...the real significance of the Barr memorandum may be ... in support of the impeachment of Trump.
.@jacklgoldsmith argues that William Barrs views are far from crazy and have significant support in Supreme Court case law and executive branch precedentand that the real significance of his memo may be its possible use in support of impeachment.
EXECUTIVE POWER
A Qualified Defense of the Barr Memo: Part I
By Jack Goldsmith Friday, January 4, 2019, 9:20 AM
Daniel Hemel and Eric Posner have harshly criticized William Barrs memo on Special Counsel Robert Muellers obstruction of justice theory. They say (in the New York Times) that the memo seriously damages [Barrs] credibility and raises questions about his fitness for the Justice Departments top position and (later, on Lawfare) that the memo is poorly reasoned.
In my view, Hemel and Posners arguments dont support these conclusions. Im not going to spend much time on the proper way to parse the words of the obstruction statute, as Barr and the coauthors do. I agree with Marty Lederman that much of this fine-grained analysis is beside the point because Mueller is almost certainly not considering asking a grand jury to indict President Trump for a violation of a criminal law on obstruction of justice. I instead want to focus on a few broader principles of constitutional law and statutory interpretation in Barrs memo and in Hemel and Posners responses. My primary aim is to show that Barrs views, far from crazy, have significant support in Supreme Court case law and executive branch precedent, and that the real significance of the Barr memorandum may be its possible use in support of the impeachment of President Trump. A later post will address other issues in the Barr memorandum.
....