Mueller Investigation

In Defense of Trump Obstructing Justice (When There's No Underlying Crime)

Forget about Donald Trump and the Mueller report and think about all the little (and not-so-little) people who get crushed by the feds.

|

I haven't read the Mueller report and I don't plan to any time soon. I don't feel like I would gain much by sifting through what's already been widely acknowledged to be 400-plus pages of Rorschach test. The main point of the "Russia probe" was to figure out whether there was any sort of hanky-panky going on between the former (future?) Soviets and the Trump campaign, and we now know that there was not.

But of course now the story shifts from dark worries about "collusion" to unrestrained outrage over the president's ham-fisted attempts to "obstruct justice" by unduly influencing the investigation by lying in public and private, firing key players, leaning on witnesses, or otherwise gumming up the works. I trust my Reason colleagues (Scott Shackford, Peter Suderman, Jacob Sullum, and Eric Boehm), each of whom argues to varying degrees that if President Donald Trump isn't technically guilty of obstruction, it's not for lack of trying. It's mostly because his subordinates either refused to follow his orders or screwed things up while trying to do his bidding.

But you know what? I don't care that much that Trump was trying to obstruct justice in this instance. Certainly, if there is no underlying crime, you shouldn't get in trouble for lying to the feds, even though it's technically illegal. Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code makes it a crime to

"knowingly and willfully … make[] any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation" in the course of "any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch" of the federal government.

But should it be? We'll come back to the White House in a moment, but the way this sort of usually plays out for the little people is that, as Jim Talent observed last year in National Review,

The FBI gathers information about a person, finds facts that the person might want to conceal — not because the facts prove a crime but because they are embarrassing for some other reason — then asks about those facts in an interview, on the expectation that the person will lie and thereby incriminate himself.

As Popehat blogger (and Reason contributor) Ken White has detailed extensively, FBI agents are trained to get you to lie, thereby being able to arrest you or squeeze you however they want. As White wrote for Reason a year ago,

In the old westerns, rather than take the trouble of hauling mustachioed miscreants to desultory trials, lawmen would often provoke them into drawing first, thus justifying shooting them down where they stood. A modern federal interview of a subject or target is like that. One purpose, arguably the primary purpose, is to provoke the foolish interviewee into lying, thus committing a new, fresh federal crime that is easily prosecuted, rendering the original investigation irrelevant. Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001, which makes it a felony to lie to the feds, is their shiny quick-draw sidearm. This result not an exception; it is the rule. It happens again and again.

Consider George Papadopoulos. The special counsel secured his guilty plea not for improper contact with the Russians but for lying about that contact to the FBI. Consider Michael Flynn. He too pled guilty not to unlawful contact with Russians but to lying to the FBI about that contact. Consider Scooter Libby, or Martha Stewart, or Dennis Hastert, or James Cartwright, all taken down by the feds not for their alleged original misconduct but for lying about it. Even when catching someone in a lie isn't enough to force them to plead guilty, it can add charges to a case. Consider Paul Manafort and Richard Gates, charged not just with substantive crimes but with lying to the FBI about them.

There is arguably no person on the planet less sympathetic than Donald Trump. He is a reflexive liar, a blowhard, a bully, and the goddamned president of the United States. He should be a better person on all fronts and there's no doubt that he should set a better example than he does. But when it comes to obstructing justice, at least when there was no underlying crime, he shouldn't be in any trouble whatsoever.

Far more important, the rest of us shouldn't be when we get set up to lie by the FBI or other law enforcement folks who have a tremendous amount of power. At The New York Times, David Brooks suggests that one of the great messages of the Mueller investigation is that it reveals

Trump doesn't seem to have any notion of loyalty to an office. All power in his eye is personal power, and the government is there to serve his Sun God self. He'll continue to trample the proper systems of government.

There's much truth to that formulation, which has been echoed by many of the president's critics. But there's a bigger takeaway worth underscoring, one that is vastly more important than Donald Trump who, truth be told, is acting how most presidents have acted in the past and will act in the future.

The bigger takeaway is that the federal government exercises vast and nearly unchecked power over virtually every aspect of our lives. As civil libertarian and Three Felonies a Day author Harvey Silverglate has told Reason, there are literally hundreds of thousands of federal regulations under "each of the federal criminal statutes … [and] you're just assumed to know [them] and you can be picked up and you can be charged and these are real criminal violations." And if that doesn't work, the feds can snag you simply by talking to you. Contempt for Donald Trump shouldn't obscure that brutal reality, which will outlive the Mueller report and probably most of us, too.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

221 responses to “In Defense of Trump Obstructing Justice (When There's No Underlying Crime)

  1. “I trust my Reason colleagues (Scott Shackford, Peter Suderman, Jacob Sullum, and Eric Boehm),

    You shouldn’t.

    1. Suderman and Sullum in particular have been so consistently dishonest, I don’t know why anyone would.

      1. good point

      2. How? I’ve not found that.

    2. “I trust my Reason colleagues …, each of whom argues to varying degrees that if President Donald Trump isn’t technically guilty of obstruction, it’s not for lack of trying. It’s mostly because his subordinates either refused to follow his orders or screwed things up while trying to do his bidding.”

      You should really read the report. If you had, you’d know this is not true.

  2. That’s a refreshingly libertarian perspective. Nice to see at least one Reason writer can think beyond Orange Man Bad at least one time.

    1. Yeah, Nick’s been “refreshingly” informing the world that Trump can do nothing approaching good. This is as close to a mea culpa that Gillespie, et al, will ever produce.

      1. Yep, this is Gillespie’s backhanded attempt to ascribe something he cannot prove.

      2. Not sure what happened to Nick and Reason. It is sad though to see a solid news source like Reason drifting off the edge of relevance into the void of obscurity.

    2. That’s why whenever asked anything by a Federal employee, the appropriate answer is, “FUCK YOU!”.

      See Don’t Talk to the Police

      And yes, that includes the Federales.

      1. That’s why whenever asked anything by any law enforcement agent, the appropriate answer is:

        Submit your questions in writing so I can have my attorney review them.

    3. Nick is the designated Trump-tard. His beloved editor-emeritus status shields him from Koch-retaliation.

      1. Pretty sure they are more anti-Trump than Gillespie is. He might feel a tug on the reins after this one.

    4. Orange hair bad. Hillary Bad. Gary Johnson campaign stupid, and Bill Weld flighty. What Libertarian air head to do? I dunno.

  3. What kind of crime is attempting to stop an investigation into something that didn’t happen?

    1. The kind you can use to undo elections when voters decide they aren’t subservient to a ruling class.

      1. The ruling class is very upset! That makes airheads like me very happy. I’m not going to vote for Libertarian airhead next time. Trump is right a little under 50% of the time. That’s a vast improvement over most democrats.

    2. I always thought as soon as the state determined the defendant was innocent they were rewired to dismiss the case. It seems like continuing the investigation is the real obstruction of justice her.

  4. I will say what little I’ve seen from our legacy… er mainstream, er, establishment media has been unintentionally hilarious.

    COLLUSION! COLLUSION! KKKOLLUSIONNNN!

    *slap*

    OBSTRUCTION! OBSCTRUCTION! OBSTRUKKKSHUN!

    1. DESPERATION DESPERATION DESPERATION!!!

    2. their ability to maintain internal consistency in the face of evidence tells you that this is belief, not understanding.

      1. Excellent

    3. Collusion means conspiracy the way it’s being used by Barr and Trump. There wasn’t a criminal conspiracy but there were meetings, offers of help, acceptance of that help, encouragement of help, secret business deals, lying to the public, lying to Mueller, destroying phones, deleting emails and text messages, secret backchanel communications…. That sounds a hell of alot like “collusion”. Mueller pointed it out in his report that collusion was a meaningless term for the purposes of his mandate. That Barr would parrot that language says alot about his integrity and motive to confuse.

      1. I had no idea ordinary people were so full of shit.

        1. OP is in no way “ordinary”; stupidity so deep is truly extraordinary.
          When you add in the almost constant lying, well, it’s worse yet.

          1. Suppose a Presidential candidate gets a glowing editorial from an British or Israeli journalist after sitting for an interview with that journalist. Is that collusion? I’m just here all alone in Montana without any political experience. Please advise.

      2. By your definition Hillary colluded with Britain, Ukraine, and Russia directly during the election. Obama colluded with Russia when he was president elect and Iran throughout his presidency.

        What I’m trying to say is you’re a fucking idiot.

        1. Amen, JesseAz! “Collusion” is neither illegal nor defined.

      3. “”lying to the public, lying to Mueller, destroying phones, deleting emails and text messages, secret backchanel communications””

        Sans lying to Mueller, these are things Hillary did.

        1. Does that make Trump doing it a good thing?

          1. The same people screeching about open borders because “right to free assembly” are angry at Trump for talking to foreigners. Because the president has no vested interest in establishing foreign relations. Hillary certainly never talked to a foreign government prior to running for president, right?

            1. She only had her lieutenants and hubby talk to them. You know … to ask for donations to the Clinton Foundation, in return for access to her as Secretary of State. You don’t suppose they indicated to those foreign diplomats that they were certain she was a shoe-in for the Presidency, do you?

          2. What did Trump do? Tried to run a country while being pursued by an overzealous prosecutor butthurt because he didn’t get job of FBI Director, whose friend was fired from the same job and hired a bunch of Lawyers who were HRC supporters. I think Trump for all his failings did much better than I would have. Hillary destroyed evidence of her wrong doings…Trump did no such thing.

          3. Considering there wasn’t an underlying crime, yes, of course it makes it a good thing. Free speech is necessary for free elections and freedom in general. If people “misuse” their freedom of speech to peddle lies or half truths or propaganda, sunlight is the best disinfectant. Just because some people were duped by foreign media doesn’t mean their votes are conspiratorial. Otherwise, we couldn’t possibly have free elections because in case anyone needs to be reminded, hostile foreign powers don’t pick sides. They wage informational warfare that negatively impacts ALL of us, not just Republicans or Democrats. All the Russians or anyone else wants is what’s best for their government and they don’t really care how they achieve it here. The idea that they tried to help Trump or Clinton (or anyone) specifically is absurd.

            American voters shared information ala RT and Al Jazeera. Are all elections null and void? That’s what Russia wants you to think.

      4. Indeed, but as we’ve learned no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.

      5. Oh GMAFB!
        Pick 1000 people. How many know someone from a former Soviet Bloc country? How many might have done something for one of them? How many might have asked for them to do something? Jeez, I’ve got neighbors from Slovakia and Ukraine! Am I “colluding”?

        [Dumb ass]

      6. “There wasn’t a criminal conspiracy but there were meetings, offers of help, acceptance of that help, encouragement of help, secret business deals, lying to the public, lying to Mueller, destroying phones, deleting emails and text messages, secret backchanel communications….”

        But enough about Bill and Hillary Clinton……

      7. Big fuckin’ deal.

    4. HOLD THE DOOR! HOLD-D-DOOR! HODOR!

      1. We could have used Bran.

  5. “” think about all the little (and not-so-little) people who get crushed by the feds.”‘

    I’ve tried point this out to people. I’ve been hoping to see some meaningful prosecutorial reform for over 40 years. People getting behind how Mueller operated just pisses that in the wind.

    1. Gillespie is only ‘concerned’ about the massive powers of the state now that there is a chance they are going to be directed at the people who manufactured this farce (and gross abuse of authority) to begin with.

      1. No, Reason has written about this many times before.

        1. Yeah, that is definitely something they are very solid and consistent on.

        2. Yes, Gillespie has been very strong on this issue.

      2. wow. you truly are hear just to troll

      3. ” the people who manufactured this farce (and gross abuse of authority) to begin with”

        The FBI, the Democrats.

    2. Nick has lost his fucking mind. Trump is not a little guy, despite his little hands. He’s the fucking head of state. He is, quite literally, one branch of the federal government. I don’t give one fuck about how one side of the federal government fucks over the others. I’m also aghast that he blithely states there was no collusion . . . and then references the attorney general as an authority? WTF? Since when is a lackey for The Man an authority on what The Man has done? Make up your fucking mind, Nick. It’s like nobody has a fucking brain anymore. The death of reason.

      1. At no point in the article does it suggest that Trump is the little guy.

        Forget about Donald Trump and the Mueller report and think about all the little (and not-so-little) people who get crushed by the feds.

      2. If they can fuck over each other, they can fuck over you or me.

  6. Papadopoulos never talked to any Russians! He talked to people working for the CIA.

    1. Yes, but since they lied to him, and because they lied, he believed they were Russians, off with his head! They can lie to us, but not vice versa! Now we see the violence inherent in the system!

  7. But the Mueller Report proves Democrats, progressives, and most of the media have been essentially correct for the past 2-3 years. Allow Professor Jared Yates Sexton to explain:

    All right. I just finished the Mueller Report. I’m going to combine the most shocking and important revelations in one thread. Long and short: there was collusion, there was obstruction, Donald Trump needs to be removed from office. Immediately. 1/

    #TrumpRussia
    #ItsMuellerTime
    #Impeach
    #Resist

    1. Yeah, we understand. The report says the exact opposite of what’s being reported and the inescapable conclusion of that message (that only a few can see) perfectly supports your own desperate personal desires.

      1. That’s supposedly a parody account; even if it’s not, its troll-icious, so engaging it is a waste of your time.

    2. Any relation to Sally? Yates may be his maiden name.

  8. “There’s much truth to that formulation, which has been echoed by many of the president’s critics.”

    President’s critics agree he’s bad? Shocking.

  9. The FBI asks you what you had for breakfast. You say eggs, bacon and coffee. After some digging the FBI says you lied by omission because you didn’t say there was cream and sugar in your coffee.

    1. Unless you work for the Hag, then they immunize you before asking any questions.

      1. …they then allow you to use ANOTHER suspect as your attorney in your “questioning”. Which occurred after you wrote a document excusing them from prosecution…

        1. And the AG refused to acknowledge it’s an investigation by calling it a “matter”.

          1. Comey drafting a document exonerating Clinton before interviewing key witnesses.

  10. Finally. Some sense at Reason. The other articles were awful.

    You would have thought a libertarian magazine would have complained about victimless “process crimes” in Mueller’s investigation long ago.

    1. Reason has complained about this many times.

      1. I agree, but not regarding the Trump fishing expedition.

  11. Trump doesn’t seem to have any notion of loyalty to an office. All power in his eye is personal power, and the government is there to serve his Sun God self. He’ll continue to trample the proper systems of government.

    James Comey refers to this as “a higher loyalty”. John Brennan and James Clapper understand exactly what that means, lesser mortals like Hillary Clinton and Loretta Lynch and Harry Reid simply think of it as “the ends justify the means”. Leona Helmsley put it rather too bluntly with her remark that taxes are for the little people, but it all winds up the same – FYTW.

  12. Good lord.

    He COULD HAVE SHUT DOWN THE INVESTIGATION, LEGALLY, AT ANY POINT.

    That he did not is definitive proof he didn’t obstruct a damned thing.

    1. The only reason he did not is because his aides refused to act on it. “It’s ok your honor, I tried to murder him many times but failed. Obviously that isn’t a crime.”

      This is some of the dumbest garbage I have ever read on here (the article, though your comment doesn’t help) and the fact that it tickles Reason’s commentators so is appalling. You can be against huge federal government while at the same time being for the judicial application of laws.

      That point must be lost on this clueless writer.

      1. “The only reason he did not is because his aides refused to act on it. “It’s ok your honor, I tried to murder him many times but failed. Obviously that isn’t a crime.””

        Logic isn’t one of your skills I see.
        Murder is a crime. Trump shutting down a fishing expedition is not a crime.
        I’m sure that comes as a surprise to some.

      2. “The only reason he did not is because his aides refused to act on it.”

        Legally, he could have STILL shut it down. Literally zero laws would have been broken. As pointed out in other places, Nixon was not charged with obstruction for the Saturday Night Massacre for a reason.

        1. In the mind of a progtard, the law is whatever they think it is at any given time. These are the people who believe that the constitution is a ‘living breathing document’ that can mean whatever they want whenever they want.

      3. He didn’t act on it because he plays to win. And while that might sound like mindless trumpkinism, it’s really what happened. If he’d shut it down, he would have lost big time, politically. By allowing it to continue, he drew out the Democrats and beat them at their own dirty game. The end messaging is the worst it could possibly be. Democrats look stupid. They’re desperate to spin it, but it’s sticking hard. They just bought Trump four more years. At least that’s where my money is.

        1. And people are so tired of hearing about this bullshit that most have tuned out. The democrats completely shot their wad, and now find themselves with something of a mess on their hands. So now they’re just shooting blanks.

      4. Just being accused of saying something cannot be the same as acting on it. Even still firing the special prosecutor because you believe him/her for any reason doesn’t rise to the level of criminal. At least I don’t believe so and likely so do most voting Americans.

    2. Those of us who’ve informed ourselves of the law can safely determine that you’re an idiot with such an opinion.

      Obstruction of justice does not require an underlying crime to exist.

      1. The law should be changed so that no charge of obstruction could be sustained unless an underlying actual crime is also sustained. Even in this case, he didn’t actually obstruct, maybe tried to obstruct.

        Even so, I’m sick of the procedural self-righteousness being used to prosecute. If Trump actually got away with anything, good for him. No one was harmed, except lefty self-righteousness. HA! HA! HA!

  13. I haven’t read the Mueller report and I don’t plan to any time soon.

    How will you know what really happened if you don’t read between the lines??

    1. I’m waiting for Louise Mensch or Ken White to translate Mueller’s golden tablets with a hat full of seeing stones.

  14. I sorry I have to disagree with the premise that sometimes lying to a Federal, state, or local police is acceptable. The fact is embarrassing or not you need to tell the truth. Because in the end the authorities are attempting to figure a problem and they need good data to put together and answer. Yes that can put you at risk. But what about others that might be at risk if you lie. We accept there was Russian meddling in our 2016 election. We know that there were close ties between Trump Election and Transition staff and the Russians. It is not unreasonable to ask about those interactions and expect a truthful answer.

    1. We do not accept that there was Russian meddling above what they do in EVERY election here.

      We do not accept that there were “close ties” between the Trump admin and Russia.

      1. Really?
        1. In what prior election did Russian hack into campaign e-mails and release them to the public.? In what prior election did the Russian deploy a social media campaign against a candidate? I think the Russians meddling above the level that they may have ever done.
        2. If there were no close ties why did so many Trump staffers meet with Russians? Why did the Trump sons say they got a lot of money from Russians? If there were not close ties why does President Trump act with fawning affection every time he is in President Putin’s presence?

        Reject what you want, but those are the facts.

        1. Really? What other elections have been thoroughly investigated?

        2. But to what extent did they succeed? The Chinese hacked into the Office of Personnel Management data banks and stole sensitive personal info on over 4 million past and present employees. Yet the outrage is over hacking into the DNC server stealing unflattering emails, attempting to sway public opinion with cartoonish social media postings? They did hack into the Florida voting registration data of 70,000 Americans but hell as screwed up as Florida voter rolls are I think this is nothing since none of this was used for anything. The enemy whether Chinese, Russians, North Koreans, Iranians is always after us. Stay frosty but don’t roll up in the fetal position because someone mentions “Russia”

    2. It’s not my job to help anyone with any investigation, ESPECIALLY when omission of irrelevant details can still get me locked up.

    3. Moderation4ever
      April.19.2019 at 3:00 pm
      “…The fact is embarrassing or not you need to tell the truth….”

      Bull
      .
      .
      .
      shit.
      Claims supported by lame hypotheticals don’t help your case.

    4. Meet us halfway: it should be illegal to lie to cops AFTER it is made illegal for the cops to lie to us.

    5. So you didn’t read the example nick gave? Fuck off asshole.

      1. No I think the fuck off should go to Nick who along with his phony LINO (Libertarian in name only ) editorial staff. Progressives come in all colors Reason has proven this.

    6. Unless not lying incriminates yourself for something completely unrelated to the question. Slippery slope siding with the oppressors.

    7. Fuck that. They are just people like anyone else. If they want you to tell the truth then they can have you take an oath or sign a deposition or something. Why do they make you swear to tell the truth in court if not to distinguish it from the normal situation where it isn’t a crime to lie?
      And the FBI’s tactics are just disgusting. They are deliberately trying to get people to lie.

    8. We know that there were close ties between Trump Election and Transition staff and the Russians.

      Actually, we don’t know that at all. In fact, we know that it was completely made up by a sour-grapes Hillary Clinton.

    9. Why does the government have any greater right to lie than you do? Government power is a far greater threat than individual criminals. Unless the government can prove an underlying non-victimless crime, no charge of lying to the government can, morally, be sustained.

  15. “When it comes to obstructing justice, at least when there was no underlying crime, he shouldn’t be in any trouble whatsoever.”

    I feel the same way about this, except . . . there was an underlying crime: The FBI perpetrated surveillance on a presidential campaign under false pretenses–and no one has been made to answer for it.

    “Comey said he was aware of who funded the report, which Steele compiled for Fusion GPS, a political research firm co-founded by former Wall Street Journal reporter Glenn Simpson.

    “I was told at some point that it was ? the effort had originally been financed by a Republican source to develop material, opposition research on Donald Trump,” Comey told Stephanopoulos. “Then after the Republican nominating process ended, the effort was taken up and funded by a Democratic-aligned group trying to get opposition research on Trump. ? I never knew ? who the groups were, but I knew it started with Republicans paying for it and then Democrats were paying for it.”

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics

    This is the libertarian issue at the center of this. Why is the FBI being given a pass on this?

    The FBI was reportedly denied a warrant by the FISA court twice–until they resubmitted it a third time with information from the Steele Dossier. That the source of the evidence in the warrant application was opposition political research was withheld from the FISA court–but by Comey’s own testimony, he knew its source!

    That’s your little people angle on this! When the police use highly suspect informant testimony to justify raiding someone’s house, we scream bloody murder–especially when someone gets killed because of it. When the FBI does surveillance on a presidential campaign, we can’t even get a libertarian journalist to care?

    If Trump’s FBI were wiretapping the Warren campaign using a warrant based on opposition political research, would that be better or worse than getting dirt on Hillary from the Russians?

    Why isn’t the press up in arms over the FBI doing surveillance on a presidential campaign? Yes, there was an underlying crime–and it was perpetrated by the FBI.

    1. When you present information for a warrant, do you not have to declare that you know the information is truthful?

      Even the Mueller report refers to the dossier as unverified.

      1. I don’t know, but I’ve read this:

        “No Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation”

        —-Fourth Amendment

        If a warrant application doesn’t have some kind “under penalty of perjury” clause, then I don’t suppose it would be constitutional. After all, the Fourth Amendment plainly states that an oath or affirmation is required.

    2. The Russian govt was the source of the hacked DNC and Clinton’s campaign manager’s emails and I think I remember you and others saying it didn’t where the information came from that it’s importance was a matter of what it said. Steele is a private individual who specializes in knowledge about the Russian mafia govt so he makes sense he would be conduit for this type of information.

      1. The emails were factual.

        Dossier was not.

        You’re terrible at this.

        1. The Dossier was also factual.

          1. Based on what?

            The amazing lack of any corroboration?

          2. “”The Dossier was also factual.””

            According to who? Even Mueller refers to it as unverified.

        2. The Russians littered those emails with fake emails to make them appear worse so the emails weren’t necessarily all trurh but that’s a side point. The dossier was the best evidence of what was out there. Some of it is true while the truth of some of it remains to be determined. What you neglect to realise though is that Mueller didn’t have access to alot of the text messages, emails and phone communications because the Trump campaign wasn’t under surveillance and the information was deleted by the Trump associates before Mueller was even appointed and he documents this in the report.

          1. You know who didn’t claim those emails were fakes?
            Podesta. Hillary. the entire DNC. They never said anything about them being more than legit. Horrible for them — but legit.

            The dossier, you’re correct, was the best “evidence”. It was also devoid of any factual reality or any corroboration. Which shows just how seriously one should take the collusion nonsense. It was written down, though, which arguably is more useful than morons jabbering on TV.

            So, you’re saying Trump is guilty because he MIGHT have bad stuff in messages he deleted? This is the new tactic?

            1. Trump is not guilty of a conspiracy with Russia. That word collusion is the wrong word to use because it implies “cooperation” and there is evidence and lots of it of “cooperation” between the Trump campaign and the Russian govt. Trump uses that word purposefully to conflate conspiracy with non criminal cooperation.

              1. OP — YOUR side used the term collusion over and over. Don’t blame us for beating you over the head with it.

                “Why is Trump talking about ‘collusion’ so much?” asks the people who referred to collusion repeatedly for years.

                1. A word no one ever used before is no so overused I want to hurt anyone who uses it now. Much like the phrase ‘boots on the ground’ became ubiquitous after The Iraq invasion. Instead of just saying ‘ground troops’ like a literate person normally would.

                  I hate media parrots. Just one more reason to string the turds up when the time comes.

          2. “”The Russians littered those emails with fake emails “”

            Please source this. I have never heard anyone, particularly the authors of the emails claim they were fake.

            1. The mass of the emails were legit but there were a few alternatives sprinkled in there from what I remember.

            2. I looked briefly and couldn’t find anything to support that Russian altered the emails. I think I was confusing it with the fake versions of the emails that were popping up all over the place.

      2. OP, I don’t understand how what you wrote is supposed to relate to what I wrote.

        1. Steele wasn’t the source of the information. He was a conduit of information that was coming from people in Russia who were working against Putin. Similarly the Russian govt was a conduit for the information that was stolen from the DNC and Clinton’s campaign manager. You judged the emails on the basis of what they said and not of from whom they were collected and you should judge the dossier similarly. It’s so much of importance that a campaign was paying Steele to gather the facts. The facts that were gathered are what matter.

          1. You’re basing them working against Putin on…what?

            The emails were legitimate and factual. How they were acquired is no more relevant than how the Pentagon Papers were.

            The dossier was bullshit. When Clifford Irving claimed to have written a biography of Howard Hughes with his input, people didn’t concern themselves too much with what he wrote when the book being total bullshit was exposed.

            1. The dossier was a footnote of a larger body of evidence supporting the probable cause for warrant. A warrant that was authorized by a Trump appointee, Rosenstein. How does do you square Trump’s own nominee signing off on the warrant?

              1. The dossier was with the FBI before Trump got into office, you realize.

                Scratch that…no, you probably don’t realize.

                1. I know that but the FISA warrant that you’re talking about was reauthorized by Trump’s govt.

                  1. Only 1 of 3 were dumbfuck.

                  2. And, as we saw, Trump had absolute control over his administration.

                    1. Rosenstein is anothe one that should be prosecuted. Along with McCabe, Comey, Strzock, and so many others.

          2. So OP. You admit Hillary cluded with Russians through steele.

            1. Hillary paid a retired British intelligence officer who specialized on Russia to uncover dirt on Trump which is completely different than working with the Russian govt the way Trump was flirting with. Manafort was straight up working for that Putin paycheck. He wasn’t paying the Russians they had paid him.

              1. And that standard — it being unacceptable to take money from a foreign government in order to influence elections — is why Bill Clinton and Al Gore were impeached, removed from office, tried, convicted, sentenced, and imprisoned over the Chinese interference in the 1996 presidential election campaign, thus forever ending the political influence of the Clintons and Gores in American politics and the Democratic Party.

              2. Hillary laundered money through a law firm to avoid campaign expenditure reports to pay a British national to pay Russian assets for money on trump. Collusion. Thanks for agreeing.

          3. He was a conduit of information that was coming from people in Russia who were working against for Putin.

            There, fixed that for you.

            And in general, you’re making a valiant effort, sure, but the difference between “stolen internal communications, complete with the authors admitting they’re authentic by resigning and apologizing for their content” and “undocumented stories sold for money” is too large for your argument to be credible.

          4. What difference does it make if Steele’s information came from opposition research at the Clinton campaign of misinformation from Vladimir Putin? The fact is that the FBI, by its own admission, knowingly used information of awful provenance to conduct surveillance on an opposition presidential campaign–and that is completely unacceptable regardless of whether it’s dubious because–as Comey stated–it came from opposition research or because the opposition research came from the Kremlin.

            Your point is a red herring. It doesn’t contradict anything I wrote–certainly not in its conclusions. The fact was, is, and always will be that the FBI conducted surveillance on an opposition presidential campaign on the basis of information that they knew didn’t come from a credible source. Are you trying to suggest that the Kremlin is to be believed, now? Is the Kremlin a fucking truth telling boy-scout when it says things you like?

            I’m not that stupid, and neither is the FBI. And if and when Comey’s case goes before a grand jury, I expect he’ll be indicted–regardless of whether the information came from the Clinton campaign or the Kremlin, you boneheaded idiot.

            1. If Ordinary Person thinks that the information in the Steele Memo is credible because it came from the Kremlin, then Ordinary Person is a fucking moron.

      3. Steele specializes so much he told a British court his intelligence was garbage.

        1. Cohen thought there was a pee tape and he talked to Trump about it. Trump’s bodyguard was there at the hotel and he said prostitutes were offered. I know it’s crazy to think a guy who fucks porn stars would be involved in something like that.

          1. It’s quite amusing watching a pathetic loser like you squirm, duck and dodge in the hopes of finding someone as abysmally stupid as you are to believe your pile of shit.
            Ha and ha, you piece of shit.

          2. Seriously guy you haven’t made a single verifiable point. It’s frankly painful to watch your pathetic attempts to somehow redeem yourself.

          3. Well, every libertarian I’ve ever met was strongly against prostitution. As long as the customer was a politician on the wrong team. I guess I can see your point.

          4. Let me write in smaller words since I cant post a picture for you. What you just stated is what steele told a British court was garbage.

            1. Jesse, you have to understand that OP has no real analysis, insights, evidence, etc.. he merely regurgitates talking points distributed to him by his masters at Thinkprogress and Media Matters. As a good little drone, he dutifully serves his progtarded overlords by puking his pablum up for all of us to see here, and then calls it ‘evidence’, or ‘proof’. Yet his progtarded vomit is none of those things, ever. Of course he is incapable of any real cognition in these things. Merely an empty vessel filled with shit to further serve progressivism.

              He would be almost pitiable were he not so vile and progtarded himself.

      4. He had been largely discredited as a reliable source. While the emails were illegally obtained and that is wrong no one denied they were genuine and really they were unflattering but that was it. I don’t I learned anything from other than what I already suspected. Dems are basically turds who care little for most Americans between the coasts.

  16. There is arguably no person on the planet less sympathetic than Barack Obama. He is a reflexive liar, a blowhard, a bully, and the goddamned president of the United States. He should be a better person on all fronts and there’s no doubt that he should set a better example than he does. But when it comes to shredding the Constitution, weaponizing the IRS, drone-killing American teenagers, locking out members of the press that are insufficiently toadying up to his highness, lecturing the Supremes in front of the nation at SOTU addresses for not arriving at decisions to his liking, he shouldn’t be in any trouble whatsoever.

    For all Trump’s manifest character flaws at least he’s honest in the sense that you see the real Trump and not a mask as per Obama who pretended to be “above it all” but played as dirty and mean as anyone. There’s a fundemantal open honesty with Trump that was totally lacking in Obama.

    1. Nicely done.

    2. Nicely done, indeed. Explains well why I, too, am more give more leeway to the deeply flawed Trump than to Obama and the others.

      In the end, the Mueller report, including the matters addressed in this article, did not show us anything anyone really shouldn’t have known about Trump to begin with. And it put to rest some things that no one should have thought were true about Trump. He seems more like an open book every day.

    3. Well put … Don’t forget unable to accept responsibility for anything.. the kind of guy who wouldn’t admit to farting if he was the only guy in the room.

  17. He is a reflexive liar, a blowhard, a bully

    Obama lie? Check: “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.”

    Obama blowhard? Check: “Treyvon could have been my son.”

    Obama bully? Check: When he got the white cop and black professor to come to the White House for beers.

    And a thousand other instances.

    Same for every politician.

    I know Nick knows this. I just want to make sure future comments readers realize it too.

    1. On bully: When he bullied SCOTUS and took Catholic nuns to court.

      Screw that guy.

      1. Yeah but he is so feckless he couldn’t even bully nuns successfully.

    2. Brown man good orange man bad.

  18. If Trump tried to obstruct justice and fell short, that should be a crime. Is that not a crime already?

    Trump tried to have Mueller removed, and part of that effort involved ordering the staff and WH counsel to make that move on his behalf. Whether that involved corrupt intent is the question. Barr didn’t think so, and he concluded that Trump tried to remove Mueller based on his “sincere” belief that the investigation was a sham and Mueller was unfit.

    Trump attempting to fire Mueller is not the same as Trump attempting to obstruct justice. He almost certainly had no good reason to fire Mueller, but that’s not obstruction.

    1. Yeah, that was always a reach. Do people think the investigation just stops with a Mueller firing?

    2. Firing Mueller would not have been obstruction of justice in any sense. Pay attention shillbot.

      1. At some point, people should expect that folks like you will choose to remove your heads from your asses.

        “Firing the guy who’s investigation you don’t like and will embarrass you isn’t obstructing the investigation.”

        I can’t fathom how people can become that stupid.

        1. Because instead of appointing their own investigator Congress had the Executive branch investigate itself. So the investigator was subordinate to the investigatee. If the administration was being investigated by someone who wasn’t an employee of the administration, obstruction would be a much lower bar.

  19. The way I see it, politicians, the elite and the media are complicit psychopaths who have and will again grind our skulls into the dirt and profit from it.

    Watching them tear into each other exposes their wrongdoing and weaknesses. Carry on.

    This is the new age of social media.

  20. “I don’t care that much that Trump was trying to obstruct justice in this instance. Certainly, if there is no underlying crime, you shouldn’t get in trouble for lying to the feds, even though it’s technically illegal.”

    Fucken-Primo-A.

  21. There was too much, eh, Nick?

    It was just too screamingly obvious that Reason had stopped drinking the Kool-Aid and had taken up making it.

    You HAD to write something that would keep the few people who still donate to keeping this rag afloat around.

  22. Only took the 5th or 6th article, but it did show up.

    1. “…each of whom argues to varying degrees that if President Donald Trump isn’t technically guilty of obstruction, it’s not for lack of trying.”

      It’s an absurd position to take.

      1. Absolutely. He was driving 34 in a 35-zone, so he’s almost guilty.

        1. Like if he looked at someone like he wanted to kill them, that’s just as good as being provably guilty of criminal homocide, right?

  23. All Mueller said is he could not prove that there was a criminal conspiracy between Donald Trump, Paul Manafort, Kushner, Carter Page, George Papadopoulos, Don Jr and the Russian govt but the only way you can demonstrate that is by investigating the matter. If Trump had obstructed Mueller by firing him there would be no Mueller report for you to rely upon for your belief that there were no criminal conspiracies. It’s an entirely different story to say there was no proof of criminal conspiracy then it is to say there was no well founded suspicious of conspiracy. Apparently Don, Jr got away with his attempt to trade sanctions relief for dirt on Hillary because he’s too fing stupid to understand that accepting help from foreign govt is a criminal offense. Manafort was busted passing Trump campaign data to a Putin oligarch and lied about it when telling the simple truth of it would have reduced his prison sentence. There’s your obstruction that matters. Trump dangling pardons and rewarding a guy like Manafort for lying and refusing to come clean to this very day. We still don’t know what Manafort was attempting to gain or accomplish by sharing the campaign data with the Russian mafia govt. Presumably, it was to pay off an old debt to an oligarch and to focus Russian interference to make it more effective. Manafort was working with the Russians and running Trump’s campaign. Face the facts. The Trump associates destroyed evidence, lied to investigators, sowed disinformation and generally frustrated the attempt to find the truth. There’s alot more to it that I won’t get to in this comment from a phone keyboard.

    1. TLDR: What left-wing people want us to think is the only thing that any of us should think.

      1. You can think whatever you want. Mueller says Don, Jr didn’t commit a crime when he discussed helping Russia in return for Russian help. But you need to know Don, Jr tried to make that deal. You should know Manafort was passing Trump campaign data to the Russian govt. You should suspect that the Russians helped Trump because they believed Trump would help them.

        1. You’re absolutely right here – when Don, Jr told that Russian dude to tell Putin he’d have more flexibility after the election, that was treason right there and Don, Jr should hang for that sort of shit. How the hell Mueller could just whitewash such a brazen act of Russian collusion is beyond me.

          1. Was Obama asking Putin for dirt on Romney? Was Obama asking Putin for permission to build a Obama Tower in Moscow? Come on man. Use your senses. You’re smarter than this.

            1. Was Obama asking Putin for dirt on Romney? Was Obama asking Putin for permission to build a Obama Tower in Moscow?

              No, Obama was telling Putin’s minion that he’d bend over AFTER the election, and Putin could drive.

            2. Was Obama being spied on? If not, how do you KNOW what took place, eh?

        2. No concerns that the Russians involved spoke to Fusion GPS before and after the meeting?

          How is that, you know, not collusion?

          1. Mueller didn’t say Don, Jr was set up. The emails Don, Jr received spelled it out pretty clearly. The Russian govt wanted to help but wanted something in return. Don Jr loved the idea of accepting Russian govt help. You’re implying that Fusion GPS had something to do with that meeting but from what I undressed the meeting was set by a Russian born Russian govt connected middleman that had worked with Trump in the past.

            1. That the Russians met with Fusion GPS before and after the meeting is common knowledge at this point.

              1. There Russians all over the damn place. We haven’t even talked about the NRA lady and how she wound up getting a chance to ask Trump about sanctions. I think big picture Trump was more useful idiot/willing to compromise himself by taking Russian money than he was criminal mastermind.

                1. Imagine the horror if he promised more flexibility in dealing with Russia before his election…

    2. “All Mueller said is he could not prove that there was a criminal conspiracy between Donald Trump, Paul Manafort, Kushner, Carter Page, George Papadopoulos, Don Jr and the Russian govt but the only way you can demonstrate that is by investigating the matter.”

      He did investigate the matter fuckwit, that’s how he REACHED THAT CONCLUSION.

      1. And Mueller said Trump’s campaign manager was essentially giving campaign data to the Russian govt while Trump’s lawyer was working to secure hundreds of millions of dollars from the Russian govt while Trump’s son was secretly meeting with reps of the Russian govt to trade sanctions relief for dirt on Hillary. Mueller was prevented by Manafort’s lying from determining why Manafort was sharing that data. Mueller can’t say why Manafort was sharing that data. Can’t say if Manafort was sharing it to elict the Russian govt’s help or to pay off an old debt to a Russian govt oligarch.

        Mueller was able to clear Don, Jr in part because Jr wasn’t aware enough to realize that it’s a crime to accept things of value from a foreign govt.

        It’s apparently not a crime to solicit generous business deals from a foreign govt while you’re running for president but it seems like a corrupt thing to do.

        1. “Essentially”.

          Nothing you wrote in this post is accurate.

    3. You know. Simple exercise is in order here.

      Imagine if these retarded, twisted standards being invented out of thin air were applied to YOU. If you were innocent and were found to be so, would you appreciate this kind of spin trying to make you guilty of a crime you didn’t commit?

      Get real man.

      1. You mean like OJ Simpson being innocent. You have to realize that criminal standards of prood are one thing but common sense is something else.

        1. “You mean like OJ Simpson being innocent.”

          Is that a VOX talking point? CNN? Where did you find that piece of idiocy? It’s showing up where ever brain-dead lefties gather.
          Hint: Simpson was charged with a crime; Trump was the target of a fishing expedition in search of a crime with which to charge him, you fucking ignoramus.

        2. The Mueller report written by Mueller literally says almost a dozen times that there is no evidence of trump or anybody in his campaign working with Russia. Try again shithead.

    4. Sharing polling data isn’t a crime. Political campaigns do it in the ordinary course of events all of the time. You’re grasping at straws.

  24. I gotta go. My wife said you’ve been in there (the bathroom) an hour and a half what the hell are you doing. Later gators

    1. You even lie about somebody willingly be around you.

      1. And if we assume this to be true, it explains a whole lot, does it not?

  25. Can’t have obstruction if there ain’t no crime. Hence there is nothing that needs ‘defending’. The dog bayed but the tree was empty of criminality.

  26. Nick G: “There is arguably no person on the planet less sympathetic than Donald Trump. He is a reflexive liar, a blowhard, a bully, and the goddamned president of the United States. ”

    I dislike Donald Trump. You describe him accurately as a liar, blowhard, bully, etc.

    That said, there are a great many people less sympathetic than Donald Trump. If you think that Donald Trump is actually one of the worst people on the planet or even in the high ranks of the US government, then you have bad judgment or you don’t know much.

    I can think of a dozen worse people than Trump in Congress, off the top of my head.

    1. Yeah. For example Kim jung what’s his name who is everything these dumb privileged assholes think trump is, is probably less sympathetic.

  27. Given what Gillespie “reveals” (i. e., reiterates) in his article, why would anyone talk to the FBI or the cops? Unless you’re reporting a burglary or what have you (and in case they can tear themselves away from their asset-forfeiture to take your statement).

  28. “There is arguably no person on the planet less sympathetic than Donald Trump.”

    Arguably? So anyone on the planet could be more sympathetic than Trump? Trump could actually be the most sympathetic person on the planet, arguably.

    What Nick wanted to say: There’s not one person on the planet less sympathetic than Donald Trump.

    But that would have revealed far too much personal animus.

  29. Creating criminals appears to have been federal law enforcement’s SOP for a long time now. Get you to lie about some embarrassing detail of a life you have lived without breaking any laws, and that grab you for trying to keep your secrets secret. Secrets, by the way, that are no-one’s business but your own. And then there is that morally repugnant dark ages leftover from the days of the ducking stool – of giving free passes or reduced sentences to those who will make up lies (or at least massively incentivize those in the throes of an already immoral system to lie) about their fellow citizens, ao that they may have reduced a sentence in regard to was often a fabricated crime in the first place. Every citizen should read “Three Felonies a Day” by John W Whitehead for a comprehensive take on how the government makes criminals out of the innocent.

  30. […] In Defense of Trump Obstructing Justice (When There’s No Underlying Crime) – Reason Trump In Defense of Trump Obstructing Justice (When There’s No Underlying Crime)  Reason […]

  31. Finally! Someone who doesn’t have Trump derangement syndrome so bad they can see the bigger picture. Bravo. I don’t like the President on a number of counts. But he shouldn’t be charged with Obstruction of Justice for a crime which can’t be proved simply because i don’t like him. Moreover, it is more likely he is the victim of a crime in the obtainment of FISA warrants under false pretenses. My not liking him doesn’t mean I should agree to such nonsense. And those crimes should be prosecuted. If we don’t do that it will be average folks who get crushed by these tactics. The Feds are out of control and they need to be reined in.

  32. When Trump fired Comey, he specifically asked Comey if he (Trump) was under investigation–because that could have been obstruction. But Comey said Trump was NOT under investigation. Therefore the firing could not be obstruction.

  33. This is an excellent piece – The best I have read about Mueller and Trump. It is also scary and a reminder that we, in these USA we are indeed in a banana republic where the powerful can do anything to anyone they want at any time. The FBI stands for the F&^&$@g B#@%T*^d Insolents. Much as I hate to see it, I would like to see the bastards at the FBI and the Intelligence Apparatus indicted, convicted and thrown into jail for what appears to be an abuse of power – by an unelected set of people who imagine they cannot be touched – I knew this happens routinely in banana republics. I am terrified that we have such a HUGE number of people with such absolute power that they can destroy lives if they decide to and seem to be doing it every day.

    1. “I am terrified that we have such a HUGE number of people with such absolute power that they can destroy lives if they decide to and seem to be doing it every day.”

      I’m further terrified by the number of citizens who seem comfortable with what amounts to an attempted coup’.
      Comey and the lot should be under investigation for conspiracy to overthrow the US government NOW!

  34. Looks like Gillespie read through the commentors’ criticisms of the other Reason writers’ previous TDS-driven posts on the Mueller report and then wrote his own post to create “balance”. Yet his own TDS caused him to still include comments about Trump being a bully, etc. versus sticking to the point. Seems like a lame attempt to try to appease the few people who still read the “latest” on Reason.com.

  35. Trump can’t commit obstruction because he’s too weak and incompetent. That’s reassuring.

    1. “Trump can’t commit obstruction because he’s too weak and incompetent. That’s reassuring.”

      No, he can’t because the actions which dimbulb lefties claim as “obstruction” are within his constitutional duties.
      Dimbulb lefties are easily confused; they are dimbulbs.

  36. We know that unlikable people are often not bad people, and that even bad people can do good things. It really shouldn’t matter that we dislike someone if he’s doing a decent job, which he is, certainly better than most of the alternatives. But being human means often being influenced by emotions rather than reason. That applies to the Ds, too.

    And then, the Mueller report can be summarized as
    1. there was no collusion with Russia, although there were temptations.
    2. There was no actual obstruction of justice, although there were inclinations
    3. There probably can be no obstruction of justice when there was no crime.

    Perhaps Trump was understandably inclined to obstruct injustice.

    So that’s why he left that silver bullet?
    He sure could use a faithful Indian companion — perhaps Elizabeth Warren? No… wrong on all three…

  37. Exacerbating this problem, FBI agents willfully fail to record interviews. Instead, they use their own notes, enshrined in 302 forms. This allows the agents to shade the truth, slanting things the way they want based on the way they write their notes. This practice should be ended and the FBI should be required to make audio and video recordings of interviews unless they can show by clear and convincing evidence that circumstances made recording impractical. (And concerning an adjacent issue, peace officers in general should be required to use body cameras and dashboard cameras to record interactions with citizens. “I forgot to turn it on”, and “the battery was dead” should raise rebuttable presumptions of peace officer misconduct.)

    1. Right on, brother!

    2. You should have written this article, that’s a great and actually libertarian point of view.

  38. The whole Russian Collusion®™ fairy tale is the present-day Democratic Party’s Expy of the Stab in the Back®™ fairy tale told by the 1919 German ultrarightwing.

  39. The Clintons played Machiavellian politics since their Arkansas days, and when HRC ran for POTUS she finally ran into person who wouldn’t take her and the Dems. shit. They got out scum bagged, and JUST. COULDN’T. TAKE IT. and here we are today.

  40. Still a fucking moron, though.

    1. “Still a fucking moron, though.”
      Still the best POTUS we’ve had in my lifetime, not the least because he causes brain-dead lefties to act like it’s the end of the world.

  41. The American Justice system works by having a law enforcement agency investigate the facts of an alleged crime and then a prosecutor either brings charges or drops the case.

    Obstructing the investigation is a crime. As it should be.

  42. Seems to me the most salient part of this article is the author’s opinion, “I don’t care that much that Trump was trying to obstruct justice in this instance.”

    He doesn’t care. All the rest is merely justification after the fact.

    1. Inis Magrath
      April.21.2019 at 10:11 am
      “Seems to me the most salient part of this article is the author’s opinion, “I don’t care that much that Trump was trying to obstruct justice in this instance.”
      He doesn’t care. All the rest is merely justification after the fact.”

      Did you purposely ignore *why* he didn’t care or were you just nor bright enough to follow the reasoning?
      There are many reasons to ‘not care’ about something, including the reasons *to* care about it are lefty fantasies.
      So, wanna try again?

  43. In Defense of Trump Obstructing Justice (When There’s No Underlying Crime)

    Of course, answering the question of whether there is an underlying crime is the very thing obstruction is practiced to thwart. So when the facts (as in this case) point clearly to obstructions (in profusion), presuming there is no underlying crime isn’t forthright, it’s tendentious. And it begs the question.

  44. Bill Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice. There was no underlying crime

  45. […] crime, so Quattrone could not have covered up wrongdoing, since it had not happened. Likewise, as Nick Gillespie of Reason points out , Trump did not engage in a conspiracy with Russian agents to illegally influence the 2016 […]

  46. Come on folks.
    You want to “own the libs” by enabling massive corruption?
    Sorry to say, but your are wasting your energy when we have bigger problems than “the libs”.

    “(When There’s No Underlying Crime)”?

    Aren’t we a long way from establishing that there is no underlying crime?
    And didn’t the report specifically detail that the evidence in support of the charge of conspiracy was lacking in part because of the obstruction?

    Plus, the obstruction reaches far beyond the case of this one little man in the White house, it is Justice and the Rule of Law writ large being obstructed, dismantled, attacked, kneecapped, entire institutions our nation relies being destroyed because they are fundamentally incompatible with the corruption that defines this president and transmogrifies his office.

    “The FBI gathers information about a person, finds facts that the person might want to conceal…thereby being able to arrest you or squeeze you however they want.”

    If you want to worry about Trump being subject to being manipulated or squeezed by something embarrassing, then worry about who it is that holds, still intact, the missing, deleted, not recalled, lied about communications and other evidence relevant to the conspiracy charge Mueller was unable to make- the Trump contacts in Russia.

    So sure, tweak our system as needed to protect the little guy, but don’t you think the threat of the corrupt abuse of federal power is far greater on the side of Trump as the abuser than on Trump as the abused?

  47. […] “In Defense of Trump Obstructing Justice (When There’s No Underlying Crime),” by Nick Gillespie […]

  48. Gillespie: I haven’t read the Mueller report and I don’t plan to any time soon.

    !?

  49. […] crime, so Quattrone could not have covered up wrongdoing, since it had not happened. Likewise, as Nick Gillespie of Reason points out , Trump did not engage in a conspiracy with Russian agents to illegally influence the 2016 […]

  50. […] crime, so Quattrone could not have covered up wrongdoing, since it had not happened. Likewise, as Nick Gillespie of Reason points out, Trump did not engage in a conspiracy with Russian agents to illegally influence the 2016 […]

  51. […] que Quattrone no pudo haber encubierto las faltas, ya que no había ocurrido. Del mismo modo, como señala Nick Gillespie de Reason, Trump no se involucró en una conspiración con agentes rusos para influir ilegalmente en […]

  52. […] obstruction is a dubious charge when, unlike in the case of the Watergate burglary, there is no underlying crime. “Well, that’s not the law,” he said. […]

  53. […] obstruction is a dubious charge when, unlike in the case of the Watergate burglary, there is no underlying crime. “Well, that’s not the law,” he said. […]

  54. […] I don’t believe Trump should face impeachment (or indictments once he leaves office) over the findings in the Mueller report, he is baldly […]

  55. […] I don’t believe Trump should face impeachment (or indictments once he leaves office) over the findings in the Mueller report, he is baldly […]

Comments are closed.