Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America discuss Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s public statement that is only going to inflame the political tensions in Washington. President Trump and Don Jr. are both throwing cold water on another possible Roy Moore run for U.S. Senate. And Jim and Greg examine the Democratic Party’s tightening of the rules for presidential candidates to qualify for the primary debates.

Subscribe to Three Martini Lunch 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.

There are 5 comments.

  1. OccupantCDN Coolidge

    Trump was only for Moore after he’d won the primary. In the primaries, he backed Luther Strange.

    • #1
    • May 29, 2019, at 3:04 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  2. milkchaser Member
    milkchaser Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    It is not clear at all that firing Mueller would constitute Obstruction of Justice. Nor would shutting down the entire investigation clearly constitute Obstruction of Justice. It might have led to impeachment, but these would have been facially lawful acts (the Constitution does not limit Presidential power to direct the Executive branch) and the burden of proof would have been with the prosecution to prove corrupt motive beyond a reasonable doubt. Absent evidence of illegal conspiracy, he has no imaginable corrupt motive.

    • #2
    • May 29, 2019, at 8:15 PM PDT
    • Like
  3. OccupantCDN Coolidge

    milkchaser (View Comment):

    It is not clear at all that firing Mueller would constitute Obstruction of Justice. Nor would shutting down the entire investigation clearly constitute Obstruction of Justice. It might have led to impeachment, but these would have been facially lawful acts (the Constitution does not limit Presidential power to direct the Executive branch) and the burden of proof would have been with the prosecution to prove corrupt motive beyond a reasonable doubt. Absent evidence of illegal conspiracy, he has no imaginable corrupt motive.

    I think you’re on the right track, but it goes even further – if there was no predicate crime, there can be no obstruction. Also, a legally permissible act, is not obstruction.

    I found this quote recently on the “bookworm room” blog:

    “While we recognize that the subject did not actually steal any horses, he is obviously guilty of trying to resist being hanged for it.”

    Bookworm Room – Progressives Collude

     

    • #3
    • May 29, 2019, at 8:35 PM PDT
    • Like
  4. Taras Coolidge

    OccupantCDN (View Comment):

    milkchaser (View Comment):

    It is not clear at all that firing Mueller would constitute Obstruction of Justice. Nor would shutting down the entire investigation clearly constitute Obstruction of Justice. It might have led to impeachment, but these would have been facially lawful acts (the Constitution does not limit Presidential power to direct the Executive branch) and the burden of proof would have been with the prosecution to prove corrupt motive beyond a reasonable doubt. Absent evidence of illegal conspiracy, he has no imaginable corrupt motive.

    I think you’re on the right track, but it goes even further – if there was no predicate crime, there can be no obstruction. Also, a legally permissible act, is not obstruction.

    I found this quote recently on the “bookworm room” blog:

    “While we recognize that the subject did not actually steal any horses, he is obviously guilty of trying to resist being hanged for it.”

    Bookworm Room – Progressives Collude

     

    AG Barr made the point (which had already occurred to me) that firing Mueller and replacing him would have been difficult to construe as obstruction.

    Mueller should have been replaced as soon as his bias became obvious; i.e., after he selected a team of Trump-hating Democrats. Unfortunately Trump’s advisers talked him out of it. 

    On the other hand, I think you can have obstruction (of an investigation) even if the alleged crime is not proven. 

    • #4
    • May 29, 2019, at 10:16 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  5. OccupantCDN Coolidge

    Taras (View Comment):

    OccupantCDN (View Comment):

    milkchaser (View Comment):

    It is not clear at all that firing Mueller would constitute Obstruction of Justice. Nor would shutting down the entire investigation clearly constitute Obstruction of Justice. It might have led to impeachment, but these would have been facially lawful acts (the Constitution does not limit Presidential power to direct the Executive branch) and the burden of proof would have been with the prosecution to prove corrupt motive beyond a reasonable doubt. Absent evidence of illegal conspiracy, he has no imaginable corrupt motive.

    I think you’re on the right track, but it goes even further – if there was no predicate crime, there can be no obstruction. Also, a legally permissible act, is not obstruction.

    I found this quote recently on the “bookworm room” blog:

    “While we recognize that the subject did not actually steal any horses, he is obviously guilty of trying to resist being hanged for it.”

    Bookworm Room – Progressives Collude

     

    AG Barr made the point (which had already occurred to me) that firing Mueller and replacing him would have been difficult to construe as obstruction.

    Mueller should have been replaced as soon as his bias became obvious; i.e., after he selected a team of Trump-hating Democrats. Unfortunately Trump’s advisers talked him out of it.

    On the other hand, I think you can have obstruction (of an investigation) even if the alleged crime is not proven.

    Mueller should never have been appointed in the first place, being close friends with both Comey and Rosenstein he was disqualified under the special prosecutor act. Trump should have fired him the day he was appointed, along with Rosenstein.

    • #5
    • May 29, 2019, at 10:39 PM PDT
    • Like