,
5 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
Apparently Joyce Vance can't read, or didn't bother too. As AG Barr said, the argument was "fatally flawed" Mueller's team tried to make a unique argument of applying the elements of one crime to a separate crime where they don't apply. All but one federal obstruction law require
an active proceeding for the President to obstruct. There was no proceeding so he could not possibly obstruct it. Like writing a ticket for running a stop sign when there was no stop sign. The one statute that covers obstruction for future proceedings, requires that the defendant
destroy evidence that could be used by a future proceeding. None of the 10 alleged instances involved the destruction of evidence, let alone did any of those instances involve the intent to keep it from a future proceeding.
It's like attempting to charge someone for running 10 stop signs in the future, based upon the fact that the Angry Dem cop thinks the subject was driving down the road in a hurry. Without the subject ever getting to the stop signs let alone running them.
It is amazing the bad law people will misinterpret for money on cable news shows.
