Is There an Obstruction Case against President Trump? By Andrew C. McCarthy

[mystery-ak]

   Is There an Obstruction Case against President Trump?
By Andrew C. McCarthy

February 17, 2018 4:00 AM

The justice department’s office of legal counsel should answer the question.

It has become more urgent to ask: Why is there a special counsel in the Russia investigation? At this point, that question should be put to the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel — in the federal government, it’s the lawyers’ lawyer. To get down to brass tacks: May the president of the United States be charged with obstruction based on non-criminal discretionary acts that are unquestionably within his constitutional authority as chief executive?

Readers of these columns may recall that I opposed the appointment of a special counsel and have argued that the appointment was illegitimate. This has nothing to do with Robert Mueller, who has had a distinguished law-enforcement career for which he is justly admired. It has to do with first principles and clear regulations. As a matter of principle, the law-enforcement arm of government must operate on a presumption of innocence. Therefore, in this country, a prosecutor should be assigned only if there is strong evidence that a crime has been committed; in the absence of such evidence, a prosecutor should never be assigned to investigate whether an American may have committed some unknown crime.

more
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/donald-trump-russia-investigation-obstruction-justice-department-justice-office-legal-counsel/

[Bigun]

No!  There isn't!

[Concerned]

I look forward to the conclusion of the special counsel after he interviews the President under oath (which, of course, the President said he would do "100%").

[Bigun]

I look forward to the conclusion of the special counsel after he interviews the President under oath (which, of course, the President said he would do "100%").

Don't hurt yourself waiting for that.

[Concerned]

Don't hurt yourself waiting for that.

Given that the President said at a news conference in June that he'd talk to Mueller "100%" and that he told the American people during the campaign:  "I will never lie to you",  I don't see how both can be true (unless under this President 100% no longer equals 100% somehow).  Even if he lied about the "100%", that won't hurt me but I think it will further hurt this President's credibility.  JMO.

[truth_seeker]

I look forward to the conclusion of the special counsel after he interviews the President under oath (which, of course, the President said he would do "100%").

What is the probably cause of the President having any involvement with a crime, if any?
Fishing expedition. Effort to entrap the President.

If Mueller has an ounce of integrity, he would now state there IS NO JUSTIFICATION to interview Trump.

[Concerned]

What is the probably cause of the President having any involvement with a crime, if any?
Fishing expedition. Effort to entrap the President.

If Mueller has an ounce of integrity, he would now state there IS NO JUSTIFICATION to interview Trump.

I don't know what probable cause evidence Mueller and his team has.  If those who have already drawn conclusions that Trump doesn't need to testify know what that evidence is, hopefully they'll post it so the rest of us can see it.  Trump's set the expectation that he would testify when he:

.....said he'd be "100 percent" willing tell his version of events under oath. He said he'd be "glad to" speak to Mueller about it.
 

If that was untrue, perhaps he shouldn't have said it in the first place.

https://www.newsmax.com/headline/trump-mueller-russia-probe/2018/01/10/id/836398/