Support NeoGAF

[Speevy]

Alan Dershowitz on why this isn't obstruction of justice:





Source

Why is he wrong?

I'm no lawyer, but I think admitting to something that makes it unlawful makes it unlawful.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Alan Dershowitz on why this isn't obstruction of justice:





Source

Why is he wrong?

Personally, I feel what he did was wrong and should get his ass in trouble. I'm just talking legally here.

Not sure. But if that's the case, why was Nixon in hot water for firing the people he did? He had authority to fire those people too, did he not?

 

[ShironRedshift]

Seems like asking him straightforward questions quickly is a sure fire way to get him to incriminate himself, and not even about the thing you are asking him questions about.

Like from what I gather, if the press really wanted to, it would be easy for them to get Trump to say whatever they want:

Reporter: So being accused of all that Russia stuff must be absolutely terrible, President Trump?
Trump: Oh, you have no idea. It's all 100% false. All of it.
R: And so you naturally felt something had to be done about it, right?
T: Absolutely. No way could I let them get away with that. 100% false. All of it. No way could I let such nasty, nasty rumors continue.
R: Thank you, Mr. President.
T: ...What just happened?

Like listening to this stuff, it's so easy to imagine Trump falling into a trap like that, if they just play to his ego a bit. The guy barely avoids tripping over his own words as it is--it's they greased the wheels a bit, who knows what would come spilling out.

 

[Rollo Tomasi]

This is the premiere of the final season, barring a revival on another network.

Final season? Nah, we haven't even hit season 2 yet.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

It might not meet the legal requirement, but in plain English the phrase fits.

I'm no lawyer, but I think admitting to something that makes it unlawful makes it unlawful.

Can the POTUS fire the Director of the FBI for no reason or any reason?

Not sure. But if that's the case, why was Nixon in hot water for firing the people he did? He had authority to fire those people too, did he not?

He wasn't really in hot water legally was he? It was more optics and the fact that people started resigning, no? Seems that was different because it was a special prosecutor.

 

[Dmax3901]

Really sorry, but can I get an update on the developments of the last 12 or so hours?

 

[norm9]

Trump can say it wasn't him talking about firing Comey.

 

[acheron_xl]

Basically FDR solidified democrats as the economically progressive party, while leaving southern racism up in the air until Reagan solidified them as Republicans.

Before that, parties were defined by dumb boring tariff policy that apparently didn't lock in any state.

Nixon started this.

 

[sc0la]

This is the premiere of the final season, barring a revival on another network.

It's getting picked up on Russian state television.

 

[Nafai1123]

Wow ive never thought about that. Although there were still moderates in clintons day

Oh no doubt. The realignment didn't happen right away obviously.

You can see how the southern states steadily moved right, and are now solidly Republican. This was the southern strategy that's been talked about since Goldwater. Make no doubt the policies that the GOP run on are still based on this. The goal is to convince white people that their policies will help them more than minorities. Tax-breaks, religious freedom, law and order, etc are all just dog whistles for whites saying "hey vote for us, our policies won't hurt you as much as it will hurt this other group." Trump has just exacerbated that even further by getting rid of the dog-whistle for a white-supremacist foghorn.

Then of course Fox news came around and fucked everything up even worse.

 

[Speevy]

Let me try it this way.

I'm a boss who has a highly incompetent female employee.

I fire her, and tell interested parties about what a bad job she was doing.

People start asking questions, and I tell someone else "Well, when she said she wouldn't sleep with me, that's what did it."

 

[iRAWRasaurus]

Yeah, I mean, just look at the change from 1956 to 1964:

1956:

1964:

Eh a famous war general is going to be hard to beat during that time period.

 

[darscot]

Trump calling Comey a grandstander and a showboat. This fuckin' guy

What did he say in the oval office to Comey when he was saying how wonderful Comey was, he made some snide comment that Comey was more popular than I am. That probable sealed his fate more than anything.

 

[Tahnit]

https://twitter.com/PhilipRucker/status/862799949196656640

Edit:

https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/862804764278616065

Ok that's it. He just admitted to obstruction of justice. There is no denying it now.

 

[StopMakingSense]

Alan Dershowitz on why this isn't obstruction of justice:

Source

Why is he wrong?

Personally, I feel what he did was wrong and should get his ass in trouble. I'm just talking legally here.

In a criminal sense, and definitely before the revelations of the day... sure.

But that's why impeachment's standard for 'high crimes' (as to the actual definition of high crimes) is purely on the House to define, and not reliant on criminal law, abuses of power by virtue of your absolute position of authority.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

Let me try it this way.

I'm a boss who has a highly incompetent female employee.

I fire her, and tell interested parties about what a bad job she was doing.

People start asking questions, and I tell someone else "Well, when she said she wouldn't sleep with me, that's what did it."

I really don't want to deal with hypothetical's that have laws and protections against the specific action you are talking about.

Just ELI5, how is Dershowitz wrong?

To be clear, I'm not trying to be an ass. I just don't see how he is wrong.

 

[Speevy]

New FBI director charges Trump with obstruction of justice.

Next day: New FBI director fired.

 

[Durden77]

People have to do more. I have to do more. We have to stop just expecting our checks and balances to take care of us. Trump has proved beyond any reasonable doubt that America's systems, while still strong in a general sense, can very much be taken advantage of and be used less as laws and more as guidelines if the wrong person gets in power.

 

[brau]

New FBI director charges Trump with obstruction of justice.

Next day: New FBI director fired.

It was his right whether he had a good reason or not. lol.

 

[RCSI]

Live look at his brain:

He had Russia on the mind, not Hillary's emails, of which was just an excuse to fire Comey. All of which was determined moments after we read the justification from the two letters.

 

[Speevy]

I really don't want to deal with hypothetical's that have laws and protections against the specific action you are talking about.

Just ELI5, how is Dershowitz wrong?

He's might not be wrong, but I find that when the interpretation of the law seems to fly in the face of what we know to be true and right, something eventually happens that makes it true and right. Maybe not now, but in the future.

 

[DietRob]

Read the article. It's in no way a positive depiction.

http://time.com/donald-trump-after-hours/

Huh... the most interesting part of this is that apparently there is someone (Dan Scavino) that is tweeting these asinine things out for King Dumbass.

”The Russia-Trump collusion story is a total hoax," one reads, ”when will the taxpayer funded charade end?" Dan Scavino, his social-media director, is sitting on the couch. ”Yes, sir. Instagram, Facebook, Twitter. It's everywhere," he says.

Maybe I'm understanding wrong. If there is someone proofing these things then god-damn. Shit is even worse than I thought.

 

[Lo-Volt]

Alan Dershowitz on why this isn't obstruction of justice:





Source

Why is he wrong?

Personally, I feel what he did was wrong and should get his ass in trouble. I'm just talking legally here.

I mean, if prosecutors or the House can show that the president fired Director Comey specifically to shield himself from investigation, then it becomes blatant, doesn't it? The president is pretty much talking like that without being prompted.

And in terms of impeachment, the standards are much looser: "high crimes and misdemeanors" can cover a lot more than a U.S. attorney otherwise would.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

He's might not be wrong, but I find that when the interpretation of the law seems to fly in the face of what we know to be true and right, something eventually happens that makes it true and right. Maybe not now, but in the future.

I want to believe that to be true, I suppose I have just lost so much faith in our justice system as a whole and politicians to look beyond their own party.

Cynicism, its a hell of a drug.

I'm not saying nothing is gonna happen, I just don't see him getting hit with impeachment or anything major.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

He wasn't really in hot water legally was he? It was more optics and the fact that people started resigning, no? Seems that was different because it was a special prosecutor.

Yeah skimming over it, that is what it seems like I guess.

This may not be enough for obstruction, but it's just the optics of everything. And the lying from him and the White House.

Edit: Either way, we don't have enough information. And it may depend on if Comey decides to directly address it. But even then, it'll be Comey's word vs Trump's.

 

[Relaxed Muscle]

I really don't want to deal with hypothetical's that have laws and protections against the specific action you are talking about.

Just ELI5, how is Dershowitz wrong?

To be clear, I'm not trying to be an ass. I just don't see how he is wrong.

Is a possible act of obstruction of justice, trying to shut off his possible implication of illegal acts.

Note that I used the word "possible", the sole act of firing Comey dosn't suppose an unlawful act, but it should at least fire off all alarms in the separation of powers in any democratic country.

 

[Capitan]

I really don't want to deal with hypothetical's that have laws and protections against the specific action you are talking about.

Just ELI5, how is Dershowitz wrong?

To be clear, I'm not trying to be an ass. I just don't see how he is wrong.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think it qualifies if you do something that would otherwise be legal, but it's purposefully to stop an investigation, it crosses the line, no? like it's fine to stand in a narrow alleyway at any time, for any reason. but if you stand there when a police officer is trying to get through, you're obstructing them.

I have no background in law so i could be 100% wrong though.

 

[Tovarisc]

Really sorry, but can I get an update on the developments of the last 12 or so hours?

Solid highlight: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=236535894#post236535894

 

[jellies_two]

In a criminal sense, and definitely before the revelations of the day... sure.

But that's why impeachment's standard for 'high crimes' (as to the actual definition of high crimes) is purely on the House to define, and not reliant on criminal law, abuses of power by virtue of your absolute position of authority.

Dershowitz can get lost with his dry analysis, the whole process of impeachment is full of holes starting from the key words high crimes and misdemeanors which are not described anywhere else in the body of law and therefore if it was Dershowitz in charge, impeachment would be impossible, as the legal definition for what constitutes enough for it -- is missing.

It's a politcal process purely, not a legal one, and what trump has done by stating on tv that he fired Comey to halt the Russia investigations is enough for the political process of setting up an independent enquiry to start. It's a political crime if that helps. Or should be if the GOP wasn't so obsessed with holding onto power.

 

[Nafai1123]

I really don't want to deal with hypothetical's that have laws and protections against the specific action you are talking about.

Just ELI5, how is Dershowitz wrong?

To be clear, I'm not trying to be an ass. I just don't see how he is wrong.

Part of Article I of Nixons impeachment filing:

interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;

making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct: or endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.

Part of Article II of Nixons impeachment filing:

In disregard of the rule of law, he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Division, and the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, of the Department of Justice, and the Central Intelligence Agency, in violation of his duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

So far he's:

Interfered with the House and Senate Intel Committees by reaching out to their chairs to try to get them to discredit the story.

Reportedly asked his WH Counsel multiple times if he could talk to Flynn

Had the WH reach out to the FBI directly to try to get them to discredit parts of the story circulating in the media.

Fired the FBI director in charge of the investigation.

Etc etc.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

... Why aren't people making a bigger deal of the fact that the President just admitted to obstruction of justice? Seriously? You guys are talking about ice cream?

It requires contortions to convert an action that has independent justification into one that prompts talk of obstruction of justice and impeachment. In effect, one difficulty with that extravagant assertion is that it makes Comey de facto immovable from office so long as he continues to conduct this investigation. That cannot be the proper analysis because Comey has many other administrative responsibilities, including maintaining morale inside the office. No one should be able to guarantee his term in office by conducting a nonstop investigation of the president.

Ice cream is a better topic tbh.

 

[NihonTiger90]

I'm no lawyer, but I think admitting to something that makes it unlawful makes it unlawful.

That's pretty much the reason Dershowitz is using to say why it isn't illegal for him to do so. If he came out and explicitly said it was because of the investigation (literally, in those words and not this wishy washy crap he's been pulling), then yes, that's obstruction of justice.

It could also fit obstruction if other hard evidence comes out proving that's the reason he did it (ex., an e-mail or memo or something along those lines)

 

[SerAardvark]

The reason Nixon got in trouble for trying to fire Cox is that the latter was an independent special prosecutor who answered only to the Attorney General and could only be removed 'for cause' (i.e. there had to be gross misbehavior/improprieties to justify it).

When Nixon tried to get the AG and then deputy AG to fire Cox, they both refused for that reason (having also given their word to uphold that standard). They both resigned, so Nixon finally got the Solicitor General (Robert Bork!) sworn in acting-AG to fire Cox, but that firing was deemed unlawful by a judge.

Comey as FBI director was not independent of the President's authority in the way Cox was. That's not to say there might not be other legal issues with what Trump did, but it's not the same as what Nixon did.

 

[jellies_two]

That's pretty much the reason Dershowitz is using to say why it isn't illegal for him to do so. If he came out and explicitly said it was because of the investigation (literally, in those words and not this wishy washy crap he's been pulling), then yes, that's obstruction of justice.

That's what he just said
On the nbc interview.
That's literally what he just said.
]

 

[bgbball31]

Oh no doubt. The realignment didn't happen right away obviously.

You can see how the southern states steadily moved right, and are now solidly Republican. This was the southern strategy that's been talked about since Goldwater. Make no doubt the policies that the GOP run on are still based on this. The goal is to convince white people that their policies will help them more than minorities. Tax-breaks, religious freedom, law and order, etc are all just dog whistles for whites saying "hey vote for us, our policies won't hurt you as much as it will hurt this other group." Trump has just exacerbated that even further by getting rid of the dog-whistle for a white-supremacist foghorn.

Then of course Fox news came around and fucked everything up even worse.

Edit: Apparently my source was a pretty bad one, and even though it was quoted a few times, I wanted to remove it on my end at least. Sorry.

 

[TAJ]

Alan Dershowitz on why this isn't obstruction of justice:





Source

Why is he wrong?

Personally, I feel what he did was wrong and should get his ass in trouble. I'm just talking legally here.

You serious?
I tell my assistants to stay quiet about things all the time, like not saying anything about someone's eyes being crossed or not mentioning who else we're working for that day. It's normal and, of course, legal.
But if I told the same employees to stay quiet when interviewed by a prosecutor I'd be a criminal.

Most of what's illegal is only illegal in specific contexts.
Like it's legal to take a shit but not legal to take a shit on a cop.

I feel weird having to explain this.

 

[pigeon]

Alan Dershowitz on why this isn't obstruction of justice:





Source

Why is he wrong?

Personally, I feel what he did was wrong and should get his ass in trouble. I'm just talking legally here.

The smoking gun tape that proved that Nixon was guilty of obstruction of justice was him agreeing with another party that government officials should ask Deputy FBI Director Mark Felt to stop investigating the Watergate break-in.

When you get in these people when you…get these people in, say: “Look, the problem is that this will open the whole, the whole Bay of Pigs thing, and the President just feels that” ah, without going into the details… don’t, don’t lie to them to the extent to say there is no involvement, but just say this is sort of a comedy of errors, bizarre, without getting into it, “the President believes that it is going to open the whole Bay of Pigs thing up again. And, ah because these people are plugging for, for keeps and that they should call the FBI in and say that we wish for the country, don’t go any further into this case”, period!

http://watergate.info/1972/06/23/the-smoking-gun-tape.html

Nixon clearly had the legal authority to take this action. By Dershowitz's analysis, it would not be obstruction of justice. But it clearly was understood to be so.

Separately, the president also has the constitutional duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Deliberately preventing an investigation would clearly violate that constitutional duty.

 

[sturgboski]

He is the President of the United States. His words are golden and should be held against him. Trump signed up for the job.

Someone of us in America respect the office and like what God ordained, it's only you libtards who are upset.

- non ironic response from Trump supporters who up until Obama left didn't respect him.

 

[illiniguy05]

Here are the relevant statutes for obstruction of justice (from lawfareblog.com)

The path I see for finding that firing Comey was an obstruction of justice is if it is found to have been done "corruptly," because it was done by "acting with an improper purpose," which is impeding the FBI investigation.

I am a lawyer, I am not your lawyer, and I have never even studied these statutes so take this for what it's worth, not much.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 1505, a felony offense is committed by anyone who “corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation in being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress.”

18 U.S.C. § 1515(b), defines “corruptly” as “acting with an improper purpose, personally or by influencing another, including making a false or misleading statement, or withholding, concealing, altering, or destroying a document or other information”

 

[NihonTiger90]

That's what he just said
On the nbc interview.
That's literally what he just said.

I don't disagree with you as my non-lawyer brain is fairly certain that's why he did it, but lawyers will find a way to dissect what he said to make it not as literal as he made it.

It sounds confusing, I know. But remember we had Clinton arguing what the definition of "is" is; good lawyers can punch holes in what he said being not a literal admission.

Rep. Schiff's kind of saying that it's unethical but he'd need to know more before calling it obstruction on All In with Chris Hayes right now, in response to Hayes asking if he thought it was obstruction.

 

[Linkura]

The path I see for finding that firing Comey was an obstruction of justice is if it is found to have been done "corruptly," because it was done by "acting with an improper purpose," which is impeding the FBI investigation.

So it is then if this statement is the law. He absolutely did it with an improper purpose. He said so himself.

 

[Majukun]

Alan Dershowitz on why this isn't obstruction of justice:





Source

Why is he wrong?

Personally, I feel what he did was wrong and should get his ass in trouble. I'm just talking legally here.

I suppose in the USA law has no idea what a "conflict of interest" is?

I mean, can a chief of police under investigation for murder just fire the detective handling the case and put someone else in his place just because he normally has the authority to fire the detectives that work under him?

if yes,there's something very,very wrong with USA law

 

[kirblar]

I read this the other day and it seems to be a reasonable explanation other than just "racism!" Is this wrong?

http://www.claremont.org/crb/article/the-myth-of-the-racist-republicans/

Yes, it's wrong. (It's also from '04.)

We saw in the Trump/Clinton vs Romney/Obama voter comparison that racial animus was even more polarizing today than it was 4 years ago. We saw many non-racist Romney voters flipped off Trump. Racist Obama voters flipped to Trump. The Southern Strategy went national. This is why rural whites in Union states like WV and Iowa and Michigan are planting Confederate flags. It's not about "heritage", it's about hate.

 

[StrategyFan]

I suppose in the USA law has no idea what a "conflict of interest" is?

I mean, can a chief of police under investigation for murder just fire the detective handling the case and put someone else in his place just because he normally has the authority to fire the detectives that work under him?

if yes,there's something very,very wrong with USA law

"the president can't have a conflict of interest" - the president

 

[Dr.Acula]

I really don't want to deal with hypothetical's that have laws and protections against the specific action you are talking about.

Just ELI5, how is Dershowitz wrong?

To be clear, I'm not trying to be an ass. I just don't see how he is wrong.

While it's true that Trump can fire anyone for any reason, Congress can also impeach anyone for any reason.

 

[Apdiddy]

Alan Dershowitz on why this isn't obstruction of justice:





Source

Why is he wrong?

Personally, I feel what he did was wrong and should get his ass in trouble. I'm just talking legally here.

I hold Alan Dershowitz to the same regard as Jeffrey Lord; meaning, he's a Trump surrogate who cannot admit that Trump did anything wrong. The difference being Dershowitz tries to appear 'objective' and tries to do his surrogate behavior from a lawyer's viewpoint.
Yes, it's within the President's prerogative to dismiss the FBI director but when it's in the middle of an active investigation and Trump pretty much admits to obstruction of justice, he did commit an unlawful act.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

Fair enough, again wasn't trying to be a smart ass, just trying to see how he was legally incorrect. At the end of the day this seems like it would be wholly up to Congress to determine if what he has done is illegal.

I don't think that interview is close to being on the same level as what Nixon said in the quote above. We will see what else comes out, regardless I don't have faith in the current political climate. Would love to be proved wrong.

I hold Alan Dershowitz to the same regard as Jeffrey Lord; meaning, he's a Trump surrogate who cannot admit that Trump did anything wrong. The difference being Dershowitz tries to appear 'objective' and tries to do his surrogate behavior from a lawyer's viewpoint.
Yes, it's within the President's prerogative to dismiss the FBI director but when it's in the middle of an active investigation and Trump pretty much admits to obstruction of justice, he did commit an unlawful act.

I don't think that interview is clear enough to bring forth obstruction of justice charges, even though we all know the damned intent. You seem to agree with that assessment.

I really could see Trump resigning during his first term for 'medical reasons'.

 

[Sanjuro]

Do we know yet if Trump is a Neapolitan man?

 

[pigeon]

I read this the other day and it seems to be a reasonable explanation other than just "racism!" Is this wrong?

http://www.claremont.org/crb/article/the-myth-of-the-racist-republicans/

Okay, we're posting stuff from alt-right publications now.

The arguments being made here:

a) Why did racists vote for FDR? The answer, of course, is that FDR made no effort to improve the plight of people of color or end Jim Crow in the south.
b) Why did racists vote for the GOP when the GOP wasn't really racist? CHECKMATE LIBERALS. This is textbook begging the question.
c) Why did the GOP win college-educated white voters in the South? Presumably because they were...racist?

 

[RPGCrazied]

Do we know yet if Trump is a Neapolitan man?

Probably some sort of orange flavor.