How can intent be determined without interviewing the subject of the obstruction investigation?
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
No crime, so no obstruction.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You’ve officially jumped the shark
-
If he is actually giving Trump any kind of benefit of the doubt on that front, he’s jumped a freaking megalodon.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I’m embarrassed that you have to come right out and say something this obvious.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
He was unable to govern?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Seems like a pretty bad excuse to me since frustration is a by-product of being investigated and obstruction would prevent law enforcement from finding or determining underlying crimes.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Note that this is essentially the same element that got HRC off the hook for establishing her private server; her conduct was analyzed to be neither sufficiently careless (to rise to the level of gross negligence) nor sufficiently intentional (to exceed gross negligence).
-
But now state of mind/mens rea elements of criminal offenses are just a mere technicality—these people don’t care about credibility, they just want to keep the money and eyeballs coming in from credulous Resisters who have no legal training or don’t know any better.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
How can you obstruct when there's no underlying crime? Strzok admits in May of '17 there's no there, there. Mueller doesn't reup the FISA in August '17. They knew there was no collusion. This investigation was a disgrace.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Mr Lawyer over here!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
The legal requirement to determine the crime you mention isn't Malicious Intent.
- 3 more replies
-
-
-
It’s pretty sad that this has to be said but thanks for saying it
-
It's pretty sad he said it. Period.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Yes and Democrats will lose 2020 by trying to go after Trump on charges they will not stick in the Senate.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
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.