Posted on 12/04/2017 9:24:35 AM PST by ColdOne
Washington (CNN)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.
The position that Trump cannot obstruct justice -- which evokes a similar claim once made by former President Richard Nixon, who resigned over the Watergate scandal -- is sure to be debated as special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation intensifies. Flynn is the first administration official to be charged as part of the probe. The @realDonaldTrump account tweet was pushed out after Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian ambassador to the US during the presidential transition. "I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI," the Saturday tweet reads. "He has pled guilty to those lies. It is a shame because his actions during the transition were lawful. There was nothing to hide!" Dowd has said he drafted the tweet, but denied that it admitted obstruction. "That is an ignorant and arrogant assertion," Dowd told Axios.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Alan Dershowitz says the same thing.
Ouch! >.<
not good...
Obstruction?? What happened to “Russia collusion”? This is worse than laughable.
Constitutionally true, but politically a dumb thing to say since that was the basis for the articles of impeachment that were drafted against Nixon.
We can now expect to hear every left wing talking head comparing Trump to Nixon.
They're both correct.
Trump has really stepped in it this time.
It’s all over for him now.
And this time I really, really, really, really mean it.
There’s no crime.
Yes, a President CAN obstruct justice. He can, for example, direct his subordinates in any Executive Branch department, agency or bureau to withhold information subpoenaed by Congress or a court, and that would be obstruction. So would be directing the destruction of evidence.
This President, however, has NOT done so - not by a long shot. I wish that this distinction had been made, as it is more accurate.
You want an administration that HAS obstructed justice? Fine, just look at the last one - there’s evidence aplenty to at least open several separate and distinct investigations about its actions.
The Leftists are seeing their dream of a one-world government and a defanged, only moderately prosperous, US slip through their fingers, and they can’t stand it. They are grasping at straws by claiming “obstruction of justice,” which is how they deposed Nixon.
CNN is stretching, parsing, straining for viewers and readers.
Plenty of reasons to fire Comedy being a corrupt azz is one, or doing sham investigations is another, or Comey picking his nose in public is ok too.
There may not be a real crime here, but I don’t agree with the concept that the President cannot obstruct justice. I said ouch, because if that’s they stand, it’s a big problem.
Flynn was dumb.
Isn't it about time we got our Constitution back?
BTW Nixon wasn't impeached and the only real obstruction he could have Constitutionally been impeached for was obstruction of a Senate Committee.
He didn’t say “the President can’t obstruct justice.” He said that the President can’t obstruct justice by exercising his Constitutional authority.”
Yup. You make the point clearer than the president's lawyer.
I want to hear the specifics of what Trump did to “obstruct justice” and what underlying crime he committed for him to take such course of action. Collusion? Still not a crime.
No, as far as I know ‘collusion’ isn’t a criminal term here, it’s a word used by the media.
But, for example, let’s say that Trump ordered Flynn to lie to the FBI. Why wouldn’t that be obstruction.
It’s purely a hypothetical, but it goes back to my point. Maybe I miss-read it, but it sounds like they were saying the President can’t obstruct justice because he is the President.
We can now expect to hear every left wing talking head comparing Trump to Nixon.
Nothingnew. Mark Levin did that for months.
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.