The President is claiming that he is incapable of obstructing justice and editorial boards and pundits across the country, along with legal experts, are calling him and his legal team out on that claim. No one, not even the president of the United States, is above the law.
First up, The New York TImes highlights the facts and law that Trump’:
You know you have a problem when you’ve been president for less than 11 months and you’re already relying on Richard Nixon’s definition of what’s legal. [...]
In 1974, the first article of impeachment drafted by the House of Representatives charged President Nixon with “interfering or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force.”
A quarter-century later, President Bill Clinton was impeached by the House for, among other things, having “prevented, obstructed and impeded the administration of justice” and for having “engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony.”
Stephen Collinson and Maegan Vazquez at CNN:
Has the White House already embarked on a public relations strategy designed to lessen the chances that the Republican-led House would draw up articles of impeachment against the President based on any recommendation by Mueller?
Dowd's claims did not come in isolation. They followed the President's attacks on the FBI and his raising of doubts that justice would be served by the Mueller investigation at the weekend. "It's reputation is in Tatters - worst in History!" Trump tweeted.
The New York Daily News:
Who knew that the road to making America great again passed through the looking glass?
“The President cannot obstruct justice,” proclaims President Trump’s personal lawyer, “because he is the chief law enforcement officer” of the United States.
Translation: The man with the most power in the country is legally incapable of misusing that power.
Barbara McQuade at The Daily Beast:
An old adage says that when the facts are against you, argue the law.
President Trump’s personal lawyer seems to be following that strategy. Attorney John Dowd is reportedly arguing that a sitting president cannot obstruct justice as a matter of law. [...]
There is no clear answer as to whether a president can be impeached for obstructing justice because no one has ever challenged this issue in court, but it seems that abusing power by obstructing justice is the kind of “high crime or misdemeanor” for which impeachment is a potential consequence. Obstruction of justice was the basis for the impeachment articles that were drafted for President Nixon and filed against President Clinton. Contrary to Dowd’s argument, it seems that the precedent has been set to use obstruction of justice as an appropriate basis for impeachment of a president.
Dana Milbank at The Washington Post takes on the administration’s defense that collusion with Russia is no big deal and runs the timeline of its shifting defenses:
One of Trump’s attorneys, Jay Sekulow, just told the New Yorker that it doesn’t matter whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, because “there is no crime of collusion.” Another Trump attorney, John Dowd, told Axios that technically the president “cannot obstruct justice, because he is the chief law enforcement officer.”
A year after the Trump team debuted its “no contacts” defense, the attenuated new White House position amounts to this: Who cares whether Trump colluded with Russia and obstructed justice?
Margaret Hartmann on the RNC’s decision to help an alleged sex predator:
As the old saying goes, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice … Republicans officially have no shame?
After Donald Trump bragged about serial sexual assault on tape, a number of high-profile Republicans declared that they could no longer support his presidential bid. Despite rumors that the Republican National Committee was exploring ways to drop Trump, chairman Reince Priebus settled for issuing a weak statement saying “no woman” should be discussed in such vulgar terms. Trump apologized, downplayed the tape as “locker room talk,” and remained adamant that the 16 plus women who’d accused him of sexual assault were lying. Eventually most Republicans wound up rallying behind their candidate, even if it meant never looking their teenage daughter in the eye again.
Eugene Robinson asks the key question: what is Trump is desperate to cover up?
With Flynn now cooperating, Mueller’s investigation enters a new phase. But let’s not lose sight of the big picture. Ask yourself a common-sense question: If nothing wrong happened with Russia during the campaign, why is Trump so desperate to cover it up?