Highly respected liberal Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz: No Case For Obstruction Of Justice Against Trump

  • topathlete

    Posts: 1276

    Dec 04, 2017 11:48 PM GMT
    Pretty clear cut despite the "attorneys" hired by the left wing media - Narratives based on wishing and hoping instead of facts.

    Dershowitz: No Case For Obstruction Of Justice Against Trump, Would Be "Constitutional Crisis"

    Alan Dershowitz said there is no case for obstruction of justice against President Trump and if Congress were to charge him with exercising his Article II authority, we'd have a "constitutional crisis." Dershowitz said if Trump were afraid of charges he would have pardoned Flynn, which he has the power to do according to the law professor.

    "Look, the president could have pardoned Flynn if he were really thinking about trying to end this investigation," he said. "He would have pardoned Flynn and then Flynn wouldn't be cooperating with the other side, and the president would have had the complete authority to do so, and Flynn never would have been indicted, never would have turned as a witness against him. So I think the fact that the president hasn't pardoned Flynn, even though he has the power to do so, is very good evidence there's no obstruction of justice going on here."

    Dershowitz said Flynn talking to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak was the right thing to do. He said it was stopping the lame-duck President Obama from tying the hands of incoming President Trump.

    "The other thing they're claiming is that by the president trying to influence foreign policy during his transition, for example, by having Flynn talk to the Russian ambassador, Kislyak, and say please either vote against the U.N. resolution or delay the U.N. resolution somehow that's wrong, that was the right thing to do. I think he did the absolute right thing by trying to stop the president lame-duck from tying his hands," he said.

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/12/04/dershowitz_no_case_for_obstruction_of_justice_against_trump_would_be_constitutional_crisis.html
  • topathlete

    Posts: 1276

    Dec 05, 2017 12:00 AM GMT
    PennsyGuy saidEveryone who has comprehension and basic reasoning skills knows that. Unfortunately, most here don't rise up to the standard and keep running around here like chickens in a barnyard.

    We know they are delusional and grasping at straws to "prove" the election was not legitimate. Their sense of reality is defective. Anyway, when the story of Flynn pleading guilty to lying became public, even though it was anticipated for weeks, they were giddy with glee. Joy Behar is a comical illustration. As soon as they started to realize it did not amount to anything, they became even more bitter and depressed. Just like a hungry person starving. Someone dangles a steak in front of them then takes it away.
  • topathlete

    Posts: 1276

    Dec 05, 2017 12:06 AM GMT
    PennsyGuy said
    topathlete said
    PennsyGuy saidEveryone who has comprehension and basic reasoning skills knows that. Unfortunately, most here don't rise up to the standard and keep running around here like chickens in a barnyard.

    We know they are delusional and grasping at straws to "prove" the election was not legitimate. Their sense of reality is defective. Anyway, when the story of Flynn pleading guilty to lying became public, even though it was anticipated for weeks, they were giddy with glee. Joy Behar is a comical illustration. As soon as they started to realize it did not amount to anything, they became even more bitter and depressed. Just like a hungry person starving. Someone dangles a steak in front of them then takes it away.


    They'll be truly suicidal when President Trump is elected to his 2nd term in 2020.

    And with a stronger majority in the Senate, especially with all the outrage at the left because of the Steinle verdict translating into votes.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3591

    Dec 05, 2017 12:59 AM GMT
    JTheM saidThere ain't anything "liberal" about Alan Dershowitz. Regularly described as a "champion of civil liberties", he is in fact a dedicated opponent of such.


    which liberty is he against?
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 22221

    Dec 05, 2017 1:03 AM GMT
    PennsyGuy said
    topathlete said
    PennsyGuy saidEveryone who has comprehension and basic reasoning skills knows that. Unfortunately, most here don't rise up to the standard and keep running around here like chickens in a barnyard.

    We know they are delusional and grasping at straws to "prove" the election was not legitimate. Their sense of reality is defective. Anyway, when the story of Flynn pleading guilty to lying became public, even though it was anticipated for weeks, they were giddy with glee. Joy Behar is a comical illustration. As soon as they started to realize it did not amount to anything, they became even more bitter and depressed. Just like a hungry person starving. Someone dangles a steak in front of them then takes it away.


    They'll be truly suicidal when President Trump is elected to his 2nd term in 2020.
    You mean that our leftist lunatic Outdoormuscleguy will finally take a flying leap off of the Tappan Zee Bridge lol!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2017 1:13 AM GMT
    JTheM saidThere ain't anything "liberal" about Alan Dershowitz. Regularly described as a "champion of civil liberties", he is in fact a dedicated opponent of such.



    +1

    Hes a Jew (religious fiend), friend of terrorist state Israel and a part of the "christian terrorist war mongering network". Alan Dershowitz is the 'left wing' CIA paid oppositionist equivalent to the 'right wing' paid CIA oppositionist Alex Jones, stir the pot, misdirect and confuse everyone !
  • topathlete

    Posts: 1276

    Dec 05, 2017 1:15 AM GMT
    musclmed said
    JTheM saidThere ain't anything "liberal" about Alan Dershowitz. Regularly described as a "champion of civil liberties", he is in fact a dedicated opponent of such.


    which liberty is he against?

    Within American politics, Dershowitz has long been allied with the liberals. Traditionally liberals supported Israel. Today's radical-left has taken an anti-Israel, pro-Arab stance, per the influence of Obama. Dershowitz did not follow that trend and has remained pro-Israel. That is most likely what the comment about Dershowitz is about, that he is not liberal if you define liberal as an Obama-Liberal.
  • topathlete

    Posts: 1276

    Dec 05, 2017 3:02 AM GMT
    PennsyGuy said
    topathlete said
    musclmed said
    JTheM saidThere ain't anything "liberal" about Alan Dershowitz. Regularly described as a "champion of civil liberties", he is in fact a dedicated opponent of such.


    which liberty is he against?

    Within American politics, Dershowitz has long been allied with the liberals. Traditionally liberals supported Israel. Today's radical-left has taken an anti-Israel, pro-Arab stance, per the influence of Obama. Dershowitz did not follow that trend and has remained pro-Israel. That is most likely what the comment about Dershowitz is about, that he is not liberal if you define liberal as an Obama-Liberal.


    He stated many times he voted for Hillary in the 2016 election.

    Very true. He is a liberal as the term is applied to American politics.
  • northbeach

    Posts: 1214

    Dec 05, 2017 4:10 AM GMT
    Fake news
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2017 5:42 AM GMT
    northbeach saidFake news

    That's nice dear.
  • topathlete

    Posts: 1276

    Dec 05, 2017 10:00 PM GMT
    Some have misquoted Alan Dershowitz to say he said the President could not be guilty of obstruction of justice because he heads the Executive Branch. Dershowitz never said that. What he said was any actions such as influencing investigation or prosecution, including hiring and firing decisions, are not obstruction of justice because Trump would be exercising his Constitutionally authorized power.


    No one is above the law
    BY ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ

    Our Constitutional system of separation of power and checks and balances provides that the members of each branch of government be protected from legal consequences for performing their constitutionally mandated functions. Thus, Article I of the Constitution explicitly immunizes from arrest all members of Congress “during their attendance at the Sessions of their respected Houses, and in going to and returning from the same.” This immunity, though limited, protects legislators from arrest for actions for which ordinary citizens could be prosecuted. This limited immunity does not put them “above” the law, since it is the law itself that provides the immunity.

    Judges, too, are immunized from not only from criminal prosecution, but also from civil liability for actions taken within their judicial authority. This is how the Supreme Court put it in Stump v. Sparkman (in which a young woman sued the circuit judge who had tricked her into being involuntarily sterilized by misinforming her that it was an appendectomy!): “The governing principle of law is well established, and is not questioned by the parties. As early as 1872, the court recognized that it was ‘a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice that a judicial officer, in exercising the authority vested in him, [should] be free to act upon his own convictions, without apprehension of personal consequences to himself.’”

    Prosecutors, too, have limited immunity for actions undertaken within their prosecutorial authority. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that the president — as head of the executive branch — cannot be prosecuted for acts that he or she is authorized to take pursuant to Article II of the Constitution. Article II of the Constitution explicitly allocated to the resident the authority to “take care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
    This grant of power authorizes the president to decide who should be investigated and prosecuted and who not. presidents including John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy and Barack Obama have exercised this authority by instructing the Justice Department to investigate and prosecute individuals or groups — and not to investigate or prosecute others. Some have exercised that authority wisely, others not. But none have committed the crime of obstruction of justice by trying to influence prosecutorial decisions.

    President George H.W. Bush stopped an investigation in its tracks — an investigation that could have pointed directly to criminal action by him during the Iran Contra scandal — when he pardoned Casper Weinberger and five others crucial witnesses that could have pointed the finger at him. The special prosecutor, Lawrence Walsh, was furious at this decision, claiming that it was intended to, and did, stop the investigation. Yet no one suggested that President Bush be charged with obstruction of justice, because in pardoning those witnesses he was exercising his constitutional authority under Article II.

    President Andrew Johnson was impeached for firing Secretary of War Edwin Stanton in violation of a statute passed by Congress. He was acquitted by the Senate, and the Supreme Court subsequently declared the statute unconstitutional as impinging on the president’s power to fire members of the executive branch.

    Even former director of the FBI James Comey said that the president had the authority to fire him, for any reason or no reason. Now President Trump’s political opponents are seeking to have the special counsel psychoanalyze the president to determine whether his motives were pure, mixed or corrupt. Nearly all presidential actions are motivated by mixed intentions, ranging from self-aggrandizement to political benefit to partisan advantage and to patriotism. If a president or a senator or a judge acts within his or her constitutional authority their motives should not be probed by prosecutors even if they suspect unsavory ones.

    If a president’s actions, on the other hand, are unlawful — as President Nixon’s clearly were when he told subordinates to lie to the FBI and pay hush money — good intentions (they are hard to imagine in Nixon’s case) would not be a defense. For purposes of the criminal law, presidents must be judged by the lawfulness or unlawfulness of their acts, not by the motivations that underlay them.

    My argument, unlike that of President Trump’s lawyer, is not that a president can never be charged with obstruction of justice. It is that he cannot be charged with that crime if his only actions were constitutionally authorized. This distinction is central to our system of separation of powers and checks and balances.

    Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School and author of “Trumped Up: How Criminalizing Politics is Dangerous to Democracy.” Follow him on Twitter @AlanDersh and on Facebook @AlanMDershowitz.

    http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/363387-no-one-is-above-the-law