delta1 wrote:the reason this is important is because it adds weight to a potential obstruction of justice charge...something about bad or corrupt intent when taking lawful action to interfere with an official investigation ...
It is possible that Trump and his campaign did not conspire with the Russians during the presidential elections of 2016...or, there may not be substantial evidence if they did...
What Trump has done, in response to the "Russian thing" is bury himself with obstructive behavior. If, as he says. this is "fake news", then firing Comey, lying about "no contacts with Russians", telling the Russians that he relieved pressure about the Russian thing by firing Comey, talking positively about Putin and Russia, making up a nothing burger story about Jared and Jr and Paul meeting Russians in Trump Tower, ad nauseum... accomplished making himself look guilty of something...
If he had followed the usual playbook of an innocent person falsely accused...he would have said, "a full investigation will show I've done nothing wrong" then shut up until the investigation finished.
Instead, he's using Nixon's Watergate playbook ...
Watergate???? Even at its worst possible condition...Trump ordering that Mueller be fired....which I deem unlikely (though I have no doubt there could have been a conversation about the possibility, risk, fallout, etc.)....even worst interpretation doesn't seem to me to be any where near approaching a Watergate comparison.
And the 'usual playbook of an innocent person...' has no bearing on reacting to a probe like this, and you know it. A government prosecuting attorney has to focus on specific charges.....a probe like this has zero boundaries...and would make a Saint nervous
