The ultimate leader of an organization will always rely heavily on his advisors. I think that in general the greater the presidents’ expertise in an area the more he can rely on himself versus his advisors, in any area.
As noted, Obama made the final call on the OBL raid, despite no military experience or expertise. I’m sure he was not involved in planning the details of the raid, but in the end he got to make the final call, which was obviously based heavily on what advisors with more relevant experience told him. He did not need to recuse himself and leave it to military people so that no one should be able to think it was influenced by politics. I don’t see why this is any different.
[This is true of organizations in general, not just the US government. There are leaders of major corporations who have risen through the ranks in their industirs, and there are others who been hired from other industries. As CEO you need to make the final call, but the extent to which you rely on your specific knowledge versus rely on advisors will be influenced by the level of your detailed knowledge.]
Question to anyone who knows: If the President ordered Zimmerman not be prosecuted, could he be charged with obstruction of justice? Or was it only obstruction of justice, in the Nixon case, because it was secret?
The full presidential statement is here:
And this was part of it:
Mr. Obama went on to explain why a lot of the people who are outraged by the verdict feel that way. But I don’t see Obama implying that Zimmerman should be convicted. There’s a clear implication that shooting Trayvon Martin was wrong, but, I can’t imagine any living president thinking otherwise.
I dare say Mr. Obama is a lot less interested in this case than people demand that he be based on his race. He might feel inclined to give a soundbite to placate the press.
I recently saw him on a friend’s TV staring solemnly and sadly at the repellent cell Mr. Mandela was unjustly held in for 27 years; and mused that he was not inclined to criticise the barbaric regime which kept one man in a 6’ by 9’ cell for 29 years, and his two associates still there after 41 years, isolated, with a state law officer who claims this is not solitary, since:
‘These convicted murderers have an hour outside of their cells each day where they can exercise in the hall, talk on the phone, shower, and visit with the other 10 to 14 inmates on the tier. At least three times per week they can go outside on the yard and exercise and enjoy the sun if they want. This is all in addition to the couple of days set aside for visitations each week.’
Mr. Obama has to tailor his outrage to avoid offence. Particularly to semi-civilised states.
By whom? If you believe the president can just order the Justice Department not to bring prosecutions, wouldn’t he just order them not to prosecute him for obstruction?
I think you’ve misunderstood what happened. The way I understand it, Nixon was accused of obstructing justice by paying people to stay quiet. I don’t think that allegation was related to his firing of the special prosecutor.
That is the case to which I was referring; but since the TV news was showing Mr. Obama visiting Robbens Island and made no mention of the Angola Three — which was something I connected as another case of long imprisonment; I gave no idea what you mean by the TV malfunctioning.
I am sure they may be guilty — yet if, and it remains if, they are 41 years in a cell seems adequate punishment.
When in office, impeachment. Afterwards, if the statue of limitations hadn’t passed, the regular legal process.
Now that I check, I see you are correct about that. I read a fair bit about it, at the time, in the late lamented Philadelphia Bulletin, but it seems I’ve forgotten a good deal. I guess it’s time to take All the President’s Men out of the library
It looks like that was Article I, Section 5. What I mentioned – ordering someone not be prosecuted – was at most a small part of Article of Impeachment I, Section 4.
If it was done infrequently and not for obvious political gain, the President could perhaps get away with telling the Justice Department whether or not to prosecute an individual. But it’s a bad idea, at least politically.
The President can, of course, pardon after the justice system runs its course, again with some political risk.
I understand how those processes work. I was pointing out that if the president could really stop an investigation by just ordering the Justice Department not to pursue it, he’d also order them to stop investigating him. So I don’t think it works that way.
