 |
|
I disagree with many re obstruction. The common thinking
Posted on: May 29, 2019 at 15:34:56 CT
hokie VT
Posts:
67463
Member For:
9.52 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
is that there cannot be obstruction without an actual crime (or collusion) on which the investigation is being obstructed.
I disagree, in some cases.
There needs to be some judgement here, which regrettably will turn on politics, but someone who obstructs an FIB investigation into embezzlement, which the obstructer did not commit, but for which an investigation could reveal other serious crimes, is in my opinion, guilty of obstruction.
The conservative media, what there is of it, is too quick to point out that since there was no collusion, there can be no obstruction of justice during the investigation of collusion.
I understand the concept and agree to a point, but because the underlying allegation of a crime did not occur, at least not by the person being investigated, does not mean that the obstruction is a legal impossibility.
One man's opinion.
I disagree, in some cases.
There needs to be some judgement here, which regrettably will turn on politics, but someone who obstructs an FIB investigation into embezzlement, which the obstructer did not commit, but for which an investigation could reveal other serious crimes, is in my opinion, guilty of obstruction.
The conservative media, what there is of it, is too quick to point out that since there was no collusion, there can be no obstruction of justice during the investigation of collusion.
I understand the concept and agree to a point, but because the underlying allegation of a crime did not occur, at least not by the person being investigated, does not mean that the obstruction is a legal impossibility.
One man's opinion.
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
I disagree with many re obstruction. The common thinking - hokie VT - 5/29 15:34:56
-