Why Would Trump's Lawyer Implicate His Client In Obstruction Of Justice ?
On Saturday, Donald Trump tweeted this -
I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI. He has pled guilty to those lies. It is a shame because his actions during the transition were lawful. There was nothing to hide!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This tweet is evidence of obstruction of justice on the part of Donald Trump.
Given that, when his lawyer learned of the tweet , the lawyer, John Dowd claimed that he, not Trump, had written the tweet.
A problem with that explanation - why would Donald Trump's lawyer write a tweet in Trump's name that implicates his client in obstruction of justice?
And how was the material placed into Trump's twitter account? We are supposed to believe this was done without Trump's knowledge? For what purpose?
This is absurd. Trump mindlessly tweeted this because he is a babbler that can't help himself. Now his lawyer is lying for him to try and mitigate the damage. The lawyer Dowd will be called to testify against Trump in any future legal proceedings.
Tags
Who is online
87 visitors
Trump and his team believe they have successfully turned the American people into pliable idiots.
I don't think Trump supporters are as stupid as they make themselves out to be. They know Trump is a criminal scumbag, they just don't care.
We knew he was not a perfect person when we elected him, but Hillary was much, much worse. As far as his being a criminal, he has not been charged or convicted convicted of anything, and that's why I don't care for all the negativity and generally ignore it. I love the way that Trump plays the media and sore loser liberals, and causes them to exhibit all the signs and symptoms of extreme TDS. This article being a good example of that.
In other words you are utterly incapable of formulating an answer to the question -
Why Would Trump's Lawyer Implicate His Client In Obstruction Of Justice ? (by making the tweet in question)
Speak for yourself John!
Rex, why would Trump's lawyer write a tweet and post it under Trump's name that implicates Trump in obstruction of justice? It makes no sense.
Trump himself wrote that tweet, because he is a hopeless babbler. He admitted that he knew Flynn had committed a crime (lying to the FBI) prior to the time he (Trump) asked Comey to go easy on Flynn. In a certain sense this is a smoking gun, which Trump and company hope to minimize by claiming the lawyer put it on twitter.
Why would the lawyer do that?
Give it up if you do, because I will always win the discussion. Resort to a personal put down if you can't make a valid and intelligent comment.
In the months you have been on NT, I have yet to see you "win" any discussions.
Prolly kind of easy not to when you close your eyes, run, and don't look back huh?
It is well known that the truth is often the exact opposite of whatever you post , so thanks.
I don't see any "conservatives" providing an answer to this question. Why would Trump's lawyer implicate his client in obstruction of justice?
He didn't. Trump wrote the tweet, and they are all lying about it.
Trump can't commit obstruction of justice. As Alan Dershowicz said today:
“You cannot charge a president with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional power to fire Comey and his constitutional authority to tell the Justice Department who to investigate, who not to investigate,”
This has disintegrated from allegations of collusion to indicting process crimes based on legal acts.
Dershowitz, who Buzz bizarrely refers to as a "liberal", is shaming himself for all time. He is so in bed with whatever advantage he believes Trump gives to Israel that he is willing to sell out his legal opinions (and shill for it on Fox and Friends) to preserve that advantage.
Richard Nixon was charged with obstruction of justice in his impeachment proceedings. Whether a prosecutor would charge Trump with obstruction of justice for a criminal proceeding is barely relevant. A sitting president cannot be criminally charged anyway.
That's just your biased opinions John, and as usual, wrong. Apparently you didn't get the gist of Dershowitz's remark.
Nixon charged with first of three articles of …
On this day in 1974, the House of Representatives charges President Richard M. Nixon with the first of three articles of impeachment for obstruction of justice after ...
What exactly did Nixon do? Trump's presidential powers give him the right to get rid of Comey at any time. Or to fire Mueller, if he so chooses.
He could have fired Comey on his first day in office. That he was fired later for incompetence has no consequence to Trump, regardless of what Comey might have been doing or investigating at the time.
Rex, you are a fairly friendly guy, so I will help you out. The obstruction of justice would not come from him firing Comey, it would come from WHY he fired Comey, in other words what was his intention in firing Comey. If his intention was to fire Comey in order to end the investigation into his (Trump's ) campaign, then he can be guilty of obstructing justice. And impeached for it.
Exactly. Unless there are actual illegal acts, impeaching him for simply exercising his constitutional prerogatives
would create a constitutional crises.
I disagree, and then we get down to that little legal detail called "intent". That's supposedly the reason Hillary was not indicted for the email scandal even though Comey said what she did was illegal. No way to prove intent on Trump's part when he parted ways with Comey...his words at the time can be interpreted in too many ways.
Again you can't seem to answer the question. Snarky responses still don't work.
"Over a dozen legal experts weighed in via the American media Monday and the overwhelming consensus is that Trump can indeed be prosecuted. Article II of the American Constitution outlines the president’s powers, but the text also requires that he or she “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
The president cannot exercise his given powers in a corrupt manner and remain above the law, scholars argued Monday. While there’s no question that Trump had the constitutional power to fire James Comey, for example, if he had done so after receiving payment to fire him and hire someone else in his place, that would still be considered bribery. And if he fired Comey in order to prevent the FBI from getting to the bottom of Russian influence during the election, the experts argue that’s still obstruction.
History is also not on Dowd’s side. The Articles of Impeachment against Richard Nixon began right off the top by saying he “obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice.” In 1998, the House of Representatives similarly impeached former president Bill Clinton on the grounds of both perjury and obstruction of justice."
I wish we would have a constitutional crisis so we can about the business of getting that clown the fuck out of there.
Nixon's Obstruction of Justice charge was based upon the coverup which he had a part in once he was made aware of it and allowed it to continue, to his eventual ordering the destruction of evidence because of it.
He was never charged with obstruction because of the Saturday massacre. (where he instructed the AG to fire the SP and the AG resigned in refusal as well as his chief deputy when given the same order. It fell to Robert Bork a senior assistant AG at the time to do it and even he (a heavy Nixon supporter) considered resigning over it)
Whatever reason T-Rump fired Comey, the firing was legal.
Tricky little thing that "intent"............and it has nothing to do with camping (see what I did there? In tent..........okay booooooo)
And Comey was the one who said it...........Irony that this could come back into the fray?......Yep
And that's the way he likes it. He isn't all over the map for no reason. Dumb like a fox.
That, in and of itself, is right up there with the "I'm glad they did it cuz it drives liberals nuts" rhetoric. I hope you don't REALLY wish that just cuz you don't like the guy.............sad shit.........
let's hear from conservatives favorite legal expert
On "Fox & Friends" this morning, Alan Dershowitz disputed claims from some Democrats that Special Counsel Robert Mueller could build an obstruction of justice case against President Donald Trump.
Dershowitz said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) was incorrect when she argued that Trump obstructed the FBI investigation into possible collusion between his presidential campaign and Russia by asking former FBI Director James Comey to end the investigation into Michael Flynn and also by later firing Comey.
Dershowitz said a president cannot be charged with obstruction for merely exercising his constitutional authority.
On "America's Newsroom," Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano came down on the side of Feinstein.
"I respect Professor Dershowitz greatly. I do not know Sen. Feinstein, but she, in my view, is correct here," he told Bill Hemmer.
He said that if Trump asked Comey to end the investigation into Flynn for a non-corrupt purpose - such as if he felt sympathy for his former national security adviser or he wanted the bureau to use its resources on more important matters - it's not obstruction.
However, if Trump did it for a corrupt purpose - such as trying to protect himself or his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, from what Flynn might say - then it is obstruction and there is no presidential immunity, Napolitano said.
"Obstruction of justice is a crime no matter who commits it, if done for a corrupt purpose. It's also an impeachable offense , " he said, adding that the charge is "intentionally not easy to prove" for a prosecutor.
I'm sure there is a point in there somewhere but the fact still stands. Only Congress can bring actual charges against POTUS. Period.
Secondary to that, Mr. Trump never asked Mr. Comey directly to end the investigation. As I recall his actual words were "I hope you can let this go" which could be construed a couple of ways.
1) I hope your investigation doesn't turn up anything and we can, basically, end it after your examination
2) Do you really think you have something, anything to proceed with? If not then ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The president can be criminally charged after he leaves office. While he is in office it would have to come from Congress, yes.
He pretty much told the Russians that he fired Comey to end the investigation.
Everyone with a functioning brain in their head knows he fired Comey to end the investigation.
Right, whenever your boss calls you in and is deciding whether or not to fire you and he says "I hope you can make it in on Saturday to get this extra work done" he really means "hey, not a big deal, but if you happen to have time are you able to come in on Saturday? If you've got something planned then it's totally okay to say no...".
Again, I am sure there is a message in there somewhere.
Is it your "argument" that he asked everyone but Comey to leave the room so he could make a benign, innocuous comment to Comey?
As the head of the FBI, why didn't Comey report a crime immediately after Trump talked to him, if he thought Trump was "obstructing justice."