By arguing that the president has the authority

Here’s a foundational question. From a piece by Natasha Bertrand at Business Insider that discusses Trump’s lawyer’s badgering of her over her reporting of That Letter:

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Trump’s legal team was trying to fend off an obstruction-of-justice charge from Mueller’s investigators by arguing that the president has the authority to fire whomever he wants, and that Comey is an unreliable witness.

My question is this: what’s their point? Or, what difference does that make? Or, what is the relevance? It can be the case that a president has the authority to fire anyone he wants and still also be the case that a particular firing is evidence of obstruction of justice.

Maybe it’s a pointless question, because they’re his lawyers so they’ll argue anything that won’t get them disbarred…but in the larger scheme of things it isn’t, because obviously one major part of the Trump Problem is that he’s a narcissist and an authoritarian who is determined to abuse the authorities allotted to him as much as he possibly can, and more. (“And more” because he may think he can but find out that he can’t.)

So one would hope that even though a president has broad powers, that doesn’t mean they are absolute.

One would hope.

Comments are closed.