Notably Nixon was ultimately forced to resign because he “obstructed justice” and there are claims that Trump has obstructed justice. It is not my intention to debate the merits of these accusations, but I’m sure that we will delve into that a little, so that’s why it is in GD.
It seems to me that since all executive power is vested in the President, whatever he does IS the justice system. In a sense, the claim is that he is obstructing himself. The President has ultimate authority to charge, not charge, seek an indictment or not, and can ultimately pardon or commute anyone’s criminal sentence.
Suppose instead of stonewalling the Watergate investigation, Nixon simply pardoned the burglars. He might have been hurt politically, but nobody would suggest that he was without power to do so. So why is instructing the FBI not to investigate a particular crime worse?
I understand the results of my argument would allow a corrupt president to pardon all of the subordinates who do his dirty work, but shouldn’t that be proven first? Suppose Trump pardons Manafort and Flynn. And further suppose it is because he KNOWS that they did nothing wrong and that prosecuting them is unjust and a terrible waste of taxpayer resources. Isn’t that exactly the type of executive decision that a president is not only empowered to make, but is his duty to make?
On contrary facts, if a congressional investigation showed that Trump, Manafort, and Flynn were all involved in a conspiracy to received aid from the Russians, then Trump could be impeached for that substantive crime, but the way it is being done now deprives the executive of his or her most basic powers under the Constitution by the legislative branch threatening impeachment for their exercise.
Where does it stop? Will Congress use its impeachment power if the President refuses to sign a particular bill, negotiate a particular treaty, adopt XYZ policy about troops in the military, etc?
That is my point. It is an assumption that Trump is using it for an improper end or a nefarious goal. If Congress can prove that, then Trump can be impeached and removed from office. My problem is that we are just assuming the condition precedent without evidence and arguing that the executive powers should be curtailed because of it.
Are you literally agreeing with, “L’etat, c’est moi?” Sure sounds like it.
It stops at the facile slippery slope fallacies.
Seriously, there are good questions to be asked about the balance of powers in the situation of a President exercising powers corruptly. How the OP completely missed all those questions is actually quite a feat.
I don’t think the OP is saying the president is above the law (all law), but that there are certain laws that the president cannot violate because of the inherent authority of the office. And since the president is the head of the justice department, he can’t obstruct that department. An analogy would be that the president can’t commit the crime of releasing classified information because he’s the ultimate authority on what is and is not classified.
Absolutely not. Again, if Trump or any president is committing crimes or abusing the power of his office by pardoning people, or stopping criminal investigations to cover up his own crimes, then he can be impeached and removed from office. That is hardly one being a king or otherwise above the law. That is very much being subject to the rule of law.
What I object to is Congress and even others in the executive branch who are subordinate to the President suggesting that by using his lawful constitutional powers, he is committing impeachable offenses. If you have evidence that he is using them improperly, then impeach him.
But effectively stripping him of these powers because of an assumption, an inference, that perhaps he is using them improperly, contorts the constitutional design by removing executive branch powers from this and all future presidents and giving them to Congress.
He is obstructing justice by interfering in investigations of his potential crimes.
Doesn’t matter if they technically work for him. We do not hold the President by virtue of his position to be above the law, which he would be if he could freely stop any investigation against him by firing the people responsible.
Personally, I’m undecided on the issue raised by the OP. I wasn’t so much as agreeing with him as pointing out where I think Ravenman was misinterpreting what the OP was saying.
If I had to weigh in on what I think about the OP, I’d say I’m strongly leaning in favor of agreeing. But I realize that these sorts of legal argument are quite complicated, and I don’t think I’ve seen all the analysis I would need to be certain. As to your questions specifically about President Hillary Clinton, I would absolutely agree that whatever is decided about “the president” would apply to her in that office.
If he knows he did not commit any crimes, then he is not obstructing justice, right? In any event, it falls to his discretion what to investigate. The person tasks with enforcing the laws cannot be said to be interfering with himself anymore than I could be convicted for stealing my own car.
It would be as if I said it was unfair if I go to jail for driving your car without permission, but you can drive it anytime you want. Yes, that’s what that means. Society recognizes your right to use your car to the exclusion of mine. The Constitutional places law enforcement power in the President to the exclusion of Congress and certainly his underlings.
Wrong. What he knows is irrelevant. The justice system applies to everybody. That includes both Federal and State systems. What you are saying is Trump’s brag that he could murder someone in broad daylight on 5th Avenue and get away with it is a valid legal principle. That just isn’t true.
His knowledge is perfectly relevant. If you are the local prosecutor and were playing cards with John Smith all night on the 18th of October, and later the sheriff comes to you and wants you to pursue an indictment against John Smith for robbing the local liquor store that night, what do you do? Do you:
Tell the sheriff that you refuse because you know he is innocent. or
Have John Smith arrested and jailed awaiting trial because you have make sure that the “justice system applies to everyone”?
What is just about prosecuting people you know are innocent?
ETA: No, he could not get away with murder in Washington D.C. He could be impeached, removed from office, and then criminally prosecuted.
How could anyone in the legal system know what he knows? And even if he is sure that he did not commit any crimes, that does not mean that he did not, because he might not be aware of the laws enough to give an accurate judgement.
I believe prosecutors have to show intent in order to prove obstruction, but that could be a pardon, for instance, to help prevent someone from testifying even if he truly believed it was all a witch hunt.
Now I doubt that signalling pardons are obstruction, but a pardon that specifically removes leverage from an investigation could well be.
There is a tape which reveals Nixon offering to pardon Halderman for Watergate, which was not know to the Watergate investigators at the time. One said that if they had known this there would be an additional article of impeachment based on it. Halderman even knew it was improper as Nixon was saying it.
Are you arguing that this would not be an obstruction of justice?
The person who claims innocence doesn’t get to demand that the Justice system stop looking into potential crimes.
I don’t know how anyone could reasonably claim that Trump could do this based on a claim of innocence when he’s told over 6,000 documentable lies in his less than 2 years as President. And been sued over 3,000 times for fraud, deceptive practices and a refusal to pay his debts.
We The People have a right to look into potential crimes and determine whether or not the person is guilty. We do this through the Justice Department. Our only guarantee of Justice for anyone is that it applies to everyone, including the President.
There’s a good argument that the president can pardon himself for federal crimes, so that makes that sort of thing moot anyway. But I think we can safely say he was talking about 5th avenue in NYC, not in DC.
Obstruction of justice. Flat-out and undeniable. The correct and legal procedure is to give a sworn deposition that establishes John Smith’s alibi during the discovery phase of the indictment/trial. You also shouldn’t be involved in any way with said indictment and must recuse yourself.
Following the Law and the guiding principles of this country.
“What you know” doesn’t mean shit outside a court of law. Stop being obtuse.
ETA: “Could” doesn’t mean “will.” When the system (Congress) is just as corrupt as the Defendant (trump’s administration) then what you have is a banana republic, not a system of justice.
That AI is getting damned impressive!