No suggestions necessary.
President Trump knew Flynn had lied to the VP..
It was even in the news at the time.
That's why the President fired Flynn.
Posted on 12/04/2017 9:33:48 AM PST by Mariner
John Dowd, President Trump's outside lawyer, outlined to me a new and highly controversial defense/theory in the Russia probe: A president cannot be guilty of obstruction of justice.
The "President cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under [the Constitution's Article II] and has every right to express his view of any case," Dowd claims.
Dowd says he drafted this weekend's Trump tweet that many thought strengthened the case for obstruction: The tweet suggested Trump knew Flynn had lied to the FBI when he was fired, raising new questions about the later firing of FBI Director James Comey.
Dowd: "The tweet did not admit obstruction. That is an ignorant and arrogant assertion." Why it matters: Trump's legal team is clearly setting the stage to say the president cannot be charged with any of the core crimes discussed in the Russia probe: collusion and obstruction. Presumably, you wouldn't preemptively make these arguments unless you felt there was a chance charges are coming.
One top D.C. lawyer told me that obstruction is usually an ancillary charge rather than a principal one, such as aquid pro quo between the Trump campaign and Russians. But Dems will fight the Dowd theory. Bob Bauer, an NYU law professor and former White House counsel to President Obama, told me: "It is certainly possible for a president to obstruct justice. The case for immunity has its adherents, but they based their position largely on the consideration that a president subject to prosecution would be unable to perform the duties of the office, a result that they see as constitutionally intolerable."
(Excerpt) Read more at axios.com ...
Right in the middle of the public square. On live TV with all of America as the audience.
When Clinton and Obama fired all the Federal Attorneys They were obstructing Justice.
Dershowitz: ‘You Cannot Charge a President With Obstruction for Exercising His Constitutional Power’!
Breitbart ^ | 4 Dec 2017 | JEFF POOR
Posted on 12/4/2017, 9:29:24 AM by Mr. Mojo
Monday on Fox News Channel’s “Fox & Friends,” Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz batted down the merit of obstruction of justice charges aimed at President Donald Trump for what he said was exercising his constitutional power and authority regarding the firing of then-FBI Director James Comey and instructing the Department of Justice what to and not to investigate.
“If Congress were to ever charge him with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional authority under Article 2, we’d have a constitutional crisis,” he explained. “You cannot charge a president with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional power to fire Comey and his constitutional authority to tell the Justice Department who to investigate, who not to investigate. That’s what Thomas Jefferson did. That’s what Lincoln did. That’s what Roosevelt did. We have precedents that clearly establish that.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...via
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3610490/posts
The sanctuary cities not cooperating with ICE is obstruction of justice
Or at least, aiding and abetting an escape
This is similar to the case I’m which the Democrats took TX gov. Rick Perry to court for exercising his constitutional right. The court ultimately sided with Perry.
No suggestions necessary.
President Trump knew Flynn had lied to the VP..
It was even in the news at the time.
That's why the President fired Flynn.
"New"? "theory"?
Try old, originalist and Constitutional.
We'll see how well they fight the nail-studded baseball bats at the blanket party we're gonna throw for the entire District of Corruption...
Did Obama obstruct justice when he had Holder stop prosecuting the New Black Panthers?
Did Trump, like Nixon, hide evidence of a crime?
The left is doing anything it can to keep impeachment alive.
Let’s have this fight.
A full-on, country-dividing brawl.
Somebody wins.
And somebody loses.
Hey, it was okay for the Klintons and Obammys to do it, so why not our side? Screw em and the horse they rode in on.
I've watched their DC BS for 20+ years.
It's time.
Yep, they are just BEGGING for another Civil war.
Highly controversial. That the president’s subordinates in the executive branch have a right to do what they think is best without his interference.
The FBI literally thinks it is independent. The State dept, NSA and CIA think they SET national policy, not merely execute it.
We are so screwed that this is even controversial.
“.....obstruction is usually an ancillary charge rather than a principal one, such as aquid pro quo between the Trump campaign and Russians. But Dems will fight the Dowd theory.”
Democrat: “OBSTRUCTION”. Therefore “obstruction” is the goal, and now the Democrats WILL CREATE out of thin air something ridiculous, and claim it is “obstruction”. Be patient as it will happen in 5,4,3,2,1.
A president can talk to any member of his staff about his thoughts. That is why they are there.
And he can order the DOJ and FBI to start, stop, or how to proceed in an investigation. They are -not- independent.
“And he can order the DOJ and FBI to start, stop, or how to proceed in an investigation. They are -not- independent.”
True.
But the US Congress will fight that concept to the very best of their ability. They are deeply invested in the idea these agencies, once created, ARE fully independent of the Executive.
Far more than DOJ and the Rule of Law is at stake from their perspective.
What if a US President decided to fire every employee of the EPA? How about the FBI?
Fully Constitutional.
And the Congress would impeach over it while the Judiciary implemented emergency restraint.
Just shows how little the liberal media knows about the law. I got a good chuckle back in the spring when the media was saying President Trump may be guilt of “leaking classified information”. The first thing you learn when you get a Clearance is that the President if the ultimate arbiter of what is classified and what isn’t and can classify or declassify at will. Therefore a President could never leak classified information because if he releases the information then it is defacto no longer classified information...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
