11 law professors: Trump can obstruct justice

[PoliticalChic]

Exactly.

You can't obstruct justice when you are doing your job.

He has the power to fire the head of the FBI and he did.
It is up to any who believe it was to obstruct justice, to prove
that.

Forget it.

The Donald is in charge and he is asserting his position.
Deal with it

“I have long believed that a President can fire an FBI director for any reason, or for no reason at all,"

James Comey

But can he ask him not to go after a guy?
Asking someone to do something and firing are not the same thing.

Pop quiz: who is the constitutional head of the executive branch of the federal government?

You can do it! (Or not? ).

 

[Ted Frazier]

Exactly.

You can't obstruct justice when you are doing your job.

He has the power to fire the head of the FBI and he did.
It is up to any who believe it was to obstruct justice, to prove
that.

Forget it.

The Donald is in charge and he is asserting his position.
Deal with it

“I have long believed that a President can fire an FBI director for any reason, or for no reason at all,"

James Comey

But can he ask him not to go after a guy?
Asking someone to do something and firing are not the same thing.

Pop quiz: who is the constitutional head of the executive branch of the federal government?

You can do it! (Or not? ).

Wow. You didn't even name one!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Exactly.

You can't obstruct justice when you are doing your job.

He has the power to fire the head of the FBI and he did.
It is up to any who believe it was to obstruct justice, to prove
that.

Forget it.

The Donald is in charge and he is asserting his position.
Deal with it

“I have long believed that a President can fire an FBI director for any reason, or for no reason at all,"

James Comey

But can he ask him not to go after a guy?
Asking someone to do something and firing are not the same thing.

Pop quiz: who is the constitutional head of the executive branch of the federal government?

You can do it! (Or not? ).

Wow. You didn't even name one!

Sooo.....you're taking an 'F' on the pop quiz?

The real world isn't like your alma mater, the government school, huh?

 

[g5000]

Here's why even the Republicans decided to impeach Nixon.

Haldeman: Now, on the investigation, you know, the Democratic break-in thing, we’re back to the-in the, the problem area because the FBI is not under control, because Gray doesn’t exactly know how to control them, and they have, their investigation is now leading into some productive areas, because they’ve been able to trace the money, not through the money itself, but through the bank, you know, sources – the banker himself. And, and it goes in some directions we don’t want it to go. Ah, also there have been some things, like an informant came in off the street to the FBI in Miami, who was a photographer or has a friend who is a photographer who developed some films through this guy, Barker, and the films had pictures of Democratic National Committee letter head documents and things. So I guess, so it’s things like that that are gonna, that are filtering in. Mitchell came up with yesterday, and John Dean analyzed very carefully last night and concludes, concurs now with Mitchell’s recommendation that the only way to solve this, and we’re set up beautifully to do it, ah, in that and that…the only network that paid any attention to it last night was NBC…they did a massive story on the Cuban…

Nixon: That’s right.

Haldeman: thing.

Nixon: Right.

Haldeman: That the way to handle this now is for us to have Walters call Pat Gray and just say, “Stay the hell out of this …this this ah, business here we don’t want you to go any further on it.” That’s not an unusual development,…

Nixon: Um huh.

Haldeman: …and, uh, that would take care of it.

Nixon: What about Pat Gray, ah, you mean he doesn’t want to?

Haldeman: Pat does want to. He doesn’t know how to, and he doesn’t have, he doesn’t have any basis for doing it. Given this, he will then have the basis. He’ll call Mark Felt in, and the two of them …and Mark Felt wants to cooperate because…

Nixon: Yeah.

Haldeman: he’s ambitious…

Nixon: Yeah.

Haldeman: Ah, he’ll call him in and say, “We’ve got the signal from across the river to, to put the hold on this.” And that will fit rather well because the FBI agents who are working the case, at this point, feel that’s what it is. This is CIA.

Nixon: But they’ve traced the money to ‘em.

Haldeman: Well they have, they’ve traced to a name, but they haven’t gotten to the guy yet.

Nixon: Would it be somebody here?

Haldeman: Ken Dahlberg.

Nixon: Who the hell is Ken Dahlberg?

Haldeman: He’s ah, he gave $25,000 in Minnesota and ah, the check went directly in to this, to this guy Barker.

Nixon: Maybe he’s a …bum.

Nixon: He didn’t get this from the committee though, from Stans.

Haldeman: Yeah. It is. It is. It’s directly traceable and there’s some more through some Texas people in–that went to the Mexican bank which they can also trace to the Mexican bank…they’ll get their names today. And (pause)

Nixon: Well, I mean, ah, there’s no way… I’m just thinking if they don’t cooperate, what do they say? They they, they were approached by the Cubans. That’s what Dahlberg has to say, the Texans too. Is that the idea?

Haldeman: Well, if they will. But then we’re relying on more and more people all the time. That’s the problem. And ah, they’ll stop if we could, if we take this other step.

Nixon: All right. Fine.

Haldeman: And, and they seem to feel the thing to do is get them to stop?

Nixon: Right, fine.

Haldeman: They say the only way to do that is from White House instructions. And it’s got to be to Helms and, ah, what’s his name…? Walters.

Nixon: Walters.

Haldeman: And the proposal would be that Ehrlichman (coughs) and I call them in

Nixon: All right, fine.

Haldeman: and say, ah…

Nixon: How do you call him in, I mean you just, well, we protected Helms from one hell of a lot of things.

Haldeman: That’s what Ehrlichman says.

Nixon: Of course, this is a, this is a Hunt, you will-that will uncover a lot of things. You open that scab there’s a hell of a lot of things and that we just feel that it would be very detrimental to have this thing go any further.This involves these Cubans, Hunt, and a lot of hanky-panky that we have nothing to do with ourselves. Well what the hell, did Mitchell know about this thing to any much of a degree.

Haldeman: I think so. I don ‘t think he knew the details, but I think he knew.

Nixon: He didn’t know how it was going to be handled though, with Dahlberg and the Texans and so forth? Well who was the asshole that did? (Unintelligible) Is it Liddy? Is that the fellow? He must be a little nuts.

Haldeman: He is.

Nixon: I mean he just isn’t well screwed on is he? Isn’t that the problem?

Haldeman: No, but he was under pressure, apparently, to get more information, and as he got more pressure, he pushed the people harder to move harder on…

Nixon: Pressure from Mitchell?

Haldeman: Apparently.

Nixon: Oh, Mitchell, Mitchell was at the point that you made on this, that exactly what I need from you is on the–

Haldeman: Gemstone, yeah.

Nixon: All right, fine, I understand it all. We won’t second-guess Mitchell and the rest. Thank God it wasn’t Colson.

Haldeman: The FBI interviewed Colson yesterday. They determined that would be a good thing to do.

Nixon: Um hum.

Haldeman: Ah, to have him take a…

Nixon: Um hum.

Haldeman: An interrogation, which he did, and that, the FBI guys working the case had concluded that there were one or two possibilities, one, that this was a White House, they don’t think that there is anything at the Election Committee, they think it was either a White House operation and they had some obscure reasons for it, non political,…

Nixon: Uh huh.

Haldeman: or it was a…

Nixon: Cuban thing-

Haldeman: Cubans and the CIA. And after their interrogation of, of…

Nixon: Colson.

Haldeman: Colson, yesterday, they concluded it was not the White House, but are now convinced it is a CIA thing, so the CIA turn off would…

Nixon: Well, not sure of their analysis, I’m not going to get that involved. I’m (unintelligible).

Haldeman: No, sir. We don’t want you to.

Nixon: You call them in.

Nixon: Good. Good deal! Play it tough. That’s the way they play it and that’s the way we are going to play it.

Haldeman: O.K. We’ll do it.

Nixon: Yeah, when I saw that news summary item, I of course knew it was a bunch of crap, but I thought ah, well it’s good to have them off on this wild hair thing because when they start bugging us, which they have, we’ll know our little boys will not know how to handle it. I hope they will though. You never know. Maybe, you think about it. Good!

 

[g5000]

Sound familiar?

 

[g5000]

Nixon ordered Mark Felt, the Associate Director of the FBI, called in and told to stop his investigation of the Watergate break-in.

That was obstruction of justice. And it is why Nixon had to resign before he could be impeached once that conversation became public.

Mark Felt turned out to be "Deep Throat".

 

[g5000]

People have got to know whether or not their president is a crook. Well, I'm not a crook. I earned everything I've got.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Ted you fucking idiot! This is surely news to Nixon.

 

[g5000]

Exactly.

You can't obstruct justice when you are doing your job.

He has the power to fire the head of the FBI and he did.
It is up to any who believe it was to obstruct justice, to prove
that.

Forget it.

The Donald is in charge and he is asserting his position.
Deal with it

“I have long believed that a President can fire an FBI director for any reason, or for no reason at all,"

James Comey

But can he ask him not to go after a guy?
Asking someone to do something and firing are not the same thing.

Pop quiz: who is the constitutional head of the executive branch of the federal government?

You can do it! (Or not? ).

The President.

Not an Emperor.

Go ahead. Look it up and see for yourself! (Or not?)

 

[PoliticalChic]

Exactly.

You can't obstruct justice when you are doing your job.

He has the power to fire the head of the FBI and he did.
It is up to any who believe it was to obstruct justice, to prove
that.

Forget it.

The Donald is in charge and he is asserting his position.
Deal with it

“I have long believed that a President can fire an FBI director for any reason, or for no reason at all,"

James Comey

But can he ask him not to go after a guy?
Asking someone to do something and firing are not the same thing.

Pop quiz: who is the constitutional head of the executive branch of the federal government?

You can do it! (Or not? ).

The President.

Not an Emperor.

Go ahead. Look it up and see for yourself! (Or not?)

Now, when it is revealed by time and events that everything I posted is 100% correct, accurate, and true.....

....don't wipe the egg off your face.


It's an improvement.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Contrary to media reports, "collusion" is mentioned in the US Code of Law
18 U.S. Code § 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses

<snip>
(B) to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;
(2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act;
(B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;
(3) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, or offers or promises such person to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent to influence the testimony under oath or affirmation of such first-mentioned person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or with intent to influence such person to absent himself therefrom;
(4) directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in return for being influenced in testimony under oath or affirmation as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in return for absenting himself therefrom;

shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

 

[jc456]

If you come accross a conservative website compiling a group of these many law professors stating that a President cannot obstruct justice, please post in a reply or new thread. Thanks:

Jens David Ohlin, law professor, Cornell University
Peter Shane, law professor, Ohio State University
Lisa Kern Griffin, law professor, Duke University
Andy Wright, law professor, Savannah Law School
Bob Bauer, law professor, New York University
Jimmy Gurulé, law professor, Notre Dame
Ric Simmons, law professor, Ohio State University
Miriam Baer, law professor, Brooklyn Law School
Victoria Nourse, law professor, Georgetown University
Jed Shugerman, law professor, Fordham University
Jessica Levinson, law professor, Loyola Law School

All believe President Trump can be charged with obstruction of justice.
Trump’s lawyer: the president can’t obstruct justice. 13 legal experts: yes, he can.

Trump’s lawyer: the president can’t obstruct justice. 13 legal experts: yes, he can.

I believe you have inadvertently proven how truly stupid one can be and still claim to be a 'law professor.'


Here is 'proud Hillary voter,' Alan Dershowitz, protesting that 'there is no crime.'

Dershowitz: 'There is no statute that has been violated....firing Comey is [Trump's] constitutional and statutory right...'

I said that yesterday. Dershowitz was on 560 AM Chicago the Answer and made that statement. there is a podcast with his statement.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama was a "Law Professor" and he thinks we have 57 states and never even heard of Judicial Review.

Bar is really set low there

 

[Ted Frazier]

Contrary to media reports, "collusion" is mentioned in the US Code of Law
18 U.S. Code § 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses

<snip>
(B) to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;
(2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act;
(B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;
(3) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, or offers or promises such person to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent to influence the testimony under oath or affirmation of such first-mentioned person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or with intent to influence such person to absent himself therefrom;
(4) directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in return for being influenced in testimony under oath or affirmation as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in return for absenting himself therefrom;

shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

No media reports have stated that "collusion" is the name of a crime.

 

[Ted Frazier]

Obama was a "Law Professor" and he thinks we have 57 states and never even heard of Judicial Review.

Bar is really set low there

Dershowitz is a law professor and Trump lovers are having orgasms over him.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Academic. What matters is there is no evidence that Trump has done so, nor is there likely to be.

Wishful thinking does not make it so.

Odd post ^^^, no surprise given the author. Academic is directly opposed to wishful thinking. The former is sagacious, the latter ridiculous.

The argument is academic, the post wishful thinking.

 

[jc456]

Obama was a "Law Professor" and he thinks we have 57 states and never even heard of Judicial Review.

Bar is really set low there

Dershowitz is a law professor and Trump lovers are having orgasms over him.

Can you say OJ?

 

[whitehall]

Wow they found 11 law professors who are willing to stretch legal hypothesis to the limit only during republican administrations.. What about the other 1.54 million professors in the U.S.?

 

[bripat9643]

If you come accross a conservative website compiling a group of these many law professors stating that a President cannot obstruct justice, please post in a reply or new thread. Thanks:

Jens David Ohlin, law professor, Cornell University
Peter Shane, law professor, Ohio State University
Lisa Kern Griffin, law professor, Duke University
Andy Wright, law professor, Savannah Law School
Bob Bauer, law professor, New York University
Jimmy Gurulé, law professor, Notre Dame
Ric Simmons, law professor, Ohio State University
Miriam Baer, law professor, Brooklyn Law School
Victoria Nourse, law professor, Georgetown University
Jed Shugerman, law professor, Fordham University
Jessica Levinson, law professor, Loyola Law School

All believe President Trump can be charged with obstruction of justice.
Trump’s lawyer: the president can’t obstruct justice. 13 legal experts: yes, he can.

Dershowitz didn't say Trump can't obstruct justice. What he said is that ‘You Cannot Charge a President With Obstruction for Exercising His Constitutional Power’

All your post shows is that you're an idiot who doesn't pay attention.

 

[hazlnut]

Academic. What matters is there is no evidence that Trump has done so, nor is there likely to be.

Wishful thinking does not make it so.

Correction -- no evidence that has been made public.