Is Joe Biden guilty of obstruction of justice?

[jim bell]

    On Wednesday, October 9, 2019, 01:52:57 PM PDT, Peter Fairbrother <peter at tsto.co.uk> wrote:  
 
 On 09/10/2019 21:02, jim bell wrote:
>> I try to avoid posting "political" issues, or at least initiating them, 
>> but Joe Biden just called for Trump to be impeached because Trump called 
>> on Ukraine and China to investigate him, Joe Biden. >
>> I wonder why this doesn't qualify as "attempted obstruction of 
>> justice".  

>Not even if Biden is guilty of something (for which we have 
>approximately zero evidence) and was trying to hide it.

>Trump was not performing the lawful investigative act of a Government 
official - whether or not his motive was purely the administration of 
justice, his act is clearly and specifically illegal under US election 
law - therefore obstructing that unlawful act cannot be obstruction of justice.
Could you cite which specific part of US election law" that Trump's action was "clearly and specifically illegal"?
And I notice you said "US election law".   We're not having an election now, at least not for about 13 months.  How does this magic "US election law" guide what somebody says 13 months prior to an election?
(Note:  I'm not suggesting that "US election law" cannot possibly apply, due to this 13-month distance in time.   But Biden is not yet even a nominee, and hardly even an official candidate, for office.  Are you saying that if Trump had asked a foreign country to investigate merely an ordinary citizen for a possible crime, that WOULDN'T be a problem under "US election laws", merely because that ordinary citizen isn't a candidate in an election?   That simply doesn't make sense.
Remember, when Hillary Clinton had her law firm Perkin Coie hire FusionGPS to hire Christopher Steele to talk to many Russians, Donald Trump was DEFINITELY a candidate.  And soon enough, the FBI became involved.  So wasn't THAT an act which was "clearly and specifically illegal under US election law".   I know, consistency's a bitch, huh?
C'mon, let's use some logic here.  

>In a few other jurisdictions it might be considered to be perverting the 
course of justice - but it is not obstruction of justice as defined 
under US law, which is obstructing the lawful judicial actions of 
prosecutors, investigators or other Government officials.

Is it legal for Trump to ask a foreign nation to do a criminal investigation?   I'm not aware that it is specifically illegal.  It isn't a crime, I think,   It's not REQUIRED, of course, but that doesn't mean that what Biden said was not (attempted) obstruction of justice.



>If you have been following the Brexit implosion, there is a law here 
which says that (under some circumstances) Boris must ask the EU for an 
extension, which Boris has said he will not do, and also that he will. 
He definitely doesn't want to.

>It has been suggested that he might ask a EU country to refuse the 
extension as a way of getting round the law. However if he did, and it 
meant Brexit happened, anyone who was in any way disadvantaged by Brexit 
could then sue Boris, as his action as Prime Minister would not have 
been lawful.

I'm not sure how that's relevant in this case....

>What was it Nixon said? "Well, when the President does it, that means 
that it is not illegal."
Just because Nixon said something, that neither definitely makes it right, nor makes it wrong.  

>Nope, thankfully it doesn't work like that.

Neither does it, the other way around.  

                     Jim Bell  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 6490 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20191009/4a5908a5/attachment.txt>