Thread by @bansisharma

1. Obstruction of Justice Redux
The phony Collusion smear having been completely debunked, Trump's opponents are now scouring the umbras and penumbras of Obstruction to seek some psychological solace. The Obstruction charge revolves around the firing of Comey. Let us review.

2. Shorn of all the inconsequential stuff, Comey was fired for one reason and one reason alone. President Trump found him insufferable. Why? Because Comey told Trump on three different occasions that Trump was not under investigation, but refused to say the same thing publicly.

3. Which manager with any self-respect would tolerate a subordinate who refuses to tell the truth publicly. Not only that, a subordinate who creates a public impression that you are under investigation, but tells you privately that you are not.

4. If Comey worked for me and did that, I would have fired his sorry ass too. This is just unacceptable behavior. President is well within his rights to fire anyone who behaves this impudently and slyly. There is no reason to tolerate such insubordination.

The End

While there can be obstruction without a crime, but there cannot be an obstruction without a criminal investigation. President Trump has never been under a criminal investigation while President, so he cannot obstruct anything even if he tries to. There is nothing to obstruct.

There is no obstruction. So now Trump opponents have been reduced to "... but he tried to obstruct." Really? Obstruct whom? Comey has testified he was never obstructed. Was Mueller? No, unless anyone thinks Mueller is so dumb that he was obstructed but doesn't even know it.

Mueller's punt on 'obstruction' is a dereliction of duty.

https://twitter.com/brithume/status/1118975162169344001

Andrew McCarthy in NY Post:

1. Obstruction of Justice Redux -- Part II
This thread is a bit legalistic, but extremely important to keep in mind as things unfold in the coming days and weeks (I expect plenty of fireworks in upcoming hearings when Mueller appears before Congress).

2. I am not an expert in constitutional law, but I am a keen student of constitutional arguments. For this thread, I am relying on an analysis by Josh Blackman who is a constitutional law professor at the South Texas College of Law Houston.

3. Almost half of the voluminous Mueller Report (448 pages) is devoted to 'obstruction of justice' findings and analysis. However, only 12 pages are dedicated to a critical question: Can the federal obstruction of justice statute apply to the president?

4. Robert Mueller treated this question—which is separate from whether a sitting president can be indicted—in an underwhelming fashion. Mueller failed to show that the precedents of the SCOTUS, and the DoJ, support the application of the obstruction statute in this context.

5. Mueller could have avoided the entire second volume of his report—which spends 182 pages summarizing his obstruction of justice investigation—if he had simply concluded that the obstruction statute does not apply to the president.

6. There is no reason to detail whether the president violated a federal law, if that federal law does not apply to the president.

7. The Supreme Court justices have historically suggested that general statutes should not limit the president’s power unless Congress expressly indicated an intent to do so. This is rooted in the doctrine of separation of powers. Mueller declined to exercise this caution. Why?

8. First, Mueller reasoned, the Office of Legal Counsel has suggested that applying the federal bribery statute to the president “raises no separation of powers questions.” True.

9. Second, Mueller reasoned that the prohibition on obstruction was indistinguishable from the prohibition on bribery. Therefore the obstruction statute could be applied to the president. Not true.

10. This analogy between bribery and obstruction, which supports much of Mueller’s analysis, falters. Accepting a bribe is an impeachable offense that cannot in any situation be considered a lawful exercise of presidential authority.

11. An obstruction charge is very different. Mueller implies that Trump’s removal of James Comey, with a corrupt intent, could constitute obstruction of justice. The president’s lawyers countered that the termination was a lawful exercise of presidential authority.

12. Applying the obstruction statute to the president raises separation of powers questions that the bribery statute does not. Mueller should have taken this more restrained, and correct, approach.

The End.

Some Trump opponents are likely to say, "So you're saying the President is above the law." No! I am talking about the correct application of the law. There are some specific ways the federal law is applied to the Presidents. That is part and parcel of the body of law itself.

1. Additional Context on Obstruction
"‘Mueller improperly seized the power’ to interpret the Constitution and the scope of the president’s authority." -- John Yoo, professor of law at U.C. Berkeley Law School & and a former Deputy Assistant U.S. Attorney General

2. Mueller clearly was bound by past DOJ opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted. But even if the president lost that immunity, Mueller could not indict on obstruction because he could not decide whether Trump had a “corrupt” state of mind without interviewing him.

3. At the same time, Mueller says that he believed he could have sought a subpoena and forced Trump to testify, but chose not to do so for reasons that did not seem compelling.

4. More importantly, Mueller argues that the president does not have a constitutional defense to a charge of obstruction. Trump’s lawyers argued against that by pointing out that application of 'separation of powers' doctrine prohibited Congress from constraining the President.

5. That argument is sound because Congress could not pass laws criminalizing a president’s exercising of his constitutional powers, such as the power to remove federal law enforcement officials.

6. That is the correct reading of the Constitution’s separation of powers—otherwise, Congress could make it a crime simply to fire an executive branch officer unless Congress approves.

7. Mueller improperly seized the power to interpret the Constitution and the scope of the president’s constitutional authority. AG Barr appears to correctly disagree with Mueller on that point.

8. Even Mueller was seemingly cognizant of the weakness of his position, which is why he punted on making a decision on obstruction, and even decided not to insist on interviewing the President, which he insists he had the authority to do.

The End.

1. A Statement Most Foul
“If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.” -- Mueller

2. What makes the above statement so odious, so misleading, so unethical, so slanderous, so deceptive, so heinous, and so cunning is the fact that it turns the entire purpose of a prosecutorial investigation on its head.

3. No prosecutor in our history has been asked to prove innocence. A prosecutor's job is to prove guilt. Absence of such proof automatically establishes innocence in our system of justice. Everyone is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.

4. Mueller report could have and should have equally truthfully said, “If we had confidence that the president committed obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.” Period.

The End

Say what you will about Trump's unsavory behavior at times, but let us not forget the difference between Trump and Hillary (who is pretty representative of Obama and other Democrats). Read this and decide who you would prefer in the White House, given a choice, every single time.