4 ms·

We started out trying to determine whether Trump colluded with Russia. This is a very important thing for the American people to know. Trump obstructed the inve

We started out trying to determine whether Trump colluded with Russia. This is a very important thing for the American people to know. Trump obstructed the investigation and we weren't able to determine whether that happened. If obstruction didn't count unless you were convicted of the crime you were obstructing justice on, people could get away with crimes by interfering with the investigation and there'd be no recourse. We don't want people to get away with crimes by interfering with the investigation. That's why obstruction is a crime.

s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
[self-censored]
- spaceheretostay 7y ago
  "Obstruction of justice" has nothing to do with the report being finished. Those are completely unrelated things. > I'm just pointing out how far the goalpost has moved. You're the one moving goalposts here. Obstruction of justice is illegal even in an attempt to actively obstruct, which Trump and others did, repeatedly, and which was written about clearly in the redacted Mueller report.
  - dang 7y ago
    Since you've been using HN primarily for political battle, and we warned you that we'd ban you if you didn't stop, I've banned this account. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- lukenels 7y ago
  The crime is the attempt to obstruct justice. Having succeeded in doing so is not a requirement.
- daveFNbuck 7y ago
  He finished the report, but he wasn't able to draw a conclusion on whether Trump colluded with Russia.
  - polithrowaway 7y ago
    "The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated with the IRA’s interference operation"
    - daveFNbuck 7y ago
      Lack of evidence is not a conclusion. It's what you'd expect if there were successful obstruction of justice. Even Barr's summary quoted that the report "does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
      - polithrowaway 7y ago
        In America, you need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to convict someone of a crime. It's innocent until PROVEN guilty with EVIDENCE. How do you fully exonerate someone of a claim that isn't true. You're asking them to prove a negative.
- daveFNbuck 7y ago
  > EDIT: to repliers, the person I replied to said "we weren't able to determine whether that happened" that's why I asked how he obstructed a report that was finished. I'm not debating whether or not Trump obstructed justice. He obstructed the investigation leading up to the report. No one is saying he obstructed the report after its release. > EDIT: to daveFNbuck, in America, you're innocent until proven guilty. If someone can't conclude you committed the crime beyond reasonable doubt, you're innocent. That's why we've made obstruction of justice a separate crime regardless of whether you can be found guilty of anything else. Obstruction is a separate offense that you can be found guilty of.
zaroth 7y ago
I believe it’s a well established legal theory that a President can not be charged with obstruction for exercising his Constitutional duties. For example a President can issue pardons. Even for crimes which have not yet been charged or tried. This clearly “obstructs justice” and yet is also very clearly not obstruction of justice in a legal sense. I am skeptical about any claim the investigation simply failed to find evidence that was there to be found, if not for obstruction by Trump. This was a very expensive, very long, very comprehensive investigation. My understanding is that Trump waives executive privilege and have quite unprecedented levels of access to his cabinet, staff, and even White House counsel.
- SantalBlush 7y ago
  The report very clearly states that their investigative efforts were stymied by lies from witnesses, and deleted evidence. If you combine this with the President's behavior and the rest of the report, it requires a larger assumptive leap to say that they did not coordinate with Russia to influence the 2016 US elections.
  - zaroth 7y ago
    The leap is on persisting to assume that they did, when the special counsel had access to FISA warrants, NSA wiretaps, electronic eavesdropping, interviewed hundreds of witnesses, and generally investigated the hell out of this for hundreds of days, and in the end could not conclude that there was any cooperation or coordination with Russia. In short, the full force of the USG investigated and came up short. I think the conspiracy is laid bare. If you expected the report to conclude that the President/Campaign did not coordinate with Russia I’m sorry that was never going to happen. Because you cannot prove a negative. You will always read a statement to this effect; > Accordingly, while this report embodies factual and legal determinations that the Office believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report.“ Because you can always keep trying to investigate a little longer. Interview and re-interview another hundred witnesses. Review another million emails. Listen to about hundred thousand hours of intercepts. But if there’s one thing we can say and everyone will agree, this investigation was comprehensive. It was extensive. It was extremely professional (plus or minus somewhat gestapo raid tactics). But at this point the only thing to be said about claims that the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia to influence the election, is that they are truly without evidence.
mfatica 7y ago
How, exactly, did he obstruct?

s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago

[self-censored]

spaceheretostay 7y ago
"Obstruction of justice" has nothing to do with the report being finished. Those are completely unrelated things. > I'm just pointing out how far the goalpost has moved. You're the one moving goalposts here. Obstruction of justice is illegal even in an attempt to actively obstruct, which Trump and others did, repeatedly, and which was written about clearly in the redacted Mueller report.
- dang 7y ago
  Since you've been using HN primarily for political battle, and we warned you that we'd ban you if you didn't stop, I've banned this account. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
lukenels 7y ago
The crime is the attempt to obstruct justice. Having succeeded in doing so is not a requirement.
daveFNbuck 7y ago
He finished the report, but he wasn't able to draw a conclusion on whether Trump colluded with Russia.
- polithrowaway 7y ago
  "The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated with the IRA’s interference operation"
  - daveFNbuck 7y ago
    Lack of evidence is not a conclusion. It's what you'd expect if there were successful obstruction of justice. Even Barr's summary quoted that the report "does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
    - polithrowaway 7y ago
      In America, you need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to convict someone of a crime. It's innocent until PROVEN guilty with EVIDENCE. How do you fully exonerate someone of a claim that isn't true. You're asking them to prove a negative.
daveFNbuck 7y ago
> EDIT: to repliers, the person I replied to said "we weren't able to determine whether that happened" that's why I asked how he obstructed a report that was finished. I'm not debating whether or not Trump obstructed justice. He obstructed the investigation leading up to the report. No one is saying he obstructed the report after its release. > EDIT: to daveFNbuck, in America, you're innocent until proven guilty. If someone can't conclude you committed the crime beyond reasonable doubt, you're innocent. That's why we've made obstruction of justice a separate crime regardless of whether you can be found guilty of anything else. Obstruction is a separate offense that you can be found guilty of.

zaroth 7y ago

I believe it’s a well established legal theory that a President can not be charged with obstruction for exercising his Constitutional duties. For example a President can issue pardons. Even for crimes which have not yet been charged or tried. This clearly “obstructs justice” and yet is also very clearly not obstruction of justice in a legal sense. I am skeptical about any claim the investigation simply failed to find evidence that was there to be found, if not for obstruction by Trump. This was a very expensive, very long, very comprehensive investigation. My understanding is that Trump waives executive privilege and have quite unprecedented levels of access to his cabinet, staff, and even White House counsel.

SantalBlush 7y ago
The report very clearly states that their investigative efforts were stymied by lies from witnesses, and deleted evidence. If you combine this with the President's behavior and the rest of the report, it requires a larger assumptive leap to say that they did not coordinate with Russia to influence the 2016 US elections.
- zaroth 7y ago
  The leap is on persisting to assume that they did, when the special counsel had access to FISA warrants, NSA wiretaps, electronic eavesdropping, interviewed hundreds of witnesses, and generally investigated the hell out of this for hundreds of days, and in the end could not conclude that there was any cooperation or coordination with Russia. In short, the full force of the USG investigated and came up short. I think the conspiracy is laid bare. If you expected the report to conclude that the President/Campaign did not coordinate with Russia I’m sorry that was never going to happen. Because you cannot prove a negative. You will always read a statement to this effect; > Accordingly, while this report embodies factual and legal determinations that the Office believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report.“ Because you can always keep trying to investigate a little longer. Interview and re-interview another hundred witnesses. Review another million emails. Listen to about hundred thousand hours of intercepts. But if there’s one thing we can say and everyone will agree, this investigation was comprehensive. It was extensive. It was extremely professional (plus or minus somewhat gestapo raid tactics). But at this point the only thing to be said about claims that the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia to influence the election, is that they are truly without evidence.

mfatica 7y ago

How, exactly, did he obstruct?