This, by a former federal prosecutor, makes the point: the key issue is the President's intent. https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/872605801181057026 …https://twitter.com/speechboy71/status/872613847584165888 …
-
-
Replying to @JamesSurowiecki
Michael Cohen Retweeted Renato Mariotti
This contradicts your entire argumenthttps://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/872602177390485506 …
Michael Cohen added,
4 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @speechboy71
No, it actually restates my argument: if Trump didn't fire Comey with the intent of blocking an investigation into WH, it's not obstruction.
6 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JamesSurowiecki
If this isn't going to convince you the argument you've been making is not right, I just don't know what to say ...pic.twitter.com/dIE8MANcmn
1 reply 2 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @speechboy71
You're cherrypicking. As he literally just tweeted, obstruction of justice "requires proof that the defendant acted 'corruptly.'"
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JamesSurowiecki @speechboy71
Read more carefully. Mariotti says it's a crime if you "obstruct" an ongoing investigation. But you have to act "corruptly" to "obstruct" it
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JamesSurowiecki @speechboy71
And the only way to know if Trump acted "corruptly" is to know what his intent was. As I've been saying all along.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
I wonder if both of you aren't framing this too narrowly in legal terms. Impeachment is a political as well as legal process.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.