WSJ argues that Trump-investigations must be shut down, bc there are too many going on right now.

[DetlefK]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/stop-the-impeachment-fishing-expedition-11550188732

To protect the presidency and separation of powers, Mr. Barr should be prepared to seek a stay of all congressional investigations of Mr. Trump’s prepresidential conduct.

The president is not one among many, as are legislators and judges. Crippling his ability to function upsets the constitutional balance of power. For this reason, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has repeatedly concluded that a sitting president may not be indicted or prosecuted. The same logic should apply to congressional investigations.

...

If Congress can use its investigatory power to fish for evidence of impeachable acts, presidents will become politically accountable to Congress, not the people. Impeachment proceedings must be designated as such from the get-go, not obfuscated as amorphous “investigations.”

To protect the separation of powers, the president should defy all demands for information about his prepresidential activities. If Congress or private litigants seek to enforce these demands, the Justice Department should move to stay these proceedings while Mr. Trump is in office. If Democrats want to remove Mr. Trump from office, there are two legitimate ways to do so: By defeating him at the polls in 2020 or through properly conducted impeachment proceedings based on evidence of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” committed while in office.

I totally agree. Congressional investigators looking for evidence of criminal behavior is clearly out-of-bounds and unfair. They are actively trying to find something!!! Who has ever heard of that???

[Me.]

1. Congress Is Accountable To The People

which is the very reason they need to investigate. And Barr has no power/ability to stop what a separate branch of government is doing. Is the WSJ so ignorant? And presidents can be impeached and then indicted/prosecuted, so to stop the process would be unconstitutional.

[ProfessorGAC]

2. The Answer To Your Question

Is both yes and no.
They know Barr can't do this, so that's not ignorance, it's partisan nonsense
On the yes side, the notion that too many investigations into probable wrongdoing is an ignorant opinion.

[Snotcicles]

3. Lets not forget who owns the WSJ. Noam Chomsky warned of this. nt

[still_one]

4. That is bullshit. This is NOT a "fishing" expedition. Where was Murdoch's WSJ editorial page when

during the last 8 years investigation of the Obama administration, and investigations in Hillary.

The WSJ editorial, and the republican party are being their usual hypocrites.

Congress is doing their job, which is OVERSIGHT.

That the WSJ is calling for Barr to interfere with that responsibility is an outrage, and I would argue against the intent of the Constitution which is for Congress to provide oversight of the executive branch.

[GoCubsGo]

5. As I recall, they were perfectly fine with Ken Starr's fishing expedition.

And that actually WAS a fishing expedition/witch hunt.

Got to wonder if Murdoch and/or the WSJ are about to get caught up in the whole thing.

[still_one]

6. exactly

[underpants]

7. Sorry -not your ball, can't just pick it up and go home

when you are getting your ass kicked.

[procon]

8. Hogwash. The president is not above the law

and is not entitled to a free pass simply because he sits in the Oval Office. In Trump's case, keep in mind that he would not be the subject of so many investigations if he had not deliberately engaged in so many blatantly illegal and suspicious activities.

If anything, Trump needs more investigations to root out everything he's done that poses harm to America and every citizen in the country.

[jcgoldie]

9. Seriously

The president is fresh off shutting down the government over a stupid temper tantrum and has declared a national emergency over a "problem" which all statistics prove is in a better state than it has been in 50 years, and the WSJ is concerned that Congress is stepping on presidential powers?

[bdamomma]

17. and again

he said "he didn't have to do this" just like when he owned the government shutdown. This POS needs to be removed. I am hoping with all of his medical issues he will have a stroke or his liver will shut down. He looks horrible, and what were those red marks on his lower brow. Did anyone notice those red spots??? from yesterday.

[kentuck]

10. There is not just one crime. There are many crimes.

Too many? Hell yeah!

[Poiuyt]

11. I agree -- they should all be consolidated into one impeachment investigation

When Mueller finishes his report, it can be folded into the House impeachment hearing.

[NewJeffCT]

12. so, because there is TOO much corruption

Congress should stop investigating the corruption?

[MagickMuffin]

13. Trumpery has committed crimes while in office, Obstruction of Justice comes to mind

He has continued to Obstruct Justice at every turn and we keep finding out every day how much Obstruction there is.

[MiniMe]

14. Just one thought on this thread...Bill and Hillary Clinton

enough said

[struggle4progress]

15. It's by Rivkin and Foley. Nuff said

[struggle4progress]

16. New Defense: Can't Investigate Because There Are Too Many Crimes

By Jonathan Chait

... Rivkin, a veteran of the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, is perhaps the state-of-the-art conservative-movement legal apparatchik, regularly published in the Journal and quoted in the mainstream media arguing that the Constitution demands whatever the party happens to need at any given moment. Rivkin’s latest essay blazes a new trail in Trump’s legal defense. It asserts Congress has no right whatsoever to investigate anything Trump did before assuming the presidency ...

The obstacle to this claim of legal impunity is the legal precedent in the case Clinton v. Jones. This was a lawsuit brought by Paula Jones, against President Clinton, and which created the precedent that presidents can be sued for behavior that occured before their presidency. Conservatives enthusiastically supported this precedent when the target was a Democrat. Indeed, the notion of investigating the president’s pre-presidential conduct drew rabid support on the right. The Wall Street Journal published so many editorials demanding investigations of Whitewater (a Bill Clinton Arkansas-era deal) that the books republishing them ran well over 500 pages. After eight years fanatically hounding a president over a land deal, and producing no evidence of a crime, it is astonishing to see the Journal turning around and insisting pre-presidential conduct should never be investigated at all.

What is the difference between the cases of Clinton and Trump? Rivkin and Foley’s explanation is hilarious. They argue that the investigations of Clinton were found not to threaten “interference with the President’s duties.” By contrast, the investigations of Trump do ...

In other words, Trump can’t be investigated because he is such a massive crook. The president could function when he was defending one private lawsuit and one financial investigation, but not when he is defending a series of elaborate global rackets. It’s just a simple matter of time management ...

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/trump-so-many-crimes-investigate-congress-russia-mueller.html

[gratuitous]

18. Perhaps Rivkin and Foley could explain what this president's duties are?

Because I'm not seeing anything he's doing that's so indispensable to the continued functioning of the nation.