Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15

Thread: Obstruction of Justice continues

  1. #11
    Sensational

    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Paradise
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    41,891
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Obstruction of Justice continues

    Everyone on this forum is guilty of obstruction of justice for publicly trying to influence investigations and officials conducting investigations.

  2. #12
    ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★
    Rogue Valley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:00 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,359

    Re: Obstruction of Justice continues

    Quote Originally Posted by NWRatCon View Post
    Sadly, yes. I was hoping substance might matter. It was a misapprehension.
    On the contrary, I enjoyed your posts and appreciate the citations.

    Don't mind the whiners. They never do any in-depth analyses and get jealous.


    The presidency doesn't change who you are, it reveals who you are.

  3. #13
    Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,448

    Re: Obstruction of Justice continues

    Quote Originally Posted by Rogue Valley View Post
    On the contrary, I enjoyed your posts and appreciate the citations.

    Don't mind the whiners. They never do any in-depth analyses and get jealous.
    I intend to continue on, but I do get discouraged by the dreck that gets posted. See post #11.

  4. #14
    Professor bomberfox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,791

    Re: Obstruction of Justice continues

    Quote Originally Posted by NWRatCon View Post
    I intend to continue on, but I do get discouraged by the dreck that gets posted. See post #11.
    Maybe I should learn from your posting style friend. I know alt-righters especially like to swarm and drown out places though I cant exactly say how bad its gotten here.
    Last edited by bomberfox; 05-17-19 at 09:56 PM.

  5. #15
    Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,448

    Re: Obstruction of Justice continues

    In consideration of this issue, I offer the following observations: first, if one is arguing the "niceties" of law (i.e., "splitting hairs"), one has already lost the factual argument. Barr: It’s Not Obstruction of Justice If the Obstruction Works (NYMag).
    The most illuminating moment in William Barr’s Senate testimony came when he elucidated the bizarre theory of presidential immunity that got him the job in the first place. If an investigation is “based on false allegations, the president does not have to sit there constitutionally and allow it to run its course,” Barr explained. “That is important, because most of the obstruction claims that are being made here, or episodes here, do involve the exercise of the president’s constitutional authority. And we do know now that he was being falsely accused.”
    Consider the brazen circulatory of that position. At least Nixon was succinct when he said (also wrongly), "if the president does it, it's not illegal."

    The other primary defense of the indefensible is that the laws weren't drafted with the president in mind, so they don't apply to him. The Mueller Report’s Weak Statutory Interpretation Analysis (Lawfare, Jack Goldsmith). As Ben Wittes succinctly observed "An initial background observation is that Goldsmith’s view of the matter leads to some genuine absurdities. This is not to say that his view of the law is wrong, just that if it’s right, the law is an ass." In Defense of Mueller’s Obstruction Theory: A Reply to Jack Goldsmith (Lawfare). I submit that Goldmith's and Barr's theory is both absurd and wrong.
    In other words, if Goldsmith is right, it is lawful for the president to, say, walk into a grand jury and lie knowingly and intentionally and repeatedly as long as there’s some plausible argument, even an attenuated one, that the lies are intended to protect, say, a secret diplomatic initiative. I suspect this argument would come as a surprise to Bill Clinton, who was accused of perjury and apparently did not know that the only defense he really needed was a thin-reed claim that his self-protective lies under oath were actually designed to insulate his ability to conduct foreign policy.
    These arguments are both predicated on a false premise: that the Constitution created an executive office that is not just independent of, but superior to, the legislative authority (the absurd "unitary executive" theory). They have no support in legislative history, legal precedent, or constitutional structure. A triple fail.
    First, there’s no such categorical “clear statement rule” to begin with; second, § 1512(c)(2) simply doesn’t bear the construction that Barr and Goldsmith propose; and third, even if there were a “clear statement rule” of construction, § 1512(c)(2), as Mueller construes it, does not implicate that rule, even as applied to Trump’s exercise of his removal and directory authorities.
    Why Robert Mueller Is Right that the Obstruction Statutes Apply to the President (Just Security).

    These arguments are trotted out not just to defend the President's past obstruction, but to excuse continued obstruction, and to support his future obstruction (by way of pardons). That cannot be, and is not, right.
    Last edited by NWRatCon; 05-19-19 at 08:57 AM.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •