06-20-2017, 03:00 PM
(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.
