[Lord Dave]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/04/doesnt-make-sense-incredulity-trumps-lawyer-john-dowd-take-blame-for-flynn-tweet

Trump's lawyer:
The president can't obstruct justice because he's the head of law enforcement.

Let that sink in.

[JAZZEYENANO]

The real question is, Does Trump believe in a flat earth?

[Tom Bishop]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/04/doesnt-make-sense-incredulity-trumps-lawyer-john-dowd-take-blame-for-flynn-tweet

Trump's lawyer:
The president can't obstruct justice because he's the head of law enforcement.

Let that sink in.

Obstruction of justice is a federal offense that arises when someone tries to "influence, obstruct, or impede" the "due administration of justice".

However, the President can't be charged with obstruction of justice. The FBI and other federal agencies serve at the pleasure of the President, and the President has vast pardoning powers.

When the President pardons someone for a crime, he has impeded justice as much as a Federal Judge has impeded justice when that Judge grants a pardon to someone for a crime -- that is, no impediment of justice has occurred at all, since both the President and the Judge have the legal power to do that.

If the President were to tell the FBI, who serve at his pleasure, to investigate or to stop investigating a certain subject, he has merely exercised his power over his agency to his best judgment.

When the President operates his justice system as he sees fit, that is not a crime. That is the President's justice system, and he can run it as he wishes. That is what we elected him to do. The only organization who holds power over the President is Congress, who must investigate and charge the President with a high crime that has been committed, and must do so through its own justice system (ie. Special Probe), not the President's justice system.

[garygreen]

no, that's not how it works.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/454324/donald-trump-not-constitutionally-immune-obstruction-justice-charge

this article is also good: https://www.lawfareblog.com/five-questions-alan-dershowitz-criminalization-political-differences

[Tom Bishop]

no, that's not how it works.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/454324/donald-trump-not-constitutionally-immune-obstruction-justice-charge

From the link:

Whoever 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 is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. (Emphasis added.)

As the head of the executive branch of government, Trump has the power to fire an FBI director. He has the power to exercise the prosecutorial discretion to order federal law enforcement agencies to drop an investigation. He possesses an immense pardon power. He does not, however, possess the power to order any federal agency to reach a specific conclusion in its investigation. In other words, he does not have the constitutional authority to “corruptly” put his thumb on the scales of an investigation to dictate that the investigation vindicate him or his associates.

The author of the above link admits that Trump has vast powers over his agencies but is in error in his interpretation of the quoted statute. The statute reads "Whoever corruptly". The President who operates his legal powers over his agency, which is beholden to serve at his pleasure as a matter of law, to drop a case, is not a corrupt action.

Its like a case of theft. The city can choose not to prosecute a theft case in city court if the legislature of the city chooses to drop the case. However, the State or Federal Government may still choose to prosecute.

Donald Trump happens to the the chief justice officer of that city in this analogy. He can drop the case. No crime is committed by dropping the case. Its is up to an outside entity (Congress) to pick up the prosecution.

You seem to think that it is a crime for the President to tell his people to stop wasting their time and money with the Russia crap. It is not. The President is responsible for those agencies, for his ability to lead the american people unhindered, and can't be expected to prosecute himself with his own justice apparatus.

[Rama Set]

Of course someone can be corrupt by exercising their legal powers. It greatly depends on what the reason for the use of powers was. If Trump is instructing the FBI not to investigate because it will adversely affect his reputation or expose some wrongdoing, that is corruption.

[Tom Bishop]

Of course someone can be corrupt by exercising their legal powers. It greatly depends on what the reason for the use of powers was. If Trump is instructing the FBI not to investigate because it will adversely affect his reputation or expose some wrongdoing, that is corruption.

If President Trump influenced the Congressional Special Probe, then sure, that's corruption.  The Congressional probe is beholden to the direction of Congress, not President Trump.

However, in this case, the FBI is beholden as a matter of law to serve at the pleasure of the President. Therefore it is not corruption. As its chief justice officer, President Trump can influence them. He can fire people. He can tell them which cases to prosecute -- just like Congress can fire people in its Special Probes and direct its mission.

The FBI is the President's agency to direct as he wishes. If Congress has a problem with it they need to seek justice with their own justice apparatus.

If a Chief of Police of a city is possibly dirty, does the Chief of Police investigate himself, or does Internal Affairs do it?

You are arguing that because the Chief of Police is declining to use his powers to investigate himself, that he is committing "corruption of justice". The Chief of Police won't get into trouble for telling his Lieutenants that they are wasting department resources and impeding his abilities with the investigation. He won't get into trouble for vetoing a request to wiretap his house.  The department is beholden to the Chief of Police, and responsibility for any prosecution would come from Internal Affairs, an outside entity.

[Rama Set]

You seriously see no problem with POTUS instructing the FBI not to investigate the murder dungeon he has in his basement for example? That doesn’t strike you as an abuse of powers?

The FBI may serve the president, but the president serves the electorate and if his actions do not serve electorate, if he is instructing the FBI for personal gains then it is a corruption of his office. It is that simple.

[Tom Bishop]

You seriously see no problem with POTUS instructing the FBI not to investigate the murder dungeon he has in his basement for example? That doesn’t strike you as an abuse of powers?

The FBI may serve the president, but the president serves the electorate and if his actions do not serve electorate, if he is instructing the FBI for personal gains then it is a corruption of his office. It is that simple.

Corruption of Justice usually refers to when people reaches into places they shouldn't be to corruptly influence the outcome of a case in the place of the judge. It does not usually refer to when a Judge decides not to hear a case or pardons a crime at his discretion. A Judge pardoning a crime is the literal definition of "corruption of justice," but it does not apply to him because the judge IS the justice. That's why they call them Justices!

Trump is in the RIGHT spot to decide and influence. Trump is the decider. He can decide what cases the FBI pursues. As his lawyer stated, Trump is its chief justice. He is justice who can direct the actions of his justice apparatuses, pardon as he sees fit, and like the judge who was in the right place, none of it is "Corruption of Justice".

A judge isn't going to pursue a case against himself or his own family members, and that is not "Obstruction of Justice". Declining to pursue is not declaration of innocence. The judge is simply exercising his legal powers not to pursue a case against himself or his family. The President is the judge. You can call it "Obstruction of Justice" all you want, but it is not a legitimate argument when the President is the commanding Justice.

[garygreen]

The author of the above link admits that Trump has vast powers over his agencies but is in error in his interpretation of the quoted statute. The statute reads "Whoever corruptly". The President who operates his legal powers over his agency, which is beholden to serve at his pleasure as a matter of law, to drop a case, is not a corrupt action.

you're essentially saying that, by definition, no otherwise legal presidential authority can be used corruptly.  that's not how the law works.

You seem to think that it is a crime for the President to tell his people to stop wasting their time and money with the Russia crap.

not really.  i only think it's silly to suggest that the president can't obstruct justice.  that's nonsense.

you would never make this argument if we were talking about president clinton firing director comey to shut down an investigation into her emails.

[Tom Bishop]

The author of the above link admits that Trump has vast powers over his agencies but is in error in his interpretation of the quoted statute. The statute reads "Whoever corruptly". The President who operates his legal powers over his agency, which is beholden to serve at his pleasure as a matter of law, to drop a case, is not a corrupt action.

you're essentially saying that, by definition, no otherwise legal presidential authority can be used corruptly.  that's not how the law works.

If the President put his fingers into stopping the actions of the Congressional Probe that is beholden to follow the instructions of Congress, that would be corruption, sure. But the President is putting his fingers into stopping the actions of the FBI which is beholden to follow his instructions. That is not corruption.

Just because the President, as its chief justice, can stop an FBI investigation into himself, it does not make him above the law. It is not a Corruption of Justice when a Judge pardons criminals or declines to pursue a case against himself or his family. The Judge is the decider of justice just like President Trump is the decider of justice.

There are checks and balances. Congress has the tools to deal with a corrupt President. The President should not be expected to investigate himself.

not really.  i only think it's silly to suggest that the president can't obstruct justice.  that's nonsense.

you would never make this argument if we were talking about president clinton firing director comey to shut down an investigation into her emails.

If Hillary were President I would not hold it against Hillary for expecting loyalty from the agencies who work for her. I would argue that it would be stupid to ask or expect that Hillary Clinton investigate herself, and that any investigation should be done by an independent agency.

[Lord Dave]

The presidential pardon requires a crime to be committed and a subject to be found guilty of said crime first. 


Also, while the FBI is run by a person chosen by the president, he is not its manager.  I don't think the president has direct power over the FBI though he can direct his justice department to cease persuing a case that was made against the united states, I don't think he can just say "Stop investigating this thing" at his leisure.

[Lord Dave]

https://www.npr.org/2017/12/05/568564737/subpoena-for-deutsche-bank-may-put-mueller-on-collision-course-with-trump

[Tom Bishop]

Alan Dershowitz: President Cannot Be Charged With Obstructing Justice for Exercising His Constitutional Authority

[Roundy]

Alan Dershowitz: President Cannot Be Charged With Obstructing Justice for Exercising His Constitutional Authority

I mean, of course he's saying that, he's a shill for Fox News.

[Lord Dave]

Alan Dershowitz: President Cannot Be Charged With Obstructing Justice for Exercising His Constitutional Authority

The argumemt made is that the president can choose what laws are or aren't enforced or even investigated. I seem to recall when Obama chose not to persue actions against certain illegal immigrants, this was deemed wrong.  The same thing seems to apply here,yes?

[garygreen]

If the President put his fingers into stopping the actions of the Congressional Probe that is beholden to follow the instructions of Congress, that would be corruption, sure. But the President is putting his fingers into stopping the actions of the FBI which is beholden to follow his instructions. That is not corruption.

Just because the President, as its chief justice, can stop an FBI investigation into himself, it does not make him above the law. It is not a Corruption of Justice when a Judge pardons criminals or declines to pursue a case against himself or his family. The Judge is the decider of justice just like President Trump is the decider of justice.

There are checks and balances. Congress has the tools to deal with a corrupt President. The President should not be expected to investigate himself.

no one disagrees that the president is in charge of the fbi.  the salient argument is about whether or not that authority is unlimited.  it's definitely not.  he's not allowed to do it "corruptly."  whether or not you can prove that the action taken was corrupt is another matter, but otherwise it's black letter law.

tbh i don't ever get where you're going with this whole "how's he gonna investigate himself???" thing.  he's obviously not literally investigating himself, and being the head of the fbi doesn't make one immune from criminal investigation/prosecution/whatever.  there's no "the person investigating you must have a higher law enforcement rank than you" rule.

you make it sound as if congress is the only institution with the authority to resist presidential corruption.  that's not true.  the president doesn't get to break the law merely because he runs the fbi.

Alan Dershowitz: President Cannot Be Charged With Obstructing Justice for Exercising His Constitutional Authority

the second link i posted is a direct response to dershowitz: https://www.lawfareblog.com/five-questions-alan-dershowitz-criminalization-political-differences

[Tom Bishop]

no one disagrees that the president is in charge of the fbi.  the salient argument is about whether or not that authority is unlimited.  it's definitely not.  he's not allowed to do it "corruptly."  whether or not you can prove that the action taken was corrupt is another matter, but otherwise it's black letter law.

Declining to pursue an investigation against himself is about as corrupt as a judge declining to pursue a case in which he is a defendant.

tbh i don't ever get where you're going with this whole "how's he gonna investigate himself???" thing.  he's obviously not literally investigating himself, and being the head of the fbi doesn't make one immune from criminal investigation/prosecution/whatever.  there's no "the person investigating you must have a higher law enforcement rank than you" rule.

The FBI isn't the be all and end all of law enforcement. The FBI (whose chief justice is Donald Trump) would simply be declining to pursue a case against the President of the United States (Donald Trump). That is a very reasonable position to take.

you make it sound as if congress is the only institution with the authority to resist presidential corruption.  that's not true.  the president doesn't get to break the law merely because he runs the fbi.

Using his authority to stop a frivolous investigation is not "breaking the law".

If Congress thinks that it is not frivolous, then they have the power to pursue it themselves. Checks and balances. Learn it.

the second link i posted is a direct response to dershowitz: https://www.lawfareblog.com/five-questions-alan-dershowitz-criminalization-political-differences

Who cares if Benjamin Wittes has "Five questions for Alan Dershowitz"? Alan Dershowitz is a lawyer and former Harvard Law Professor who specialized in constitutional and criminal law, and Benjamin Wittes is a civil liberties journalist who is too embarrassed to list what subject his degree was in from Oberlin College on his biography.

[Rama Set]

no one disagrees that the president is in charge of the fbi.  the salient argument is about whether or not that authority is unlimited.  it's definitely not.  he's not allowed to do it "corruptly."  whether or not you can prove that the action taken was corrupt is another matter, but otherwise it's black letter law.

Declining to pursue an investigation against himself is about as corrupt as a judge declining to pursue a case in which he is a defendant.

Bad comparison.  A judge cannot impartially arbitrate a case where he is defendant, but where Trump is being investigated by the FBI, his bias is irrelevant.

The FBI isn't the be all and end all of law enforcement. The FBI (whose chief justice is Donald Trump) would simply be declining to pursue a case against the President of the United States (Donald Trump). That is a very reasonable position to take.

Unless there is substantial and irrefutible evidence that Trump committed a crime.  Then it is a very irrational and corrupt position to take.

Using his authority to stop a frivolous investigation is not "breaking the law".

True, but only if the case is frivolous.  You appear to be defending Trump's right regardless of the substance of the case.  I sincerely hope that you would wish Trump to be held accountable for any crimes he has committed.  Regardless, I think in the case of there being substantial evidence against the president, impeachment is the appropriate avenue to prosecute him.

[Lord Dave]

Ok....

Someone explain to me why Donald Trump is the Chief Justice Officer of the FBI?

The FBI was created by the Attorney General in 1908.  The FBI falls under the justice department.
The president has the power to hire and fire the heads of departments of the government (CIA, EPA, NASA, FBI, etc...) but unless I'm mistaken, he can't just walk around NASA, point to the janitor, and say "You're fired".

And even if he can, this does not mean that the president is the chief scientist of NASA.  His power is in the hiring and firing of department heads.  I'm fairly certain he can't micromanage, legally.

So, by all that, The president is not the Chief Justice of the FBI.  He's just the guy who controls whose in charge.