Quote:Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Friday that it's impossible for President Donald Trump to obstruct justice because of the fact that he's president.
"Technically, the President of the United States cannot obstruct justice," Gingrich said at the National Press Club in an event to promote his new book, "Understanding Trump." "The 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 got to do is fire him."
However, Gingrich himself has in the past voted to impeach a president over such charges. While speaker of the House, Gingrich voted in 1998 to impeach President Bill Clinton on charges of obstruction of justice and perjury.
Now, with a Republican in power, Gingrich has changed his tune. On Friday he called the investigation into Trump a "witch hunt."
"The left right now is engaged in the Salem witchcraft process of, 'We know somebody's evil, we know somebody's bad. I wonder who we should burn at the stake? Maybe it's you, whoever you are,'" Gingrich said. He encouraged the audience to read Arthur Miller's "The Crucible," saying "that's the mentality of the left right now."
Gingrich spreads rumor on DNC worker's death 02:57
Gingrich was a vocal advocate for Trump during his campaign and at one time was considered for the vice president slot. He said a reported investigation of Trump for obstruction of justice in the Russia probe -- which Trump himself said is happening -- is related to a failed attempt to prove election collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, which Gingrich called the "Russia Fantasy."
"Everybody on the left has been walking around town chanting, 'watch for the Russian connection, watch for the Russian connection, look for the collusion,'" Gingrich said. "Turns out, even Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the (Senate) intelligence committee, says there is zero evidence of collusion. So now the newest one is, 'Ah, but there was obstruction of justice over the collusion.'"
Gingrich said he has cautioned many in the Trump administration about the seriousness of the current investigations.
Gingrich raised eyebrows earlier this week when he appeared to blame liberal rhetoric for the shooting at a GOP congressional baseball practice Wednesday that left five, including Majority Whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana, wounded and the gunman dead.
Speaking on Fox News' "Outnumbered," Gingrich said, "It's part of a pattern. You've had an increasing intensity of hostility on the left."
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
The President can obstruct justice, but he can't simply by exercising his Constitutional powers.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(06-20-2017, 11:29 AM)GMDino Wrote: Newt said he can't.
With his example of firing the FBI director I'd assume he meant like I said, but maybe not.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(06-20-2017, 11:24 AM)michaelsean Wrote: The President can obstruct justice, but he can't simply by exercising his Constitutional powers.
He can if there was corrupt intent.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(06-20-2017, 11:56 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: He can if there was corrupt intent.
A series of legal acts can't constitute one illegal act. Tampering with evidence and lying are obstruction of justice. Using the powers granted to you are not.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(06-20-2017, 12:46 PM)michaelsean Wrote: A series of legal acts can't constitute one illegal act. Tampering with evidence and lying are obstruction of justice. Using the powers granted to you are not.
This letter requests an investigation into obstruction. It is written by Noah Bookbinder, a man with a hefty legal resume, and the organization also has at least two former White House lawyers (one from each party) in its leadership. If they are saying that Trump could potentially be guilty of obstruction by using the power constitutionally granted to him if it was done with corrupt intent, I will take their word for it over yours.
All tea, no shade.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
This letter requests an investigation into obstruction. It is written by Noah Bookbinder, a man with a hefty legal resume, and the organization also has at least two former White House lawyers (one from each party) in its leadership. If they are saying that Trump could potentially be guilty of obstruction by using the power constitutionally granted to him if it was done with corrupt intent, I will take their word for it over yours.
All tea, no shade.
They are hoping to convince people of that. Has it ever happened before to a President? When Ford pardoned Nixon and stopped the investigation cold, was that obstruction? Clinton and Mark Rich? Bush and Weinberger? Any time a President has pardoned someone under investigation or indictment, how is it not the same thing?
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
The cognitive dissonance in this article actually causes me pain. Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, not obstruction. So Gingrich's opinion, right or wrong, is not hypocritical. I'm beginning to get why CNN is perceived by so many as a purveyor of garbage.
There was an obstruction charge connected to the lying under oath and witness tampering, but not for performing legal acts.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(06-20-2017, 01:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The cognitive dissonance in this article actually causes me pain. Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, not obstruction. So Gingrich's opinion, right or wrong, is not hypocritical. I'm beginning to get why CNN is perceived by so many as a purveyor of garbage.
Well... Article III of the Clinton impeachment says "William Jefferson Clinton [...] has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a Federal civil rights action brought against him"
So well, obstruction was a part of what Gingrich voted for.
(06-20-2017, 01:40 PM)michaelsean Wrote: There was an obstruction charge connected to the lying under oath and witness tampering, but not for performing legal acts.
(06-20-2017, 01:42 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well... Article III of the Clinton impeachment says "William Jefferson Clinton [...] has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a Federal civil rights action brought against him"
So well, obstruction was a part of what Gingrich voted for.
Fair enough, I should have been clearer. Regardless, my less than precise language does not change my point at all. When anyone gets back to me with solid evidence that Trump obstructed justice then the article will start to have a point. Until that happens this is, as I said, a garbage comparison.
(06-20-2017, 02:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: When anyone gets back to me with solid evidence that Trump obstructed justice then the article will start to have a point. Until that happens this is, as I said, a garbage comparison.
But that was not the point the article was making. It's not about the actual obstruction or if it indeed happened or not. It's about Gingrich saying a president in general can't be charged with obstruction of justice, by the nature of his position alone he can not "obstruct". And if that truely is his view on that subject, it isn't quite a consistent one... since president Clinton could in his eyes very well obstruct justice. I feel that's a fair point to make. Not an overly important one, but also not a "garbage" one.
What might be most interesting is not Gingrich's alleged hypocrisy, but if he's actually right. Is it impossible for a president to obstruct justice? In the sense that it's also impossible he's charged with sharing classified information?
(06-20-2017, 02:44 PM)hollodero Wrote: But that was not the point the article was making. It's not about the actual obstruction or if it indeed happened or not. It's about Gingrich saying a president in general can't be charged with obstruction of justice, by the nature of his position alone he can not "obstruct". And if that truely is his view on that subject, it isn't quite a consistent one... since president Clinton could in his eyes very well obstruct justice. I feel that's a fair point to make. Not an overly important one, but also not a "garbage" one.
You're actually making the article's, attempted, point better than the article itself. However, we're getting into the parsing hairs area of the law. Clinton lied under oath, this isn't in dispute, by anyone. That, in itself could be, and was, an impeachable offense. Don't we hear all the time from "the left" how they can't wait for Trump to testify because he'll lie under oath? Not being an expert on constitutional law I can't be definitive, but I'm sure there are multiple ways a POTUS can be impeached for lying under oath, not just for obstruction. Regardless, I don't see anyone, including Gingrich, making an argument that it's ok for the POTUS to lie under oath.
Quote:What might be most interesting is not Gingrich's alleged hypocrisy, but if he's actually right. Is it impossible for a president to obstruct justice? In the sense that it's also impossible he's charged with sharing classified information?
He's arguing nuances and your second point is a good one. In short, I'd say absolutely yes, the POTUS can obstruct justice as he's not an autocrat and is beholden to the US Constitution. Whether, in the way Trump is alleged to have obstructed, it is possible for the POTUS to obstruct is another argument. Not to change the subject, at all, but it's similar to the difficulty of convicting an LEO for murder while on duty. Part of the LEO's job description is the potential use of deadly force. Thus, by dint of their profession the burden of proof that they acted in a criminal manner, especially a willful one, when they used deadly force is much more difficult than it would be for a person who does not have that legal power. I think this is why you have well known legal experts on completely polar opposite sides of this issue.
I am currently on my iPad, so I am not quoting the parts I want to. Regarding being charged with obstruction, that has yet to be determined if the POTUS can be. It will have to be answered by the SCOTUS if POTUS can Ben criminally charged. Congress can do it through impeachment for obstruction, but the question hasn't been answered regarding prosecution. It was almost taken up for Nixon, but because of his resignation it was never an answered question.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(06-20-2017, 01:16 PM)michaelsean Wrote: They are hoping to convince people of that. Has it ever happened before to a President? When Ford pardoned Nixon and stopped the investigation cold, was that obstruction? Clinton and Mark Rich? Bush and Weinberger? Any time a President has pardoned someone under investigation or indictment, how is it not the same thing?
Corrupt intent has to be proven, that is a difficult thing. In this situation it could be different since Trump can't keep his mouth shut and stay off of Twitter.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(06-20-2017, 03:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Corrupt intent has to be proven, that is a difficult thing. In this situation it could be different since Trump can't keep his mouth shut and stay off of Twitter.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(06-20-2017, 02:44 PM)hollodero Wrote: But that was not the point the article was making. It's not about the actual obstruction or if it indeed happened or not. It's about Gingrich saying a president in general can't be charged with obstruction of justice, by the nature of his position alone he can not "obstruct". And if that truely is his view on that subject, it isn't quite a consistent one... since president Clinton could in his eyes very well obstruct justice. I feel that's a fair point to make. Not an overly important one, but also not a "garbage" one.
What might be most interesting is not Gingrich's alleged hypocrisy, but if he's actually right. Is it impossible for a president to obstruct justice? In the sense that it's also impossible he's charged with sharing classified information?
It is fairly agreed on that a President can't (won't) be charged criminally with obstruction while in office. Once he leaves he can be which is why Ford pardoned Nixon. Yes he can obstruct justice by doing illegal things during an investigation. Lying. Withholding evidence. Suborning (bestechung...no way you know that one) perjury etc.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(06-20-2017, 03:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Corrupt intent has to be proven, that is a difficult thing. In this situation it could be different since Trump can't keep his mouth shut and stay off of Twitter.
Well the first thing I am going to do as a defense attorney is cite all the investigations stopped through pardons and point out that there was never once an attempt at prosecution for the President halting an investigation through the powers granted to him.
Of course first you have to prove he even attempted to halt the investigation. Do the testimonies of Coats and Rogers count? We don't have him ever saying that, but we do have him saying if any of his people broke the law, it's good to know. Hmmm...I wonder if that's obstruction too. I wonder if Comey felt pressured to investigate his aids after he said that.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
