• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

That's right, the President can't obstruct justice

T

Thelion

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2017
Messages
381
Reaction score
205
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Trump's personal lawyer claims the President can't obstruct justice - CNNPolitics

>President Donald Trump's personal attorney, John Dowd, claims the President cannot be guilty of obstructing justice, according to an interview with Axios.

"(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 told Axios.

The new defense comes after a tweet from Trump's account suggested the President knew former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn had lied to the FBI when he was fired in February, raising questions about whether Trump knew about Flynn's lying before pressuring former FBI Director James Comey to let go of inquiries into Russian election meddling.<

Which is why, since Trump DID obstruct justice, he cannot be President.

As the article goes on to say, Nixon tried that same tactic, and it didn't end well for him.
 
Guess what Alan Dershowitz agrees with him.


Alan Dershowitz: 'You cannot charge a president with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional power'

Alan Dershowitz: 'You cannot charge a president with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional power'

Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz on Monday said President Trump was within his rights as commander in chief when he fired former FBI director James Comey, and warned Democrats trying to take him down on obstruction of justice charges that they won't succeed.

"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.
 
Thelion said:
Trump's personal lawyer claims the President can't obstruct justice - CNNPolitics

>President Donald Trump's personal attorney, John Dowd, claims the President cannot be guilty of obstructing justice, according to an interview with Axios.

"(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 told Axios.

The new defense comes after a tweet from Trump's account suggested the President knew former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn had lied to the FBI when he was fired in February, raising questions about whether Trump knew about Flynn's lying before pressuring former FBI Director James Comey to let go of inquiries into Russian election meddling.<

Which is why, since Trump DID obstruct justice, he cannot be President.

As the article goes on to say, Nixon tried that same tactic, and it didn't end well for him.
Click to expand...

It is quite clear that the President cannot obstruct justice for long. But, what will you do, if it turns out that he hasn't?
 
Its funny how far Trump has sunk from - (1) nobody in my campaign talked to any Russians to (2) nobody in my campaign colluded with any Russians to (3) nobody in my campaign broke any laws with any Russians to (4) nobody changed any votes due to actions by the Russians to (5) maybe some in my campaign did talk to the Russians but they were only low level volunteers to (6) nobody colluded with the Russians, to (7) then maybe they did collude but nobody broke the law to (8) maybe some broke the law but I did not break any laws to (9) I never obstructed justice to (10) and if I did obstruct justice I am legally entitled to do just that.

Next the move will be to 'and I can do any damn thing I want to do because I am President and the law is what I say it is'.

Remember a short time ago the assertion that the President cannot have a conflict of interest because he is President?

The man is an authoritarian at heart and in practice and his contempt for the rule of law is clearly on display for all to see.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
Guess what Alan Dershowitz agrees with him.


Alan Dershowitz: 'You cannot charge a president with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional power'

Alan Dershowitz: 'You cannot charge a president with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional power'

Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz on Monday said President Trump was within his rights as commander in chief when he fired former FBI director James Comey, and warned Democrats trying to take him down on obstruction of justice charges that they won't succeed.

"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.
Click to expand...

The same Alan Dershowitz who thinks OJ Simpson is innocent and who strongly advocates for gun control and vehemently opposes the Second Amendment and says "The Second Amendment has no place in modern society”. I didn't know he was the new mouthpiece for the right. Or do we just believe him when we agree with his legal opinion?
 
We are treading dangerous territory here. Yes, the president has the privilege/power to remove an FBI director for almost reason, but to do so to prevent investigation into him or his allies is grounds for obstruction of justice. I doubt very much our Founders intended presidential powers to be used in a way to stay above the law.
 
It's like these bright attorneys have completely forgotten about how and why Nixon went down.



It doesn't take a ****ing federal conviction of obstruction of justice. He can be impeached in the House for obstructing justice and convicted in the Senate even if they're right that he cannot be criminally charged with it.
 
The noose is tightening. Watch their feet twirl in the wind. :lamo
 
Thelion said:
Trump's personal lawyer claims the President can't obstruct justice - CNNPolitics

>President Donald Trump's personal attorney, John Dowd, claims the President cannot be guilty of obstructing justice, according to an interview with Axios.

"(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 told Axios.

The new defense comes after a tweet from Trump's account suggested the President knew former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn had lied to the FBI when he was fired in February, raising questions about whether Trump knew about Flynn's lying before pressuring former FBI Director James Comey to let go of inquiries into Russian election meddling.<

Which is why, since Trump DID obstruct justice, he cannot be President.

As the article goes on to say, Nixon tried that same tactic, and it didn't end well for him.
Click to expand...

Then it’s long past time that the FBI should out this information to Congress and the public. The Left is runnng around with its hair on fire because it believes all the accusations that would indicate Trump conspired with the Ussians to beat HC... He is obstructing Justice... he did any number of illegal things that make him unfit to be POTUS.

Yet no charges.

So, according to the left’s analysis, he’s dangerous, crazy, senile, intentionally putting us on the brink of war... there’s talk of him firing nukes... you name it. He’s doing it.

Yet no charges.

If even half of this is true, why are there no charges? They’re building a case, the Left says. Well, if all of this, or even half of it, is true? Their not filing a damned thing is the equivalent of Nero fiddling.
 
MaggieD said:
Then it’s long past time that the FBI should out this information to Congress and the public. The Left is runnng around with its hair on fire because it believes all the accusations that would indicate Trump conspired with the Ussians to beat HC... He is obstructing Justice... he did any number of illegal things that make him unfit to be POTUS.

Yet no charges.

So, according to the left’s analysis, he’s dangerous, crazy, senile, intentionally putting us on the brink of war... there’s talk of him firing nukes... you name it. He’s doing it.

Yet no charges.

If even half of this is true, why are there no charges? They’re building a case, the Left says. Well, if all of this, or even half of it, is true? Their not filing a damned thing is the equivalent of Nero fiddling.
Click to expand...

Mueller doesn't have the authority to bring charges against Trump.
 
Geoist said:
We are treading dangerous territory here. Yes, the president has the privilege/power to remove an FBI director for almost reason, but to do so to prevent investigation into him or his allies is grounds for obstruction of justice. I doubt very much our Founders intended presidential powers to be used in a way to stay above the law.
Click to expand...

All indications are that Comey was removed because he sucked at his job, so I don't think we need to worry.
 
Anthony60 said:
All indications are that Comey was removed because he sucked at his job, so I don't think we need to worry.
Click to expand...

Well, aside from Trump's own words stating that he fired Comey to relieve pressure from the Russian investigation, sure.
 
Cardinal said:
Mueller doesn't have the authority to bring charges against Trump.
Click to expand...
He can make recommendations, however.


Also, we arent there yet people. If the evidence points that direction, it will take time to show it.

This won't quickly come or go. Don't be idiots and think otherwise. Then again, I am posting on this forum, so I am probably overstating the collective intelligence of the posters found within it.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
Fiddytree said:
He can make recommendations, however.


Also, we arent there yet people. If the evidence points that direction, it will take time to show it.

This won't quickly come or go. Don't be idiots and think otherwise. Then again, I am posting on this forum, so I am probably overstating the collective intelligence of the posters found within it.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

He can make recommendations, and those recommendations can be completely ignored.

Not saying this to you specifically because you already know this, but impeachment is a political process. Congress can impeach a President for parting his hair on the wrong side of his head, and they can choose not to impeach him even if there are videos from sixteen different angles showing him setting a schoolbus full of children on fire while laughing maniacally.
 
Cardinal said:
He can make recommendations, and those recommendations can be completely ignored.

Not saying this to you specifically because you already know this, but impeachment is a political process. Congress can impeach a President for parting his hair on the wrong side of his head, and they can choose not to impeach him even if there are videos from sixteen different angles showing him setting a schoolbus full of children on fire while laughing maniacally.
Click to expand...

Yes, and Trump is at one end of the spectrum and Obama, for example, was at the other end. More like setting the country on fire though, not a school bus.
 
Cardinal said:
He can make recommendations, and those recommendations can be completely ignored.

Not saying this to you specifically because you already know this, but impeachment is a political process. Congress can impeach a President for parting his hair on the wrong side of his head, and they can choose not to impeach him even if there are videos from sixteen different angles showing him setting a schoolbus full of children on fire while laughing maniacally.
Click to expand...
See: Andrew Johnson, nearly ousted for violating an unconstitutional law selectively drafted with him in mind which was eventually rescinded.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
Cardinal said:
Mueller doesn't have the authority to bring charges against Trump.
Click to expand...

That makes sense. Then they’d better start sharing with Congress. I understand Congress is complaining about that..
 
MaggieD said:
That makes sense. Then they’d better start sharing with Congress. I understand Congress is complaining about that..
Click to expand...

That's all he can do: recommend charges to the DOJ or recommend to Congress to impeach.
 
Fiddytree said:
See: Andrew Johnson, nearly ousted for violating an unconstitutional law selectively drafted with him in mind which was eventually rescinded.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I thought he was stealing silverware?
 
tres borrachos said:
The same Alan Dershowitz who thinks OJ Simpson is innocent and who strongly advocates for gun control and vehemently opposes the Second Amendment and says "The Second Amendment has no place in modern society”. I didn't know he was the new mouthpiece for the right. Or do we just believe him when we agree with his legal opinion?
Click to expand...

Dershowitz has no credibility. He's a whore for $$$, and there is no gutter he won't crawl into for a paycheck.
 
MaggieD said:
Then it’s long past time that the FBI should out this information to Congress and the public. The Left is runnng around with its hair on fire because it believes all the accusations that would indicate Trump conspired with the Ussians to beat HC... He is obstructing Justice... he did any number of illegal things that make him unfit to be POTUS.

Yet no charges.

So, according to the left’s analysis, he’s dangerous, crazy, senile, intentionally putting us on the brink of war... there’s talk of him firing nukes... you name it. He’s doing it.

Yet no charges.

If even half of this is true, why are there no charges? They’re building a case, the Left says. Well, if all of this, or even half of it, is true? Their not filing a damned thing is the equivalent of Nero fiddling.
Click to expand...

Cardinal said:
Mueller doesn't have the authority to bring charges against Trump.
Click to expand...


I'd add that there is no federal statute, no constitutional provision, and no case law on the question of whether a sitting President even can be charged with a crime. (SCOTUS may have touched on it, or at least mentioned the question, in the Nixon tapes case, but did not resolve it). However, the fact that they laid out a procedure for non-criminal impeachment in the House and "conviction" in the Senate suggests rather strongly that they intended that that be the method for dealing with a sitting President who has committed crimes.

Which sort? Well they didn't bother, but there's a good argument that they had corruption-related crimes in mind when they wrote "high crime and misdemeanor".


And then there's logic. Would it really make sense that the framers would want law enforcement officials to be able to literally arrest a sitting President? Drag him out of the WH and toss him in a cell? Require him to attend court proceedings during the case rather than carry on the country's business? I doubt it.

So lack of charges against Trump himself doesn't say much. There probably cannot be any while he is President.




However, the investigation is going on. Since the investigation is quite obviously not a witch hunt - it's caught actual criminals doing criminal things - it doesn't make sense to tell "the left" to decide to "charge" him or stop talking about it.

Even if he never ends up being impeached, that does not mean he didn't do anything wrong. That just means that the GOP-held congress didn't want to impeach their own man.

Impeachment is entirely voluntary and is outside the judicial system. In fact, congress could impeach a President because they don't like his face, just as they could refuse to impeach an obviously guilty President because they didn't feel like it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom