Originally Posted by Bytor Peltor
Class is dismissed!
fortunately one’s education does not cease after elementary school
and so we can hear out specialists and the better educated to look at what happens beyond simplistic arguments about “the constitution”.
like, people who know and understand that obstruction of justice is spelled out in the US code.
here’s one example:
here are some excerpts worth highlighting
But the obstruction statutes are a tricky business. By their terms, they generally do not prohibit specific acts alone. They prohibit those acts when taken “corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication.” They prohibit those acts when someone engages in them “willfully” and with specific intent to tamper with the justice system. They use words like “corruptly persuade.” The same exact act can be an obstruction of justice or not depending entirely on what the perpetrator of that act intends.
But here’s where we come to what I think is one significant flaw in the president’s legal theory. Major criminal investigations seldom do take place entirely within the executive branch. Criminal investigations take place in a complex interaction between the Justice Department and grand juries, which are instrumentalities of the judiciary, and they end up in court in criminal proceedings. A facially valid action taken in the service of managing the executive branch, if taken with specific intent to commit a crime in order to influence a judicial proceeding, can theoretically violate statutes designed to protect the judicial function.
The president takes an oath of office in which he promises to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States” and he is obliged by the Constitution to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” The law professors Eric Posner and Daniel Hemel suggest a legal test in which “a president commits obstruction of justice when he significantly interferes with an investigation, prosecution, or other law enforcement action to advance narrowly personal, pecuniary, or partisan interests.”
so, basically, while it’s true that the president has broad authority over the executive branch, it does not follow that the president is above the law and can run the government like a mafia. there’s a high burden of proof on the prosecution no doubt, and we still have not heard what the results of the investigation are. so we don’t know. and since we don’t know, we can’t claim that we do.