Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: locogringo who wrote (1020090)	6/8/2017 4:53:45 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 1574439

"how can you obstruct an investigation into somebody that was fired for lying to the vice president and is no longer part of the administration?" You (try by) firing the guy running the investigation after he doesn't drop the matter. That technique doesn't seem to have worked.

To: locogringo who wrote (1020090)	6/8/2017 4:55:14 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	2 Recommendations Recommended By Bill locogringo Respond to of 1574439

Well it seems the james benedict arnold comey revealed just how stupid his knowledge of Constitutional Law is. james benedict arnold comey asked was Presidents requests bla bla obstruction of justice? dahhhh I don't know, I have to leave the to ..... WHAT A JOKE IDIOT! WHAT IS THE LAW... But our constitution makes the attorney general both the chief prosecutor and the chief political adviser to the president on matters of justice and law enforcement. The president can, as a matter of constitutional law, direct the attorney general, and his subordinate, the director of the FBI, tell them what to do, whom to prosecute and whom not to prosecute. Indeed, the president has the constitutional authority to stop the investigation of any person by simply pardoning that person. Assume, for argument's sake, that Trump had said the following to Comey: "You are no longer authorized to investigate Flynn because I have decided to pardon him." Would that exercise of the president's constitutional power to pardon constitute a criminal obstruction of justice? Of course not. Presidents do that all the time. Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger, his secretary of defense, in the middle of an investigation that could have incriminated Bush. That was not an obstruction and neither would a pardon of Flynn have been a crime. A president cannot be charged with a crime for properly exercising his constitutional authority For the same reason, Trump cannot be charged with obstruction for firing Comey, which he had the constitutional authority to do. The Comey statement suggests that one reason Trump fired him was because of his refusal or failure to publicly announce that the FBI was not investigating Trump personally. Trump "repeatedly" told Comey to "get that fact out," and he did not. If that is true, it is certainly not an obstruction of justice. Nor is it an obstruction of justice to ask for loyalty from the director of the FBI, who responded "you will get that [‘honest loyalty'] from me." Comey understood that he and Trump may have understood that vague phrase "honest loyalty" differently. But no reasonable interpretation of those ambiguous words would give rise to a crime. Many Trump opponents were hoping that the Comey statement would provide smoking guns. It has not. Instead it has weakened an already weak case for obstruction of justice. The statement may provide political ammunition to Trump opponents, but unless they are willing to stretch Comey's words and take Trump's out of context, and unless they are prepared to abandon important constitutional principles and civil liberties that protect us all, they should not be searching for ways to expand already elastic criminal statutes and shrink enduring constitutional safeguard in a dangerous and futile effort to criminalize political disagreements. The first casualty of partisan efforts to "get" a political opponent — whether Republicans going after Clinton or Democrats going after Trump — is often civil liberties. Everyone who cares about the Constitution and civil liberties must join together to protest efforts to expand existing criminal law to get political opponents. Today it's Trump. Yesterday it was Clinton. Tomorrow it could be you. Alan Dershowitz ( @AlanDersh) is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School and author of "Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law" and "Electile Dysfunction: A Guide for the Unaroused Voter." This piece was originally published by the Gatestone Institute.