Interlude: Thoughts on “Obstruction”

I am road traveling right now, so this will be brief.   There is something to ponder on I think.   I am not a lawyer, though I was married to an excellent one long ago.   And I remember the study of case law, and discussions about  current cases and how the law applied.

It was always presupposed before one began an investigation or a case that there was some underlying issue that had to be examined.  In the world of “emotions” that we are living in now, no one seems to even stop to ask questions.   They criticize and condemn anything they don’t like, and label it a crime.

This is a nation of laws.  We elect the representatives who create the laws.  And disputes about those laws are handled in the courts.  No one has the right to break a law just because they don’t agree with it, don’t like it, or don’t like someone who is operating under the law.   Totalitarian regimes are like that.   They persecute people for revenge. They randomly and arbitrarily lower the boom on individuals abhorrent to them.

So, here is the ponderable:  How does one “obstruct” an investigation into a non-crime? And, is it dereliction of duty NOT to raise questions about and potentially stop an investigation and harassment of citizens over something that is not a crime?

Long ago, a mentor of mine taught me something that today’s propagandists are deploying brilliantly.   Make right wrong, and wrong right.

Something to think about.   Who is really obstructing?  And what are they obstructing?   Could it be the orderly application of standard Rule of Law, and Due Process?

 

 

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.