jllundqu
06-15-2017, 10:14 AM
This seems to be fairly easy to understand and I don't know why it hasn't been said more.
Article 2: The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. Period.
It doesn't matter if Comey felt "pressured" to end investigation or not. Trump could have ORDERED Comey to CEASE the investigation outright! Trump runs the Executive branch and everything in it. He can order the DOJ and the FBI to do whatever the hell he wants. There is zero case to be made that the FBI is 'independent' and 'the president can't interfere in FBI investigations'.
Even democrats agree on this point:
In analyzing the issue of whether President Trump can be guilty of obstruction of justice, two distinct questions must be addressed. The first is whether Trump had the constitutional authority to do what he did. The second is, if he acted within his constitutional authority, can his actions be a crime if they were improperly motivated.
The answer to the first question seems beyond dispute now, though some seemed to dispute it in weeks past. As Comey himself testified: “speaking as a legal matter, the president is the head of the executive branch and in theory… and we have important norms against this …[can] direct that anybody can be investigated or anybody not be investigated.” He is correct. As a matter of constitutional law, the president as the head of the executive branch may order the director of the FBI to end his investigation of Michael Flynn and may fire the director for refusing to obey his order. He could also pardon Flynn (as President George H.W. Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger) thus ending the criminal investigation of Flynn.
Until recently, presidents – from Adams to Jefferson to Lincoln to Roosevelt to Kennedy – played active roles in deciding who to investigate and prosecute. In recent years a tradition had developed under which the FBI and the criminal division of the Justice Department were more independent of the White House. But this tradition did not and could not limit the constitutional authority of the president, especially in the absence of explicit legislation. There is no longer an independent prosecutor statute on the books, so the president retains the authority he had before that statute was enacted. It is clear therefore, that Trump acted within his constitutional authority if he directed Comey to end his investigation of Flynn. It follows from this that he certainly acted within his authority if he merely requested or “hoped” that Comey stand down. And he surely acted within his authority when he fired Comey for disobeying his authorized order or for any other reason. Indeed, Comey himself confirmed the above constitutional principles.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/06/12/dershowitz-trump-well-within-constitutional-authority-on-comey-flynn-would-this-even-be-question-if-hillary-were-president.html
Article 2: The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. Period.
It doesn't matter if Comey felt "pressured" to end investigation or not. Trump could have ORDERED Comey to CEASE the investigation outright! Trump runs the Executive branch and everything in it. He can order the DOJ and the FBI to do whatever the hell he wants. There is zero case to be made that the FBI is 'independent' and 'the president can't interfere in FBI investigations'.
Even democrats agree on this point:
In analyzing the issue of whether President Trump can be guilty of obstruction of justice, two distinct questions must be addressed. The first is whether Trump had the constitutional authority to do what he did. The second is, if he acted within his constitutional authority, can his actions be a crime if they were improperly motivated.
The answer to the first question seems beyond dispute now, though some seemed to dispute it in weeks past. As Comey himself testified: “speaking as a legal matter, the president is the head of the executive branch and in theory… and we have important norms against this …[can] direct that anybody can be investigated or anybody not be investigated.” He is correct. As a matter of constitutional law, the president as the head of the executive branch may order the director of the FBI to end his investigation of Michael Flynn and may fire the director for refusing to obey his order. He could also pardon Flynn (as President George H.W. Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger) thus ending the criminal investigation of Flynn.
Until recently, presidents – from Adams to Jefferson to Lincoln to Roosevelt to Kennedy – played active roles in deciding who to investigate and prosecute. In recent years a tradition had developed under which the FBI and the criminal division of the Justice Department were more independent of the White House. But this tradition did not and could not limit the constitutional authority of the president, especially in the absence of explicit legislation. There is no longer an independent prosecutor statute on the books, so the president retains the authority he had before that statute was enacted. It is clear therefore, that Trump acted within his constitutional authority if he directed Comey to end his investigation of Flynn. It follows from this that he certainly acted within his authority if he merely requested or “hoped” that Comey stand down. And he surely acted within his authority when he fired Comey for disobeying his authorized order or for any other reason. Indeed, Comey himself confirmed the above constitutional principles.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/06/12/dershowitz-trump-well-within-constitutional-authority-on-comey-flynn-would-this-even-be-question-if-hillary-were-president.html