The Special Counsel did not cite law because he wanted to impress anyone. He cited law because the law of the USA has been broken. The current Attorney General William Barr is obstructing justice by undermining the Rule of Law of the United States of America.
Section 1512(c)(2) is an omnibus
obstruction-of-justice provision that covers a range of obstructive acts directed at pending or
contemplated official proceedings....
Currently, Donald J. Trump is interrupting the proceedings of US Congressional proceedings. He is directing personnel present or past not to not cooperate with Congress. He is breaking the law.
...No principle of statutory construction justifies narrowing the
provision to cover only conduct that impairs the integrity or availability of evidence. Sections
1503 and 1505 also offer broad protection against obstructive acts directed at pending grand jury, judicial, administrative, and congressional proceedings, and they are supplemented by a provision
in Section 1512(6) aimed specifically at conduct intended to prevent or hinder the communication
to law enforcement of information related to a federal crime.
Constitutional defenses.
As for constitutional defenses arising from the President's status
as the head of the Executive Branch, we recognized that the Department of Justice and the courts
have not definitively resolved these issues. We therefore examined those issues through the
framework established by Supreme Court precedent governing separation-of-powers issues. The
Department of Justice and the President's personal counsel have recognized that the President is
subject to statutes that prohibit obstruction of justice by bribing a witness or suborning perjury
because that conduct does not implicate his constitutional authority. With respect to whether the
President can be found to have obstructed justice by exercising his powers under Article II of the
Constitution, we concluded that Congress has authority to prohibit a President's corrupt use of his
authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice.
These are not "IF" or "MAYBE" statements. These are the laws the president has broken to the point his own council recognizes the fact he has conducted himself unlawfully.
HIS OWN COUNCIL RECOGNIZES TRUMP'S LAWLESSNESS.
I can just hear Guiliani, "I recognize the president is a bit of a lawbreaker, but, look Bob, he is a good guy."
Guilani is not a lawyer, he is a saleman.
Under applicable Supreme Court precedent, the Constitution does not categorically and permanently immunize a President for obstructing justice through the use of his Article II powers.
The President of the United States of America is not above the law.
The separation-of-powers doctrine authorizes Congress to protect official proceedings, including those of courts and grand juries, from corrupt, obstructive acts regard less of their source.
Got that? No, let me repeat it.
The separation-of-powers doctrine authorizes Congress to protect official proceedings, including those of courts and grand juries, from corrupt, obstructive acts regardless of their source.
No one has to put up with a lawbreaker or a person that seeks to corrupt the government of the USA. No one is above the law. The Special Counsel did not use the word corrupt lightly. THE WORD WAS CORRUPT.
We also concluded that any inroad on presidential authority that would occur from prohibiting corrupt acts does not undermine the President's ability to fulfill his constitutional mission.
Any method that would to prohibit corrupt acts does not undermine the President's abilities for a CONSTITUTIONAL MISSION. In other words, when Congress acts to obtain documents and/or testimony it does not impress power on the Executive Branch so much that it changes the mission or the power or the law that the Executive Branch enjoys.
The term "corruptly" sets a demanding standard. It requires a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an improper advantage for himself or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others.
What was that? Oh. Others have rights besides Trump. That means others, such as Guilliani and Barr, have free will to carry out lawful acts even though Trump is demanding a loyalty pledge and unlawful acts. I guess that's why James Comey was fired. He didn't sign on to a loyalty pledge to carry out unlawful acts. Firing James Comey was a big mistake by Trump. James Comey did nothing wrong regardless of the hideous idea of a Deep State.
Trump lives the mythology of a Deep State and to him anyone else that doesn't believe in his mythology where he is god is not worthy. Trump is a maniacal lawbreaker that creates FEASIBLE fantasy and expects everyone else to abide by it. He is currently involved with Barr to imagineering a Deep State to justify Trump's lawlessness. Trump has broken so many laws he can't find a way out of them so he is creating his own world whereby everyone else is the lawbreaker and he is the victim.
The Special Counsel outlines below the fact investigation or acts to end corruption does not change the presidency.
A preclusion of"corrupt" official action does not diminish the President's ability to exercise Article II powers. For example, the proper supervision of criminal law does not demand freedom for the President to act with a corrupt intention of shielding himself from criminal punishment, avoiding financial liability, or preventing personal embarrassment. To the contrary, a statute that prohibits official action undertaken for such corrupt purposes furthers, rather than hinders, the impartial and evenhanded administration of the law. It also aligns with the President's constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws. Finally, we concluded that in the rare case in which a criminal investigation of the President's conduct is justified, inquiries to determine whether the President acted for a corrupt motive should not impermissibly chill his performance of his constitutionally assigned duties. The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.
There is no doubt there is a separation of powers in the USA. That separation of powers is in full display these past few days. The president is in Europe for the commemoration of the 75th anniversary of D-Day, while the US Congress continues to carry out it's responsibilities in asking for documents and testimony to fulfill their constitutional duty to the people of the USA.
CONCLUSION
Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw
ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct.
They didn't exactly determine they not to carry out traditional prosecutorial judgment. They were forced to set aside an indictment of the president because of a stupid opinion that should be challenged in court that a sitting president cannot be indicted.
The evidence we obtained about the
President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were
making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a
thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice,
we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach
that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a
crime, it also does not exonerate him
we would so state
we would so state
we would so state
Tell me how many times this has to be stated before people finally hear it?
we would so state
we would so state
we would so state
The Special Counsel did not exonerate Trump. Barr decided to exonerate Trump because he was loyal to the president. Barr decided to not only exonerate Trump from lawbreaking in the face of evidence otherwise he drew up a four page falsified document to obstruct a Congressional investigation. I remind, the release of the redacted Special Council report came AFTER Robert S. Mueller wrote a two page letter to Barr to provide at least the Introduction and Executive Summary of both volumes to Congress and the public. Barr has no intention of allowing Trump to be held responsible for his lawbreaking. If we are to follow the thinking of the Special Counsel, the lawbreaking is not an isolated issue as when it is allowed to exist it encourages more lawbreaking. It seems obvious to me that is true as Trump continues to obstruct justice after Barr so willingly did as well.
continued in later entry.
