PDA

View Full Version : Trump Lawyer: President Cannot Obstruct Justice




Zippyjuan
12-04-2017, 02:00 PM
Anticipating such a charge?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/04/politics/trump-john-dowd-obstruct-justice/index.html


Washington (CNN)Donald Trump's personal attorney's claim that the President cannot be guilty of obstructing justice raises two stunning possibilities that could cast the Russia investigation and its threat to his White House in a new and even more serious light.

First, Trump lawyer John Dowd's comments in an interview with Axios raise the question of whether Trump's legal team has already accepted that special counsel Robert Mueller has grounds to conclude Trump did in fact obstruct justice by firing FBI Director James Comey.

If that is the case, Dowd's interview, after a weekend of spinning by Trump and aides following the announcement of a plea deal for former national security adviser Michael Flynn, leads to another profound question.

Has the White House already embarked on a public relations strategy designed to lessen the chances that the Republican House would draw up articles of impeachment against the President based on any recommendation by Mueller?

Dowd's claims did not come in isolation. They followed the President's attacks on the FBI and his raising of doubts that justice would be served by the Mueller investigation at the weekend. "It's reputation is in Tatters - worst in History!" Trump tweeted.




Orchestrated offensive?

Taken together, the Dowd and Trump comments had the feel of an orchestrated offensive to repair the damage wrought over the weekend, to discredit Mueller's findings ahead of time and to offer ammunition for pro-Trump media.

Underlying Monday's flurry of controversy is a third issue -- whether Dowd's position has any legal grounding in itself, and whether it would stand up to challenge as a defense of the President's action if Mueller finds against him in an investigation that was originally set up to probe whether there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during last year's election.

Dowd's interview reverberated through Washington a day after veteran Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that she saw the outlines of an obstruction of justice case forming against Trump.

It follows a series of tweets fired out by the President's Twitter account at the weekend that immediately turned the notion of obstruction of justice from a point of conversation around the Mueller probe, into an apparently active possibility.

Dowd said told 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."

The motivation for Dowd's introducing his point at this moment -- long before Mueller has concluded his probe -- is just as interesting as the legal point he makes itself.

"It tells you that the President's legal team is concerned that the President obstructed justice," Renato Mariotti a former federal prosecutor, told CNN's Kate Bolduan on Monday.

"There is absolutely no reason for the President's legal team to go out there and claim that the President cannot obstruct justice, unless they are concerned that he may have liability for that," he said.

Nixonian?


The idea that a President cannot obstruct justice may be a workable legal argument to contend with any future criminal action against Trump. Legal scholars have yet to resolve a constitutional dispute over whether a sitting president can be indicted. But it may not protect the President politically.

After all, Richard Nixon once claimed after his resignation that "when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal."

But the articles of impeachment drawn up by the House of Representatives that helped force his resignation included one accusing Nixon of obstructing justice.

Similarly, the articles of impeachment against Bill Clinton included an accusation that he had "prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice."

Swordsmyth
12-04-2017, 02:05 PM
If Trump obstructed justice (he didn't), then what about Comey?

timosman
12-04-2017, 02:10 PM
Anticipating such a charge?

Making shit up?

angelatc
12-04-2017, 02:29 PM
OMG - nobody fucking cares about Russia.

Zippyjuan
12-04-2017, 02:52 PM
OMG - nobody $#@!ing cares about Russia.

Nobody cared about Clinton's blowjobs either. Sometimes little things can turn into big things.

dannno
12-04-2017, 02:55 PM
Nobody cared about Clinton's blowjobs either. Sometimes little things can turn into big things.

Ya it's funny how when a real criminal is in office they focus on their non-crimes, but when there is someone who is not a criminal in office they create completely non-existent crimes out of thin air and make them out to be criminals.

timosman
12-04-2017, 03:07 PM
Sometimes little things can turn into big things.


Keep hoping.

Swordsmyth
12-04-2017, 03:27 PM
If Trump obstructed justice (he didn't), then what about Comey?
Zippyjuan


Still waiting for an answer.......................

enhanced_deficit
12-04-2017, 03:44 PM
Trump Lawyer: President Cannot Obstruct Justice



According to Comey, Justice flows like water and it always finds a way/cannot be stopped:

James Comey offers some biblical inspiration after Flynn guilty plea

"But justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream," Comey wrote on Twitter and Instagram.


Comey didn't mention Flynn directly, but the former law enforcement official is connected to the Flynn case in several ways.



From:
Breaking: Flynn says Trump directed him to make contact with Russians... (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?517312-Breaking-Flynn-says-Trump-directed-him-to-make-contact-with-Russians&)

Swordsmyth
12-04-2017, 06:35 PM
If Trump obstructed justice (he didn't), then what about Comey?


@Zippyjuan (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=17293)


Still waiting for an answer.......................
Zippyjuan

Well?..................

Zippyjuan
12-04-2017, 07:35 PM
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/363223-sessions-argued-presidents-can-obstruct-justice-in-clinton


Sessions argued presidents can obstruct justice in Clinton impeachment trail

Attorney General Jeff Sessions argued in 1999 as an Alabama senator that then-President Clinton could be removed from office for obstructing justice amid an investigation into his relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

The Justice Department head's argument during the Clinton impeachment trial more than two decades ago contradicts the claim of President Trump's personal lawyer that the president cannot legally obstruct justice.

“The chief law officer of the land, whose oath of office calls on him to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, crossed the line and failed to defend the law, and, in fact, attacked the law and the rights of a fellow citizen,” Sessions said during Clinton’s trial in the Senate, according to his remarks archived in the congressional record.

“Under our Constitution, equal justice requires that he forfeit his office,” the Alabama senator continued.

Politico first reported Sessions's impassioned case on Monday.

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," Trump attorney John Dowd told Axios.

Dowd also claimed that he mistakenly crafted a tweet sent from the president's twitter account over the weekend that appeared to suggest the president knew in January that Michael Flynn, his former national security adviser, had lied to the FBI as well as Vice President Pence.

Swordsmyth
12-04-2017, 07:45 PM
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/363223-sessions-argued-presidents-can-obstruct-justice-in-clinton

Totally different circumstances:

THE FACTS

Facing a lawsuit the United States Supreme Court had upheld against
him, President Clinton had to make a decision. He could tell the truth
or lie and obstruct justice. He took the course of illegality. This
case is not about an isolated false statement, it is about the
President of the United States using his office, his power, his staff,
and his popularity to avoid providing truthful answers and evidence
that was relevant to a civil lawsuit. President Clinton's actions
demonstrated a pattern of untruth and disdain for the legal system he
had sworn to uphold.


OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

President Clinton resisted the lawsuit from the time it was filed.
Among other defenses, he argued that he, as the President, was not
subject to the civil legal system while in office. The Supreme Court
unanimously rejected this proposition. His legal arguments having
failed, the President began to use illegal means to defeat the action.
Since the truth would be damaging, he took steps to see that the truth
concerning his relationship with Monica Lewinsky would never come out.
President Clinton began his obstruction of justice by denying to the
court material truths. He first filed with the court false answers to
written questions, interrogatories, under oath. He then bolstered his
lies to the court by procuring from Monica Lewinsky a supporting false
affidavit which he filed with the court. When questioned at his
deposition about the truthfulness of the Lewinsky affidavit, President
Clinton, without any hesitation, told the court that it was
``absolutely true''. The President then proceeded, confident in his
obstruction of the truth, to lie repeatedly under oath about their
relationship in the deposition.
Indeed, the President orchestrated a scheme to deceive the court, the
public and the grand jury. The facts are disturbing and compelling on
the President's intent to obstruct justice. When Monica Lewinsky
received a subpoena for the gifts, the President knew that if they were
produced, his relationship would be revealed. I believe Monica
Lewinsky's testimony that she discussed with the President what to do

[[Page S1792 (https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-145/senate-section/page/S1792)]]

with the gifts. I also believe that Betty Currie got the gifts from
Monica Lewinsky and hid them under her bed only after approval from the
President. Secreting evidence under subpoena is a crime. The President
secured a job for Ms. Lewinsky in large part because he wanted her to
file a false affidavit and to continue to cover up their true
relationship. The President coached his personal secretary twice to
ensure that if she were called as a witness in the civil case she would
not contradict his testimony given the day before. The President
intentionally lied to aides in an effort to have them mislead the
public and the grand jury. This is to me a clear pattern of obstruction
of justice.
The most conclusive proof of obstruction of justice, however, is the
most obvious. Clearly, the President succeeded at defeating the right
of the Paula Jones attorneys to get discovery as they were entitled. He
got away with it. But for the indisputable DNA evidence that was only
produced when Ms. Lewinsky confessed seven months later, the
obstruction would have continued to be successful. Even when confronted
with this evidence at the grand jury in August the President chose to
confuse the definition of words that have plain meanings instead of
telling the truth.


PERJURY

From a strictly legal point of view the perjury count was not as
clear as it might first appear. In fact, standing alone these perjury
charges may have failed to be impeachable. However, the President made
his false statements as part of a continuous pattern to obstruct
justice and deceive. This pattern establishes the necessary criminal
intent. The President before the grand jury continued to deny facts and
details that are by their very nature important in a sexual harassment
suit. The President also intentionally deceived the grand jury
regarding his participation in the concealing of the gifts and lied
regarding his effort to obstruct justice by coaching Betty Currie. His
admissions, though significant, steadfastly failed to cover any issues
that would establish that his previous actions were in violation of the
law. The President denies that these statements are false. However, he
has no reservoir of credibility left after he so persistently lied to
public for seven months. In my judgment these statements, which were
aggravated by continuous lying to the American people, are sufficient
under the circumstances of this case to warrant conviction on this
article. The President was not obligated to appear before the grand
jury, but if he chose to do so, he was obligated to tell the complete
truth.
Each statement must be individually evaluated in a perjury case. The
President's statements that he did not believe he had violated the law
and that he was not paying ``a great deal of attention'' to his lawyers
when they gave false information to the court are not credible. Even
so, I believe they are too subjective in nature to be defined as clear
acts of perjury under the law. The President's response to clearly
worded questions were intentionally designed to be misleading and
deceptive; however, the Supreme Court has held in Bronston v. United
States 409 U.S. 352 (https://www.congress.gov/bill/106th-congress/senate-bill/352) (1973) that it is not perjurious for a witness to
give an unresponsive answer even if the witness intends to mislead his
questioner. With this in mind, I conclude that the other charged
statements, not delineated above, are misleading and false but not
perjurious. I wish it were not so, but the President is a practiced
liar. In summary, this President has deliberately, premeditatedly, and
with calculation set about to defeat the justice system by criminal
acts which include perjury and obstruction of justice.


https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/1999/2/23/senate-section/article/S1791-1