Ordering Mueller To Be Fired Means INTENT

[Saviolo]

1. Thing about Obstruction of Justice is that it's not a specific intent crime

Seth Abramson did a thread about this back in June when the obstruction charges were starting to float around. I corralled some of the tweets into this discussion:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029175368

Some of the relevant tweets:

Obstruction of Justice IS a legal term and federal criminal statute. It has a strict legal definition. It is NOT open to interpretation.

Obstruction of Justice is NOT a political term. Politicians may NOT define it in whatever way pleases them or may advantage their party.

The federal Obstruction of Justice statute does NOT take into account—or care about whatsoever—how a defendant's actions made you FEEL.

The Obstruction of Justice statute ALSO does NOT take into account—or care about at all—whether an investigation was in FACT obstructed.

Questions tomorrow about how Trump's actions made Jim Comey FEEL—or about whether those actions IMPEDED an investigation—are IRRELEVANT.

Therefore any Obstruction of Justice case against President Trump IS about—almost exclusively—the nature of the words he said to Comey.

If the words Comey CONTEMPORANEOUSLY RECORDED as having been said by Trump were indeed said, Trump IS guilty of Obstruction of Justice.

Another lie you'll hear tomorrow is Obstruction of Justice is hard to prove. It isn't—at all. Because it's NOT a specific intent crime.