Posted on 06/08/2017 5:52:41 AM PDT by blam
Constitutional expert and famed Harvard law Professor, Alan Dershowitz, took on Jeffrey Toobin to discuss the ongoing Trump-Comey saga, saying in no uncertain terms that “this is not obstruction of justice.”
He explains, “That is his constitutional power. He has the right to say, ‘You will not investigate Flynn.’ The best proof of that is he could have simply said to Comey, ‘Stop the investigation, I’ve just pardoned Flynn.’”
To back up his assertions, Dershowitz reminded viewers of when Bush I pardoned Casper Weinberger the night before trial. After doing so, no one cried ‘obstruction’ because it was within the rights of the President of the United States to do so.
“That’s what President Bush did,” Dershowitz said, citing the case of Caspar Weinberger. “You cannot have obstruction of justice when the president exercises his constitutional authority to pardon, his constitutional authority to fire the director of the FBI, or his constitutional authority to tell the director of the FBI who to prosecute and who not to prosecute.”
He made the point that impeachment and obstruction are two entirely different things, which reduced Jeffrey Toobin to look like an 11th grade history student learning the constitution for the first time. The President can be impeached for all manners of things, but not for firing Comey and/or asking him to stop investigating Flynn — because it is his right to do so.
“You can impeach him if you don’t like what he did,” he said. “But you cannot say it’s a crime. It’s simply not a crime for the president to exercise his constitutional authority to pardon or to direct the FBI.”
(snip)
(Excerpt) Read more at ibankcoin.com ...
To leftists, conservatism/constitutionality IS a crime!
Will someone please tell the socialists in Congress and the ignorant MSM this fact?! Wonder what loud-mouthed Maxine Waters would say.
Alan is spot on with the exception of the above snippet.
Dershowitz is right.
The only court the President answers to here is the court of public opinion. The Congress can act on that but what would be the grounds?
You have to give it to the Left: their screaming campaign to diminish the President to just another Joe on the street that they can frame with false charges has been very effective.
But Trump ain’t just another Joe.
They do not violate laws, because there is no rule of law to violate. "Law" is whatever they decide it is to be. They can uphold that law or they can break it, without fear of reprisal.
Because their goal is power. For power's sake. And they will KILL to acquire and maintain that power.
What is a crime is using the auspices of the FBI to overthrow a lawfully elected President of the United States.
Cheered on by the state-run fake media, corrupt state, deep state, blue states, both parties, courts, and shadow gov.
30 or 40 years from now, one or two liberals might entertain the thought that Donald Trump was actually a legitimate President of the United States.
Maybe.
As Cruz stands on a mountaintop looking out over all this cauldron of hate that Trump and Melanie ar caught up in the middle of and as he looks at his two daughters he’s bound to say: “God thank you for my loss”.
I think what might be going on with this objection to the Comey firing is to try to build a narrative of Trump saying “you’re fired!” It’s lame, but I think that this might be the foundation of an appeal to people 18-25ish. There seems to be a belief that one should do what is right in one’s own eyes and that employers are required to negotiate with employees who may view work assignments as being ala carte.
The GOP could probably ruin this now and for the future by explaining the situation in terms of why it doesn’t work for an unelected official with so much authority and power over the rest of us to be a law unto themself. Comey offers such a teachable moment because he has been responsible for so much chaos that we can see. Did Comey fire people for insubordination? Hypocrisy is never attractive.
In this case, Trump is not able to issue a pardon to Flynn, ending any investigation, because Flynn didn’t commit any crime to pardon.
This should be required reading for timid Republican lawyers who are prone to recommend recusals, special counsels, and special investigations whenever Democrats accuse them of bias.
It’s hard to say that Nixon committed a crime. No trial. No finding. Didn’t matter — Ford pardoned Nixon before any real criminal investigation.
Flynn is in a similar boat. Her could have been pardoned by President Trump prior to a criminal investigation (which likely would have found that no crime happened).
But don’t count on it.
bump
“Alan is spot on with the exception of the above snippet. “
Not so.
Because the constitution is amorphous on what “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” are, the Congress can impeach and convict for any reason they damn well please.
It requires no basis in statutes.
All it requires is a simple majority in the House and 2/3 of the Senate.
Of course, there’s political reality they would have to deal with, but they could move forward because the POTUS has a “hot wife”...AND CONVICT.
“In this case, Trump is not able to issue a pardon to Flynn, ending any investigation, because Flynn didn’t commit any crime to pardon.”
He does not have to specify a crime. There does not need to be a criminal charge underway. It can and has been used for “any crimes he may have committed between the dates of X and Y”.
He can indeed pardon him in advance.
Example:
“Now, Therefore, I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.”
*
Sorry, Dershowitz is correct. Impeachment is a completely political process and aPOTUS can be impeached for doing things the Congress opposes. High crimes are not crimes as recorded in Title 18. To satisfy a public that believes they are actions can be interpreted as crimes or, as in Johnson’s case, a POTUS can be manipulated into violating a federal law. In a real court room Dershowitz is spot on. This stuff would not make it past a motion to dismiss, but Dershowitz’ caveat you quoted shows he understands what is happening and is trying to make it clear that the entire charade is completely pklitical in nature.
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.