If this is true, then he is above the law and answers to no one no matter what he does. If that is the case, he is a dictator and not a president, and we are no longer a democracy. Anyone who cannot see that truly frightens me.
The president cannot commit one specific crime. Therefore the president cannot commit any crime!
No, that does not follow.
[Donald Trump voice]“When I swore to faithfully execute the laws of this country, I was crossing my fingers! Nobody could have known that those laws would apply to me! Obama should have taken care of this a long time ago!”[/DTV]
It would be reassuring to learn that from someone other than Giuliani, wouldn’t it?
You might want to read your cites before you post them. Especially that first one.
Oh, right. I should have clarified that this concerned criminal, not civil charges. Good catch!!
IOW, yes, the issue is unsettled. Glad we agree.
So, it’s not reassuring when you hear it from someone else? Let me know when you place the goal posts in their permanent positions.
Wrong. We already covered this ground 44 years ago. AFAIK, we’ve got no evidence that Nixon had foreknowledge of the Watergate break-in. But he obstructed justice six days later by having the CIA tell the FBI to lay off its investigation into the Watergate money trail because of national security issues.
Nixon hadn’t committed the underlying crimes, but his henchmen had, and he was obstructing justice to protect them.
And as Fitz reminded us in the Scooter Libby case, the reason why obstruction of justice is a crime is that the obstructor makes it harder for law enforcement to determine who committed the underlying crime. Sometimes it even makes it harder to verify whether there was an underlying crime. When you obstruct justice, you potentially enable someone to escape legal responsibility for the underlying crime. That’s wrong, and illegal, whether or not that ‘someone’ is you.
How is he to know he didn’t, without an independent investigation? He’s hardly the best, most objective judge of it. And if he *did *commit crimes, especially if he *knows *he did, how is stopping an investigation into them *not *obstructing justice?
No, to the Attorney General’s, or the next in line if the AG ethically must recuse. The Justice Department is essentially independent of the President operationally, for reasons that should be obvious but start with preventing DOJ from being used as a partisan tool to hound political or personal enemies.
Not really, it doesn’t. The AG is not defined that way in the Constitution - it doesn’t even make him the head of DOJ.
We do have national principles that we place above partisan advantage. Or we used to; it’s not quite that clear anymore.
Tell us, please, can a police officer commit a crime? How about a sheriff, a state attorney, a federal prosecutor - can they commit crimes? If they interfere with investigations, isn’t that obstructing justice? Now what makes a President immune? No one is above the law, speaking of principles we didn’t use to have to discuss.
Where does the Constitution define the AG? (Or the DOJ, for that matter)?
Actually the Judiciary Act of 1789, which also established rules for the Supreme Court.
The first bit in bold is not in sync with the second. How do you prove “dirty work” occurred if you don’t allow prosecutors to investigate and take the matter to trial? Isn’t that what makes obstruction of justice, obstruction of justice? You’re essentially preventing officials entrusted with determining criminal culpability from doing what the public needs them to do.
If he’s actually clean, how is the public to know that? The act of stopping an investigation would look just like a cover-up, wouldn’t it? What President would want to put such an indelible stain on his reputation?
If you couple the inability to prosecute with a Congress extremely reluctant to impeach for fear of losing an iota of power, what is left to do?
Vote the bastards out. What else?
Department of Justice determined in 1974 that Nixon could not pardon himself for Obstruction of Justice, which was the charge that he would face for ordering the FBI and other law enforcement agencies to stop investigating the Watergate break in.
This is a determined issue.
Not until it goes before SCOTUS, I think.
So not the Constitution. And the DOJ wasn’t created until 1870, almost 100 years later.