Alan Dershowitz: 'You cannot charge a president with obstruction of justice for exercising his const

[American]

George Carlin was a smug asshole who added little value.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[American]

Yeah I thought so. You're just going to play games because you know yours is a losing argument. Not going to waste my time.

Have a nice day. [emoji6]

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[haymarket]

Yes, he went to jail for trying to sell the seat.

You tried to say he went to jail for just exercising his job by filling the seat.

Why did you try to misrepresent this case?

He was trying to sell a seat that he had the power to appoint anyone he wanted . That is a clear truth. Someone can use a power they have - in this case the power of appointment - and still use it corruptly. And that applies to Trump also. Yes, he has the power to fire people like Comey. And if he uses it corruptly as RobBlog did in Illinois - in this case to further a cover-up and/or obstruct justice - he can be made subject to removal and prosecution for those offenses.

That is a clear truth.

 

[Tangmo]

Yes he does, the entire federal government executive assumes their power from the presidency

Wrong in the instance of the appointment or dismissal of a special counsel.

Trump did not sign off on the appointment of Mueller by Deputy AG Rosenstein because the Ethics in Government Act specifically excludes any direct Potus authority over the special counsel. Rosenstein himself alone appointed Mueller under the Act. Rosenstein then called the WH counsel to inform the WH. Potus had to accept the appointment because Potus has no authority in the matter.

Neither can Potus dismiss a special counsel. Under the Act only the AG can dismiss a special counsel. (Rosentein had been acting AG). If AG dismisses a special counsel it can only be "for cause" under the Act. The Act mandates the AG to submit a full report of a dismissal to Congress and to the Supreme Court for the review of each.

It's called the co-equal branches of government, the separation of powers, and the balance of powers. It's all in the Constitution and in the Grade 7 Civics Books north of the Mason Dixon Line. See: Morrison v Olsen 1988 by 7-1 decision of the Supreme Court.


In the View of the Supreme Court, Alan Dershowitz Is Wrong About the Powers of the President
https://www.lawfareblog.com/view-supreme-court-alan-dershowitz-wrong-about-powers-president

 

[apdst]

Wrong in the instance of the appointment or dismissal of a special counsel.

Trump did not sign off on the appointment of Mueller by Deputy AG Rosenstein because the Ethics in Government Act specifically excludes any direct Potus authority over the special counsel. Rosenstein himself alone appointed Mueller under the Act. Rosenstein then called the WH counsel to inform the WH. Potus had to accept the appointment because Potus has no authority in the matter.

Neither can Potus dismiss a special counsel. Under the Act only the AG can dismiss a special counsel. (Rosentein had been acting AG). If AG dismisses a special counsel it can only be "for cause" under the Act. The Act mandates the AG to submit a full report of a dismissal to Congress and to the Supreme Court for the review of each.

It's called the co-equal branches of government, the separation of powers, and the balance of powers. It's all in the Constitution and in the Grade 7 Civics Books north of the Mason Dixon Line. See: Morrison v Olsen 1988 by 7-1 decision of the Supreme Court.


In the View of the Supreme Court, Alan Dershowitz Is Wrong About the Powers of the President
https://www.lawfareblog.com/view-supreme-court-alan-dershowitz-wrong-about-powers-president

The DOJ isn't a branch of government.

 

[MTAtech]

I think a president has a problem when his argument is not that he didn’t obstruct justice but that he is allowed to obstruct Justice. Whether he allowed to has never been tested in court.

What is interesting is that Richard Nixon’s articles of impeachment included obstruction of justice and the Republicans in the 1990s made the exact opposite argument against Clinton that they are making now.

 

[Tangmo]

He's had my attention, and not necessarily in a good way (Klaus von Bulow), for a very long time. And the world's too:

Alan Morton Dershowitz (born September 1, 1938) is an American lawyer and author. He is a scholar of United States constitutional law and criminal law, and a leading defender of civil liberties. He spent most of his career at Harvard Law School where in 1967, at the age of 28, he became the youngest full professor of law in its history. He held the Felix Frankfurter professorship there from 1993 until his retirement in December 2013. He is now a regular CNN and Fox News contributor and political analyst. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Dershowitz

Scotus ruled in Morrison v Olsen in 1988 that the Ethics in Government Act establishes by Constitutional means that Potus cannot terminate an investigation of the Potus. The Act said Potus cannot fire an independent or special counsel appointed by Department of Justice under the Act except by the attorney general and "for cause." Under the Act the AG must make a report of the dismissal to the Congress and to Scotus for the review and scrutiny of each independently.

Here is the response to Dershowitz by Richard H. Pildes who is professor of law at NYU and who specializes in Constitutional law and national security law and who cites the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 established post Watergate and Nixon....


Dershowitz fails to take into account that the Supreme Court has decisively rejected this view. In Morrison v. Olson (1988), a 7-1 Supreme Court turned back constitutional challenges to Congress’ creation of the Act that gave us the office of the Independent Counsel—and in doing so, dismissed exactly the argument that Dershowitz now seeks to invoke.

So the premise of my friend Alan Dershowitz’s argument is wrong:

The President does not have unfettered constitutional power to decide whether to shut down criminal investigations of his top aides for any reason. As the Supreme Court concluded, “we simply do not see how” it is “so central to the functioning of the Executive Branch as to require as a matter of constitutional law that” the President be understood to have unlimited control over the investigation and prosecution of potential crimes involving himself or his top aides. Given the established constitutional principle that Congress can protect a federal prosecutor from the President’s domination in these type of cases, Congress can certainly constrain the President’s power in more limited ways—to protect the integrity of these very investigative and prosecutorial processes—including by making it a crime for the President to act with a corrupt intent to stymie or shut down investigations of the President himself and his top aides.

Dershowitz’s mistake is to confuse what might be true in run-of-the-mill federal cases, where the President arguably has ultimate control over prosecutorial decisions, with potential criminal matters involving the President’s top aides—which the Supreme Court has concluded can be taken out of the President’s complete control, given the obvious conflict-of-interest.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/view-supreme-court-alan-dershowitz-wrong-about-powers-president


Dershowitz has his merits and his demerits. Dershowitz huge demerit is that win or lose he is a loudmouth publicity whore. While Dersowitz is retired from Harvard and practicing law he remains active in his vocation as a shameless maximum publicity tramp.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Directing the DOJ not to pursue legal action against immigrants is not even in the same ball park as a president directing the FBI not to investigate his campaign, himself, or his associates.

From your perspective, maybe so. Some would argue quite differently, such as those who are outraged that San Francisco's sanctuary city position allowed an illegal to not only remain in the city but murder an innocent young lady. You might think politics "trumps" murder - I don't. Irrespective, the principle remains the same - the President apparently has the constitutional authority to direct any department of government to focus or not focus on any particular matter.

 

[MTAtech]

From your perspective, maybe so. Some would argue quite differently, such as those who are outraged that San Francisco's sanctuary city position allowed an illegal to not only remain in the city but murder an innocent young lady. You might think politics "trumps" murder - I don't. Irrespective, the principle remains the same - the President apparently has the constitutional authority to direct any department of government to focus or not focus on any particular matter.

You are merely restating the president’s assertion without citing why. The body of legal opinion disagree.

 

[Tangmo]

The DOJ isn't a branch of government.

DoJ is a department of the Executive Branch.

There are three branches of the government. It says so in the Constitution. You've heard of this of course, ne c'est pas. Same for the co-equal thingy, the separation of powers, the balance of powers. This is stimulating thx.

 

[calamity]

Alan Dershowitz: 'You cannot charge a president with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional power'

Alan Dershowitz: 'You cannot charge a president with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional power'


A liberal jew defending the President, quite amazing.

'Hope Over Reality': Dershowitz Doesn't See Obstruction of Justice Case Against Trump | Fox News Insider

Dersh sure has become quite the hack since picking up paychecks from treasonous Fox News.

 

[apdst]

DoJ is a department of the Executive Branch.

There are three branches of the government. It says so in the Constitution. You've heard of this of course, ne c'est pas. Same for the co-equal thingy, the separation of powers, the balance of powers. This is stimulating thx.

Thanks for confirming what I said.

 

[Tangmo]

Thanks for confirming what I said.

Thanks for confirming what I posted in respect of Morrison v Olsen and the Ethics in Government Act.

Correct me if I might be in error plse thx.

 

[apdst]

Thanks for confirming what I posted in respect of Morrison v Olsen and the Ethics in Government Act.

Correct me if I might be in error plse thx.

Why did you mention seperation of power if the DOJ is a part of the Executive Branch?

 

[MTAtech]

The times ran an editorial today that spells it out.

Yes, the President Can Obstruct Justice

Some snippets:

On Monday morning, Axios reported that Mr. Trump’s top personal lawyer, John Dowd, said in an interview that the “president cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer” under the Constitution and “has every right to express his view of any case.”

This will come as news to Congress, which has passed laws criminalizing the obstruction of justice and decided twice in the last four decades that when a president violates those laws he has committed an impeachable offense.

Mr. Trump didn’t just try to shut down some random no-name case; he tried to shut down an investigation into his own campaign’s ties to the Russian government’s efforts to swing the 2016 election in his favor. As that investigation keeps revealing, Mr. Trump’s top associates have repeatedly been untruthful about their contacts and communications with Russian officials.

Meanwhile, as the evidence of both subterfuge and obstruction continues to grow, Mr. Trump’s tireless spinners and sophists are working to convince the American public that it’s all no big deal. This is an embarrassing and unpersuasive argument, but it’s not surprising. At this point, they have nothing else to work with.

 

[Tangmo]

Why did you mention seperation of power if the DOJ is a part of the Executive Branch?

The Federalist Papers.

 

[Athanasius68]

Directing the DOJ not to pursue legal action against immigrants is not even in the same ball park as a president directing the FBI not to investigate his campaign, himself, or his associates.

No. It isnt in the same ball park.

But its also not what has happenned.

 

[roughdraft274]

Alan Dershowitz: 'You cannot charge a president with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional power'

Alan Dershowitz: 'You cannot charge a president with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional power'


A liberal jew defending the President, quite amazing.

'Hope Over Reality': Dershowitz Doesn't See Obstruction of Justice Case Against Trump | Fox News Insider

I'd love to see all the Trump leg-humpers call this guy an idiot if had claimed that it would have been fine for Obama to tell Comey to stop investigating Hillary and then fire him for continuing. I bet this whole "The president can't obstruct justice" argument wouldn't mean **** then, lol.

 

[Athanasius68]

I think a president has a problem when his argument is not that he didn’t obstruct justice but that he is allowed to obstruct Justice. Whether he allowed to has never been tested in court.

What is interesting is that Richard Nixon’s articles of impeachment included obstruction of justice and the Republicans in the 1990s made the exact opposite argument against Clinton that they are making now.

That isnt what Trump is saying. He is saying
that he is head of the Executive dept. As such, he is allowed to direct how that department utilizes its resources. The justice dept and FBI are not independent actors; they are not rogue agencies.

 

[MTAtech]

That isnt what Trump is saying. He is saying
that he is head of the Executive dept. As such, he is allowed to direct how that department utilizes its resources. The justice dept and FBI are not independent actors; they are not rogue agencies.

What you are saying is that it is proper for a president to shut down an investigation into his own campaign’s ties to the Russian government’s efforts to swing the 2016 election in his favor. I'm saying that's a textbook example of obstruction of justice.

 

[Tangmo]

That isnt what Trump is saying. He is saying
that he is head of the Executive dept. As such, he is allowed to direct how that department utilizes its resources. The justice dept and FBI are not independent actors; they are not rogue agencies.

Special counsel is authorized by Congress -- the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 post Watergate and Nixon.

Potus himself is excluded by the Act. AG runs the show. Upheld by Scotus in Morrison v Olsen in 1988 by 7 justices to one.

The Act requires that the AG appoints any special counsel. The Act mandates the AG report to the legislative and also the judiciary. Potus is a bystander.

The Act prohibits Potus appointing or firing anyone. If Potus wants to fire the AG then he'd have to fire the AG and not say it was to obstruct or terminate the investigation. Potus is not smart enough to avoid self-incrimination, as we see in the Comey-Flynn fiasco. The same is true of the Trump Fanboyz who also don't know what they're talking about.

 

[Fledermaus]

Dersh sure has become quite the hack since picking up paychecks from treasonous Fox News.

Treasonous?

What Treasonous act did Fox commit?

 

[Fledermaus]

The Federalist Papers.

Which are not law of the land.

 

[ludin]

Special counsel is authorized by Congress -- the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 post Watergate and Nixon.

Potus himself is excluded by the Act. AG runs the show. Upheld by Scotus in Morrison v Olsen in 1988 by 7 justices to one.

The Act requires that the AG appoints any special counsel. The Act mandates the AG report to the legislative and also the judiciary. Potus is a bystander.

The Act prohibits Potus appointing or firing anyone. If Potus wants to fire the AG then he'd have to fire the AG and not say it was to obstruct or terminate the investigation. Potus is not smart enough to avoid self-incrimination, as we see in the Comey-Flynn fiasco. The same is true of the Trump Fanboyz who also don't know what they're talking about.

No you don't know what you are talking about.
While trump cannot do anything directly to mueller he can fire the AG and hire another one that could.

However what we are referring to in is case is that trump could have stopped the investigation to begin with.
The FBI and the doj are part of the executive branch. He could have simply ordered them not to investigate.

He hasn't incriminated himself at all.

You as usual are making stuff up.

Just like in the recount nonsense you pulled and got destroyed on.

 

[ludin]

Dersh sure has become quite the hack since picking up paychecks from treasonous Fox News.

Name the treason? Do ou even know what treason is?
I guess you don't