,
10 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
1/ Contra @hughhewitt, the most important thing about @jacklgoldsmith's posts is what Jack *doesn't* say. To be sure, Jack is sharply critical of Mueller's craft. I think Jack's wrong on that score, for the reasons I offered at length in my own post.
washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/…
washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/…
2/ But whatever: readers can decide for themselves which of us has the better case w/r/t the strengths & weaknesses of Mueller's particular analyses. Critically, however, and (contra Hewitt's suggestions), Jack does not say or argue any of the following:
3/ -- Jack doesn't argue that section 1512 doesn't apply to the President at all.
-- Nor does Jack argue that 1512 doesn't apply to some forms of presidential actions and some of the allegations against Trump (e.g., removing Comey) but not to others.
-- Nor does Jack argue that 1512 doesn't apply to some forms of presidential actions and some of the allegations against Trump (e.g., removing Comey) but not to others.
4/ -- Nor does Jack argue that the words of the statute ("whoever") could possibly bear a meaning that encompasses some POTUS actions but not others (or, indeed, could be read to exclude the POTUS altogether).
All of which is to say that, for good reason, . . .
All of which is to say that, for good reason, . . .
5/ ... Jack does *not* argue that some or all of the accounts of Trump's conduct in the Report describe conduct that didn't violate a criminal law.
(For that matter, Jack also doesn't argue that OLC was right in 1995 to conclude there's a "clear statement canon"; nor does he ...
(For that matter, Jack also doesn't argue that OLC was right in 1995 to conclude there's a "clear statement canon"; nor does he ...
6/ ... suggest that he did or would employ such a canon as the head of OLC, e.g., so as to conclude that the Torture Act doesn't apply to the President.)
@lawfareblog @just_security @benjaminwittes
@lawfareblog @just_security @benjaminwittes
7/ I should add two other things, as well: (i) In his first post Jack did write that "I am pretty sure that many of the 10 events outlined in Volume II of the Mueller report could not even theoretically be crimes under the obstruction statutes ...
8/ ... as they are currently written." Jack didn't, however, explain why that's so. (ii) Jack also wrote this--something that Hewitt understandably ignores: "In combination with Trump’s other abuses of power over the past two and a half years, ...
9/ ... I have little trouble concluding that Trump committed impeachable offenses."
