Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I'm not sure Adder agrees. He suggested that but for obstruction, we might have learned information that rendered Trump illegitimate. He can correct this if he likes.
Here was the exchange:
Me: It's not a crime to bullshit voters.
Adder: It is a crime to obstruct justice. Having actively obstructed the investigation, none of us know what might have been revealed without the obstruction.
Am I reading too cynically in thinking he's suggesting there was some act taken by Trump beyond welcoming the Russians' bullshitting voters (which is all the Russian disinformation campaign really did)? Maybe. Or maybe not. And what would that "other act" be? In the context of a discussion about how Trump and the Russians worked to win the election, there seem to be only two ways this could have been done: (1) Disinformation; and, (2) Actual vote changing. The latter didn't happen, but Adder seemed to be suggesting (he walked it back later) that obstruction may have rendered us unable to learn of the latter... which is loony.
|
I think the point he is making is that if the witnesses weren't instructed to lie and stonewall, and they actually cooperated, evidence of criminal conspiracy (the equivalent of what we all think of as "criminal collusion") would have led to actual criminal conspiracy charges (or provided a clear path to impeach based on that evidence).
TM
Threaded Mode