THIS ARTICLE STOLEN FROM WELOVETRUMP.COM. Your IP address has been recorded and a DMCA claim has been filed based on your actions. You should immediately cease and desist copying articles from WeLoveTrump.com
Suppose your favorite doughnut shop accused you of stealing all of their doughnuts. You know you didn’t steal any, so occasionally you protest the charges, trying not to surround yourself with people who are obsessed with the potential crime you committed.
Now imagine that the investigation lasts over a year. In all that time, no evidence is found that you actually took anything you didn’t pay for.
But the police instead charge you with a different crime. Since you denied doing it and spoke out against being investigated, you are guilty of “obstruction of justice.”
But there’s no crime??
“Obstruction of Justice” is the Democrats’ new catch-phrase in the witch hunt to take down President Trump.
Except even Peter Strzok, the biggest Trump-hater in the FBI, admitted in a text message that no evidence has been found of collusion with Russia.
But look at how Renardo Mariotti of Politico (NBC) conveniently ignores that:
Some conservative legal commentators have argued that Trump’s constitutional authority to fire personnel and end investigations is so vast that he cannot obstruct justice as a legal matter. Most legal scholars find that argument unpersuasive, but it is an academic point—not one that is decisive—because Mueller has pressed forward in investigating the firing of Comey as obstruction of justice and the power of Congress to impeach Trump goes beyond the text of any statute.
Even if Mueller concludes that he could prove beyond a reasonable doubt in court that Trump was guilty of obstructing justice, I believe he will ultimately present the matter to Congress for potential impeachment instead. After all, according to the New York Times, former independent counsel Kenneth Starr possessed a legal memo concluding that he had the power to indict former President Bill Clinton but did not do so, ultimately choosing to present the matter to Congress.
I think Mueller would likely do the same thing, because it’s the more prudential approach given that it’s an open legal question whether a sitting president can be indicted.
Mariotti goes on to ask whether a Republican congress will vote for Trump’s ouster.
That’s an important clue that even liberal elites think the Mueller investigation will wrap up soon, because midterms haven’t happened yet – and no partisan hack working for NBC would EVER admit that the Democrats have a chance of losing in November.