In my experience, a defendant sitting in jail awaiting trial is much more willing to cooperate. Whatever hope they can maintain while out on bail seems to vanish when they put on a jumpsuit for the first time.
And meet the, ahem, community?
it’s true, and also this is my Most Favorite Thread Ever and I thank you for that, ThelmaLou. 
Awww… <ThelmaLou blushes and digs her toe into the ground> Thank you for saying so. Too bad we needed it, eh?
Oh, good point!
Heeheeheeheeheeheehee! :D:D:D:D
Nope. Not a “nitpick.” Nits are lice in their larval form. They’re very small; one might even consider them inconsequential. By now, the “tow the line”/“toe the line” ill-usage is egregious and inexcusable enough to merit a somewhat larger arthropod.[/hijack]
Perhaps something in a nice vinegaroon?
Although, actually, these are arachnids – but it’s the thought that counts!
Okay then, never mind.
Proofreading is your friend, though.
Arachnids are arthropods. 
Well, Manafort didn’t get hosed nearly as bad as I expected he would.
She didn’t take him into custody and she took his motion for bail reduction under advisement, so for now he remains under house arrest.
Maybe he’ll get the message this time.
But at least they’re not scorpions.
The Dotard didn’t get Man of the Year, but he did get Lie of the Year.
Just so we are clear, the president of the United States just signaled to a cooperating witness that he might be willing to pardon him:
Mueller steps up milking Flynn for all he’s worth.
Is it only obstruction of justice if it’s clandestine? I mean, it’s being done out in the open, so it doesn’t count?
A pardon might be assholish but I don’t see how it could be obstruction. The president’s power to grand pardons is basically unchecked.
Can’t it be both legal and obstruction of justice? The pardon could be both legal/valid, and used as evidence that the president is attempting to affect the investigation, no?
Even tho our laws don’t exempt the POTUS from most of them, the reality is that it’s going to be very difficult, if not impossible, to detain him. So he’s effectively not bound by our laws.
That means that if people also feel as you do, Fiveyearlurker, the only legal recourse is impeachment. What you posit could prolly be used as evidence for an impeachment, but I’d bet dollars-to-donuts that there’d be a huge dispute about whether or not it was criminally illegal.
Obstruction of justice is by definition criminal. So a thing can’t be both a crime and not a crime.
But if you’re talking about some lesser definition, such as what Congress might define “obstruction of justice” to mean in the context of an impeachment, then it might meet that definition. But impeachment isn’t a criminal matter.