More Fun with Tweets

NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION. Besides, how can you have Obstruction when not only was there No Collusion (by Trump), but the bad actions were done by the “other” side? The greatest con-job in the history of American Politics!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 1, 2019

Well....

Definition. 18 U.S.C. § 1503 defines "obstruction of justice" as an act that "corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or ENDEAVORS to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice."

— Brian Krassenstein (@krassenstein) May 1, 2019

This is what your own AG was getting at this morning:

“Okay. So very quickly, give us your reasoning why you think it would be inappropriate to proceed forward on obstruction of justice in this case,” Graham asked.

“Generally speaking,” Barr replied, “an obstruction case typically has two aspects to it. One, there’s usually an underlying criminality aspect to it.”

“Let’s stop right there,” Graham interrupted. “Was there an underlying crime there?”

Barr agreed that there was no underlying crime in this case.

“Usually there is,” Graham said confidently.

“Usually,” Barr interjected. “But it’s not necessary. Sort of the paradigmatic case is there’s an underlying crime and the person or people indicated concerned about that criminality being discovered take an inherently malignant act, such as destroying documents.”

You really are a lawyer's nightmare client.