The Myth of Obstructing Justice Against Trump

The question whether former U.S. President Donald Trump should be charged with obstruction of justice is often asked with limited understanding of the legal framework and implications. In this article, we will dissect the key points and arguments surrounding this issue, examining both the recent past and potential future actions.

The Legality of Impeachment and Removal from Office

Former President Trump is no longer legally in office due to the operation of the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The process of impeachment is well-defined and intentionally complex to ensure proper legal and constitutional interpretations. Once a former president leaves office through election or any other means, the specific legal options for further action against them become more complicated and less straightforward.

The Parallels Between Present and Past

The drive to charge Trump with obstruction of justice often seems parallel to the impeachment proceedings. However, labeling these actions as "made up crimes" like collusion with Russia can be misleading. The idea that the U.S. is becoming more like the Soviet Union is not supported by concrete evidence. Nevertheless, the Kosovo campaign of former Communist leaders could be a point of comparison in terms of political maneuvers and accusations.

Strategic Implications for Future Actions

Charging Trump for obstruction of justice after he leaves office is a strategic move that could provide monetary rewards for him. However, this action seems more likely driven by political interests rather than genuine legal concerns. The context of his new political TV talk show likely plays a significant role in this strategy, aligning with broader efforts to exploit the public platform for personal gain.

Critical Analysis of Obstruction Claims

There is a broad debate about whether Trump obstructed justice. His frustration with cabinet members who seemed to support the Democrats can be seen as a common political sentiment. However, the claim that Democrats obstruct justice during the impeachment proceedings lacks substance. Transparency and leadership are key components in handling such significant matters. Leaking information strategically and denying access to evidence to the opposition can be seen as obstruction of justice.

Legal Necessities and Trump's Actions

According to the report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, there was no collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia. Taxes, money, and other political donations all fall under the domain of financial disclosures, which are public record. While Trump may have made comments and asked people for certain actions, these activities do not rise to the level of obstruction of justice. Comey's actions, as described, were unprofessional and civilly actionable, but not criminal.

Recent Trends and Conclusions

The situation with Trump extends beyond the traditional legal framework. The Emergence of a narrative that he is the victim of political persecution is subtle but powerful. His transparent communication and opposition to the lack of transparency from Democrats during the impeachment proceedings shows a different view of justice and fairness. The question of whether he can be charged with obstruction of justice can be answered based on the lack of evidence that meets the legal threshold for such actions.

Key Arguments Against Charges

The key points in favor of not charging Trump include:

Hoarding Information: While Trump's opinion that the Democrats are obstructing justice has some traction, it is not supported by clear evidence. On the other hand, the Democrats' transparency about classified information is crucial. Ensuring that evidence is handled properly and transparently is a fundamental requirement. Supporting Leadership: Trump’s encouragement for his staff to be truthful and honest while navigating complex legal issues shows a level of leadership that deserves recognition. Documentation and Evidence: Trump’s 500 subpoenas and thousands of reports demonstrate a level of cooperation with the probing process. These actions, if taken in conjunction with the absence of obstruction, further undermine the claim of obstruction of justice.

In conclusion, the argument against charging Trump with obstruction of justice rests on a careful examination of the evidence and the legal framework. While some elements of his actions may appear unsavory or controversial, they do not meet the stringent requirements for obstruction of justice under the law.

Final Thoughts

Whether or not Trump should be charged with obstruction of justice is a complex issue that involves legal, political, and social considerations. Properly understanding and applying the legal standards is crucial to making an informed judgment.