How can a President of the United States obstruct justice?

[John_Mace]

@Ravenman

Name a President who didn’t lose a case in the Supreme Court.

William Henry Harrison?

ETA: damn, ninjaed

[Bone]

@Chimera

That’s the goddamned stupidest thing I’ve read in the last month, including anything Giuliani has said.

I must have missed this when I skimmed the thread yesterday. This isn’t the Pit. Knock off this BS.

[/moderating]

[D_Anconia]

@Ravenman

Name a President who didn’t lose a case in the Supreme Court.

Czarcasm asked for an example, I gave him one. :shrugs:

Plus it was only four years ago.

[Ravenman]

@D_Anconia

Czarcasm asked for an example, I gave him one. :shrugs:

Plus it was only four years ago.

Jesus, you can’t even jump on the William Henry Harrison train after being prompted twice?

[ElvisL1ves]

Trains weren’t quite a big thing in 1840. But you could keep the ball rolling until you could join Tippecanoe in the log cabin and share some hard cider with him. He might be a great precedent, a President who got elected on a substance-free, rabble-rousing campaign, with a running mate who essentially just pissed everyone off and got nothing done.

[UltraVires]

@John_Mace

No. It means POTUS = The Head of the Justice Department. He cannot obstruct the workings of that department since he runs the damn thing.

Also, note that the word “subvert” is not in your quote. If you’re going to harp on clear language, best not to change it. In fact, the word “Justice” is not in your quote, but I’ll give you that one because “obstruction” is meant to mean “Obstruction of Justice”. But by the same token, you can’t pluck “Justice” out of that because “Obstruction of Justice” is a term of art which refers to breaking a specific statute, not some generic raping of the blindfolded lady herself.

Agreed. And the check on the President if he is not running the executive department properly is impeachment and removal from office. If he has committed crimes, he can then be prosecuted. The buck always stops with someone. Now, just because this time many of you think that the electorate made a mistake in entrusting this office to Trump, doesn’t mean we dismantle the whole system.

I don’t share in the “OMG, he’s above the law!” hysteria that comes along with such a statement. We entrust people all of the time to use their measured discretion towards the task that they are suited. To say that one man cannot be in charge of the entire executive branch because he might be corrupt himself is like saying that there should not be Secret Service protection for the President because a rogue agent has unlimited access to assassinate him, or that there must be a court over the Supreme Court in case we get five corrupt justices.

[Ravenman]

@UltraVires

Agreed. And the check on the President if he is not running the executive department properly is impeachment and removal from office.

This sounds like you believe impeachment is a remedy for maladministration. The Framers considered this and rejected it, preferring instead that it be a remedy for crimes.

So the question is simply: can legitimate, lawful powers be used in a corrupt way, such that the exercise of such a power in a particular circumstance be a crime?

I think the answer is completely obvious.

[John_Mace]

@UltraVires

Agreed. And the check on the President if he is not running the executive department properly is impeachment and removal from office…

@Ravenman

This sounds like you believe impeachment is a remedy for maladministration. The Framers considered this and rejected it, preferring instead that it be a remedy for crimes.

So the question is simply: can legitimate, lawful powers be used in a corrupt way, such that the exercise of such a power in a particular circumstance be a crime?

I think the answer is completely obvious.

I hope UV meant “corruptly” or something along those lines instead of “properly”. Are you sure the framers meant there to be a literal crime involved, though?

@Alexander Hamilton

.those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.

[BwanaBob]

@John_Mace

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.

Disagree. When Washington was offered the “crown”/ being king of the USA it was turned down. We don’t have kings or queens in this country. To say a president can absolve himself of his own crimes (and be above the law) would make him king.

[Ravenman]

@John_Mace

I hope UV meant “corruptly” or something along those lines instead of “properly”. Are you sure the framers meant there to be a literal crime involved, though?

I refer to the canon of statutory interpretation: if one reads the text of the law, and it is unambiguous, there’s no need to consider any non-statutory “clarifying” language.

While the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” may not be perfectly distinct, I don’t think TJ’s explanation is within the ballpark of the plain meaning of those terms.

[John_Mace]

@BwanaBob

Disagree. When Washington was offered the “crown”/ being king of the USA it was turned down. We don’t have kings or queens in this country. To say a president can absolve himself of his own crimes (and be above the law) would make him king.

There is no single thing that defines what a king is, and kings of the 18th century had lots of other powers besides pardoning themselves (assuming they could do that). Your conclusion does not follow. In fact, a better choice for a defining characteristic of a king is that he inherits his title and rules for life. But even that’s not universal.

[Whack-a-Mole]

FWIW Judge Andrew Napolitano, a regular on FOX News, said the president absolutely can obstruct justice:

[Napolitano] also faulted the leaking of the letter, saying he did not understand why the president’s team would want it public given it had cited the wrong statute in one case and incorrectly interpreted an opinion in another.

“I don’t know how it got out,” Napolitano said. “I don’t know why the White House would have leaked it, as has been suggested, because it shows a sophomoric view of the law.”

“They are not serving him well when they needlessly show their cards,” Napolitano added during the appearance on “The Story with Martha MacCallum."

Napolitano faulted the memo for arguing that the president can’t be found to have obstructed justice, saying Trump’s team forgot that a president can be found to have obstructed justice by ending a prosecution for a “corrupt purpose.”

“They forgot that part,” Napolitano said.

He also faulted Trump’s team for saying that the president can “interfere” with an FBI investigation, saying it had missed an amendment to the relevant statute from 2002 that said interference “with an FBI investigation intended to produce evidence is obstruction.”

SOURCE: http://thehill.com/homenews/media/390719-fox-newss-napolitano-trump-team-legal-letter-shows-sophomoric-view-of-the-law