The president’s political opponents have, not unexpectedly, turned from collusion with Russia to obstruction of justice, in their arguments relying heavily on colloquial definitions of “obstruction of justice”. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1503 “obstruction of justice” is defined as an act that “corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice”. That only applies to judicial proceeding not to executive branch actions and, particularly, not to the president.
Can a president be indicted for obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional authority? I do not believe he can or should. The first line of defense against abuse of presidential power should remain impeachment.
The only two colloquialisms I’ve scene are firing Comey and referring to the investigation as a witch hunt. No serious person buys obstruction on the basis of those two. It is interesting, though, to watch the Democrats (but relatively fewer of the media BTW) shift from “he may not be guilty of that, but by god he’s guilty of something.†That’s the very definition of a witch hunt.
Prediction: Barr is going to pursue the FISA scam. IMHO he is compelled to; there are illegalities. That will lead inexorably to legal jeopardy for McCabe and Comey, and perhaps Rosenstein as a signer. The Ohrs, Pages and Strzoks of the world may skate if they sing. They knew what was transpiring. It’s not clear that Clapper and Brennan have legal jeopardy; maybe just total loss of credibility. An offshoot will be investigation of HRCs “investigation.†That brings in Lynch, Obama and HRC herself. Lynch put the fix in and then claimed she’d accept the FBI recommendation. Who OKd that? If Pandora’s box is opened, who knows. The Clinton Foundation?
That said, I think there will be a case being made to let it go “for the good of the country.†Healing don’t you know. I strenuously disagree. A rule of law applied differently to different classes is dangerous and immoral.
Guarneri:
I think that most in the press are using the word “obstruction” in a colloquial sense rather than in the legal sense to mean “any form of involvement which might be construed as interference” and then declaring their colloquial sense is illegal which it is not. I also think a colloquial spin is being put on the word “exonerate”. In the sense in which most pundits appear to be using the word, no one is ever exonerated under our system.
It is over. Period. The #NeverTrump, anti-Trump, Trump haters, Left, and Progressives have ‘shot their wad’. Obstruction of Justice can be tossed onto the garbage.
Behind the scenes, Rosenstein must be doing something right. It is past his resignation date, and he still has not been fired or encouraged to leave. To my knowledge, he has not been in any of President Trump’s tweets.
Regarding former President Obama and Sec. of State Clinton, it is over. “Locked her up” or “lock him up” can be tossed onto the garbage pile, also. Whatever they did or did not do is past. Get over it (MoveOn?).
Regarding former Lynch, unless there is overwhelming evidence that she was part of the FISA conspiracy or otherwise involved, it is over. Again, get over it. Like Rosenstein, I suspect that she was the ‘smartest kid amongst the dolts’, and she had enough sense to keep her hands clean enough.
The remaining players should be prosecuted to the ‘fullest extent of the law” as possible.
It is never over. There is an occasional brief hudna but hostilities invariably resume.
“obstruction of justice†is defined as an act that “corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justiceâ€
How did lying about sex fit under this definition? Shouldn’t we bye consistent.
Steve
Clinton was not impeached for obstruction of justice. He was impeached for lying to Congress under oath.
To repeat something I’ve said before I think that, although the final outcome (impeachment/not removed, basically putting a blot on his presidency) was the correct one, Clinton should have been censured rather than impeached.
Dave – all I meant was that I’ve only seen two colloquialisms invoked. Firing Comey fails as he has the constitutional right, not to mention that Rosenstein made the case. Witch hunt fails as a violation of free speech.
Tasty – get over it implies an emotional motivation. Perpetrating a fraud on a (FISA) Court is a crime. The case is easily made that such a fraud was committed, but that would be what is placed before a grand jury to decide. Such crimes in the context of a presidential candidate/campaign must be prosecuted. The integrity of law and elections is at stake. As to where it goes is just my speculation. But my sense is that none of the underlings is prepared to fall on their swords for Comey and McCabe, or Brennan (Ohr, Page and Strzoks testimony was pretty clear and matter of fact) who in turn are probably not prepared to fall on their swords for Lynch, Obama and Clinton. Whether the legal buffers are there for those last three, who knows?
@Drew
In life, sometimes the bad guy wins. Going after Obama or Clinton will not do anything positive. A lot of Wall Street executives should be behind bars after their role in the 2008 financial collapse, but at this point, it will do nothing positive.
The only purpose is emotional.
The FISA abuse and any other crimes should be punished “to the fullest extent of the law”. Comey, McCabe, Clapper, Brennan, Ohr, Page, Strzoks, and anybody under them should be prosecuted for FISA and any other crimes.
There are a different set of rules for people at the top, middle, and bottom. People on the top and bottom know this, but people in the middle think there is one set of rules applied equally.
In my opinion, President Trump should grant a full pardon to Obama and Clinton for all crimes committed, and then, let them call for a full and complete investigation to prove they are not guilty. The Clinton pardon could include any crimes committed as a Futures Trader or from the Uranium One deal.
“let them call for a full and complete investigation to prove they are not guilty”, Or not. I Like that.
“The impeachment of Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States, was initiated in December 1998 by the House of Representatives and led to a trial in the Senate on two charges, one of perjury and one of obstruction of justice.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
Steve
My recollection had been that the obstruction of justice charge had failed in the House. Perhaps I was thinking of the second obstruction of justice charge which did fail in the House. At any rate I was wrong about that.
BTW, encouraging Monica Lewinsky to file a false affidavit (one of the principle components of the obstruction charge) is not an exercise of the president’s constitutional authority. None of the components were. Consequently, Trump’s firing of Comey is not comparable to Clinton’s obstruction charge.
We are going to have to agree to disagree on that one, Tasty. We can’t have administrations or political candidates committing crimes against opposing politicians to defeat them or get them removed from office, unless we want to be Russia, Venezuela or some African hell ho…….uh, country. You just threw out deterrence and punishment as nothing more than emotional pique.
@Drew
Nixon should have had his “hide nailed to the barn door”, but Ford pardoned him.
Clinton lied about a blowjob, and he was impeached.
I would suggest that the outcome from Ford’s action was better than the outcome of the Republicans’ action. This is just my opinion, and others may think that, politically, the last 20 years has been better.
In Watergate, people did go to jail, and people should go to jail over this.
In Russia, Venezuela, etc., there is no moving on. The new government must destroy the previous government to ensure their security.
Obama and Clinton will never spend a day behind bars or pay a cent for a fine, and the only reason to go after them is emotional. Justice will not be obtained, but the toxic political environment will be amplified.
For me, the downside risks exceed the upside rewards.