It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Experts who disagree believe that Mueller would likely need much more damning evidence to justify making an obstruction case — either through an indictment, or an impeachment referral — against Trump. They tend to make some combination of these three arguments:
1) The uniqueness of the president’s role creates a whole host of legal, constitutional, and political obstacles here.
2) Trump’s allegedly obstructive conduct doesn’t quite match the two presidential precedents we have here. The obstruction of justice impeachment articles Presidents Nixon and Clinton faced accused them of destroying or withholding evidence, and telling witnesses to lie under oath.
3) Finally, Trump’s possible motive is more difficult to prove than many are acknowledging, with the evidence we have so far. That’s because he can still make the case that, rather than acting to cover up crimes, he acted because he genuinely believed that the Russia investigation is “fake news” and that he did nothing wrong.
Former prosecutor/Loyola law professor says Mueller "obstruction" finding unlikely