@disqus_PE3qZCCtMu:disqus

Peter Irons, author of “A People’s History of the Supreme Court” has a fascinating history of Andrew Johnson’s impeachment, including Article 10 in the Articles of Impeachment that referred to Johnson’s racism.

Johnson’s deep-rooted racism, along with his verbal excoriation of his congressional foes as “treasonous” — something our current president has also done — led to his impeachment.

See: Trump's racism is an impeachable offense. The precedent of Andrew Johnson proves it.

Moreover, even though the Senate saved Johnson, he was crippled in the the last two years of his presidency from the investigations that led the House to impeach.

Yes indeed. Hardly a bastion of politics, never mind non-partisan politics. Now we know where K gets his misinformation.

Richard Nixon resigned and was pardoned by Ford, which is why he didn’t face any charges (and I suspect the pardon was part of the resignation deal).

H.W. Bush’s pardoned Wienberger, he didn’t fire him.

Who did W. Bush fire that was at the time investigating W. Bush?

“I am talking about what the law is.”

No you are not. You aren’t actually citing any law or court rulings. You are just giving irrelevant examples.

“Can’t you at least take some solace that those checks, however imperfect, appeared to stop the firing of Mueller in this case?”

No, because there is still someone in the Oval office who is completely unfit to hold the office of president of the US. Someone who is abusing his authority as president. further, you keep trying focusing on the attempted firing of Mueller as if that was the ONLY example of Trump trying to obstruct justice and it isn’t.

It’s an obscure cryptocoin news site (Crypto Coins News). They post some rather click-bait stuff from other topics to try to get their search engine position back to where it was before one of Google’s last algorithm shifts. The use of the term “Ex-Obama Cronies” is a rather obvious tell that this is not serious reporting. It’s based in Norway of all places, but that is because of the crypto.

If the president used his firing power to stop an investigation (of the presidents own actions) (“egregiously”) would that or would that not be “obstruction of justice”?

… no. See Richard Nixon. See George H.W. Bush’s pardon of Casper Weinberger. See George W. Bush’s firings of us attorneys. If you want to fix this, get the independent counsel statute back (that expired). That was the whole Watergate fix. It expired. With the statute expired, your only check against a self-interested yet authorized executive authority (under Article II) is the political check. You have to hope that the senators of the same party turn on the president, or you have to hope that public condemnation and political baggage make the firings irrational. One thing that can sweeten the deal is that only the surrogates go to jail.

Look, we are at cross purposes here. You are talking fairness and justice; I am talking about what the law is. With the current statute expired, hiring and firing at the level of attorney general is, basically, political. That’s the law. So you only have political checks against abuses. Can’t you at least take some solace that those checks, however imperfect, appeared to stop the firing of Mueller in this case?

… the way Mueller would get fired is by directing the atty general to do it. Firing Sessions would have been the way that got done. Also enough Republicans did not want the investigation halted. This provided a political check against abuse of power. So if a president uses his or her firing power egregiously, the system has a theoretical response (check).

I’m reading Will Young’s article now – Inside Liberty University’s ‘culture of fear’. I’ll read Unfree At Liberty next. Thanks!

Actually, I did see the reply because I hadn’t refreshed, but Disqus wouldn’t take my reply because the original was gone and it’s not showing up under your name either. But for what it’s worth – here is my reply. I’ve enjoyed this.
______
I’m calling foul on #1, specifically: Remember it was Lindsey Graham and other Republicans who told Trump not to fire Mueller. If he did, they warned, impeachment would occur. They would turn on him.

On July 27, 2017, Lindsey G and other Republicans warned Trump about firing Sessions, their recent and former colleague. Mueller was secondary.

“If Jeff Sessions is fired, there will be holy hell to pay,” Graham said to reporters at the time. “Any effort to go after Mueller could be the beginning of the end of the Trump presidency, unless Mueller did something wrong.”

Of course, Lindsey changed his mind the next year, but whatever.

However, your claim #1 of political checks doesn’t square with the “a president can hire and fire anybody he wants” to “if you fire so and so, impeachment would occur.”

It doesn’t take a lot of reading behind the lines to see Trump’s motivations were all about money and Russia. It may be that much of that has been passed to the SDNY. But I don’t think any sentient human being would deny that Trump’s attempts at total obstruction of the Mueller investigation and his attempts at total obstruction of Article 1 prerogatives regarding his tax returns and subpoenas means he has a lot hide.