You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Dershowitz: Come on, no one's going to indict Trump for obstruction
2017-05-18
[Hot Air] "You should have been reading The Godfather," Alan Dershowitz told Chris Cuomo on CNN’s New Day, rather than law books on the nature of obstruction of justice. Cuomo later picks up the theme by asking whether Donald Trump attempted to give James Comey "the baccio di tutti bacci" to Jeffrey Toobin, who says that we won’t know until we actually see the memo and get testimony about the nature of the conversation. But as Newsmax notes, Dershowitz believes that the controversy is more likely to provide full employment for pundits and constitutional experts than produce an indictment:

"Under the unitary executive theory, the president has the right to tell the FBI what to do," Dershowitz told CNN’s "New Day" anchor Chris Cuomo, invoking a theory that holds the president possesses the power to control the entire executive branch of the government.

"Thomas Jefferson managed the trial against Aaron Burr. President [Lyndon B.] Johnson interacted with the Justice Department and FBI."

However, he continued, the fact that Trump is president cuts both ways, Dershowitz continued.

"He has the power to tell them what to do," said Dershowitz, but since the president also was the only person who could have fired Comey, it’s not clear if he obstructed justice if he suggested to Comey to "go soft" on former National Security Agency Director Michael Flynn, as Comey has suggested and written in a memo.

"This is a complex and difficult issue, which we will never reach," said Dershowitz.

One point Dershowitz fails to mention is that the president is immune from prosecution while in office. In the clip, he suggests that even if House Republicans are inclined to look toward impeachment, they’d want an independent prosecutor to produce a bill of charges on which they could rely. However, Ryan Goodman pointed out today at Politico that a special prosecutor might be inapplicable due to two findings on presidential immunity. And an attempt to get around it could be stopped by Trump:
Posted by:Besoeker

#7  Remember Bill and Monica?
America incensed, World amused, Bill impeached.
Didn't end his presidency.
Posted by: Skidmark   2017-05-18 15:31  

#6  
Posted by: Caesar Bucket6243   2017-05-18 15:29  

#5  no one's going to indict Trump for obstruction

The two scoops of ice cream, on the other hand, will be the end of him.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2017-05-18 13:54  

#4  Even if that's what Comey said, it's not proof. Comey has shown himself to be a bumbling idiot and biased in favor of Democrats. Let's just say he is not the most reliable witness. Further, he now has an ax to grind. Like Ryan said, why didn't he mention this to anybody at the time when it supposedly happened?
Posted by: Abu Uluque   2017-05-18 11:44  

#3  The Dems are going to keep trying though.
Posted by: JohnQC   2017-05-18 11:22  

#2  So a reporter from a newspaper that's maybe just slightly biased against Trump talks to a guy (whose name he can't tell us) who says that he saw a memo (which the reporter hasn't seen) in which Comey says that Trump said to go easy on Flynn?

That's a great law school exam question for the course on evidence. "List the ways in which this reporter's article is inadmissible as evidence" or for the trial practice course, "How would you cross-examine the reporter?"

(That's old law school -- new law school would be "If doing so would not put too much pressure on you, describe the ways in which the reporter, his source, Comey and Trump were all exercising their white privilege.")

Posted by: Matt   2017-05-18 08:16  

#1  True dat. This is all about casting shade on the Pubs for '18.
Posted by: Caesar Bucket6243   2017-05-18 08:08  

00:00