The second part of the quote is pretty explicit about what the White House officials were asking:
This is pretty clearly a request for help to shut down the FBI investigation.
Asking if you’re allowed to do something is not the same thing as doing it.
The question is whether they were asking the help of the intelligence agencies in shutting down the investigation and the quote pretty clearly suggests they were.
Could you imagine the shitstorm if Trey Goudy found out that Obama had asked agency heads for help in shutting down any Benghazi investigations?
Part of that is because Obama is not an idiot like Trump is. So if Trump says “can we get these guys to shut down the investigation?” it’s more likely to be genuine cluelessness about the proper role of government versus an implied order, as compared to if it were Obama.
That said, it’s ironic that part of the reason Trump is where he is altogether is because of the conversation between Lynch and B Clinton, which was probably far more benign than what Trump himself has been doing.
Ignorance of the law is rarely a useful defense for civilians. For presidents…
Difference is, is that B Clinton was not actually a president at the time, and therefore, had no authority over lynch. No matter what was said in that plane, it would not be possible for it to rise to the level of the president obstructing an investigation, because he is not a sitting president.
But, yeah, as far as that goes, those were not good optics, and was one of the many things that , had been done differently (or not at all), could have ended up with a different person in the oval office than we have now.
“Don’t get too mad at him for what he does on the job – he’s incompetent.”
You may have misunderstood my meaning. Let’s grant that ignorance of the law is not a defense for a president. That’s not what this is about.
The point is that as reported, the Trump people were literally just asking information about what they could or couldn’t do. The issue is whether this was a genuine question or was an implied command to go do it. The first is more benign than the second. To the extent that someone is ignorant of what they can or can’t do, it’s more likely that they were asking a genuine question. To the extent that they’re not ignorant of the law that makes it more likely that it was an implied command.
I could buy this if it were you or me.
The president of the United States and also (supposedly) a billionaire has no shortage of advisors which would include an armada of attorneys.
Trump does not need to go to the FBI and ask them this question. He has loads of people just down the hall from him who can answer this question.
Going to the FBI and “asking” can only be construed as a veiled command.
Actually, yes.
Now, as has been repeated again and again, Congress ultimately decided what “high crimes and misdemeanors” are so they could impeach for anything, really.
But the original intent of “high crimes and misdemeanors” is not exactly what it sounds like. You’d think it means “really serious criminal offenses” but what it really means is “offenses that are particular to a person in a public office.” Murder is not a high crime. A refusal to execute the powers and responsibilities of the office, however, is; if a President literally said “I refuse to do my job” that is a high crime, and would be proper for an impeachment proceeding. In the context of the time the Constitution was written, a high crime was something an elected official could commit but an ordinary schmoe by definition could not.
I didn’t think it matters whether Trump asked someone to help him obstruct an investigation or ordered them to. Attempting to interfere with an investigation is the issue, not what method he used to attempt to get someone to help.
True. Especially since the CIA isn’t one of the agencies Trump allegedly contacted.
If he had asked one of his advisors, “What can we do to shut down this ridiculous investigation? We know it is bunk, and a waste of time for our LEO’s. What legal manner can we bring this matter to a close?” then that would have been a president asking questions.
If the questions are being asked of the actual officials in charge of the investigation, it is less a question, and more a command.
I use questions all the time with my employees as implied commands. They very rarely seem confused as to whether I am actually asking them if their greatest desire is to mop the bathing room, or if I am specifically giving them instruction that they will mop the bathing room.
“Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?” was a question too.
I agree, to an extent.
The context of my earlier remarks was about the comparison someone was making between if Obama had done the same thing. I was just saying that Trump’s doing it is in fact more benign, not that it’s entirely benign.
When Trump donated $25,000 to aid the Florida Attorney General’s campaign while that office was considering taking steps in relation to Trump University, do you suppose that Trump was simply finding out what the ground rules were in relation to what was proper for him to do while under investigation?
I think that Trump has a well established record of trying to make investigations into his affairs disappear. Just because he’s in a new job where he might not understand the limits of proper use of his power doesn’t mean that he is a changed person. I think you’re being far too charitable to his motives, to say the least.
It looks that way only if you already think he is guilty and trying to obstruct justice. If you think he is innocent, then it’s just getting facts out there.
I will agree that had Obama instructed justice department or FBI to stop investigating people in his administration, like Hillary, for instance, then he should very well know that what he is doing is not legal. If it had come out that he had done that, well, I don’t know if I would feel the need to attack him for it, as there would be plenty of flak going his way, but I certainly would not try to defend it.
If Trump is making these requests out of ignorance, then I will agree that he is not doing it, while knowing very well that he shouldn’t, but I do not in any way, find that to be more benign.
If you are in a nuclear power plant, and you hit the button that makes it melt down, is it more or less benign if you didn’t know what you were doing?
I disagree, I think it only doesn’t look that way if you have built in partisan reasons for not wanting there to be any truth to it. Innocent people simply do not act this way. Just about everything he’s been doing regarding the FBI investigation has made it look worse for him, this is not rational behavior if he truly believed there was nothing there.
If you take away the names and party designations and just describe anonymous politician A who has taken these same actions regarding an active investigation, it would look the same to any truly objective person.
That’s an interesting question. I suspect, if the House Republicans actually decided it was time to pull the cord, it might be easier to get him out on breaking the oath of office. It’s never been done before and since it would be about more moral than legal issues it might protect the party against the shitstorm that’s coming for them.
Getting enough congresspeople to agree that he has not been *faithful *in the execution the office, without being terribly specific might be all that’s needed. But in that case the 25th Amendment, section four might be easier. He’s old enough to claim any health issues and be plausible.
Interesting times.
Rein o’er.