RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/william-barr-attorney-general-nomination/

A response to Daniel Hemel and Eric Posner

University of Chicago law professors Daniel Hemel and Eric Posner have penned an op-ed for the New York Times in which they argue that William P. Barr is disqualified to serve as President Trump’s attorney general. Their rationale is that the advisory memorandum Barr wrote to Justice Department officials this past June, arguing against the validity of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s obstruction theory, raises questions about his objectivity and fitness.

Coming from such estimable scholars, the Hemel-Posner column is surprisingly vapid. In fact, it is so unconvincing, I can only conclude that it is the start of a two-part strategy: Set the table by staking out an aggressive but untenable position that Barr — an eminently qualified former attorney general — is not suitable to be AG; then, Democrats can appear oh so reasonable in ultimately arguing that Barr must at least recuse himself from oversight of the Mueller investigation. The latter would be a meritless contention, though one we are certain to hear.

Hemel and Posner concede that Barr explicitly disclaimed knowledge about many of the facts of Mueller’s investigation. Moreover, far from attacking the legitimacy of Mueller’s overall investigation, or claiming that a prosecutor may not validly investigate the president for obstruction, Barr asserts that a president may indeed be cited for obstruction by “sabotaging a proceeding’s truth-seeking function.”

Barr’s quarrel, the professors correctly state, is with what press reports indicate is an expansive construction of Section 1512(c) of the federal penal code. As I explained in a National Review column earlier this week, Barr contends that application of the obstruction statute is limited to innately wrongful acts of evidence and witness tampering; it cannot be stretched to cover prerogatives of the presidency (e.g., issuing pardons, dismissing subordinate officials, exercising prosecutorial discretion by weighing in on the merits of an investigation) that a prosecutor believes may have been improperly motivated. Otherwise, not only would the chief executive potentially be divested of his constitutional authority; the administration of justice would be damaged because this theory would apply to all executive officials — including, for example, prosecutors making strategic decisions in litigation, or making personnel and management decisions.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13454/trump-agenda

President Donald Trump has put a number of burning issues back on the agenda. These include the widening income gap in the United States, the unintended and unexpected consequences of outsourcing, and the disequilibrium created by signing trade agreements with countries with different labor laws and environmental, health and safety standards.

In foreign policy, Trump has managed to pass on an important message: don’t take American heavy lifting for granted! More importantly, Trump has persuaded millions of Americans excluded or self-excluded from the political arena to end their isolation and demand a meaningful place in collective decision-making.

Thus, for the time being at least, air-brushing Trump out of the picture is a forlorn task.

As the American political elite head for Christmas holidays, the buzz in Washington circles is that 2019 will start with fresh attempts at curtailing the Trump presidency or, failing that, preventing Donald Trump’s re-election in 2020. Amateurs of the conspiracy theory may suggest that the whole thing may be a trap set by the Trump camp to keep the president’s opponents chained to a strategy doomed to failure.

By devoting almost all of their energies to attacking Trump personally and praying that the Mueller probe may open the way for impeachment, the president’s opponents, starting with the Democrat Party leadership, have shut down debate about key issues of economic, social and foreign policy — issues that matter to the broader public. Reducing all politics to a simple “Get Trump!’ slogan makes them a one-trick pony that may amuse people for a while but is unlikely to go very far.

Despite sensational daily headlines furnished by the Mueller soap opera, there is little chance of the impeachment strategy to get anywhere close to success. And even if the pro-impeachment lobby succeeds in triggering the process, it is unlikely that this would lead to Trump’s removal from office. In fact, out of the 45 men who have served as President of the United States only two, Andrew Jackson and Bill Clinton, faced formal impeachment procedures, but neither was driven out of office.