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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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...
Am I the only one who is a tad disappointed that Trump tweets may or may not actually be the actual words of Trump?
Alan Dershowitz has weighed in that he cannot obstruct justice unless he does something illegal. Nothing illegal done in expressing his opinion as head of the executive branch, per Dershowitz.
Flynn lied to Trump et al about his lobbying for Erdogan and Turkey. That is why he was fired. It had nothing to do with Russia.
Later he finally filed as a lobbyist for them. Before that he was representing Erdogan’s interests, which is unacceptable in a foreign relations adviser, and doubly so for doing it covertly.
DemocRATs always always always accuse others of their own crimes. Always.
For what it's worth, despite the “high crimes and misdemeanors” language, what is impeachable is what the House decides is impeachable. Removal from office is heard by the whole Senate acting as a jury with a 2/3rds majority required to convict.
1) I agree though on slightly different grounds: These people serve at the pleasure of the POTUS and POTUS has discretion to fire them for any reason. You cannot charge POTUS with obstruction for exercising his discretion otherwise you impinge on his absolute discretion. I think there are cases heard by the USSC that suggest the same
2) I am not sure why people think the Trump tweet strengthens the case against him. I think it underscores the point above, plus, I think the case being made is that Comey is a liar too - if Flynn was fired for lying Comey can be fired for the same thing (even though POTUS needs no cause to fire any of them).
3) I am tired of the media presenting every issue in a vacuum. All of the pieces fit together, and relate to each other. Let us not forget that Rod Rosenstein wrote Trump a letter saying that POTUS must fire Comey if there is to be any semblance of morale restored at the FBI and DOJ. How could POTUS ignore such a letter? How could acting on such a letter, weighed against his own judgement, be construed as “obstruction?”.
There are 101 reasons why Trump could have fired Comey up to and including that he is a rat liar and he worked for and exonerated the rat liars in the criminal organizations that preceded Trump. Trump did not need to keep him on, and Rod Rosenstein made clear why Comey’s continuation was harmful to the country. All of this and more, and still is impossible to second guess POTUS and say his true motive for firing Comey was due to these empty accusations. That is impossible to prove but I do realize that this is not a question of law but a question of politics. There is no standard of “reasonable doubt” for impeachment that is purely a political machination not a legal one.
4) Which is another absurdity - he is accused of obstructing justice in an investigation which turned up nothing criminal?
The establishment is so powerful and corrupt, including the nefarious deep state, that Trump is within his rights to order the indefinite arrest of anyone he likes in my opinion.
To get us back to being a properly functioning constitutional Republic, won’t be pretty, but it will be worth it.
What if Trump fired Comey because he found out the FBI was lying to him? After all, we now know that Comey was a leaker; how long did Trump know that Comey was leaking?
It's not obstruction to use your Constitutional authority to stop a corrupted investigation that outwardly appeared legitimate but internally went rogue, is it?
-PJ
