The claim that the president can not obstruct justice is total bullshit. The claim amounts to a bid to put the office above the law -- an infinitely bad idea.

44 years ago the DOJ ruled that a President cannot pardon himself. The ability to do so places a President above the rule of law, which is preposterous in a democracy.

I've been a lawyer for quite a while. Oddly, I find that though I have less and less respect for most of my fellow lawyers (including judges--and in particular those lawyers representing the president at this time), I have greater respect for the rule of law now than I did when I first began practicing.

Even kings have been subject to the rule of law in Anglo-American jurisprudence since what took place at Runnymede in 1215 (though some claim there are exceptions in extraordinary circumstances such as times of war--Inter arma enim silent leges as Cicero said). The claim that a president is above the law and may pardon himself of any crime is intolerable; even contemptible.

As a matter of fact, "obstruction of justice" is when a very specific set of criteria has been met by someone.

Does anyone really believe that the president cannot meet that criterion?

:wink:

Does anyone really believe that the president cannot meet that criterion? — creativesoul

The argument being made, as I understand it, is that the president is the chief representative of the law in the nation. The president is the law, in effect, to the extent any human being can be. Therefore, he cannot obstruct the law as that would be to obstruct himself; something he cannot do. Q.E.D.

So, this has just been put into the public sphere — creativesoul

He's been prez a year and a half and still he lives rent-free in people's heads. Just let it go. He learned his craft as a reality tv star. He knows how to push people's buttons and get attention. Someone insightfully noted that liberals take Trump literally but not seriously; and conservatives take him seriously but not literally.

There is no law that requires you to react emotionally every time Trump says something. He hasn't been indicted or convicted of anything. If and when that day comes, the question of whether a president can pardon himself will be relevant. Today, it's just noise in your head.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I really cannot imagine the supreme court falling on the wrong side of this question.

Today, it's just noise in your head. — fishfry

The noise in my head is my personal problem. Not so the source of that noise. Everything about that noise other than my personal problem with it is relevant and important. The sound we hear is the shredding of our social fabric. If you don't think that's serious, you're mistaken. President Trump is the butt of late night humour. If only that were all there was too it. Imo based on news coverage his entire approach to his duties is treasonous in that it damages us and gives comfort to out enemies.

Calling Canada a risk to national security while sucking up to China and Russia - and sucking up it is, notwithstanding some issues - wtf!! is up with that. Putin loves this guy, no doubt; or to be more accurate, he loves it that his nemesis, us, has such a sick and dysfunctional human being for a leader.

I really cannot imagine the supreme court falling on the wrong side of this question. — VagabondSpectre

I would hope, and even assume so, but what a travesty that would be if the Conservative arm of the Supreme Court let tribalism and party loyalty supersede what would be an American constitutional crisis, and all because the Republicans refused to confirm Garland, purely through partisanism.

He hasn't been indicted or convicted of anything. If and when that day comes, the question of whether a president can pardon himself will be relevant. — fishfry

I wonder why, then, the president and his lawyers are making these claims now. They appear to believe them relevant. Shouldn't your complaint be directed to them? Or is it that you're disturbed only by the fact others are responding to the claims they made publically, clearly believing them to be relevantly made? Are the claims made relevant, but not responses to them? Or perhaps the claims are irrelevant and responding to them is therefore doubly irrelevant, as it were?

It seems a bit harsh to maintain that people shouldn't respond to claims made by others.

I wonder why, then, the president and his lawyers are making these claims now. — Ciceronianus the White

I do too. Trump's a troll. You let yourself get trolled. A pardon's not relevant until he's convicted of a crime. That hasn't happened. Why not save your outrage for things that are actually happening? That's my question. You can't stay outraged all the time. Can you?

He learned his craft as a reality tv star. — fishfry

I would submit politics is the original reality TV.

What is especially egregious is that while Trump is unambiguously asserting that he is above the law, his representatives are denying that this is the meaning of what he's saying, when it so obviously is. And he's created such a milieu of double-talk and bullshit, that everyone just swallows it.

The argument being made, as I understand it, is that the president is the chief representative of the law in the nation. The president is the law, in effect, to the extent any human being can be. Therefore, he cannot obstruct the law as that would be to obstruct himself; something he cannot do. Q.E.D. — Ciceronianus the White

Interesting argument, I guess. Doesn't strike me as sound.

Looks like a conflation between the president and the law. The two are not the same thing. The argument works from false premisses.

It would as easy as saying the President is not above the law.

Obama assassinated Anwar al-Awlaki in a drone strike. If not for being the President, that would be straight up murder in cold blood.

However, in accordance with his duties as a government official, the President is not culpable of murder in such a case.

...Someone insightfully noted that liberals take Trump literally but not seriously; and conservatives take him seriously but not literally... — fishfry

The above is the consequence of working from an ill-conceived framework.

Trump can be taken literally not seriously, seriously not literally, in addition to being taken both seriously and literally. Moreover, he can be taken in any of these three ways by all sorts of different people, regardless of political affiliation or lack thereof.

...He hasn't been indicted or convicted of anything. If and when that day comes, the question of whether a president can pardon himself will be relevant...

A shortsighted viewpoint.

Sometimes preparation is necessary for what may or may not happen.

Sometimes preparation is necessary for what may or may happen. — creativesoul

What’s your prep then - does the Constitution preclude it?

The preparation I'm alluding to is preparing the American people to consider the facts. Some of those facts ought be considered in light of the Constitution. Other facts ought be considered by just plain common sense. Unfortunately, the founding fathers presupposed that the most rational, knowledgeable, wise and/or otherwise moral men would be the leaders.

The question of whether a sitting President can be indicted is complicated.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/05/22/can-the-president-be-indicted-or-subpoenaed/

This is where the debate must focus, not on the "it just ain't right some man gets to avoid prosecution." And before we forget, no one argues he gets permanent immunity, just no indictment while in office. You want him out of office, impeach him. To that point, the Constitution is clear. If you're curious how it's done, Google "Bill Clinton impeachment."

the founding fathers presupposed that the most rational, knowledgeable, wise and/or otherwise moral men would be the leaders. — creativesoul

They supposed nothing of the sort. This is historically incorrect.

On the contrary, they assumed that future leaders would be venal, greedy, and no better or worse than people in general. That's why they designed a system with checks and balances so that no one individual and no one branch of government could run roughshod over the rights of the people.

L'etat cest Trump?

The sound we hear is the shredding of our social fabric. If you don't think that's serious, you're mistaken. — tim wood

I lived through 1968 in the US so I'm immune to "the sky is falling" rhetoric about the shredding of the social fabric. 1968 is the year this country damn near did come apart. Now it's 50 years later and in hindsight, the country didn't fall apart. So spare me the rhetoric please.

'68 is neither your personal achievement nor your private property. And it has nothing to do with 2018. Cannot you see the difference between the two? In 1968 this country was stressed to be sure, but also in that stress vibrantly healthy. In 2018 we are poisoned, by Trump to be sure, but also a right wing that apparently neither has no knows any principles at all.

In 2018 we are poisoned, by Trump to be sure, but also a right wing that apparently neither has no knows any principles at all. — tim wood

Enjoy your partisan hysteria. I'd be the last to try to take it from you. You honestly don't see the threat to free speech and free thought from the left?

In 1968 this country was stressed to be sure, but also in that stress vibrantly healthy. — tim wood

Well sure, in the hindsight of 50 years that's clear now. At the time it felt like the country was coming apart. You're suffering from recency bias. The present always seems far more real than the past.

You honestly don't see the threat to free speech and free thought from the left? — fishfry

lol this talking point is nothing but a last gasp of a political philosophy which has exhausted its overton window ideas, and in doing so has enabled the platforming of anti-Semites, Islamophobes, racists, and misogynists, the ideas of which are market failures in the so-called marketplace of ideas.

You honestly don't see the threat to free speech and free thought from the left? — fishfry

In a word, no. Please make the case. Before starting, refresh your understanding of what free speech is in constitutional terms. Don't confuse it with license. As to thought, are your thoughts suppressed in any way? In the US are you aware of anyone's thoughts that are suppressed by the left?

From the right, on the other hand, can you say Mitch McConnell?

the platforming of anti-Semites, Islamophobes, racists, and misogynists — Maw

Those ideas are protected by the first amendment. If you don't get that, you don't get what this country is about. See the 1977 Skokie case. I'm with the ACLU on that one. I was at the time as well. It was a very difficult stand they took, but they were correct. If Nazis don't have free speech, nobody does.

How revealing that you have a list of people whose views may not be expressed That's a very slippery slope, my friend. I'd think history would have taught people that, but evidently not. Hence my point about the left, which you just confirmed.

From the right, on the other hand, can you say Mitch McConnell? — tim wood

A little far afield from the thread topic. My original point is that one need not get their emotions jerked around by everything Trump says. As far as Giuliani's recent statements, nobody, left or right, has any idea what Rudy is doing or why he makes Trump's situation worse every time he opens his mouth. I'm not defending Trump. How does Mitch McConnell bear on anything anyone's talking about?

Before starting, refresh your understanding of what free speech is in constitutional terms. — tim wood

I have a far better understanding of free speech than the censors on the left. If @Maw had his way, how many other groups and individuals would find their right to free expression suppressed? See the Tommy Robinson case in England going on even as we speak. A guy sentenced to jail for 13 months for standing on a public street and reporting on a trial. And if you report on his arrest, you're in violation of the law too. Is that the kind of society people think they want?

I'm for free speech and the first amendment. I gather that makes me some kind of right wing racist in the eyes of many. I deplore what's happening on the left.

lol this talking point is nothing but a last gasp of a political philosophy which has exhausted its overton window ideas, and in doing so has enabled the platforming of anti-Semites, Islamophobes, racists, and misogynists, the ideas of which are market failures in the so-called marketplace of ideas. — Maw

No one's advocating the positions you've listed. But to the extent you're declaring conservative ideology failed, my recollection is that Clinton's election failed as did so many other Democrats in the last Presidential election year. In fact, it was a trouncing from the most local levels up to the presidency. If the liberals won, what does a loss look like?

You said that free speech (the First Amendment) is under attack from the Left, despite the three branches of Government being controlled by conservatives/Republicans. I did not say or suggest that Government curtail freedom of speech, or that racist, misogynistic ideas must not be "expressed". I said they do not deserve being platformed, i.e. mainstream publications, college campuses, etc., should not welcome people with virulent, intolerant beliefs or opinions. Regardless, such views are nevertheless present on mainstream publications, and college campuses, so the idea that the Left is systematically destroying freedom of speech is pure hysteria. Given that the Republicans are in charge they have resorted to grasping at straws in order to make themselves seem like David vs. the illusory Goliath Left. Make a new thread if you'd like, because it's an interesting topic.