Dershowitz: ‘You Cannot Charge a President With Obstruction for Exercising His Constitutional Power’

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Policy gets in his way. If he doesn't like someone, he fires them. If he thinks Jerusalem should be the capital of Israel he recognizes it as such. If he feels like pissing off North Korea, he does it. If he feels like saying something that is opposite of what he said last week, he says it. It's that simple. He does what he feels like doing when the urge hits him. If you understand this, you understand Trump and hopefully you understand the problems that poses for the nation. However, Trump's president is not about the nation, it's about Trump.

That may be fine for local consumption. but it's dangerous when the world has to make sense of his illogical behavior. Countries will no longer want to work with the USA, and who can blame them.

And that is the problem.

Trump pisses off half the Middle East with his statement that Jerusalem should be the capital of Israel. Yet Trump wants to be the great deal maker in middle east, fat chance of that now.

Both Russia and China, the 2 most important trading partners with North Korea urge Trump to tone down his rhetoric and provocative military actions toward North Korea. However, Trump decides on starting an infantile fight on Twitter with Kim Jong-Un which accomplishes nothing except moving the US closer to a real war.

. Gotta stand for something or continue to fall for anything. To long now this nation has fallen, and it's time to turn and face our opponents where ever they might be in this nation or in the world. We must face them with diplomacy of course, and if need be through strength. No more being the world's idiots while they kill us as they laugh, and we defend their killing us as they laugh even harder. No more.

What in the world are you babbling about? We are by far the strongest nation on Earth. Our central banking system has produced the strongest and most stable modern economy known to man, and what is still the most secure investment on the planet . Our development of nuclear weapons has led to one of the longest stretches of relative global peace in history. The only reason any country laughs at us is because we have so many stupid people in this country (see: climate denial, evolution denial, gun-loving fools, elected a moron).

So if you want to do something to improve this country, then push for improving our education and health systems.

 

[Flopper]

And what was said is backed up by other lawyers and constitutional scholars Yes, a president can obstruct justice, legal experts say the president can not be charged with obstruction in regards his firing of comey.

Of course he can. Mueller just needs to present the evidence to Grand Jury and ask for an indictment and there is nothing Trump can do about it because he is not represented within grand jury proceedings. Trump can certainly fight the charge, but this is not going to happen. Trump's trial will not be in a court of law but before the US Senate.

wrong read the article while Trump can be charged with obstruction for actions he takes THE ACT of firing Comey is NOT one of them. He has a legal constitutional right and power to fire ANY appointee for ANY reason.

Of course Trump had the right to fire Comey or any other appointee in the administration. However, if it can be proved that the reason for the firing was to obstruct justice, then he has broken the law and it would be up to the Congress to decide his fate.

Trump's lawyer claims that Trump can not obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer and therefore has the right to express his view of any case. I don't know if that would save him in a court of law. However, if Trump were tried, it would be an impeachment trial before the US Senate and impeachment trials do not follow the same procedures and rules of law as a criminal trial. Senators are the jury and their decisions may or may not be based on evidence plus their decision is final.

 

[Flopper]

This is for all the forum idiots who think Mueller can charge Trump with obstruction of justice:

Dershowitz: 'You Cannot Charge a President With Obstruction of Justice for Exercising His Constitutional Power' - Breitbart​

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.”

​

he's lost his freaking mind.

And if president killed his wife on the White House lawn with a hundred witnesses, he could shutdown any federal investigation because he's president I rather doubt that would hold up in a Senate impeachment trial. Trump may think he is immune from punishment for his crimes but that's just another one of his delusions.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Again for the TRULY SLOW AND STUPID, a President has sole and absolute power to fire ANY appointee for ANY reason and there is not a single instance of that not being true Nixon was not charged with obstruction for firing anybody.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Again for the TRULY SLOW AND STUPID, a President has sole and absolute power to fire ANY appointee for ANY reason and there is not a single instance of that not being true Nixon was not charged with obstruction for firing anybody.

He does not, as he can be punished for doing it as part of a crime. That's a fact.

And Dershowitz wasn't referring to firing Comey, but rather to Trump giving his opinion of the investigation to Comey and exerting influence upon it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Again for the TRULY SLOW AND STUPID, a President has sole and absolute power to fire ANY appointee for ANY reason and there is not a single instance of that not being true Nixon was not charged with obstruction for firing anybody.

He does not, as he can be punished for doing it as part of a crime. That's a fact.

And Dershowitz wasn't referring to firing Comey, but rather giving his opinion of the investigation to Comey.

no he wasn't he specifically said when exercising his authority that and he mentioned the firing.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Again for the TRULY SLOW AND STUPID, a President has sole and absolute power to fire ANY appointee for ANY reason and there is not a single instance of that not being true Nixon was not charged with obstruction for firing anybody.

He does not, as he can be punished for doing it as part of a crime. That's a fact.

And Dershowitz wasn't referring to firing Comey, but rather to Trump giving his opinion of the investigation to Comey and exerting influence upon it.

from the article

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.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Again for the TRULY SLOW AND STUPID, a President has sole and absolute power to fire ANY appointee for ANY reason and there is not a single instance of that not being true Nixon was not charged with obstruction for firing anybody.

He does not, as he can be punished for doing it as part of a crime. That's a fact.

And Dershowitz wasn't referring to firing Comey, but rather giving his opinion of the investigation to Comey.

no he wasn't he specifically said when exercising his authority that and he mentioned the firing.

Did he? Okay.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Again for the TRULY SLOW AND STUPID, a President has sole and absolute power to fire ANY appointee for ANY reason and there is not a single instance of that not being true Nixon was not charged with obstruction for firing anybody.

He does not, as he can be punished for doing it as part of a crime. That's a fact.

And Dershowitz wasn't referring to firing Comey, but rather giving his opinion of the investigation to Comey.

no he wasn't he specifically said when exercising his authority that and he mentioned the firing.

Did he? Okay.

I am not nor is dershwitz arguing the President can not be charged with Obstructing Justice JUST that firing Comey can not be the basis for such a charge as it is an enumerated power of the President.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Again for the TRULY SLOW AND STUPID, a President has sole and absolute power to fire ANY appointee for ANY reason and there is not a single instance of that not being true Nixon was not charged with obstruction for firing anybody.

He does not, as he can be punished for doing it as part of a crime. That's a fact.

And Dershowitz wasn't referring to firing Comey, but rather giving his opinion of the investigation to Comey.

no he wasn't he specifically said when exercising his authority that and he mentioned the firing.

Did he? Okay.

I am not nor is dershwitz arguing the President can not be charged with Obstructing Justice JUST that firing Comey can not be the basis for such a charge as it is an enumerated power of the President.

I see, and it makes sense. Obviously Mueller agrees, or he would already have recommended basis for impeachment to Congress. Maybe he has, who knows. But, it's smart to keep in mind that Trump has diarrhea of the mouth. But the fact that he doesn't read or write could save his dumb ass. Ironically enough.

 

[Flopper]

Again for the TRULY SLOW AND STUPID, a President has sole and absolute power to fire ANY appointee for ANY reason and there is not a single instance of that not being true Nixon was not charged with obstruction for firing anybody.

He does not, as he can be punished for doing it as part of a crime. That's a fact.

And Dershowitz wasn't referring to firing Comey, but rather to Trump giving his opinion of the investigation to Comey and exerting influence upon it.

from the article

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.

Having the power to act does not mean the president can not be held accountable for his actions. If Trump fired Comey because of his poor job performance that is certainly proper but if the reason he fired Comey was to protect himself from criminal charges, that's something quite different.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Again for the TRULY SLOW AND STUPID, a President has sole and absolute power to fire ANY appointee for ANY reason and there is not a single instance of that not being true Nixon was not charged with obstruction for firing anybody.

He does not, as he can be punished for doing it as part of a crime. That's a fact.

And Dershowitz wasn't referring to firing Comey, but rather to Trump giving his opinion of the investigation to Comey and exerting influence upon it.

from the article

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.

Having the power to act does not mean the president can not be held accountable for his actions. If Trump fired Comey because of his poor job performance that is certainly proper but if the reason he fired Comey was to protect himself from criminal charges, that's something quite different.

The more I think about it, I really don't think it is, in a purely legal sense. But, as you pointed out, the US Senate is not bound by the same rules as are courts.

 

[bripat9643]

Again for the TRULY SLOW AND STUPID, a President has sole and absolute power to fire ANY appointee for ANY reason and there is not a single instance of that not being true Nixon was not charged with obstruction for firing anybody.

He does not, as he can be punished for doing it as part of a crime. That's a fact.

And Dershowitz wasn't referring to firing Comey, but rather to Trump giving his opinion of the investigation to Comey and exerting influence upon it.

That's like saying it's illegal to eat a hamburger if you do it "as part of a crime." Eating hamburgers is legal, whether you do it while robbing a bank or having lunch with your kids. Firing Comey was entirely legal, and there was no crime involved.

 

[bripat9643]

Again for the TRULY SLOW AND STUPID, a President has sole and absolute power to fire ANY appointee for ANY reason and there is not a single instance of that not being true Nixon was not charged with obstruction for firing anybody.

He does not, as he can be punished for doing it as part of a crime. That's a fact.

And Dershowitz wasn't referring to firing Comey, but rather to Trump giving his opinion of the investigation to Comey and exerting influence upon it.

from the article

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.

Having the power to act does not mean the president can not be held accountable for his actions. If Trump fired Comey because of his poor job performance that is certainly proper but if the reason he fired Comey was to protect himself from criminal charges, that's something quite different.

Actually, not. It's legal in both cases.

 

[jillian]

Again for the TRULY SLOW AND STUPID, a President has sole and absolute power to fire ANY appointee for ANY reason and there is not a single instance of that not being true Nixon was not charged with obstruction for firing anybody.

that is a lie as Richard Nixon found out. you cannot fire anyone in order to obstruct justice.

you know... for the really brain dead trumptard

 

[jillian]

Again for the TRULY SLOW AND STUPID, a President has sole and absolute power to fire ANY appointee for ANY reason and there is not a single instance of that not being true Nixon was not charged with obstruction for firing anybody.

He does not, as he can be punished for doing it as part of a crime. That's a fact.

And Dershowitz wasn't referring to firing Comey, but rather to Trump giving his opinion of the investigation to Comey and exerting influence upon it.

That's like saying it's illegal to eat a hamburger if you do it "as part of a crime." Eating hamburgers is legal, whether you do it while robbing a bank or having lunch with your kids. Firing Comey was entirely legal, and there was no crime involved.

I know you're not bright enough or sane enough to understand this, you hack... but there are a lot of laws where whether something is legal or not turns on intent.

employment law says you can be fired for any reason or no reason at all, but not for an illegal reason.

now be quiet since you have no clue about these things

 

[beagle9]

And what was said is backed up by other lawyers and constitutional scholars Yes, a president can obstruct justice, legal experts say the president can not be charged with obstruction in regards his firing of comey.

Of course he can. Mueller just needs to present the evidence to Grand Jury and ask for an indictment and there is nothing Trump can do about it because he is not represented within grand jury proceedings. Trump can certainly fight the charge, but this is not going to happen. Trump's trial will not be in a court of law but before the US Senate.

wrong read the article while Trump can be charged with obstruction for actions he takes THE ACT of firing Comey is NOT one of them. He has a legal constitutional right and power to fire ANY appointee for ANY reason.

Of course Trump had the right to fire Comey or any other appointee in the administration. However, if it can be proved that the reason for the firing was to obstruct justice, then he has broken the law and it would be up to the Congress to decide his fate.

Trump's lawyer claims that Trump can not obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer and therefore has the right to express his view of any case. I don't know if that would save him in a court of law. However, if Trump were tried, it would be an impeachment trial before the US Senate and impeachment trials do not follow the same procedures and rules of law as a criminal trial. Senators are the jury and their decisions may or may not be based on evidence plus their decision is final.

. Trump if operating from a position of innocence, is exactly what allowed him to fire Comey, and especially over what we are learning now about it all. Mueller might be next.

 

[jillian]

Again for the TRULY SLOW AND STUPID, a President has sole and absolute power to fire ANY appointee for ANY reason and there is not a single instance of that not being true Nixon was not charged with obstruction for firing anybody.

He does not, as he can be punished for doing it as part of a crime. That's a fact.

And Dershowitz wasn't referring to firing Comey, but rather to Trump giving his opinion of the investigation to Comey and exerting influence upon it.

from the article

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.

Having the power to act does not mean the president can not be held accountable for his actions. If Trump fired Comey because of his poor job performance that is certainly proper but if the reason he fired Comey was to protect himself from criminal charges, that's something quite different.

Actually, not. It's legal in both cases.

again, idiotic and false.... bordering on delusional.

 

[beagle9]

Again for the TRULY SLOW AND STUPID, a President has sole and absolute power to fire ANY appointee for ANY reason and there is not a single instance of that not being true Nixon was not charged with obstruction for firing anybody.

He does not, as he can be punished for doing it as part of a crime. That's a fact.

And Dershowitz wasn't referring to firing Comey, but rather to Trump giving his opinion of the investigation to Comey and exerting influence upon it.

That's like saying it's illegal to eat a hamburger if you do it "as part of a crime." Eating hamburgers is legal, whether you do it while robbing a bank or having lunch with your kids. Firing Comey was entirely legal, and there was no crime involved.

I know you're not bright enough or sane enough to understand this, you hack... but there are a lot of laws where whether something is legal or not turns on intent.

employment law says you can be fired for any reason or no reason at all, but not for an illegal reason.

now be quiet if you have no clue about these things?

. Intent (in my opinion) having been dropped down to that level of gotcha, shows desperation to try and make anything stick at this point.

 

[jillian]

Again for the TRULY SLOW AND STUPID, a President has sole and absolute power to fire ANY appointee for ANY reason and there is not a single instance of that not being true Nixon was not charged with obstruction for firing anybody.

He does not, as he can be punished for doing it as part of a crime. That's a fact.

And Dershowitz wasn't referring to firing Comey, but rather to Trump giving his opinion of the investigation to Comey and exerting influence upon it.

That's like saying it's illegal to eat a hamburger if you do it "as part of a crime." Eating hamburgers is legal, whether you do it while robbing a bank or having lunch with your kids. Firing Comey was entirely legal, and there was no crime involved.

I know you're not bright enough or sane enough to understand this, you hack... but there are a lot of laws where whether something is legal or not turns on intent.

employment law says you can be fired for any reason or no reason at all, but not for an illegal reason.

now be quiet if you have no clue about these things?

. Intent (in my opinion) having been dropped down to that level of gotcha, shows desperation to try and make anything stick at this point.

that's idiotic