• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on The Best Christmas Movie
    Propertius on The Best Christmas Movie
    atl on The Best Christmas Movie
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on The Best Christmas Movie
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Every time I hear Collins…
    William on The Best Christmas Movie
    William on Every time I hear Collins…
    riverdaughter on Every time I hear Collins…
    riverdaughter on Every time I hear Collins…
    girdharikeer on Every time I hear Collins…
    riverdaughter on Every time I hear Collins…
    riverdaughter on Every time I hear Collins…
    Ga6thDem on Every time I hear Collins…
    Propertius on Every time I hear Collins…
    William on Every time I hear Collins…
  • Categories

  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

    May 2019
    S M T W T F S
    « Apr   Jun »
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • Open Thread
      Use the comments on this post to discuss topics unrelated to recent posts.
  • Top Posts

It’s good to be the king

Emmet Flood wrote a letter tut tutting Mueller’s suggestion that Congress take up the matter of Trump’s obstruction of justice charges. Here’s the money quote:

“Because they do not belong to our criminal justice vocabulary, the [special counsel’s office’s] inverted-proof-standard and ‘exoneration’ statements can be understood only as politicalstatements, issuing from persons (federal prosecutors) who in our system of government are rightly expected neverto be political in the performance of their duties,” Flood wrote to Barr. “The inverted burden of proof knowingly embedded in the SCO’s conclusion shows that the special counsel and his staff failed in their duty to act as prosecutors and only as prosecutors.” 

Ok. There you have it, people. Mueller didn’t indict the president (but probably wishes he had at this point) because the OLC ruling is that it is improper to indict a sitting president, presumably because he has less of a presumption of innocence than a private citizen. Pretty sketchy but that’s the foundation of Mueller’s decision.

But according to Flood, any alternative to indictment is political. And as PROSECUTORS, they can only indict or not indict, which goes counter to the OLC ruling.

Too cute by half.

If no man is above the law, then one of the two statements above can not be true. I’m going with Flood’s assertion. A remedy is baked into the constitution and as far as I know, the writers didn’t say anything about it being political.

So, you know, nice try Emmet.

Besides, Mueller is a Republican.

Has anyone scheduled an appt with Mueller yet? There’s a cancellation. Maybe we can move him up.

8 Responses

  1. This reminds me of cleverly twisted and insidious arguments made by people in the monarchies and the Church in the Middle Ages, to both protect their doctrines of absolute power and infallibility, and to find rationales to hang and burn anyone who said anything that they didn’t like,, or were seen as threats. I haven’t read the entire letter, but just from the excerpt, he seems to be arguing that the special prosecutor could only indict, not exonerate–except that he could not indict, so that therefore he could do nothing. And thus, there should never have been a special prosecutor, the whole thing is invalid, and the entire report should be thrown out. From a career attorney who was said to have been respected in Washington, this is horrific. Go down this path, and you have an absolute dictatorship, where no executive, at least a Republican one, can be investigated for anything. Because who would do it? Not a special prosecutor, according to Flood. Not the Congress, because they contend that the entire Executive Branch is impervious to subpoenas by Congress; and Congress has no right to call anyone in the Executive Branch in for testimony.

    I would say that we should take this to the courts, and inevitably to the Supreme Court. And if that Court has been so corrupted by Trump and his Republican predecessors, then we might as well find out now just how bad this is. And then the only way to save the democracy, is for an absolute outpouring of votes for Democrats in every nook and cranny of the country, in every single election. And if Barr is the wartime consigliere of a mafia organization, as Michael Tomasky just wrote, then we need our own wartime general. Frankly, if Hillary won’t run, I wish that Pelosi would.

  2. I should just add that I guess Flood thinks that the special prosecutor could investigate, but then he report should go to the attorney general chosen by the president, and he could just throw it out or bury it, because it’s his baby now. And if it somehow gets to Congress, they can’t bring in anyone who is or was part of the executive branch under this president, or subpoena any documents they don’t want to give up, so obviously they could not gain the evidence necessary to impeach. Thus, the executive reigns supreme. Unless it is a Democrat, and then of course they argue in the completely opposite direction, as in 1998. Bush v. Gore already stands for the proposition, that each decision can be limited to itself alone, and thus there are one set of laws for Republicans, and an opposite set for Democrats.

  3. I know there’s one crime Dump will never have to answer for.

    If charged with exposure, he’ll just say with composure
    De minimis non curat lex.

    • Very well played!!

      • Thanks, but it’s stolen from the dawn (circa 1996) of the “Information Highway”. Original was a limerick about a law student named Rex (and you can guess the rest), but fit Dump too well to pass up!

  4. Bush v. Gore already stands for the proposition, that each decision can be limited to itself alone, and thus there are one set of laws for Republicans, and an opposite set for Democrats.

    This was something jaw-dropping in that infamous decision that I think went over a lot of people’s heads, but most culpably those in the media.

    THE court most charged with setting precedent wrote a decision that unsets precedent.

  5. Break time!

    May the Fourth be with you. 😉

  6. This odd, but fine little song pre-dated the vogue for Middle Eastern & South Asian influences in psychedelic and progressive rock. Neval Nader (no, I don’t know if he’s kin to Ralph) and John Gluck, Jr. wrote it, and Gene Pitney sang it. Released in March 1963, roughly two months before I was born (5-13-63).

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: