President Donald Trump speaks at CPAC 2017.
Photo credit: Gage Skidmore
President Donald Trump speaks at CPAC 2017.
Photo credit: Gage Skidmore

President Donald Trump’s counsel, John Dowd, told Mike Allen of Axios that Trump, as President, can not obstruct 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,” he claimed.

In question is a tweet published on Saturday from President Trump’s personal Twitter account that Dowd claims to have written:

Trump’s critics point to this tweet as an admission that President Trump knew his former National Security Advisor lied to the FBI before he fired FBI Director James Comey.

Addressing the first question of whether the President of the United States can obstruct justice. Of course, he can. Putting the President above the law in this instance is asinine.

It is unlikely to see President Trump indicted on those charges, however, because he first has to be removed from office. The House of Representatives would have to impeach, and then the Senate would have to convict. Republicans control both chambers.

I don’t see that happening unless Mueller presents an incredibly compelling case.

So far, there is no such case. Trump was defended by an unlikely source – Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz. Today on Fox & Friends, Dershowitz criticized U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein who said an obstruction of justice case is being made.

Dershowitz said Feinstein does not know what she is talking about. He noted that President Trump, under the Constitution, has the right to fire the FBI Director.┬áCharging a President with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional right, Dershowitz said, would cause a “constitutional crisis in the United States.”

Dershowitz┬áexplained that to charge a President with obstruction of justice, proof of illegal acts is needed. Such was the case with President Nixon paying “hush money” during the Watergate scandal, and even President Clinton, who allegedly tried to influence potential witnesses.

So there are circumstances where a case can be made for obstruction, but as of right now there is no evidence to credibly make that claim.

That could change as Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation presses forward, but as of right now it is merely wishful thinking.

You May Also Like

Rand Paul on Dress Debate

U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) issues an open letter to share his expertise as an ophthalmologist in order to settle the great American dress debate.

Reading a Bill 101

Know Who is Lying and Who is Telling the Truth By Kim…

The Fiscal Cliff: No Room for Compromise

Whatever deal Congress and President Obama makes in order to go off the fiscal cliff in the short term we are still in deep, deep financial trouble.

Mr Rogers Demonstrates Why PBS and Big Bird Will Survive Without Your Tax Dollars.

The 1969 clip below shows the late Mr Fred Rogers coming out…