Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsLaurence Tribe, Dec. 15: Why Trump can be charged with obstruction
http://www.macleans.ca/opinion/why-trump-can-be-charged-with-obstruction/A president who offers to keep the FBI Director in his job if but only if the Director agrees to go easy on a national security director who has lied to the FBI about his dealings with a hostile foreign power is both offering a bribe and obstructing justice. And, if he does so with the motive of covering up his campaigns conspiracy against the United States in orchestrating foreign interference with our presidential election, that president is engaged in a particularly pernicious form of obstruction whether or not the technical requirements for the federal statutory crime of bribery have been met.
The same would be true in spades if the President were to engineer a Mueller Massacre to rid himself of what he clearly sees as a meddlesome investigation into foreign activities that he fears might undermine the legitimacy of his presidency. Placing presidential pride above the nations sovereignty is a grave abuse of presidential power by anyones definition. To insist that the proceedings against such a lawless president be categorized under some heading other than obstruction of justice is to reduce a grave matter of national security and the rule of law to a trivial word game.
Having made these points, Im uninterested in protracting this disagreement or going back and forth over the same well-trod legal territory. My view of Alans position, like Gertrude Steins view of Oakland, can be stated simply: Theres no there there.
I do want to note for the record, however, a particular mistake that I dont recall Alan making in earlier iterations of his position but that he has made in his latest publication in Macleans. To explain his understanding of the separation of powers and its implications for his denial that President Trump could ever be prosecuted (or impeached, though Alan is less clear on that score) for how he performs his constitutionally authorized duties, Alan invokes the special shield the Constitution accords to members of the House and Senate in performing their official functions. He then equates that shield with the sweeping immunity he claims the Constitution gives the president even when the presidents means of, or motives for, exercising his executive powers (to pardon someone or to get rid of a federal prosecutor, for instance presumably including Special Counsel Robert Mueller) are demonstrably corrupt or otherwise unlawful.
Thats an equation the Constitution refutes rather than supports.
SNIP
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
5 replies, 970 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (21)
ReplyReply to this post
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Laurence Tribe, Dec. 15: Why Trump can be charged with obstruction (Original Post)
pnwmom
Dec 2017
OP
H2O Man
(73,559 posts)1. Very good.
Recommended.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)2. K&R
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)4. The article is worth reading in its entirety. It's really important.
Thanks for posting.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)5. You're welcome!