Dershowitz: ‘You Cannot Charge a President With Obstruction for Exercising His Constitutional Power’

[JoeMoma]

yup they protected Hillary from being caught in a lie by not taking notes or filming it can any democrat name any republican treated that way?

Did they film General Fynn when they interrogated him?

They took notes retard remind me what law enforcement group does not take notes when deposing someone accused of suspected of or being investigated for wrong doing?

WHAT they do is investigate first with testimony from others all along the way, like with the Clinton investigation, or research on the target they are going to interrogate, like with Flynn, BEFORE they call them in to ask them questions, questions the FBI already knows the answers to....

Flynn chose to lie to the FBI when questioned.

Clinton chose not to lie to the FBI when questioned.

We haven't seen any FBI transcripts on the questioning of Flynn either, nor did we see them on Petraeus who was charged as well, with lying to the FBI...no video and no transcripts....

Clinton was not treated any differently than the others, plus she did not lie to them....

her situation was different though, because the investigation on the server and email was already over, they had completed it the month or month and a half before they called her in as the last interview....they ALREADY KNEW that she was not going to be charged due to all of their other interviews with all of her staff and their investigation of it all....

Whereas Flynn's questioning by the FBI and his lying to them, is what lead to a bigger and more encompassing criminal /counter intelligence investigation on him.

The investigation was over a month to a month and a half before they talked to her (HRC)! Hmmmmmmmmmmmm!

All but the fiinal interview.... they had already spent a year plus, getting her server, searching her server and other devices of her staff and herself, worked with her computer guy, found there were no breaches by the russians and other enemies on her server, found none.... etc etc etc


What is it exactly that you are so enraged about...

she wasn't a spy, she did not commit espionage, she did not collude with the enemy, she didn't get her opponents emails stolen or direct the way the russians released them...

NADA

Yet you unamericans kept shouting LOCK HER UP, for bull crap technical reasons...

she didn't do anything to harm us intentionally nor did we get harmed, yet you have this president who has done nothing but put our nation down and in to the ground for the russians, for Wall street and for his greedy self..... LOCK HIM UP.....how's that sound? lock him up lock him up lock him up...



Wow, that was so much fun!

Can I buy a pair of those rose colored glasses at Walmart?

 

[bripat9643]

None of those indictements have anything to do with "collusion." They are all for process crimes - stuff like lying to the FBI, which Hillary should be in jail for right now.

Hillary never lied to the FBI, the FBI specifically said she told the truth for all of their questions in their interrogation of her.

Did the FBI keep a transcript or tape of their interviews with HRC in 2016?

The FBI keeps transcripts of all interviews. They rarely make them available except in court proceedings. You can be sure the Bureau covers their ass in documentation of everything they do and much of what they don't do.

Comey has already stated they didn't make a transcript of Hillary's testimony. If they did then Republicans in Congress could go over it with a fine toothed comb and easily find instances where she lied to the FBI. That's how they FBI is covering its ass.

What testimony are you speaking of? The FBI does interviews? Clinton testified before congress.

It would be more accurate to tall it an interrogation, I suppose. However, that presumes they are actually trying to get the facts rather than allow her to cover her ass. They interviewed her in private. They also interviewed all her henchmen and gave them immunity.

 

[bripat9643]

Again for the TRULY SLOW AND STUPID, a President has sole and absolute power to fire ANY appointee for ANY reason and there is not a single instance of that not being true Nixon was not charged with obstruction for firing anybody.

He does not, as he can be punished for doing it as part of a crime. That's a fact.

And Dershowitz wasn't referring to firing Comey, but rather to Trump giving his opinion of the investigation to Comey and exerting influence upon it.

from the article

Monday on Fox News Channel’s “Fox & Friends,” Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz batted down the merit of obstruction of justice charges aimed at President Donald Trump for what he said was exercising his constitutional power and authority regarding the firing of then-FBI Director James Comey and instructing the Department of Justice what to and not to investigate.

Having the power to act does not mean the president can not be held accountable for his actions. If Trump fired Comey because of his poor job performance that is certainly proper but if the reason he fired Comey was to protect himself from criminal charges, that's something quite different.

Actually, not. It's legal in both cases.

again, idiotic and false.... bordering on delusional.

It's perfectly true. When has anyone ever been prosocuted for obstruction of justice because they fired someone? The answer is never.

 

[Flopper]

Did they film General Fynn when they interrogated him?

They took notes retard remind me what law enforcement group does not take notes when deposing someone accused of suspected of or being investigated for wrong doing?

WHAT they do is investigate first with testimony from others all along the way, like with the Clinton investigation, or research on the target they are going to interrogate, like with Flynn, BEFORE they call them in to ask them questions, questions the FBI already knows the answers to....

Flynn chose to lie to the FBI when questioned.

Clinton chose not to lie to the FBI when questioned.

We haven't seen any FBI transcripts on the questioning of Flynn either, nor did we see them on Petraeus who was charged as well, with lying to the FBI...no video and no transcripts....

Clinton was not treated any differently than the others, plus she did not lie to them....

her situation was different though, because the investigation on the server and email was already over, they had completed it the month or month and a half before they called her in as the last interview....they ALREADY KNEW that she was not going to be charged due to all of their other interviews with all of her staff and their investigation of it all....

Whereas Flynn's questioning by the FBI and his lying to them, is what lead to a bigger and more encompassing criminal /counter intelligence investigation on him.

The investigation was over a month to a month and a half before they talked to her (HRC)! Hmmmmmmmmmmmm!

All but the fiinal interview.... they had already spent a year plus, getting her server, searching her server and other devices of her staff and herself, worked with her computer guy, found there were no breaches by the russians and other enemies on her server, found none.... etc etc etc


What is it exactly that you are so enraged about...

she wasn't a spy, she did not commit espionage, she did not collude with the enemy, she didn't get her opponents emails stolen or direct the way the russians released them...

NADA

Yet you unamericans kept shouting LOCK HER UP, for bull crap technical reasons...

she didn't do anything to harm us intentionally nor did we get harmed, yet you have this president who has done nothing but put our nation down and in to the ground for the russians, for Wall street and for his greedy self..... LOCK HIM UP.....how's that sound? lock him up lock him up lock him up...



Wow, that was so much fun!

And yet no transcript of her questioning exists they did not take a single note during it.

Not true. The House ask for notes and transcripts of the 3 1/2 hour interview with Hillary. The FBI provided the House with notes from the interview. It is standard procedure for the FBI to record or transcribe interviews. It is also standard procedures to release transcripts only if required by the courts. Notes contain all questions and answers pertinent to the investigation. Notes from interviews normally only appear in court transcripts but in this case they were released to House as they had an on going investigation.

FBI investigations are by their very nature secretive. The only reason we have any information from the Mueller investigation is leaks, a couple of press releases, and statements announcing indictments. So when people say the Mueller investigation has found this or that or nothing, that's pure speculation or leaks which may or may not be correct.

 

[Care4all]

He does not, as he can be punished for doing it as part of a crime. That's a fact.

And Dershowitz wasn't referring to firing Comey, but rather to Trump giving his opinion of the investigation to Comey and exerting influence upon it.

from the article

Monday on Fox News Channel’s “Fox & Friends,” Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz batted down the merit of obstruction of justice charges aimed at President Donald Trump for what he said was exercising his constitutional power and authority regarding the firing of then-FBI Director James Comey and instructing the Department of Justice what to and not to investigate.

Having the power to act does not mean the president can not be held accountable for his actions. If Trump fired Comey because of his poor job performance that is certainly proper but if the reason he fired Comey was to protect himself from criminal charges, that's something quite different.

Actually, not. It's legal in both cases.

again, idiotic and false.... bordering on delusional.

It's perfectly true. When has anyone ever been prosocuted for obstruction of justice because they fired someone? The answer is never.

no one would be prosecuted while sitting as president, they would need to be impeached first.... and then the new sitting president, Pence, would probably pardon him, so he would not ever see a court room....

 

[Care4all]

Just firing Comey is not enough to charge him with obstruction, if it were it would have been done already....

They have to show motive that he did so to interfere with the russia/trump team investigation, they have to show his intent was to interfere with the investigation...or to hide something, something illegal he or they were doing.... and imo and other experts believe they have collected enough evidence by now to do such on the obstruction charge....

the full investigation is not over yet though...they need to finish before their recommendation to the Judiciary Committee to charge him with obstruction I believe....in the House...

they know the Trump team colluded with the Russians and their interference....what they have to prove to make it illegal, is that there was a quid pro quo....

Like I will remove sanctions on russia, for your help in getting me elected kind of thing....

Or that they were working with the russians for some other trade...

or they can be gotten on coordinating with them to release stolen emails.....

Or on election finance law

or they can be gotten on money laundering Russian rubles....through Deutsche bank and Cyprus Bank

there is an awful lot going on out there that Mueller's team are investigating involved with the Russians

 

[Flopper]

Hillary never lied to the FBI, the FBI specifically said she told the truth for all of their questions in their interrogation of her.

Did the FBI keep a transcript or tape of their interviews with HRC in 2016?

The FBI keeps transcripts of all interviews. They rarely make them available except in court proceedings. You can be sure the Bureau covers their ass in documentation of everything they do and much of what they don't do.

Comey has already stated they didn't make a transcript of Hillary's testimony. If they did then Republicans in Congress could go over it with a fine toothed comb and easily find instances where she lied to the FBI. That's how they FBI is covering its ass.

What testimony are you speaking of? The FBI does interviews? Clinton testified before congress.

It would be more accurate to tall it an interrogation, I suppose. However, that presumes they are actually trying to get the facts rather than allow her to cover her ass. They interviewed her in private. They also interviewed all her henchmen and gave them immunity.

I'm sure Clinton considered it an interrogation but the FBI called it an interview.

 

[beagle9]

Just firing Comey is not enough to charge him with obstruction, if it were it would have been done already....

They have to show motive that he did so to interfere with the russia/trump team investigation, they have to show his intent was to interfere with the investigation...or to hide something, something illegal he or they were doing.... and imo and other experts believe they have collected enough evidence by now to do such on the obstruction charge....

the full investigation is not over yet though...they need to finish before their recommendation to the Judiciary Committee to charge him with obstruction I believe....in the House...

they know the Trump team colluded with the Russians and their interference....what they have to prove to make it illegal, is that there was a quid pro quo....

Like I will remove sanctions on russia, for your help in getting me elected kind of thing....

Or that they were working with the russians for some other trade...

or they can be gotten on coordinating with them to release stolen emails.....

Or on election finance law

or they can be gotten on money laundering Russian rubles....through Deutsche bank and Cyprus Bank

there is an awful lot going on out there that Mueller's team are investigating involved with the Russians

. And all because of what ?????? What started it all, and got it all set up ????? No one but the so called snowflakes wanted Hillary in the white house, and the biggest one of all Barack Obama was the biggest supporter of queen Hillary. Not because he liked her, but because he wanted to use her weak ace to give him and his ilk what they wanted. Trump destroyed all that in an instant, and so they had to go to plan B in order to get the agenda back on track. This is all it is folks and nothing more. If they have to go completely Insane they will, and it shows big time already.

 

[Flopper]

Just firing Comey is not enough to charge him with obstruction, if it were it would have been done already....

They have to show motive that he did so to interfere with the russia/trump team investigation, they have to show his intent was to interfere with the investigation...or to hide something, something illegal he or they were doing.... and imo and other experts believe they have collected enough evidence by now to do such on the obstruction charge....

the full investigation is not over yet though...they need to finish before their recommendation to the Judiciary Committee to charge him with obstruction I believe....in the House...

they know the Trump team colluded with the Russians and their interference....what they have to prove to make it illegal, is that there was a quid pro quo....

Like I will remove sanctions on russia, for your help in getting me elected kind of thing....

Or that they were working with the russians for some other trade...

or they can be gotten on coordinating with them to release stolen emails.....

Or on election finance law

or they can be gotten on money laundering Russian rubles....through Deutsche bank and Cyprus Bank

there is an awful lot going on out there that Mueller's team are investigating involved with the Russians

It's amazing how many investigations end with secondary convictions such as obstruction of justice, lying to federal agents, and income tax evasion. Clinton was never charged with sexual harassment but rather lying to congress. Nixon was never accused in the Watergate breaking but rather obstruction of justice. Al Capone was never convicted of racketeering but income tax evasion. I expect this is how the Mueller investigation will end up.

 

[JoeMoma]

Did the FBI keep a transcript or tape of their interviews with HRC in 2016?

The FBI keeps transcripts of all interviews. They rarely make them available except in court proceedings. You can be sure the Bureau covers their ass in documentation of everything they do and much of what they don't do.

Comey has already stated they didn't make a transcript of Hillary's testimony. If they did then Republicans in Congress could go over it with a fine toothed comb and easily find instances where she lied to the FBI. That's how they FBI is covering its ass.

What testimony are you speaking of? The FBI does interviews? Clinton testified before congress.

It would be more accurate to tall it an interrogation, I suppose. However, that presumes they are actually trying to get the facts rather than allow her to cover her ass. They interviewed her in private. They also interviewed all her henchmen and gave them immunity.

I'm sure Clinton considered it an interrogation but the FBI called it an interview.

Why can’t it be both?

 

[Care4all]

Just firing Comey is not enough to charge him with obstruction, if it were it would have been done already....

They have to show motive that he did so to interfere with the russia/trump team investigation, they have to show his intent was to interfere with the investigation...or to hide something, something illegal he or they were doing.... and imo and other experts believe they have collected enough evidence by now to do such on the obstruction charge....

the full investigation is not over yet though...they need to finish before their recommendation to the Judiciary Committee to charge him with obstruction I believe....in the House...

they know the Trump team colluded with the Russians and their interference....what they have to prove to make it illegal, is that there was a quid pro quo....

Like I will remove sanctions on russia, for your help in getting me elected kind of thing....

Or that they were working with the russians for some other trade...

or they can be gotten on coordinating with them to release stolen emails.....

Or on election finance law

or they can be gotten on money laundering Russian rubles....through Deutsche bank and Cyprus Bank

there is an awful lot going on out there that Mueller's team are investigating involved with the Russians

. And all because of what ?????? What started it all, and got it all set up ????? No one but the so called snowflakes wanted Hillary in the white house, and the biggest one of all Barack Obama was the biggest supporter of queen Hillary. Not because he liked her, but because he wanted to use her weak ace to give him and his ilk what they wanted. Trump destroyed all that in an instant, and so they had to go to plan B in order to get the agenda back on track. This is all it is folks and nothing more. If they have to go completely Insane they will, and it shows big time already.

You really are misinformed Beagle...a product of constant right wing propaganda of hatred....

Donald Trump is as crooked as they come....but you are blind to it all, because you've been programmed to hate Hillary so much or to hate Obama so much or to hate liberals so much that you can't see the lying crook, right in front of your very eyes....

Merry Christmas....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Just firing Comey is not enough to charge him with obstruction, if it were it would have been done already....

They have to show motive that he did so to interfere with the russia/trump team investigation, they have to show his intent was to interfere with the investigation...or to hide something, something illegal he or they were doing.... and imo and other experts believe they have collected enough evidence by now to do such on the obstruction charge....

the full investigation is not over yet though...they need to finish before their recommendation to the Judiciary Committee to charge him with obstruction I believe....in the House...

they know the Trump team colluded with the Russians and their interference....what they have to prove to make it illegal, is that there was a quid pro quo....

Like I will remove sanctions on russia, for your help in getting me elected kind of thing....

Or that they were working with the russians for some other trade...

or they can be gotten on coordinating with them to release stolen emails.....

Or on election finance law

or they can be gotten on money laundering Russian rubles....through Deutsche bank and Cyprus Bank

there is an awful lot going on out there that Mueller's team are investigating involved with the Russians

. And all because of what ?????? What started it all, and got it all set up ????? No one but the so called snowflakes wanted Hillary in the white house, and the biggest one of all Barack Obama was the biggest supporter of queen Hillary. Not because he liked her, but because he wanted to use her weak ace to give him and his ilk what they wanted. Trump destroyed all that in an instant, and so they had to go to plan B in order to get the agenda back on track. This is all it is folks and nothing more. If they have to go completely Insane they will, and it shows big time already.

You really are misinformed Beagle...a product of constant right wing propaganda of hatred....

Donald Trump is as crooked as they come....but you are blind to it all, because you've been programmed to hate Hillary so much or to hate Obama so much or to hate liberals so much that you can't see the lying crook, right in front of your very eyes....

Merry Christmas....

meanwhile you support Hillary Clinton the biggest crook ever a lying piece of human garbage and it was proven in the leaked emails but here you are defending her, go figure

 

[Flopper]

The FBI keeps transcripts of all interviews. They rarely make them available except in court proceedings. You can be sure the Bureau covers their ass in documentation of everything they do and much of what they don't do.

Comey has already stated they didn't make a transcript of Hillary's testimony. If they did then Republicans in Congress could go over it with a fine toothed comb and easily find instances where she lied to the FBI. That's how they FBI is covering its ass.

What testimony are you speaking of? The FBI does interviews? Clinton testified before congress.

It would be more accurate to tall it an interrogation, I suppose. However, that presumes they are actually trying to get the facts rather than allow her to cover her ass. They interviewed her in private. They also interviewed all her henchmen and gave them immunity.

I'm sure Clinton considered it an interrogation but the FBI called it an interview.

Why can’t it be both?

Because interviews are different than interrogations. Interviewers and Interrogators use different tools to accomplish their goals. Interviews are less formal and seek information as a goal. Interrogations are more formal, assume guilt, and generally the goal is a confession.

 

[bripat9643]

from the article

Having the power to act does not mean the president can not be held accountable for his actions. If Trump fired Comey because of his poor job performance that is certainly proper but if the reason he fired Comey was to protect himself from criminal charges, that's something quite different.

Actually, not. It's legal in both cases.

again, idiotic and false.... bordering on delusional.

It's perfectly true. When has anyone ever been prosocuted for obstruction of justice because they fired someone? The answer is never.

no one would be prosecuted while sitting as president, they would need to be impeached first.... and then the new sitting president, Pence, would probably pardon him, so he would not ever see a court room....

The short answer is that no one has ever been prosecuted for obstruction of justice because they fired someone.

 

[JoeMoma]

Having the power to act does not mean the president can not be held accountable for his actions. If Trump fired Comey because of his poor job performance that is certainly proper but if the reason he fired Comey was to protect himself from criminal charges, that's something quite different.

Actually, not. It's legal in both cases.

again, idiotic and false.... bordering on delusional.

It's perfectly true. When has anyone ever been prosocuted for obstruction of justice because they fired someone? The answer is never.

no one would be prosecuted while sitting as president, they would need to be impeached first.... and then the new sitting president, Pence, would probably pardon him, so he would not ever see a court room....

The short answer is that no one has ever been prosecuted for obstruction of justice because they fired someone.

If that is true.....then per Comey, no one should ever be prosecuted for that.....or at least that was the thinking for not prosecuting Hillary for being grossly negligent per the letter of the law.

 

[bripat9643]

Actually, not. It's legal in both cases.

again, idiotic and false.... bordering on delusional.

It's perfectly true. When has anyone ever been prosocuted for obstruction of justice because they fired someone? The answer is never.

no one would be prosecuted while sitting as president, they would need to be impeached first.... and then the new sitting president, Pence, would probably pardon him, so he would not ever see a court room....

The short answer is that no one has ever been prosecuted for obstruction of justice because they fired someone.

If that is true.....then per Comey, no one should ever be prosecuted for that.....or at least that was the thinking for not prosecuting Hillary per the letter of the law.

What he meant to say is that no one who might become his boss should ever be prosecuted.

 

[jillian]

Actually, not. It's legal in both cases.

again, idiotic and false.... bordering on delusional.

It's perfectly true. When has anyone ever been prosocuted for obstruction of justice because they fired someone? The answer is never.

no one would be prosecuted while sitting as president, they would need to be impeached first.... and then the new sitting president, Pence, would probably pardon him, so he would not ever see a court room....

The short answer is that no one has ever been prosecuted for obstruction of justice because they fired someone.

If that is true.....then per Comey, no one should ever be prosecuted for that.....or at least that was the thinking for not prosecuting Hillary per the letter of the law.

the first article of impeachment issued against Richard Nixon and the reason he resigned was for the Saturday night massacre and the obstruction of justice that represented.

one more time with feeling... you can fire someone for any reason or no reason but not for an illegal reason. obstruction is an illegal reason.

and you probably shouldn't take anything he says as true...

 

[JoeMoma]

again, idiotic and false.... bordering on delusional.

It's perfectly true. When has anyone ever been prosocuted for obstruction of justice because they fired someone? The answer is never.

no one would be prosecuted while sitting as president, they would need to be impeached first.... and then the new sitting president, Pence, would probably pardon him, so he would not ever see a court room....

The short answer is that no one has ever been prosecuted for obstruction of justice because they fired someone.

If that is true.....then per Comey, no one should ever be prosecuted for that.....or at least that was the thinking for not prosecuting Hillary per the letter of the law.

the first article of impeachment issued against Richard Nixon and the reason he resigned was for the Saturday night massacre and the obstruction of justice that represented.

one more time with feeling... you can fire someone for any reason or no reason but not for an illegal reason. obstruction is an illegal reason.

and you probably shouldn't take anything he says as true...

When it comes to impeachment, congress can impeach a president for anything if they have the votes,

 

[beagle9]

Just firing Comey is not enough to charge him with obstruction, if it were it would have been done already....

They have to show motive that he did so to interfere with the russia/trump team investigation, they have to show his intent was to interfere with the investigation...or to hide something, something illegal he or they were doing.... and imo and other experts believe they have collected enough evidence by now to do such on the obstruction charge....

the full investigation is not over yet though...they need to finish before their recommendation to the Judiciary Committee to charge him with obstruction I believe....in the House...

they know the Trump team colluded with the Russians and their interference....what they have to prove to make it illegal, is that there was a quid pro quo....

Like I will remove sanctions on russia, for your help in getting me elected kind of thing....

Or that they were working with the russians for some other trade...

or they can be gotten on coordinating with them to release stolen emails.....

Or on election finance law

or they can be gotten on money laundering Russian rubles....through Deutsche bank and Cyprus Bank

there is an awful lot going on out there that Mueller's team are investigating involved with the Russians

It's amazing how many investigations end with secondary convictions such as obstruction of justice, lying to federal agents, and income tax evasion. Clinton was never charged with sexual harassment but rather lying to congress. Nixon was never accused in the Watergate breaking but rather obstruction of justice. Al Capone was never convicted of racketeering but income tax evasion. I expect this is how the Mueller investigation will end up.

. Otherwise it turns into a witch hunt, where as if the original intent fails, then go after the target with something in order to save face eh ?? Classic set up standards used by prosecutors where as no one knows the protocol better than the blackman who can attest to the dealings with the justice system over the years. Just ask them, and they'll tell ya. If can't make something stick, then figure out something else right ?? Pathetic.

 

[beagle9]

It's perfectly true. When has anyone ever been prosocuted for obstruction of justice because they fired someone? The answer is never.

no one would be prosecuted while sitting as president, they would need to be impeached first.... and then the new sitting president, Pence, would probably pardon him, so he would not ever see a court room....

The short answer is that no one has ever been prosecuted for obstruction of justice because they fired someone.

If that is true.....then per Comey, no one should ever be prosecuted for that.....or at least that was the thinking for not prosecuting Hillary per the letter of the law.

the first article of impeachment issued against Richard Nixon and the reason he resigned was for the Saturday night massacre and the obstruction of justice that represented.

one more time with feeling... you can fire someone for any reason or no reason but not for an illegal reason. obstruction is an illegal reason.

and you probably shouldn't take anything he says as true...

When it comes to impeachment, congress can impeach a president for anything if they have the votes,

. Yeah and those votes if cast on something weak can show extreme political bias in a case. Let them vote so we can see the swamp in full view.