Another flawed "legal" opinion coming out of the Left Coast media:

Most white-collar prosecutions turn on the issue of criminal intent. These cases involve behavior that would, in ordinary circumstances, be totally legal—if not for the intent of the defendant. Consider, for example, the entrepreneur who sells stock in a company whose value goes down. If business conditions turn sour, or the competitive environment changes, the loss is simply part of the risks of capitalism. There’s no crime. But if the entrepreneur knows that his company has no value, or has lied about its assets, then he has committed fraud. Insider trading is another example. It’s only criminal to sell stock if you had improper knowledge of the status of the company. In both kinds of cases, the key question regards the defendant’s state of mind. That’s why lawyers refer to “intent cases”; the outcome turns solely on the motivation of the defendant.The issue of whether President Trump obstructed justice centers on his decision to fire James Comey, the F.B.I. director, last May. This is a classic intent case. The President clearly had the right to fire Comey, but he did not have the right to do so with improper intent. Specifically, the relevant obstruction-of-justice statute holds that any individual who “corruptly . . . influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice” is guilty of the crime. “Corruptly” is the key word. Did Trump act “corruptly” in firing Comey?  (Source: The New Yorker).

Editor:  In reality,  the above article is proof of the weakness of the case against Trump.  Trump fired Comey with the approval and written opinion of Rosenstein,  the Deputy Director of the DOJ.  In that written opinion,  issues are named to support the termination without reference to the Russian Collusion issue.  

The Left is pushing the issue of "intent" because they do not have a case without intent.  And they find intent in Trump's searching for answers to the question,  "Can I fire Mueller."  

Never mind that Mueller and Rosenstein are Republicans,  they certainly are #NeverTrumpers  . . . . .   at least in the case of Mueller,  who has stacked the deck against Trump in his appointment of a majority of staffers who are Democrats,  and in some cases,  donors to Hillary's campaign.  

Understand that the firing of Comey has been given a written legal opinion and was supported by Rosenstein.  It would be impossible to prove "intent to obstruct" in this case.  

When you listen to the Left make their case,  remember that you are listening to folks who never refer to Rosenstein letter of support of the firing of Comey.  

Finally,  in the above article,  the author wants you to believe that intent alone and apart from a criminal action,  gets one convicted.  
That  entrepreneur stock broker,  was tried and convicted of an actual crime.  Intent is important but only if the man actually defrauded his clients.  He was not convicted for simply sitting in his office,  thinking about committing fraud. 

Case closed.  End of discussion.