Not a lawyer here. But what do you make of a government that provokes somebody, and then, on the basis of the response, claims a crime has been committed? I say it is entrapment.
How was Trump provoked? Wouldn't anybody be resentful of being falsely accused of something? I find that to be a reasonable response to what the President faced.
The fact that an obstruction case was opened before Mueller was appointed shows that the Russian collusion allegation was false. Moreover, this will likely be proven to be the case. Not only was the allegation false, but those making KNEW it was false when they made it.
This thread to this tweet logically analyzes the evidence from the period between Comey's firing and Mueller's hiring, and deduces that the obstruction case was opened basically because of Comey's firing. So, all Comey had to do was to provoke Trump into firing him, and then claim he was obstructing justice by doing so. But should the mere firing of the FBI director be a cause for an obstruction of justice charge?
Trump's accusers are basing their entire position today on obstruction. But it was entrapment even if Trump did do something (if it was a legitimate case) that might be interpreted as obstruction. In any case, there should not have been an investigation like this at all. It was politically motivated.
NEW: Transcript of previously secret proffer from Mueller's top appellate lawyer and counselor Michael Dreeben confirms Andy McCabe opened an obstruction of justice investigation into the president *before* the appointment of Robert Mueller as Special Counsel— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) May 24, 2019
THREAD
No comments:
Post a Comment