 |
|
agree in principle but it would take overt steps like
Posted on: May 29, 2019 at 17:05:22 CT
blake1771 MU
Posts:
14357
Member For:
19.87 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
bribing or assaulting/killing a witness, leaking grand jury testimony, destruction of documents under subpoena.
firing a guy who you have ample reason and authority to fire? GTFO.
more importantly, federal obstruction (for the somewhat relevant statute) requires a corrupt intent. And since there was no underlying crime good luck on proving that mens rea.
that's where the argument is. the vast majority of conservatives pundits who are saying that you can't have obstruction of a non-crime are basing it on the inability to prove a corrupt intent when there is no underlying crime.
think.
Edited by blake1771 at 17:21:56 on 05/29/19
firing a guy who you have ample reason and authority to fire? GTFO.
more importantly, federal obstruction (for the somewhat relevant statute) requires a corrupt intent. And since there was no underlying crime good luck on proving that mens rea.
that's where the argument is. the vast majority of conservatives pundits who are saying that you can't have obstruction of a non-crime are basing it on the inability to prove a corrupt intent when there is no underlying crime.
think.
Edited by blake1771 at 17:21:56 on 05/29/19
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
agree in principle but it would take overt steps like - blake1771 KC - 5/29 17:05:22
-