Trump math: 1 + 1 + 1 = zero accountability

[wvit1001]

Barr and Consovoy made distinct arguments that — were they both accepted — would create a system in which there would be virtually no way short of impeachment to hold a president accountable for his wrongdoing. And, of course, disabling Congress’s ability to investigate makes it that much more difficult to gather the evidence that would form the basis for impeachment.

So much for the fundamental precept that no one, including the president, is above the law.

First, consider Barr, who told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the president’s executive authority is so broad that he could stop a law enforcement proceeding if he concludes that it’s not well-founded.

Second, consider Consovoy, who told U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta that Congress has no right to subpoena records of President Trump’s accounting firm because any attempt by Congress to determine whether a president was acting outside the law was “improper because it’s the job of law enforcement, not lawmakers.”

These are pretty rich statements, given that the Department of Justice has concluded that the president can’t be indicted while in office — and that conclusion compelled Special Counsel Mueller to avoid making a “traditional prosecutorial judgment” about whether a prosecution of the president should be initiated.

Moreover, the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that congressional oversight, which has deep roots in our legal and political tradition, is both fundamental to our system of government and extremely broad.



Small wonder, then, that two different courts last week rejected the president’s arguments that Congress should not be able to exercise its oversight authority to subpoena records from accounting firms and banks. Judge Mehta — in his blockbuster ruling — emphatically rejected Consovoy’s arguments, writing that “t is simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a President for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct — past or present — even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry.”

The President cannot shut down investigations into his own lawlessness. And, as courts are making clear, he cannot deny Congress the information it needs to investigate that lawlessness. And it doesn’t matter how many times the president or lawyers acting on his behalf say otherwise.




https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/445596-trump-math-1-1-1-zero-accountability

[Dan]

What wrongdoing?

Just more TDS.  There is nothing remarkable or unprecedented here.  Just TDS alarmism.

[sine-qua-non]

They have yet to describe any lawlessness on Trumps part,

even 2 yrs of wasting the taxpayers money Mueller couldn’t do it

Dims are sore-loser whinney- assed children, apparently,
no wonder the disgust and mass exodus from the Dim party

[Truman62]

Obstruction and attempted collusion.

[sine-qua-non]

I meant they haven’t “ proved “ any lawless acts by Trump!

Duuuuhhhvik comes up short again LOL 

[wvit1001]

yeah Mueller listed out several episodes of obstruction sine.


“Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations,” Mueller wrote. “The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General’s recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony.”

“Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct,”

“f 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.”


https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

[sine-qua-non]

Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct,”






Means no collusion nutwit!