Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
If you intend to do something you think is legal and it turns out it is actually illegal, do you have requisite mens rea? People like to say ignorance is no excuse, but thinking you've the legal right to do something is a defense to intent based crimes.
I think a similar defense was used by Cheney regarding torture. Didn't his office use the "John Woo gave us an opinion saying it was legal" defense?
If you use the broadest possible definition of obstruction, almost everything one does to avoid being charged or convicted can be deemed obstructive. You could make the argument that Trump, his lackeys, and even his lawyers, by playing the media, badmouthing the investigation and stonewalling on Mueller's demands for an interview were engaged in obstruction. Where'e the line? Is a target obligated to sit back and take it and not try to avoid being charged or convicted if he can do so? Because here, it appears to me that in stonewalling Mueller, Trump and his lawyers did the smart thing (and the only thing they could do with a chain-lying client). And it worked. To not have engaged in that obstructive behavior would seem to be malpractice on the part of Trump's lawyers.
|
He's fucking President. His adult children are fucking advisors the President. As a candidate, he had an army of top lawyers and experienced advisors available to him. As President, he has the entire DOJ ready to serve.
And folks want to let him off because he didn't understand the law he swore to uphold?
WTF?
Threaded Mode