Posted on 05/12/2017 7:10:18 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
An absurd argument is now being put forward by some Democratic ideologues: namely that President Trump engaged in the crime of obstructing justice by firing FBI Director James Comey. Whatever one may think of the president's decision to fire Comey as a matter of policy, there is absolutely no basis for concluding that the president engaged in a crime by exercising his statutory and constitutional authority to fire Comey. As Comey himself wrote in his letter to the FBI, no one should doubt the authority of the president to fire the director for any reason or no reason.
It simply cannot be a crime for a public official, whether the president or anyone else, to exercise his or her statutory and constitutional authority to hire or fire another public official. For something to be a crime there must be both an actus reus and mens rea – that is, a criminal act accompanied by a criminal state of mind. Even assuming that Trump was improperly motivated in firing Comey, motive alone can never constitute a crime. There must be an unlawful act. And exercising constitutional and statutory power cannot be the actus reus of a crime.
So let's put this nonsense behind us and not criminalize policy differences as extremists in both parties have tried to do. Republican and Democratic partisans often resort to the criminal law as a way of demonizing their political enemies. "Lock her up," was the cry of Republican partisans against Hillary Clinton regarding her misuse of her email server. Now "obstruction of justice" is the "lock him up" cry of partisan Democrats who disagree with Trump's decision to fire Comey. I opposed the criminalization of policy differences when Texas Governor Rick Perry and Congressman Tom Delay were indicted,
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Tell it to Tribe, Al.
Alan Dershowitz at least attempts to have some intellectual integrity.
I have to tip my hat to him for that.
Mayors of sanctuary cities are obstructing justice.
Tribe is crowing that Comey’s leak that Trump asked him for “loyalty” is obstruction of justice. I contend that “loyalty” meant “Would you stop leaking, you damned sieve!?” And Comey responded “no sir, no can do”.
Alan has repeatedly shown himself to be principled - even though he is far left.
I think he once said ; Of course my clients are guilty else they would not have me as a lawyer. (Or words to that effect)
Hillary had an act and a mentality that were both illegal.
Love Alan Dershowitz.
Dershowitz knows the law...
Being rational does not seem to be an aberration for Dershowitz. He gets it right fairly often in the last few years.
I don’t want to say that the anti-semitism in the democrat party is what has affected him, but I’m thinking that it has played some role.
For something to be a crime there must be both an actus reus and mens rea – that is, a criminal act accompanied by a criminal state of mind.
I'm no lawyer, but if I'm goofing around with wild golf club swings and I kill someone, I HAVE committed a crime, but I had no criminal state of mind. Likewise, I believe the statute on improper distribution of classified material (Hello Hillary) specifically states that intent does not matter.
Yes, Hillary did have a criminal mind -- but it wouldn't matter if she hadn't.
Any discussion of Comey, from any angle, which mentions the IMPORTANCE of criminal intent raises a flag for me, because I think the Left (erroneously) sees this as a safety net for Hillary. They slip it in to conversations in a subtle way, but I think they mean to sway people's thinking.
No. He knows that some in the CIA, Mossad, and the FBI have photos of him and many in Congress with the little girls and boys at Epstein’s island. They also have testimony from the victims of Dershowitz raping them.
He plays both sides, whenever—for his own survival. He is part of the official “Narrative” controllers. Sessions is moving in on all the pedophilia/pederasty which is run out of the CIA/FBI/Mossad since long before the Franklin Cover-up, Sandusky, and Epstein bribing child-sex rings who set-up their little honey pots for bribery of the rich and powerful.
Interesting that he came out from under his rock. Who ordered him and Why? Those are the key questions. He only “says” what he is required to say by those who hold the photos. Hopefully, Sessions has them now.
Interesting take.
The “honey trap’ rings to control societies through key people have long been speculated about.
I would have thought Comey’s letter would have put the idea to rest.... but the democrats seem to want to dig deeper in the septic tank.
“Of course my clients are guilty else they would not have me as a lawyer.”
That statement does not show Dershowitz to be non-principled.
He’s an appeals lawyer! All his clients have been found guilty in the court of law. Had the clients been found innocent, they wouldn’t be appealing.
I have heard Alan speak many times. He is frequently asked how he can represent people he feels may be guilty. It’s the law, not his feelings or suspicions.
He is very principled. Unfortunately he is also very liberal.
I agree that in Hillary’s case, intent is irrelevant due to the statute. She is guilty no matter how you slice it.
Your musings might be right ... or not.
But we know this much - what Dershowitz is saying about the law - about the Constitution - is right.
If the most horrible person in the world - a “Ted Bundy” type - said coffee had caffeine in it - it would still be true. Coffee does have caffeine in it - - that 'truth' is not tainted by the person saying it.
The Democrats know that their talking points are pure B.S. However, they also know that many Americans don’t question what they hear, so they’ll keep pushing it. The Dems are the unprincipled, win-at-any-cost types on average, so they have no compunction doing everything they can trying to overthrow our presidential election because they didn’t like the outcome. They spit on the country and its voters all the time anyway. Fortunately, there are still a small number of people on the left like Dershowitz who do have some principles and ethics left. They are becoming fewer and farther in between.
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.