StrangerR wrote: ↑18 Oct 2019 22:39
HappyCat wrote: ↑18 Oct 2019 22:36
КОмпромат ето встречи Трампа с теми кто предлагал дирт на Хиллаты. Компромат потому что вызывает подозрение в том что те атаки были скоординированы но не доказано. Потому не crime
A Crime - obstruction of justice
Да нет там никакой обструкшен, тоже не доказано. То что наезды на Трампа были, и он естественно не прибежал к расследователю с предложением _я во всем сознаюсь_ это и есть там обструкция, хотя по сути никакой обструкции и не было. Как раз Миллер по сути полностью оправдал Трампа. Доказав, что само расследование было высосано из пальцев демократами.
Ну вы почитайте. Ну как вы прям на белое говорите черное. Там он как раз спорит даже с тем что даже если не доказано что он вовлекал россию в выборную компанию, то все равно видны и другие мотовы И обструцтион оф юстице само по себе преступление. Там вся вторая чать ему посвещена.
В доополнение к "потраченным деньгам" расследование изначально выло о российском влиянии на выборы, а не о Трампе. Ето было первым вопросом, И Муллер показал что оно было.
Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting
undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and
obstruction investigations. The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in
which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions
ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney
General’s recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to
direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony. Viewing
the acts collectively can help to illuminate their significance. For example, the President’s
direction to McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed was followed almost immediately by
his direction to Lewandowski to tell the Attorney General to limit the scope of the Russia
investigation to prospective election-interference only—a temporal connection that suggests that
both acts were taken with a related purpose with respect to the investigation.
The President’s counsel has argued that “the President’s exercise of his constitutional
authority . . . to terminate an FBI Director and to close investigations . . . cannot constitutionally
constitute obstruction of justice.”1086 As noted above, no Department of Justice position or
Supreme Court precedent directly resolved this issue. We did not find counsel’s contention,
however, to accord with our reading of the Supreme Court authority addressing separation-ofpowers
issues. Applying the Court’s framework for analysis, we concluded that Congress can
validly regulate the President’s exercise of official duties to prohibit actions motivated by a corrupt
intent to obstruct justice. The limited effect on presidential power that results from that restriction
would not impermissibly undermine the President’s ability to perform his Article II functions.
Where a law imposes a burden on the President’s performance of Article II functions,
separation-of-powers analysis considers whether the statutory measure “is justified by an
overriding need to promote objectives within the constitutional authority of Congress.”
Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. at 443. Here, Congress enacted the obstruction-ofjustice
statutes to protect, among other things, the integrity of its own proceedings, grand jury
investigations, and federal criminal trials. Those objectives are within Congress’s authority and
serve strong governmental interests.
Pishu levoj nogoj s oshibkami. sorry