Isn’t it fascinating how many people on the Left and in the media are suddenly experts on what obstruction of justice looks like? And by fascinating we mean annoying as all get out. Like this nugget of ‘wisdom’ from Jonathan Chait on how obstruction of justice supposedly works.
Yeah, we made the same face.
If you refuse to cooperate with the investigation, you can't claim you were cleared. That's how obstruction of justice works. https://t.co/jYy4wWRWmI
— Jonathan Chait (@jonathanchait) March 24, 2019
From NY Mag:
Barr’s logic is upside down. He is saying the finding of no criminal collusion undermines the findings that Trump obstructed justice. In fact, the obstruction undermines the findings of no criminal collusion.
And ya’ know, Chait knows better than the guy who’s an attorney and stuff.
Mueller has apparently found no criminal collusion between Trump and Russia, a finding that is hardly shocking. As Trump’s defenders have pointed out, collusion is not a crime. There are crimes that fall under the category of collusion — many former prosecutors have theorized that Mueller could indict Trump or his campaign under a conspiracy charge. Mueller did not find evidence strong enough to prove in a court of law, and possibly not at all.
It is bizarre, however, to spend two years insisting collusion is not a crime and then turn around and call the absence of crimes proof that there was no collusion.
Or you know, it’s even more bizarre to accuse someone of collusion for years and then continue complaining when they are cleared of said collusion.
Recommended
Admit it, you’ve done a lot of head-shaking today, right?
This is Soviet logic https://t.co/tW7kAWqt9U
— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) March 25, 2019
So clearly Chait has been colluding with Russians.
Or something.
And if he denies it that’s obstruction of justice?
#LiberalLogic
Chait responded:
You're completely missing the distinction between the standard of proof in a court of law and the court of public opinion.
— Jonathan Chait (@jonathanchait) March 25, 2019
Yeah … no.
Then by that logic everyone who has ever been investigated and lawyered up can never be exonerated of obstruction in the public mind.
— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) March 25, 2019
But TRUMP.
You can lawyer up, but if you stonewall a probe, refuse to sit for an interview, and dangle pardons to get your subordinates to withhold testimony, you can beat the charge but you lose your right to say your name was cleared.
— Jonathan Chait (@jonathanchait) March 25, 2019
That seems incorrect to me. The burden of proof for any crime, including obstruction, is on the prosecution. The first rule of lawyering is tell your client to shut up.
— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) March 25, 2019
That seems incorrect because it IS incorrect.
Or how could @realDonaldTrump still have obstructed justice for a crime that didn't happen?
— President Tweet (@Sailboat31) March 25, 2019
BINGO.
This is why “innocent until proven guilty” must be actually taught and not just be a slogan.
— Arkadiy (@arkgrinsh) March 25, 2019
But ORANGE MAN BAD.
Jonathan Chait… pic.twitter.com/yhSTlmwmdk
— MamaCatLewis (@mamacatlewis) March 25, 2019
Related:
Join the conversation as a VIP Member