By Frank Bowman
As regular readers of this site are well aware, I deeply disapprove of Mr. Trump, his shameless enablers, and all their works. And I’m entirely in favor of employing the legitimate tools of both law and politics to oppose Mr. Trump and to expose his criminal or impeachable conduct, if any.
But, at least for me, that doesn’t mean anything goes. Indeed, because the fundamental sin of Trumpism, from which all its other evils flow, is disregard of legal rules and norms, Trump critics have a special responsibility not to bend the law or misrepresent what it permits. This being so, I have too regularly found myself in the role of starchy maiden aunt prudishly reproving fellow Trump critics when they trot out yet another implausible interpretation of the law or the mechanics of criminal practice.
Earlier this week, I got after Professor Larry Tribe and co-authors for suggesting that Congressman Devin Nunes committed obstruction of justice by releasing the infamous memo. And sadly, I’m back at it today.
In the February 14 edition of Politico, law professors David Yassky and Bennett Gershman contended that, even if special counsel Robert Mueller and all his team were fired, somehow the grand jury empanelled to investigate the Trump-Russia connection could continue the investigation, and even produce an indictment. For a half-a-hundred reasons, some legal and some practical, this could not happen. In my own piece on Politico today, linked here, I explain why.
I hope, in future, to spend more time on what Trump opponents can do, and less on what they can’t.