Since it’s often “just a matter of opinion” on this Trump

Since it’s often “just a matter of opinion” on this Trump-Comey-Flynn-Russians& Turks-Hillary emails situation that’s taking eons to resolve ….. I just finished reading this article on how the conservative National Review interprets tRump’s message to Comey about “letting this go, letting Flynn go” and was NOT an order …. more like a hope and a prayer …. and thus did not rise to the level of “impeachable” … The NR basically says US presidents have broad executive power: they can do just about ANYthing that little resembles a “firing for cause,” and nothing truly egregious ever needs to be done. Remember: we’re talking about the NATIONAL REVIEW here, a magazine started by William Buckley in 1958-59 and which I read in the 8th grade (there wasn’t anything “from the Left” at the time, and Buckley sounded very reasonable and well-tempered in those early years; the way he stretched out his neck and made those supercilious facial expressions hadn’t reached the breaking point for me … yet). This article gladly gives DJT yet another ten feet of rope. [The NR is still worth reading, if just for the value received in how the Right thinks/rationalizes their positions]
—— below, a 3¶ portion of the article —— :
” … Does that mean the Constitution insulates the president from an obstruction-of -justice charge based on interference with the FBI’s operations? Absolutely not. Some Trump partisans go too far on this score. It is not only theoretically possible for a president to be guilty of obstructing investigations; President Richard M. Nixon would in fact have been removed from office over it had he not resigned. The first article of impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee alleged that Nixon had “prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice,” by (among other things) “interfering or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States [and] the Federal Bureau of investigation.”
How could a president be said to “obstruct” something he has the constitutional power to shut down entirely? The answer lies in the concept of corruption.
To establish the offense of obstructing an FBI investigation, federal law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused acted “corruptly.” Essentially, this means acting with an understanding that what one is doing is illegal, and with a purpose to subvert the due and proper administration of law.
Two things are worth noting here …… [quote from McCarthy’s article ends here]
… I urge you to read the rest of it because the Right will try to use this parallel with all Nixon’s firings of prosecutors in Watergate against finding the same germ of “corruption” with DJT.
We’ll see if it sticks … of if it gets thrown into the garbage can, and nobody retrieves it.
Read more at:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *