Current Events > Trump now claiming that fighting back against an investigation isn't obstruction

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/the-latest-probe-may-be-moving-closer-to-a-trump-interview/ 2018/01/23/c2810884-00c2-11e8-86b9-8908743c79dd_story.html

You fight back, oh, its obstruction, Trump says mockingly of his critics.

obstruction
bstrkSH()n,bstrkSH()n/Submit
noun
the action of obstructing or the state of being obstructed.
"they faced obstruction in carrying out their research"
a thing that impedes or prevents passage or progress; an obstacle or blockage.
plural noun: obstructions

i am giddy as a school boy that lil Trumpy is so confident in his abilities to talk to Mueller, though
---

4D chess, #maga, stay salty lib, fake news, etc

imagine not worshipping trump smh
---

So he's again confessing to Obstruction.
---

BLAKUboy posted...

So he's again confessing to Obstruction.

it's like he has absolutely no idea what he's doing
---

why's he fighting back if he has nothing to hide

Giant_Aspirin posted...

obstruction
bstrkSH()n,bstrkSH()n/Submit
noun
the action of obstructing or the state of being obstructed.
"they faced obstruction in carrying out their research"
a thing that impedes or prevents passage or progress; an obstacle or blockage.
plural noun: obstructions

well to be fair, the basic dictionary definition of the word is not the intended use of the word here, the word 'obstruction' is rhetorical shorthand for 'obstruction of justice' which is a specific legal phrase that has a stricter definition in that context.

Trump does that a lot -- he'll use a word or related phrase to refer to a larger/more abstract issue.
---

sellerdore posted...

well to be fair, the basic dictionary definition of the word is not the intended use of the word here, the word 'obstruction' is rhetorical shorthand for 'obstruction of justice' which is a specific legal phrase that has a stricter definition in that context.

Trump does that a lot -- he'll use a word or related phrase to refer to a larger/more abstract issue.

Your semantics don't even change the discussion. Obstruction still means obstruction in the phrase "obstruction of justice".
---

The man is showing early signs of dementia, be nice.
---

it's odd he even makes this claim. obstruction is pretty hard to prove
---

BLAKUboy posted...

Your semantics don't even change the discussion. Obstruction still means obstruction in the phrase "obstruction of justice".

I mean yes, I do agree that the basic word still means the same thing. But when Trump says "It's not obstruction" what he means is "This can't be used to charge me for obstruction of justice", and with that idea, he's invoking a stronger legal definition.

He might still be wrong and may still be guilty of obstruction of justice (I have no idea tbh), but his use of obstruction is not as obtuse as OP makes it sound. Anyway I decided to just look it up so here it is
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/obstruction_of_justice
---

sellerdore posted...

I mean yes, I do agree that the basic word still means the same thing. But when Trump says "It's not obstruction" what he means is "This can't be used to charge me for obstruction of justice", and with that idea, he's invoking a stronger legal definition.

You have to take it in the context of the other things he's said of the investigation. He has consistently maintained that there is "no collusion" and there is "no obstruction".

Hell just in that article there's this quote:

Theres been no collusion whatsoever, Trump says. Theres no obstruction whatsoever. And Im looking forward to it.

So he is, indeed, admitting to have fought against the investigation while simultaneously claiming there is no obstruction. In other words, he is admitting to obstruction but that there was no obstruction.
---

BLAKUboy posted...

You have to take it in the context of the other things he's said of the investigation.

Such as?

BLAKUboy posted...

He has consistently maintained that there is "no collusion" and there is "no obstruction".

Coincidentally, both 'collusion' and 'obstruction' are words that carry strong (and restrictive) legal definitions -- definitions which happen to be the fundamental basis for the investigation. In fact the entire purpose of Mueller's work is to determine whether or not Trump's actions amount to chargeable offenses under U.S. law.

Given that context, I would bet good money that when Trump has used these words in reference to the Mueller investigation, he was intending to use their legal definitions rather than the colloquial ones.

BLAKUboy posted...

So he is, indeed, admitting to have fought against the investigation while simultaneously claiming there is no obstruction. In other words, he is admitting to obstruction but that there was no obstruction.

Hm. I'm unclear on where exactly he admits to obstruction?
---

He can go fuck himself in his fat fucking ass.
---

You fail to divest yourself of your businesses, oh, it's a violation of the emoluments clause
---

UnholyMudcrab posted...

You fail to divest yourself of your businesses, oh, it's a violation of the emoluments clause

English, please
---