I previously contested the analysis of CNN's allegations of crimes found or criminal acts in the Trump administration. Much of this analysis has proven to be wrong, including the breathless reports of Russian collusion with the campaign. This does not reflect agreement with the underlying actions, which I have also condemned by detaching the analysis from a controlling legal authority. What also concerns me is how the expansive views on criminal or punishable behavior are often combined with highly technical and narrow views on such accusations against Trump critics like Rangappa's defense of James Comey.
The suggestion that Barr should be indicted is seen as the only possible option because "the special law provisions do not provide for an investigation of a potentially corrupt AG – because a corrupt AG would never rely on the provisions to investigate itself." The fact is that Barr's actions can be examined by the Inspector General or by Congress. In fact, I supported Congress in asking for answers to all of the outstanding questions.
The only imperative basis for impeaching a cabinet member would be credible evidence of a crime like disability. Rangappa does not bother to quote such clear evidence. In fact, reports from reputable journalists like NBC's Pete Williams have cited several sources, saying that this move had nothing to do with Trump's investigation. In fact, as I wrote earlier, it didn't make much sense since there have been no reports of disruptions since Barr took office. These investigations continued unimpeded. Barr himself asked the SDNY staff to report such disruptions to the Inspector General and reiterated his position that the underlying investigations should continue without interruption.
In addition to these reports and the lack of evidence, Rangappa still believes Barr should be indicted.
Barr actually raised this issue in an earlier hearing in exchange with Senator Richard Blumenthal (D., Conn.):
Senator Blumenthal (continued). A United States attorney. Would you allow the president to fire a United States attorney and stop an investigation?
General Barr. I wouldn't watch a US attorney fired to stop an investigation, but the president can fire a US attorney. You are an appointment as President.
The point is obvious and correct. The President has a constitutional privilege to select senior officials. No attorney general would contest this right. Rather promised to reject such a change if he wanted to stop an investigation. Barr affirmed the same principle in the Berman affair.
What is the legal basis for impeachment again? Unless impeachment is little more than crude politics, there is usually a minimum of evidence before impeachment, especially if news reports contradict the allegation that it is hindering the judiciary.
So here is a suggestion that might seem a bit naive or old-fashioned. Why not allow Congress to conduct investigations and provide additional evidence, such as an actual step to hinder or hinder political inquiries? It's certainly not a popular approach, but it's a legal one.