RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-kavanaugh-legitimate-1534979653

We figure we’ve seen everything, but then Chuck Schumer keeps providing a daily education in weird political science. The Senate Democratic leader on Tuesday attempted the double bank shot of claiming that Brett Kavanaugh shouldn’t be confirmed for the Supreme Court because Michael Cohen copped a guilty plea.

“It is unseemly for the President of the United States to be picking a Supreme Court Justice who could soon be, effectively, a juror in a case involving the President himself,” Mr. Schumer declared, picking up a trope that has quickly become part of the liberal echo chamber. Senators Mazie Hirono (Hawaii) and Ed Markey (his own private Idaho) cancelled meetings with Judge Kavanaugh, with Mr. Markey saying he is now an “illegitimate” nominee.

So let’s see. Donald Trump is the elected President with the power of appointment under the Constitution, but because his former lawyer has pleaded guilty to evading taxes and paying off a couple of Mr. Trump’s alleged mistresses, Mr. Trump no longer enjoys the powers of the Presidency under Article II. This novel interpretation of presidential authority somehow eluded James Madison.

As for Judge Kavanaugh being a “juror” for Mr. Trump if he is confirmed to the High Court, the Chief Justice presides over Senate impeachment trials. Associate Justices have no role. The jury is 100 Senators, who get a vote only after the House impeaches a President.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-mueller-cant-subpoena-trump-1534973736

Donald Trump’s lawyers have signaled he won’t agree to a voluntary interview with special counsel Robert Mueller. If Mr. Mueller insists, he will have to subpoena the president. To enforce a subpoena, the special counsel would have to go to court and meet a highly exacting standard, showing what he wants and why he needs it. He would be unlikely to succeed, given that Mr. Trump already has cooperated extensively with the investigation, producing 1.4 million documents and making dozens of White House staffers available for interviews.

The leading precedent is a 1997 opinion, In re Sealed Case, by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The case involved the independent counsel investigation of former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy, who was accused of receiving unlawful gifts. The independent counsel sought to obtain sensitive documents produced in the course of an internal White House inquiry. These materials involved the preparation of a report to then-President Clinton himself. Although Mr. Clinton had directed that most of the materials be provided, he asserted executive privilege to withhold some items.

At issue in particular was information regarding whether Mr. Clinton should discipline or fire Mr. Espy, who did resign. To justify producing such sensitive materials involving “the exercise of [the president’s] appointment and removal power, a quintessential and non-delegable presidential power,” the court required the independent counsel to demonstrate with “specificity” why he needed the materials and why he could not get them, or equivalent evidence, from another source. (Mr. Espy was acquitted in 1998.)

Mr. Mueller’s initial charge was to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. But his investigation has expanded to cover whether Mr. Trump has obstructed justice. The president’s critics say his obstructive acts include urging then-FBI Director James Comey to “go easy” on former national security adviser Mike Flynn, subsequently firing Mr. Comey, and his public criticism of Mr. Mueller, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

There are significant factual disputes about these episodes, but all involve the president’s exercise of his core constitutional powers as chief executive, including the power to appoint and remove high-level executive-branch officials, to supervise the performance of their duties (as in the Espy case), and to determine law-enforcement priorities. We have argued in these pages that the president cannot obstruct justice by exercising the discretionary powers of his office, especially in determining whether and why to fire high-level presidential appointees like Mr. Comey. According to the two leaked letters from Mr. Trump’s lawyers to Mr. Mueller, they take essentially the same view. CONTINUE AT SITE

https://www.wsj.com/articles/cohen-joins-the-resistance-1534962801

Michael Cohen’s lawyer is on the talk-show circuit teasing the possibility that his client might have the long-sought evidence of Russian collusion for special counsel Robert Mueller. Mr. Mueller for his part must be wondering why Team Cohen seems to be doing everything it can to present the former Trump attorney as an unserious partisan axe-grinder rather than a credible witness.

The website Mediaite asks:

So why, exactly, has Lanny Davis been all over television and radio Wednesday morning — hours after his client, Michael Cohen, accepted a deal to plead guilty on eight counts of various violations?

The answer came into focus a bit on Megyn Kelly Today, as the lawyer made a direct appeal to viewers to give money to Cohen so that he can “continue to tell the truth.”

Mr. Davis expressed the hope that Americans would visit a website, michaelcohentruth.com, to donate money. Mr. Davis may have been confused about the name of the site. As of this afternoon the address brings web visitors to a Trump campaign website. It seems unlikely that those attending the Kelly show were aware that Mr. Davis was inadvertently sending potential donors to Team Trump, but they seemed amused anyway. According to Mediaite:

The audience straight up laughed at Davis’s plea for cash.

“I don’t know if they’re ready to donate, Lanny,” host Megyn Kelly said.

But that didn’t stop the attorney from trying to get in the pockets of those watching at home.

“I would say the reaction of your audience may be they are not as interested in getting the truth out about Donald Trump as many other people in the country,” Davis said. “Approximately 60 percent of the country would not have the reaction of your audience.”

This last comment brought murmurs and boos from a clearly skeptical crowd.

More skepticism may result as people ponder the unique representation that Mr. Davis is providing to Mr. Cohen. The Washington Post notes:

Asked on NPR whether Cohen would accep