Exclusive: Trump lawyer claims the "President cannot obstruct justice"

[DonViejo]

Source: Axios




Mike Allen 1 hr ago

John Dowd, President Trump's outside lawyer, outlined to me a new and highly controversial defense/theory in the Russia probe: A president cannot be guilty of obstruction of justice.

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," Dowd claims.

Dowd says he drafted this weekend's Trump tweet that many thought strengthened the case for obstruction: The tweet suggested Trump knew Flynn had lied to the FBI when he was fired, raising new questions about the later firing of FBI Director James Comey.

Dowd: "The tweet did not admit obstruction. That is an ignorant and arrogant assertion."
Why it matters: Trump's legal team is clearly setting the stage to say the president cannot be charged with any of the core crimes discussed in the Russia probe: collusion and obstruction. Presumably, you wouldn't preemptively make these arguments unless you felt there was a chance charges are coming.


Read more: https://www.axios.com/exclusive-trump-lawyer-claims-the-president-cannot-obstruct-justice-2514742663.html?utm_medium=linkshare&utm_campaign=organic

[PJMcK]

1. John Dowd is an ass (n/t)

[Roy Rolling]

52. Heard from the Grave

"Now you tell me."---Richard Nixon

[raging moderate]

2. "L'Etat, c'est moi."

"I am the State." That is what the old French kings used to say.

They keep trying to re-introduce monarchy and feudalism.

[Moostache]

19. Ein Deutschland, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer!!! (n/t)

[Dalton Mac]

24. "When the President does it, it's NOT illegal!"

That was a good movie.

[whathehell]

37. Bingo!

My first thought as well.

[CottonBear]

46. My first thought was "How Nixonian."

Good grief and what the fuck?

I suppose most citizens have no memory or knowledge of Watergate. That's what the Trump people are betting.

[emmadoggy]

85. The exact quote that came to my mind, as well.

[Achilleaze]

22. + 1

[Glorfindel]

34. "The king can do no wrong: The ministers are responsible." (In a constitutional monarchy)

But the king has no power, whereas the president of the United States is both the chief of state and the head of government. There is nowhere for Trump, the Republican-in-chief, to hide. He can't dismiss the cabinet, dissolve the government, and call for new elections. I fear we are in for some quite interesting times.

[DetlefK]

3. "enforcement" - The President is an executive role. Justice is the domain of the judicative.

Law enforcement officers can obstruct justice.

[They_Live]

63. Correct.

You're hired!

[dem4decades]

4. Dowd using the words "ignorant and arrogant", and not talking about Trump

is unbelievable.

[sprinkleeninow]

78. Those descriptives jumped out at me.

Turn every foul word, phrase and utterance that emits from any one of them and fittingly apply it back on THEM. Now 'that's' truth, fake-o's.

Desperation.

[groundloop]

5. This guy sounds like a TV mobster lawyer

Which in a way I suppose he is.

[DemoTex]

6. Incredibly Nixonesque ..

And how did it turn out for Tricky Dick?

[getagrip_already]

23. He was never charged.. so, not badly at all....

The articles of impeachment did contain obstruction claims, but they could impeach you for just about anything - it's a political process, not a legal one, despite the trappinfgs.

The watergate prosecutors never indicted him. They chose to leave him as an unindicted co-conspirator.

But aside from the shame of resignation (trump has no shame btw), and self imposed exile (trump would never stop tweeting or appearing on fox/brietbart), he left office with full presidential status and was even eligible to be buried at arlington.

[benfranklin1776]

29. Yes and also incredibly like a petty despot

I recall King George took a similar position that he was legally accountable to no one,a law unto himself, and we settled that question in the negative with that whole Revolution/Constitution thing. Guess they didn’t cover that at Penn.

[Spider Jerusalem]

65. No, he didn't? You must be thinking of Louis XIV.

British policy toward the colonies was decided by Parliament and directed by the Prime Minister (Lord North). Britain has been a constitutional monarchy since 1688. The monarch did not direct policy.

[lagomorph777]

38. RM Nixon: "Oh, when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nixon_Interviews

[padfun]

7. Has this guy heard of Bill Clinton?

Or is this "rule" only for Republicans.

[Cicada]

31. I dont think Paula Jones was a Federal case

[Tactical Peek]

59. The suit Jones v. Clinton was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

The suit, Jones v. Clinton, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Judge Susan Webber Wright ruled that a sitting President could not be sued and deferred the case until the conclusion of his term (although she allowed the pre-trial discovery phase of the case to proceed without delay in order to start the trial as soon as Clinton left office).[2]

Both parties appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which ruled in favor of Jones, finding that "the President, like all other government officials, is subject to the same laws that apply to all other members of our society."[3]

Clinton then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, filing a petition for writ of certiorari.
The court's decision

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._Jones



So maybe armies of lefty lawyers should file suits against the Creep-in-Chief for his myriad offenses that are not beyond statutes of limitations. There should be plenty of citizens with standing, including raped women and shafted business people, etc.

[Cicada]

62. Wow, unanimous. I am surprised.

[bench scientist]

81. This was a civil case not a criminal one.

No sitting a President has ever been charged in a criminal case. No precedent case law exists but argument can be made for and against.
Mueller knows this. Obstruction of justice will not be the only charge filed. Moreover , I bet Trump will be charged with state offenses as well.

[tanyev]

8. He not only "expressed his view" to the person investigating the thing he didn't want investigated,

he then fired the person who continued to investigate the thing he didn't want investigated.

[bucolic_frolic]

9. Freedom to obstruct justice would mean total dictatorship

He would be immune from enforcement of any federal law or agency, from the Supreme Court, and from Congress, and could rule by EO or decree

There it is. Dictatorship.

[Lint Head]

10. This is authoritarian dictatorship horse shit! If that is truly his attitude

it would call far a violent overthrow of Trump's administration. It cannot stand. It would be destruction of every Constitutional value we hold dear.

[marble falls]

11. That's what Nixon said. Didn't get him very far. Just to San Climente.

[BumRushDaShow]

12. WTF?

See Watergate!

[brooklynite]

13. ...because that argument worked so well for Richard Nixon...

[NoMoreRepugs]

14. Building the case with the base is my guess.

Millions and millions of armed whackadoodles out of their minds over "their pResident" being charged or forced out is scary.

[BootinUp]

15. Look. Its the ordained by God defense.

[sprinkleeninow]

79. They think.

The final outcome will be decided by 'The Mighty Counselor', assisted by the 'Advocate'.

The unrighteous workers of iniquity frame 'iniquity' and call it 'law'. (Paraphrased.)

[zentrum]

16. Trump lawyer claims

....that The King cannot obstruct justice. The King, is like, you know--the Sun--(hence The Sun King) and gets his tweet words and powers direct from Gawd. He is the law.

[turbinetree]

17. Which crayon of bullshit are they going to pull out of there ass now

your "guy" committed TREASON, your former Lt. General of the NSA, pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI.

Your logic there pinhead does not hold water---------------you cannot break the rule of law and pick and choose which ones you want to play with with and which crayon to use for the day .

And just maybe pinhead you should go back a re-read Article II again...................I think you are pulling something out of your ass that isn't there.

You forgot twinkle toes that in the Article he would swear to faithfully execute the office-----------------well , he failed on that requirement, from the first day and now into 396 days and counting------------that is the only track record your traitor boss has accomplished, breaking the law and LYING------------he is fucking narcissistic sociopath LIAR, and he likes to abuse other human beings, that is a fact, his ego if so fucked up that if he doesn't get his way, he belittles people and abuses them, just like a fucking drunk

And if you think he will faithfully execute all laws-------------------wrong again, you just can't pick and choose which ones you can enforce and not enforce-------------------he may think banana republic dictatorship-------------but not the taxpayers


So go back and try again-------------------this time bring a teacher for the big words

Oh, by the way he still is a sexual predator, he can run but he can't hide

[Rollo]

18. It is for Congress to decide...

Via the constitutionally authorized process of impeachment and conviction.

Trump cannot weasel out of that.

[getagrip_already]

25. no, but the gop can.. n/t

[DownriverDem]

27. Except

Unless the repubs see that trump will hurt their election chances, they will not impeach him. Why? trump will sign anything they send his way. He is their useful clown. I never want to hear that someone who leans left doesn't lean left enough. Bullshit. How many of us will have to work until we die, now?

[kwalter66]

67. How do you

or THEY know he will sign anything they send him when they haven't managed to send anything to sign so far.

[Rollo]

84. Which is why the dems need to take back Congress ASAP

[orangecrush]

20. Deja vu

Where have I heard this befire?

[Botany]

21. So it would follow a policeman can't break the law?

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," Dowd claims.

[DownriverDem]

26. Oh Yea

Go back and take a look at Watergate. Nixon thought he was above the law too. So much damage being done to our country and so many reasons why this assmunch got elected.

[johnp3907]

28. "Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."

Can't remember who said that.

[getagrip_already]

30. this has been claimed before....

In a slightly different context, it was claimed during bush II during the valery plame dustup (I use that word sarcastically).

There, bush's lawyers claim that he couldn't have violated secrecy laws because the president is the ultimate deciderer of what is secret. So anything the president authorizes for release is by definition not secret and therefore no law could have been broken.

But I wonder where does trump see the boundaries to this argument. Probably in his mind there are none, and he is above the law. Since he is the chief law enforcement officer, he can decide what is legal and what isn't. We don't need the other 2 branches of government where he is concerned. He is prosecutor, judge, and jury of himself.

[Cicada]

35. You have found a possible flaw in Trumps defense

Dowd has a reasonable argument that the President is boss of prosecutions and has discretion to not prosecute. But jurisprudes will probably see the flaw you spotted. There has been a long legal tradition that no man should be his own judge. And there is more than precedent, there is logic. Should we let the President murder his opponent in a re-election race? That would be the case if Dowd is right. And that will just seem like a very bad idea to judges. Then Dowd will argue that impeachment is the answer.

I’m not sure how Supremes would vote on obstruction related to Flynn. But I think they would vote Trump saying Comey should give Flynn a pass is ok. But if a closer connection is made to acts designed to prevent his own prosecution then the more likely the court will be to rule against Trump. But this will not get to the Supremes. Trump isn’t going to be indicted. He would fire prosecutors before he gets indicted.

[getagrip_already]

49. there is a theory...

that muehler already has sealed indictments against the tump clan, including the king.

The thinking is if trump moves to remove sessions, muehler will unseal the indictments and create an instant conflict of interest to removing him.

Now that WOULD be a constitutional crisis. It would in essence be an indicted president firing the prosecutor to bury the charges. Not potential charges. Actual charges.

That would get heard by scotus almost instantly I would imagine, and they would likely decide quickly as they did in bush v gore. Unfortunately I don't see the court majority flipping against trump. They have shown they are a political branch of government, and they have been known to decide in a way that doesn't set long term precedent.

I hate to be negative, but we are screwed at the scotus.

[Cicada]

61. Better solution is to vote him out in 2020

That way the Trumpsters can’t claim it’s just political misbehavior.

[getagrip_already]

70. you haven't been paying attention.. ;)

Of course they can claim that, and a conspiracy to steal his presidency as well. It's what they do.

If he loses, he wins. As long as he is the center of attention, and the front page of newspapers have his name and picture, and fox talks about him, he thinks he won.

If he ends up in prison though, he will be bigly upset if they don't have tv priv's. lol.

[honest.abe]

32. Clearly they fear something big is coming.

They are really scrambling for excuses. The noose is tightening.

[AJT]

33. The repubs will NOT impeach him. The democrats won't have enough votes even after 2018.

More likely than not, we will have to deal with this clown for 4 years. I just hope that after the 2018 elections we can stop the GOPs agenda.

[BumRushDaShow]

36. If Democrats can take the House in 2018

they CAN impeach him by a simple majority (if Nancy doesn't claim it's "off the table" again). They just wouldn't have enough in the Senate to convict (which would require 2/3rds - 67 votes).

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

39. I've heard this somewhere before

[underpants]

40. "Outside lawyer"

Hello (knocks on window) can I come in now?

[greatauntoftriplets]

41. "The law is an ass" -- Charles Dickens, writing in Oliver Twist.

[Ligyron]

42. So basically they are admitting he DID obstruct justice.

Otherwise they wouldn't need this "defense".

[honest.abe]

47. Precisely.

They know Muellar is coming with a strong obstruction of justice case.

[getagrip_already]

51. hopefully obstruction is minor compared to conspiracy....

Conspiracy takes more hard evidence, but hopefully flynn and the other snitches are providing that.

[Hamlette]

43. Didn't Sally Yates tell McGahn Flynn had lied?

she told him he was compromised because he lied to the FBI. Meaning they knew before they fired him.

[OldHippieChick]

44. If he truly believes the Pres cannot obstruct justice, then

why did he cop to the tweet?

[Nitram]

45. A lawyer with a degree from Trump U.

[ancianita]

48. He's saying the president is above the law. LOL

[malthaussen]

50. Not only Nixon, but Condi Rice...

... who claimed the Bush administration's orders re waterboarding were okay because it was assumed the President would not (or could not?) order anything illegal.

It's a popular authoritarian position.

-- Mal

[electron_blue]

53. The force is strong on the weak-minded. Trump knows that saying something is true will make it so

for many Americans.

[cannabis_flower]

54. Well, I guess that settles it then.

[Frustratedlady]

55. Boy, look out! Dowd gives him an inch, he'll instantly take the mile.

Some people can't resist the temptation and, of course, Trump is so hungry for power, he'll eat Dowd's statement up in no time. Future tweets will show that he absorbed all of the comments and it will be full speed ahead. Gag!

[underpants]

56. Only the BEST PEOPLE

[Kablooie]

57. Now that's a Hail Mary even before charges are filed.

They must be expecting something really really big soon.

[dlk]

58. It's a Time-Honored Legal Strategy-Throw Everything Against the Wall and See What Sticks

[Chrysanthemum]

60. Too bad for them

Too bad for Trump and Dowd they only have jello to throw!

[PoliticAverse]

76. Indeed. n/t

[louis-t]

64. Ambulance chaser says what?

If he would pay his bills, he could get real attorneys to work for him.

[niyad]

66. 'L'etat c'est moi'

[RandomAccess]

68. This scares me a LOT

Maybe I'm overreacting, but I can't see a Neil Gorsuch ruling against that.

[appal_jack]

69. Translation: "The President is guilty of obstructing justice." nt

[rocktivity]

90. Tweeting that under President Donnie's name was neither ethical nor competent of Dowd

Disbarment, anyone?


rocktivity

[DeminPennswoods]

71. Dumb and dumber

First president dumb tweets out he knew Flynn lied to the FBI. Then lawyer dumber tries to take the blame, but his statement is quickly discredited. Now we all know president dumb knew Flynn lied to the FBI and that he's the one who sent out the tweet. Otherwise, dumb and dumber would have known to: a) delete the tweet right away and b) blame it on a rogue staffer - say Hope Hicks who we already know takes tweet dictation from president dumb and then posts it.

[Solly Mack]

72. Congressional republicans will go along with that.

Forget what happened in the Nixon era. This is now. What happened then simply doesn't apply today.

Once you can justify and explain away torture, you can justify and explain away anything.

[Dr_Pretorius]

73. Same guy who's tweetin' for Dump at 6 a.m.?

Quite the legal scholar, I'm sure.

And here all this time I thought the Constitution was drafted to prevent tyranny.

[Baconator]

74. This is the Alan Dershowitz line...

... and it's bullshit.

[briv1016]

75. I remember there was a saying about forgetting history

but I don't remember what it was.

[Hekate]

77. That argument worked so well for Dick Nixon. Carry on, idjit. nt

[Ray Bruns]

80. Ah, Yes. The "Charles I" defense.

If I remember correctly, it didn't work out well for him either.

[Beartracks]

82. Proof they don't give two shits about the Founding Fathers...

... rule of law, or constitutional democracy.

========

[rockfordfile]

83. Trump is guilty of Obstruction of Justice

[L. Coyote]

86. Now Trump's lawyer is signalling that Trump is guilty, guilty, guilty.

Whatever happened to saying your client is innocent? Oh wait, that was a whole tweet ago.

[syringis]

87. This lawyer is...

...as fake as his president.

In which law school did he get his degree ?

[Dalton Mac]

88. David Frum: Trump Isn't Above the Law

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/12/trump-isnt-above-the-law/547499/

You ought to read Isaac Chotiner’s interview in Slate with Alan Dershowitz, the famous lawyer turned Trump defender. As it becomes ever more unsustainable to maintain the president’s innocence, more Trump supporters will fall back on Dershowitz’s theory that the president cannot be held to account—especially now that Dershowitz’s arguments have been endorsed by President Trump himself.

In the Chotiner interview, Dershowitz makes his case at greater length than cable television allows. It’s worth hearing and weighing his argument in order to appreciate how very wrong it is—and must be:

Of course the president can obstruct justice. Nixon obstructed justice. President Clinton was charged with obstructing justice. A president can’t obstruct justice by simply exercising his constitutional authority. That is: A president can’t obstruct justice by pardoning. A president can’t obstruct justice by firing somebody he’s authorized to fire. If a president bribes or takes a bribe, or if a president, as Nixon did, pays hush money, or tells his subordinates to lie to the FBI, or destroys evidence, of course he can be charged with obstruction of justice, but he can’t be charged with obstruction of justice simply by exercising his constitutional authority.

I’ll put the follow-up question more rudely than Chotiner, in order to set up Dershowitz’s amazing answer. What if he’s exercising that authority to thwart the investigation of a crime in which he might be implicated? What if the president appears on television and boasts to the world afterward?

[rocktivity]

89. Oh, I get it -- it's not illegal when the president's LAWYER does it!!!

Good luck with that defense -- more luck than Nixon had...

By the way, isn't impersonating a U.S. president disbarment worthy? And at the very least, did President Donnie SEE the tweet before it was posted?


rocktivity

[yurbud]

91. their best defense is to claim mental incompetence from lead based spray tan poisoning

[rocktivity]

92. Not to mention ineffective counsel from Dowd

rocktivity

[yurbud]

94. It's tough when you have a client with the IQ & attention span of a gnat

and the temperament of a rabid monkey on crystal meth.

[Doitnow]

93. Stupid remark----He already has. And it counts!!!