monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

You are mistaken. The obstruction of justice law applies equally to people both inside and outside of the government. It applies equally to people both inside and outside of the investigation.

A prosecutor electing not to pursue an investigation because he thinks it is not winnable is not coming to this decision for a corrupt reason. The prosecutor's boss firing the prosecutor because the case might uncover wrongdoing against the boss is firing the prosecutor for a corrupt reason, and is therefore committing obstruction of justice.

Article Two, Section Two, second paragraph, reads, in it's entirety:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

All cabinet departments have been created by public law as passed by Congress, in pursuance of the powers granted to Congress by Article One, Section eight. The only power the president would have would be to refuse to sign a bill creating a cabinet department, which could be over-ridden by a two thirds vote of both houses.

That there are executive branch officers in implied by the constitution, but is not specifically mentioned, other than in Article II, Section Two, first and second clauses. The First Congress created the initial executive branch departments by public law.

I've already mentioned Andrew Johnson, and Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935)

--additionally, the Court denied the president's right to fire executive branch officers below cabinet level in Wiener v. United States (1958),

and a district court confirmed Nixon's lack of power to fire the special counsel in Nader v. Bork, 1973.

The Court has held that Congress cannot create an executive branch department which is not under the authority of the president, but since the latter half of the 19th century, enabling acts for cabinet level positions have reserved the right of dismissal of inferior officers to Congress,

and in some cases, have reserved the right of appointment--the power for which stipulation, Federal courts and the Supreme Court have upheld.

Oralloy is not just a liar, he displays a level of delusion which is just incredible.

I have cited case law, sections of the constitution, and historical events, all of which can be easily checked.

He mentions the first clause of one section of one article of the constitution, and does not even provide a plausible, logical argument for how that pertains to the appointment and dismissal of executive branch officers.

The constitution very clearly states that such officers must have the consent of the Senate.

It's pointless to provide citations to Oralloy,

who either can't understand what is provided, or is too delusional to understand.

Either way, it's a waste of time.

He also lacks the understanding that actions not explicitly stated in the Constitution must be decided by the Supreme Court - such as, Criminal Conspiracy RICO actions, especially when they include conspiracy to collude with a hostile foreign power for profit and benefit of an ongoing criminal organization - his crime family (literally)!

such as, Criminal Conspiracy RICO actions, especially when they include conspiracy to collude with a hostile foreign power for profit and benefit of an ongoing criminal organization - his crime family (literally)!

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I think they just got fed up with the Echo Chamber here.

They (the cheese-eaters) are tired of it themselves. Without a few rational people like you here to display disdain for, they would bore themselves to death. They need you, but they don't deserve you, Finn.

There was no harm. All the conservative groups got the tax break that they applied for but did not legally deserve.

For your and this Jim Geraghty's information, they kneel to attract attention towards, and express their disgust about cops murdering black people with impunity in their country.

The players who kneel have more respect for the US than their detractors.

They expect more of it than their detractors, who seem to be quite happy with a racist police force killing people.

Only oralloy and his twisted illogic could somehow think that black peope protesting violence against them somehow mean they're publicly calling for murder of police,

a claim he has never documented and cannot possibly documented, because it doesn't exist.

Yet he keeps repeating it and repeating it and NEVER provides any proof.

Then he endorses a state police officer, who is supposed to defend people's constitutional rightsbut calls people "degenerates"who act on those rights to point out 400 years of continued violence and inequities against them.

Oralloy is retailing racist crap

with faulty logic and nonexistent facts,

You (and the person you link to) are calling this a 'win' for Trump, but what did he win, really?

Is the NFL and private citizens' protest an appropriate topic for the Prez to even discuss, let alone focus on at this time?

I'm going to clue you in on something: being 'right' is quite often not the most important thing.

Putin must be so proud.

The near perfect alignment between Bannon's and Putin's goals and propaganda strategies would, you'd think, catch the attention of more conservatives. But I'm sure it hasn't escaped the notice of Meuller and his team.

The mentality of the fans should be analyzed.

Excellent question! I seriously doubt that any of our previous Presidents, Republican or Democrat, would focus on this issue or even mention it.

Also, notice how much time Trump has spent talking about NFL kneeling as compared to Charlottesville. Why has he spent far more time talking about the NFL?

Similar to what Homeland Security Elaine Duke’s remarked on Thursday that only a "limited number of deaths … have taken place," and, overall, Puerto Rico was "a good news story"?

There was no harm. All the conservative groups got the tax break that they applied for but did not legally deserve.

An undeserved tax audit is a harm in itself.

Many of those conservative groups were fined and/or had to pay back money that was lawfully theirs, and that financial setback sometimes led to even further financial losses and missed opportunities.

If someone in the government and/or part of an ongoing investigation were to try to impede an ongoing investigation, that would be obstruction.

No. An official deciding that an investigation should not be pursued is not impeding an ongoing investigation.