To understand why Trump can't be guilty of obstructing justice let's first define what justice is.
Justice is ensuring that the guilty are punished and the innocent are exonerated. Hence if an innocent person is the victim of a witch hunt any steps they take to end their persecution aren't obstructing justice; in fact those actions are in the service of justice.
For example let’s say that a cabal of Republicans in the government had managed to get a special prosecutor appointed to investigate Obama for drug dealing based on an unverified report found on a neoNazi website.
Let's further assume that the special prosecutor was forcing Obama and everyone he knew, including his children, to run up massive legal bills and that many of Obama's friends, who were completely innocent of drug dealing, were forced to choose between bankruptcy or pleading guilty to process crimes while others were convicted of crimes that were only prosecuted so that the special prosecutor could induce them to lie about Obama.
In that situation if Obama had fired the special prosecutor and the cabal of dishonest FBI/DOJ personal who were running the witch hunt he wouldn't be obstructing justice; on the contrary by shutting down a vicious politically motivated attack on innocent people Obama would have been pursuing justice.
Hence even if Trump had obstructed the Mueller investigation, which we'll see below he didn't, it wouldn't have been obstruction of justice since we now all know that Trump was innocent.
While Trump knew from the beginning that he didn't collude with Russia the rest of us now know that the Mueller investigation was a witch hunt for several reasons.
First we know that Trump is innocent because Mueller has said so. Which should be definitive either because we realize that Mueller was heading a witch hunt with a clear intent to condemn the President if at all possible or because the President's enemies have been telling us that Mueller is both insanely competent and entirely honest for the last two years. In either case there is no way that he could have declared Trump to be completely innocent of collusion if Trump wasn't in fact innocent.
Second we now know that the only "evidence" of collusion was the fake Steele dossier which was based entirely on anonymous Russian sources which were probably being controlledby Putin. Given that Mueller knew from the get go the provenance of the dossier it's clear that a sincere desire to find the truth wasn't what was motivating Mueller.
Finally it's a matter of public record that Hillary did in fact collude with Russia. She has admitted to paying a foreign national to pay Russian sources for unverified rumors about Trump. Given that those sources supposedly had access to key information and that the Brit who was asking the questions was a spy who was known to the Kremlin the likelihood that Putin's secret police were unaware of what was going on is very low. Which in turn means that there's a very good chance that Putin, a big fan of maskirovka--deception--, ensured that Hillary was fed what he wanted her to know.
Yet as far as we can tell Mueller, whose mandate wasn't to impeach Trump but to investigate Russian interference into the 2016 election didn't investigate Hillary's actions at all.
Given that even Mueller now declares that Trump was innocent and the clear indications that the entire investigation was a politically motivated witch hunt leads us to the obvious conclusion that nothing Trump did, or was accused of doing, could be obstruction of justice because ending a witch hunt aimed at an innocent party is fulfilling justice not obstructing it.
The reason that many on the left are confused about this is more than their belief that anything--including witch hunts--is justified so long as it gets Democrats more power. Instead the redefinition of the legal system's objective which leftists have been working on for decades has led to confusion about just what justice is.
If you talk to one of many, if not most lawyers, you'll find that they believe that the objective of the legal system isn't justice--convicting the guilty and exonerating the innocent; instead the purpose of the legal system is to follow the rules.
The reason for this transition is to allow criminal lawyers to sleep well at night after a hard day’s work ensuring that child molesters and murders aren't convicted for their crimes. If the purpose of the law is to follow the rules then using a technicality, like a clerk accidentally putting the wrong date on a search warrant, to ensure that a serial killer walks free is a perfectly fine thing to do. On the other hand if the purpose of the law is to convict the guilty and exonerate the innocent then using any trick in the book to get the guilty off would actually be obstructing justice.
You'll hear lawyers tell us that everyone deserves a good defense to justify their doing everything they can to ensure that their clients, the ones who pay them, can avoid justice. The reality is that the innocent deserve a good defense which includes those cases where the evidence isn't open and shut. But when there's clear physical evidence of a client’s guilt trying to have that evidence excluded based on a technicality is obstructing justice.
But even if we ignore all that it's clear that Trump didn't obstruct justice.
Justice is ensuring that the guilty are punished and the innocent are exonerated. Hence if an innocent person is the victim of a witch hunt any steps they take to end their persecution aren't obstructing justice; in fact those actions are in the service of justice.
For example let’s say that a cabal of Republicans in the government had managed to get a special prosecutor appointed to investigate Obama for drug dealing based on an unverified report found on a neoNazi website.
Let's further assume that the special prosecutor was forcing Obama and everyone he knew, including his children, to run up massive legal bills and that many of Obama's friends, who were completely innocent of drug dealing, were forced to choose between bankruptcy or pleading guilty to process crimes while others were convicted of crimes that were only prosecuted so that the special prosecutor could induce them to lie about Obama.
In that situation if Obama had fired the special prosecutor and the cabal of dishonest FBI/DOJ personal who were running the witch hunt he wouldn't be obstructing justice; on the contrary by shutting down a vicious politically motivated attack on innocent people Obama would have been pursuing justice.
Hence even if Trump had obstructed the Mueller investigation, which we'll see below he didn't, it wouldn't have been obstruction of justice since we now all know that Trump was innocent.
While Trump knew from the beginning that he didn't collude with Russia the rest of us now know that the Mueller investigation was a witch hunt for several reasons.
First we know that Trump is innocent because Mueller has said so. Which should be definitive either because we realize that Mueller was heading a witch hunt with a clear intent to condemn the President if at all possible or because the President's enemies have been telling us that Mueller is both insanely competent and entirely honest for the last two years. In either case there is no way that he could have declared Trump to be completely innocent of collusion if Trump wasn't in fact innocent.
Second we now know that the only "evidence" of collusion was the fake Steele dossier which was based entirely on anonymous Russian sources which were probably being controlledby Putin. Given that Mueller knew from the get go the provenance of the dossier it's clear that a sincere desire to find the truth wasn't what was motivating Mueller.
Finally it's a matter of public record that Hillary did in fact collude with Russia. She has admitted to paying a foreign national to pay Russian sources for unverified rumors about Trump. Given that those sources supposedly had access to key information and that the Brit who was asking the questions was a spy who was known to the Kremlin the likelihood that Putin's secret police were unaware of what was going on is very low. Which in turn means that there's a very good chance that Putin, a big fan of maskirovka--deception--, ensured that Hillary was fed what he wanted her to know.
Yet as far as we can tell Mueller, whose mandate wasn't to impeach Trump but to investigate Russian interference into the 2016 election didn't investigate Hillary's actions at all.
Given that even Mueller now declares that Trump was innocent and the clear indications that the entire investigation was a politically motivated witch hunt leads us to the obvious conclusion that nothing Trump did, or was accused of doing, could be obstruction of justice because ending a witch hunt aimed at an innocent party is fulfilling justice not obstructing it.
The reason that many on the left are confused about this is more than their belief that anything--including witch hunts--is justified so long as it gets Democrats more power. Instead the redefinition of the legal system's objective which leftists have been working on for decades has led to confusion about just what justice is.
If you talk to one of many, if not most lawyers, you'll find that they believe that the objective of the legal system isn't justice--convicting the guilty and exonerating the innocent; instead the purpose of the legal system is to follow the rules.
The reason for this transition is to allow criminal lawyers to sleep well at night after a hard day’s work ensuring that child molesters and murders aren't convicted for their crimes. If the purpose of the law is to follow the rules then using a technicality, like a clerk accidentally putting the wrong date on a search warrant, to ensure that a serial killer walks free is a perfectly fine thing to do. On the other hand if the purpose of the law is to convict the guilty and exonerate the innocent then using any trick in the book to get the guilty off would actually be obstructing justice.
You'll hear lawyers tell us that everyone deserves a good defense to justify their doing everything they can to ensure that their clients, the ones who pay them, can avoid justice. The reality is that the innocent deserve a good defense which includes those cases where the evidence isn't open and shut. But when there's clear physical evidence of a client’s guilt trying to have that evidence excluded based on a technicality is obstructing justice.
But even if we ignore all that it's clear that Trump didn't obstruct justice.
Examining what Trump actually did it's clear that he didn't even obstruct in the sense that the left uses the word obstruct.
For example when Trump fired Comey he did so not in order to squelch any investigation but because Comey was lying, by omission, to the media. Comey had told Trump that Trump wasn't under investigation. Yet even as the media kept telling the American people that Trump was under investigation and that Trump was lying about what Comey had told him Comey remained silent. No President has to keep such a disloyal and politically biased subordinate around. Even worse for the Democrat's case is that leading Democrats had been calling for Comey to be fired; it was only after they decided that impeaching Trump and furthering the false collusion narrative were valuable for them did they suddenly become Comey supporters.
When Trump asked Comey if he couldn't go easy on Flynn he clearly wasn't ordering Comey as Comey admitted when questioned under oath. If a President can't ask for leniency for an American military hero while being willing to accept no as an answer we're living in a very sad place. After all if Obama's Attorney General can dismiss chargesagainst Black Panther thugs who stood outside polling places with weapons and told people to vote for Obama without facing obstruction of justice charges then clearly merely asking Comey, who had just recently extended an amazing amount of leniency towards Hillary, for leniency can't be obstruction.
Finally Trump pronouncing the truth, that the Mueller investigation was a witch hunt, isn't obstruction of justice unless we wish to define innocent people declaring their innocence to be an obstruction of justice.
Given the utter collapse of the fake collusion narrative Democrats are going to be clutching to the obstruction narrative like Titanic survivors clung to the lifeboats they were in. Hence it's important for us to understand that innocent people defending themselves against trumped up charges, whether it be Blacks in the Democrat run South in the 1960s or President Trump today, aren't obstructing justice; in fact they're pursuing it.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment