Quote:
The job description of President of the United States comes with power to start, stop, or guide FBI investigations. It also comes with the plenary constitutional power to pardon anyone involved. So, there is that.It doesn't say those powers are legal in any context. (e.g. the President can pardon, but he can't sell pardons on eBay and expect to avoid legal issues) Nor does it say that use of those powers is excluded from consideration in impeachment. (there's precedent, here).
Quote:
When the police investigate you for over 6 months, find no evidence of a link between you and the fight, but expand their investigation then I think you can use this example. Also, there are serious separation of powers issues that do exempt the POTUS from being overly or completely cooperative with law enforcement.There is explicit authority (and precedent) for special investigators investigating interference in their own investigations. Or branching out to investigate other things. Kenneth Starr, charged with investigating a real-estate deal between the Clintons and McDougals, suddenly branched out into sexual shenanigans having nothing to do with real-estate. And the White House/POTUS is not granted freedom from responding to subpoenas. And they're not granted the power to lie to investigators.
Quote:
The history of the Presidency and special investigations says the complete opposite.
Does it?
Actual guilt and innocence, hopefully, play a role here. The Reagan administration sold arms illegally and lied about it. Nixon was guilty and lied about it. Clinton actually did sexual shenanigans and lied about it. So those were only "hard" because the prosecutor was doing his job. In my opinion.
But there are others where there was little-to-no-drama. Under Bush there was the investigation of the Plame leak, which caught Scooter but never reached the POTUS, and isn't talked about much anymore. Under Clinton the investigation of the Waco siege was relatively drama-free.
I'd agree that if the Trump campaign is "innocent" or "relatively innocent" (just throw Flynn under the bus like Scooter or North were) then it shouldn't have to be hard. Unless you think that Mueller is a stooge of the left and is going to manufacture stuff. But Mueller was appointed by Bush, was on Trump's list of people to interview for the new FBI job, and was appointed by the Deputy AG that Trump appointed. So if Mueller is an embedded Deep State actor who wants to take down Trump at any cost, then that's some of the worst extreme vetting in history by the Trump camp.
If I was Trump I'd be praising Mueller, like he were my employee. And acting as if everything he was doing was exactly what I wanted him to do. "I'm glad to hear the news that Mueller is investigating the firing of Comey, so his report can outline what really happened, rather than this #fakenews from Wapo. I look forward to the report next year."
Then I'd get on with leading the country.
For someone completely innocent, and with (apparently) zero evidence against him (w.r.t Russians) he does a brilliant job at acting exactly like someone who's guilty as all hell would act.