The articles you posted didn’t have citations to any statutes. It was people opining that we could charge trump and then not saying what statute we could charge him under or providing an actual analysis of what the evidence is.
I’d much rather DOJ take its time and charge appropriately. Trump getting acquitted because DOJ didn’t bring the correct charges is not a good thing for the country.
It would be a mile long but the crimes are in plain terms. If I posted every criminal statute trump has evidence of committing this thread would have a thousand more replies alone.
The easiest case was the Mueller investigation where he obstructed justice.
should emphasize that the below is my interpretation of the evidence as Mueller seems to provide it—others may have different readings. (Richard Hoeg has provided a slightly different take, also available on Twitter.) My assessment rests on an assumption that Mueller is correct in his legal analysis that a president may still obstruct justice even if the act in question is taken entirely under his Article II authority. Under Attorney General William Barr’s reading of Article II, this heat map would look very different. I’ve also accepted at face value Mueller’s statutory argument that 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) “states a broad, independent, and unqualified prohibition on obstruction of justice,” rather than, as Trump’s personal counsel apparently argued to Mueller, covering only “acts that would impair the integrity and availability of evidence.”
The Mueller report describes numerous instances in which President Trump may have obstructed justice. A few days ago, I threw together a quick spreadsheet on Twitter to assess how Special Counsel Robert Mueller seemed to assess the evidence.
www.lawfareblog.com
The above link explained in deal. Most of these charges were allowed to expire.