obstruction charges.
1. Case law does not support it. Each of the relevant criminal laws relating to obstruction have been narrowly interpreted by the courts and simply do not match up with Trump and his tweets.
2. The wrong people are at the table. Muller interviewed for Comey's job and is therefore a witness. He can't bring a charge as a witness.
3. Obstruction is left out of the written questions provided to team Trump.
Obstruction seems to have been used to feed the MSM and the base rather than a serious investigation.
Washington is in another frenzy over the disclosure that President Trump (https://thehill.com/people/donald-trump)’s lawyers are preparing answers (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/11/trumps-legal-team-is-preparing-to-answer-muellers-questions.html) to written questions from special counsel Robert Mueller (https://thehill.com/people/robert-mueller). Observers are speculating on the meaning of this move, as anticipation grows for the investigation’s culmination.If the suspense is killing you, a bigger surprise may await.
The most significant aspect of this story may be what it did not contain: questions about obstruction. Mueller is asking about Russian collusion, rather than the driving force (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/26/mueller-trump-obstruction-of-justice-russia-216532) behind his appointment after the firing of former FBI Director James Comey (https://thehill.com/people/james-comey). Indeed, ample reasons exist to question whether there is a serious obstruction charge in the making — the focus of so much media attention since Comey was ignobly dispatched on May 10, 2017.
ADVERTISEMENT
Director Alfred Hitchcock once chastised fans (https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/728496-there-is-a-distinct-difference-between-suspense-and-surprise-and) not to confuse suspense with surprise. Hitchcock described a scene with two people “having a very innocent chat” with a bomb under their table — and then it explodes. That is surprise; as Hitchcock put it, “Nothing happens, and then all of a sudden, ‘Boom!’ ”
Now take the same scene and allow it to go longer with a bomb set to go off with a clock on the wall. Hitchcock explained: “The public is aware the bomb is going to explode. ... In these conditions, the same innocuous conversation becomes fascinating because the public is ... longing to warn the characters on the screen: ‘You shouldn't be talking about such trivial matters. There is a bomb beneath you and it is about to explode!’ ” The suspense comes from the waiting.
Mueller’s obstruction investigation could well prove to be the suspense of the bomb that never goes off. Indeed, there is ample reason to question whether Mueller ever seriously believed obstruction had the capability of exploding into a criminal charge.
For two years, the public has watched this figurative bomb beneath a table at the Oval Office, waiting (and, in some cases, openly praying) for it to explode. Their wait has been fueled by commentators who scream “Boom!” with every disclosure, great or small. Former Watergate prosecutor Nick Akerman (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/08/no-question-trump-involved-in-obstruction-of-justice-former-watergate-prosecutor.html) and former Attorney General Eric Holder (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/7/eric-holder-says-trump-committed-obstruction-justi/) have categorically declared that Trump committed obstruction of justice. Others have cited his tweets as a compelling basis for an obstruction charge. University of Notre Dame professor Jimmy Gurulé (http://law.nd.edu/directory/jimmy-gurule/) even suggested it was obstruction for Trump to extend his “appreciation and greetings” to special counsel Mueller. Boom.
The claim of an impending explosion contrasts sharply with the actual scene unfolding in Washington. Consider just three indicators that there is more suspense than surprise in this Hitchcockian scene.