Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
On today’s podcast, we sift through the Mueller report and find that while it ends the Russia-puppet storyline, it is considerably more problematic for Trump when it comes to obstruction—even though any obstruction would have been without an underlying crime. And we discuss the horrid takes on the burning of Notre Dame. Give a listen.
Subscribe to The Commentary Magazine Podcast in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.
All Hillary had to do was go to Wisconsin … and not be a corrupt, inept, old fool.
Get Norman on here as a guest to explain to Noah that you need a crime to in order to be guilty of the crime of obstruction.
I am no fan of Trump, but idiots on our side, people who at one time had some common sense and integrity, are making me almost ready to vote for Trump (as I never have before).
Hey! I’m a proud alum of the beloved University of Arizona!
John, how dare you disparage my alma mater at 56:18!
Recant or I will cancel my subscription to Commentary!
You guys didn’t insane with the Mueller Report. I’m so proud.
The fact is that there is no Justice Department in the U.S. Constitution and that the proper place to try to remove a president is with Congress (or possibly the cabinet, assuming that there is a true 25th Amendment crisis).
This is not true, as Martha Stewart will tell you.
There’s one thing I feel very uncomfortable with in the Mueller report: namely, the idea that it would be considered obstruction for Trump to tell others (e.g., Michael Cohen) not to cooperate with investigators.
Does not Cohen and everybody else have a right to remain silent, and Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination, and so on? How can it be obstruction to tell somebody to exercise that right? That just seems like criminalizing the act of putting up a legal defense.
I mean, I agree with John et al. that Trump’s behavior, as described in the report, is execrable – but that bit really bothered me.