368

Simply sitting down and enumerating all the many Nixon parallels in Trump-Russia could fill a very large book-starting with the fact that it centers around stolen voter data and communications from the DNC. Then you have the Comey firing-which bears more than a little resemblance to when Nixon fired Archibald Cox. Now on the subject of Trump receiving a subpoena and being forced to testify his legal team is saying that’s ‘un-possible’ as Trump is basically above the law.

Yes, obstruction of justice is legal if you’re the so-called ‘President’:

President Trump’s lawyers believe that he is above the law when it comes to obstruction of justice, according to a bombshell new report in the New York Times. In a leaked 20-page letter, they have told Special Counsel Robert Mueller that Trump cannot be charged with the crime, asserting that his presidential power gives him unchecked authority over the Justice Department. The January memo, the Timesreports, “contends that the president cannot illegally obstruct any aspect of the investigation into Russia’s election meddling because the Constitution empowers him to, ‘if he wished, terminate the inquiry, or even exercise his power to pardon.’ ”

Yeah-what separation of powers? Turns out there is none per Trump’s lawyers. This argument-Trump has all the power of an absolute monarch-or Putin-was used by his lawyers in defending his Muslim ban and the justices weren’t too impressed. It turns out when you have a major case before court,  saying that the court has no right to even judge you is not a great opening argument.

But his lawyers are desperate for an argument, any argument to avoid him having to testify before Mueller as they know that despite all this Right wing talk of a ‘perjury trap’ the only perjury trap here is putting a pathological liar under oath.

The lawyers also made the broad claim that “every action that the president took [amid the Russia investigation] was taken with full constitutional authority pursuant to Article II of the United States Constitution,” and thus, “these actions cannot constitute obstruction, whether viewed separately or even as a totality.”

In other words, they told the special counsel that they are prepared to test the constitutional limits of Trump’s presidential powers:

“Mr. Mueller has told the president’s lawyers that he needs to talk to their client to determine whether he had criminal intent to obstruct the investigation into his associates’ possible links to Russia’s election interference. If Mr. Trump refuses to be questioned, Mr. Mueller will have to weigh their arguments while deciding whether to press ahead with a historic grand jury subpoena.”

So Mueller will decide that while he needs to gauge wether he had criminal intent to obstruct justice, he will conclude ‘Yeah, but I can’t interview him as he’s all-powerful. I forgot about that!’

Trump’s lawyers insist that “Of course, the president of the United States is not above the law, but just as obvious and equally as true is the fact that the president should not be subjected to strained readings and forced applications of clearly irrelevant statutes.”

But it’s not clear that Trump’s lawyers understand those statutes, or the case, as well as they purport to.

Again we see why they don’t want him testifying as even in this letter they are only able to defend this outrageous theory with a lie:

Yes and he’d asked Comey himself to ‘see if you can let this go.’ So Trump’s lawyers themselves are here telling a rank lie. Trump’s lawyers also made a second-bad-legal argument that FBI investigations don’t count as ‘proceedings’ that can be obstructed.

[T]he lawyers based those arguments by citing an outdated statute, without mentioning that Congress passed a broader law in 2002 that makes it a crime to obstruct proceedings that have not yet started.”

“Samuel W. Buell, a Duke Law School professor and white-collar criminal law specialist who was a lead prosecutor for the Justice Department’s Enron task force, said the real issue was whether Mr. Trump obstructed a potential grand jury investigation or trial — which do count as proceedings — even if the F.B.I. investigation had not yet developed into one of those. He called it inexplicable why the president’s legal team was making arguments that were focused on the wrong obstruction-of-justice statute.”

In any case the Trump legal team doesn’t seem too confident Mueller will find the if the President does it, it’s legal argument to persuasive as Rudy is out threatening that if Mueller does subpoena Trump, he’s going to sue Mueller. 

FN: In retrospect June 3, 2018-when I initially wrote this chapter-we now know Mueller had already punted on compelling Trump to do a live interview-March of that year was the fateful month when Mueller essentially backed down. It is clear though that Mueller didn’t buy the premise that ‘the ‘President’ can’t obstruct the law as-he is the law.’

 

UPDATE: Giuliani later took this to it’s literal reductio absurdem conclusion:

Remember when Trump said he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and get away with it? Rudy here made essentially the legal equivalent of that saying that if Trump assassinated Comey he couldn’t be prosecuted-though he could be impeached, Rudes generously allows.

So Giuliani is amplifying with a dubious legal argument that Trump can get away with; as for impeachment sometimes you get the idea that Pelosi too agrees-it surely does seem that Pelosi wouldn’t start an impeachment inquiry even if Trump did kill someone-his Gestapo ICE agency just killed another man yesterday. 

Still as outraged as Pelosi and Friends claims to be they are still not opening an inquiry. Last night Maddow asked Jerrold Nadler about impeaching ICE agents and he insisted that this was not the right answer-but what is? Last week the House Dems knuckled under to Mitch McConnell’s bill that doesn’t demand protections for those in custody and the only solution the Dems seem to offer for families being held hostage by ICE is to urge them to sue.

Ok but how easy is it for them to do this on their own-again their being held hostage by ICE?  If Obama were the Deporter in Chief, ‘President Trump’ is the Holding Children at a Detention Facility in Chief.

FN: fIndeed if you read about what the ICE agents who feel ‘liberated’ under Trump are doing, no calling them  Gestapo agents is not overreach-their latest is making mothers of small children drink from the toilet and making ‘jokes’ about AOC being sexually assaulted 

What did we work so hard for a Dem Congress for if they won’t use their power?

 

 

License

October 28, 2016: a Day That Will Live in Infamy Copyright © by . All Rights Reserved.

Share This Book