DO you believe as Barr does about the power of the president to control the DOJ?

[Cardinal]

I said the president directs the DOJ.

To open legal investigations? Prove there's precedent for this.

 

[Praxas]

How do you know he hasn't?

Well according to you cons Hillary's guilt is OBVIOUS, so the fact she isn't behind bars now is because Trump believes she is innocent or he is in on it. Take your pick. :lamo

 

[trouble13]

Get over it, dude. She's been cleared by eighty dozen investigations, all headed by Republicans pathologically motivated to find her guilty.

Theres nothing to get over. It is a fact that the fbi concluded that she violated the law. Whether or not she should be prosecuted is a different topic.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[JasperL]

That has never been Barr's argument that a president has the power to obstruct.
What Barr has said is that the president has constitutional authority to act. And he takes the old basic high school government stuff to task: The Constitution is supreme over Federal Law which is supreme over state law.

You restated my point, using different words. If he has constitutional power to "act" then he has the authority to obstruct. Then you proceed to say that the laws against obstruction cannot apply to the POTUS, because the constitution gives him the power to obstruct.

You could have just agreed to agree, then pointed out the other methods available to check the president.

Impeachment is a check on the president. As is Election Day. As is the power of the purse. As is the ability to write the laws which govern how the Executive Dept agencies function. As is the ability to confirm or reject federal appointments. As is the judiciary. As is the federal system of government.

There are lots of checks on a president should he do that which is of concern as mentioned above.

The bolded isn't true, actually. The Barr position (which is the Cheney position) is that as President and "Unitary Executive" congress cannot in fact interfere with how the President runs the executive branch, unless those restrictions are written into the Constitution, like the power of Congress to "advise and consent" on some appointees, which POTUS can avoid through temporary/acting appointments, and the power of the purse. That's why the law on obstruction cannot apply to POTUS. The President IS the Executive branch - the end. Here's Barr:

“Constitutionally, it is wrong to conceive of the President as simply the highest officer within the Executive branch hierarchy. He alone is the Executive branch.”[1]

Barr's theory of the Presidency is just staggering in its scope. He is not only "THE" executive branch, but his powers as CiC are also just as broad. It's the justification of torture - that e.g. laws against it passed by Congress CANNOT apply to POTUS.

Do a google search and find all kinds of discussions about what it means if accepted. Here's one example:

The Barr Memo and the Imperial Presidency | ACS

 

[Chomsky]

How was she exonerated? Comey concluded that she did violate the law. He just recommended that the DOJ not prosecute her. That isnt an exoneration.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I'm speaking of the current investigation being dropped. Perhaps not technically a legal exoneration in the strictest sense, but the political ramifications are such.

 

[Mycroft]

She will forever be guilty of everything she was accused of by Democratic Party standards.

Democrat Party standards...

That's a contradiction in terms when their motto is "The ends justify any means".

 

[Cardinal]

Theres nothing to get over. It is a fact that the fbi concluded that she violated the law. Whether or not she should be prosecuted is a different topic.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

All in your mind, dude. How many failed investigations is it going to take before you get that through your head?

 

[Mycroft]

Well according to you cons Hillary's guilt is OBVIOUS, so the fact she isn't behind bars now is because Trump believes she is innocent or he is in on it. Take your pick. :lamo

No...there's a third possible reason: She isn't worth the effort...yet.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Barr says that the president controls the DOJ and can determine who is investigated and who is not investigated. This seems to be part of Barr's belief in the Imperial President. Presidents in the past have mostly stayed out of determining who is and who is not investigated because of the political nature of doing so. Since Barr has come into the office, this has totally changed. Now we have Hillary Clinton being investigated again at the command of trump and we now have Durham out there investigating our FBI and CIA at Trump's demand because Trump wants to end the idea that the Russians interfered with our election. If the idea that the president can command such investigations becomes the norm, we will see president's controlling both who is investigated and who is not. Enemies get investigated and friends do not will become normal. I do not see this as a good thing, what do you think? Remember, the GOP will not always control the Whitw House.

OVER MY DEAD BODY.
The United States does not have kings, or dictators.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Three words: John Newton Mitchell

That's the fate that awaits that MF-er Barr.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

And a false "both sides" at that.

Some day, Trump really will shoot a man in the street for no reason, and a trump supporter's first response will be, "Obama did it too."

And with our now fully idiocratized justice system under occupation by the forces of Trump/Barr, the only defense needed will be:

"Just look at him, he needed killin!"

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Theres nothing to get over. It is a fact that the fbi concluded that she violated the law. Whether or not she should be prosecuted is a different topic.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Athanasius68]

You restated my point, using different words. If he has constitutional power to "act" then he has the authority to obstruct. Then you proceed to say that the laws against obstruction cannot apply to the POTUS, because the constitution gives him the power to obstruct.

The president has the right todrect the DOJ. He could order an investigation stopped-- sure.
Would that constitute "obstruction."? Maybe.
It could also constitute exercising authority over the DOJ.

The bolded isn't true, actually. The Barr position (which is the Cheney position) is that as President and "Unitary Executive" congress cannot in fact interfere with how the President runs the executive branch, unless those restrictions are written into the Constitution, like the power of Congress to "advise and consent" on some appointees, which POTUS can avoid through temporary/acting appointments, and the power of the purse. That's why the law on obstruction cannot apply to POTUS. The President IS the Executive branch - the end.

Yes. Congress sets up the various agencies; they write the laws for the agencies and they confirm its leadership as appointed by the president.

But within that framework, yesr, the president is the Executive branch.
Article 2 Sec 1 vests the executive power of the United States in the office of the president.

Barr's theory of the Presidency is just staggering in its scope. He is not only "THE" executive branch, but his powers as CiC are also just as broad. It's the justification of torture - that e.g. laws against it passed by Congress CANNOT apply to POTUS.

Congress has the authority to pass laws governing the military and governing the FBI and CIA. Barr doesn't dispute that.

 

[Athanasius68]

To open legal investigations? Prove there's precedent for this.

The Constitution is clear: a job of the president is to "take care" that the laws are enforced.
The Constitution is also clear: The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
It is certainly not politically wise for a president to exercise that power of ordering investigations, but there we are.

 

[Cardinal]

...

Cite a precedent for the President demanding the opening of legal investigations by his DOJ.

 

[Mr Person]

It's an executive agency. But prosecutors do swear an oath to seek justice (lol @ loyalty to that oath, but anyway) , and lawyers in general are subject to various BBOs...

If the president instructed any DOJ attorney to do something unlawful/unethical, they would be duty-bound to refuse. Of course with an administration like Trump, many if not most would probably try to do it and get away with it...

Sort of like with a CiC who orders that a war crime be committed. Sure, he's supposed to be in charge of the military, but there are higher standards. Unfortunately enforcement of those standards can bew hampered when the CiC is a vile pig bastard.

 

[JasperL]

The president has the right todrect the DOJ. He could order an investigation stopped-- sure.
Would that constitute "obstruction."? Maybe.
It could also constitute exercising authority over the DOJ.

You're not understanding or misstating the Barr position. His response to "would that constitute "obstruction" is NO, it cannot be obstruction under any conceivable circumstance, i.e. a criminal act, because the President cannot obstruct, he is the DoJ and so therefore cannot act improperly by directing effectively himself to do what the constitution allows.

Yes. Congress sets up the various agencies; they write the laws for the agencies and they confirm its leadership as appointed by the president.

But within that framework, yesr, the president is the Executive branch.
Article 2 Sec 1 vests the executive power of the United States in the office of the president.

So, you agree with me that the "laws for the agencies" are merely suggestions, not binding, on POTUS, except for the advise and consent function, which is in the Constitution. Glad we found common ground...

Congress has the authority to pass laws governing the military and governing the FBI and CIA. Barr doesn't dispute that.

He doesn't?

I mean, sure, Congress can pass laws, the question is whether or not the laws limit the actions available to the President. The general conclusion under the Barr theory is HELL NO!

 

[trouble13]

I'm speaking of the current investigation being dropped. Perhaps not technically a legal exoneration in the strictest sense, but the political ramifications are such.

Sorry i missunderstood.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Athanasius68]

[

QUOTE=JasperL;1071189283]You're not understanding or misstating the Barr position. His response to "would that constitute "obstruction" is NO, it cannot be obstruction under any conceivable circumstance, i.e. a criminal act, because the President cannot obstruct, he is the DoJ and so therefore cannot act improperly by directing effectively himself to do what the constitution allows.

That isn't what Barris saying.
What Barr is saying that he has a right to exercise his constitutional authority and in doing that cannot be considered obstruction.

So, to use one of the Mueller claims, the President is allowed to fire his FBI director.
Since did not conspire with Russia and break any laws, his firing of Come is not obstruction because he is allowed to exercise that authority.

So, you agree with me that the "laws for the agencies" are merely suggestions, not binding, on POTUS, except for the advise and consent function, which is in the Constitution. Glad we found common ground...

Of course its binding on the president-- provided it doesn't infringe upon his constitutional authority.

He doesn't?

I mean, sure, Congress can pass laws, the question is whether or not the laws limit the actions available to the President. The general conclusion under the Barr theory is HELL NO!

That isn't his claim or argument.

 

[JasperL]

Democrat Party standards...

That's a contradiction in terms when their motto is "The ends justify any means".

There is no "Democrat" Party, and the motto of this non-party is just as made up.

 

[Visbek]

....If the idea that the president can command such investigations becomes the norm, we will see president's controlling both who is investigated and who is not. Enemies get investigated and friends do not will become normal. I do not see this as a good thing, what do you think? Remember, the GOP will not always control the Whitw House.

Under ordinary circumstances, I don't think it is unacceptable for a President to recommend an investigation. I'm pretty sure that is somewhat routine.

The real issue is that he's using the DOJ as a political weapon and as a means to cover up his own misdeeds; and that Barr is letting him do it, because he believes in an unleashed Presidency -- that is, when the President's ideology aligns with his own. Barr never defended extensions of Executive power when Clinton or Obama were in office.

So it isn't the idea of a President pushing for an investigation that is the issue, it's the investigations that Trump is demanding, and trying to sweep under the rug, that are the issue.

As to what will happen in the future, that's hard to tell. I would not be too surprised if there were criminal investigations into the Trump administration once it's all over, and that is not typical. Neither is the corruption or criminality of the Trump administration, though....

 

[Athanasius68]

Cite a precedent for the President demanding the opening of legal investigations by his DOJ.

Jefferson directing the prosecution of Mr. Burr. Predated the DOJ to be sure.
Concept is the same.

 

[j brown's body]

Barr says that the president controls the DOJ and can determine who is investigated and who is not investigated. This seems to be part of Barr's belief in the Imperial President. Presidents in the past have mostly stayed out of determining who is and who is not investigated because of the political nature of doing so. Since Barr has come into the office, this has totally changed. Now we have Hillary Clinton being investigated again at the command of trump and we now have Durham out there investigating our FBI and CIA at Trump's demand because Trump wants to end the idea that the Russians interfered with our election. If the idea that the president can command such investigations becomes the norm, we will see president's controlling both who is investigated and who is not. Enemies get investigated and friends do not will become normal. I do not see this as a good thing, what do you think? Remember, the GOP will not always control the Whitw House.

I don't remember Barr beating this drum during the Obama presidency.

 

[Cardinal]

Jefferson directing the prosecution of Mr. Burr. Predated the DOJ to be sure.
Concept is the same.

I said "cite." Your word is worth less than garbage. But at least you admit that you had to go back to a time that predated the existence of the DOJ itself to get your garbage.

 

[bomberfox]

Obviously you mean a Democratic dictatorship, since obviously Trump isn't or there would be no impeachment, would there?

:lamo