All he’s gotta do’s fire him
Newt Gingrich spelled out the core issue while chatting at the National Press Club:
By the way, technically, the president of the United States cannot obstruct justice. President of the United States is the chief executive officer of the United States: if he wants to fire the FBI director, all he’s gotta do’s fire him.
And yet, as many many people rushed to point out, that’s sure as hell not what Gingrich was saying when it was Bill Clinton in the cross-hairs. At that time he said the opposite.
So, is it bullshit, or is it true?
Clearly as a matter of outcome, it depends on who has the votes. As a matter of brute fact, it depends on power, not law and not morality.
But as a matter of moral fact? Yes of course the president can obstruct justice, and obviously Trump is trying hard to do just that.
Absurdly, Gingrich goes on to give what he calls a “very good test”:
If John F Kennedy had fired J Edgar Hoover over investigating and wiretapping Martin Luther King Junior, would people have thought it was obstruction. [smug nod]
John F Kennedy wasn’t the same person as Martin Luther King, so no, that is not a “very good test”; it’s a ridiculous test. Trump is trying to obstruct an investigation of himself.
(Blinks at ‘… technically the president of the United States _cannot_ obstruct justice…’)
Ahem:
‘On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities…’
That was the first article of impeachment for Nixon. Which that congress passed. Apparently _they_ were of the opinion a president can, indeed, obstruct. As, I might note, really only makes sense. _No_ one, in a democracy, is above the law. That a plurality of your fellow citizens have seen fit to grant you a temporary office generally has little bearing on this principle.
Newt would love to make his guy an emperor, apparently. But then, this _is_ a guy censured for ethics violations. And who, of course, has subsequently lied about _that_, deceptively claiming he was ‘exonerated’ (nope).
It was, incidentally, on a tax matter…
… and see, again, ‘thick as thieves’.
(Addendum/clarification: ‘passed’ by the judiciary committee; I’m assuming people know the outcome: he resigned before the general vote. But it’s not like there’s much doubt what aren’t to the floor would pass there, too. Nixon himself, at least, clearly figured it was time to stop dragging it out… Would that the orange one and his increasingly embarrassing apologists had even _that_ much judgement.)
Not to mention, was Hoovers investigation both lawful and being carried out for a valid reason?
No and no.
Hoover was (or pretended to be) convinced in the face of all the evidence that MLK was a CommOnist and subversive and traitor and threat, so he put him under surveillance in hopes of finding evidence for that idiotic belief. I believe that’s how it was revealed that he fucked around behind his wife’s back.
Hmm. According to this piece at the Atlantic in 2011 it wasn’t Hoover but the Kennedys, and it wasn’t made up but because of two covert CP members in MLK’s circle. The Kennedys thought the CP guys could taint the whole thing.
https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2011/11/what-really-happened-between-j-edgar-hoover-and-mlk-jr/248319/
Andrew @ 1 – yes but as we keep being reminded – the Democrats controlled Congress at the time. Now they don’t. People keep explaining to us that however illegal it is for Trump to do what he’s doing, that doesn’t necessarily mean he will be impeached, because the Republicans just won’t do it. It’s “illegal” but the president can get away with it if impeachment is politically impossible. It’s deeply fucked up.
There is no “system of checks and balances.” We’ve been fed a lie.
It’s as I’ve said before. Western democracies largely operate on understandings and conventions. That makes them both resilient and fragile at the same time. The ultimate check and balance is an informed and motivated electorate that actually value democracy. Loose that and the rot sets in.
Want democracy back? Seize it.