Interesting take on obstruction of justice from Professor Alan Dershowitz. He believes that the law should be changed to provide that the President can't fire a special prosecutor or the FBI Director or direct an FBI Director to drop an investigation which cuts close to home.
But he thinks that until such laws are passed by Congress, the President has the power to do all of those things. In his view, Trump Had the power to tell Comey to stop investigating Flynn and his campaign associates up front. Moreover, implying that Comey should stop investigating Flynn when he had the power to make it a specific direction couldn't be an obstruction either.
Others disagree with Dershowitz's view. But if Dershowitz is right, this underscores how vulnerable US democracy is to a strongman in the Oval Office. It may be that the President is like an Emporer who is free to do anything he pleases in his area of constitutional power.
He would be free to put flunkies in to the Justice Department and demand that it follows his demands to persecute his rivals and give his allies freedom from legal action. For instance, any allies of his could be protected from white collar criminal investigations. That's not just a theoretical possibility. Preet Bharara, the head of the New York financial crimes unit, was sacked by Trump amid reports that he was investigating Tom Price, Trump's Secretary of Health and Human Services. Apparently, there were suggestions that Price had used insider information that Price had as a Senator to make out like a bandit on the stock market. The day before Trump called on 8 Federal Prosecutors to resign, he called Bharara but, unlike Comey, Bharara refused to take the call as he believed doing so would be inappropriate. Bang, he was out.
Concerns about Kushner, Trump and his sons using Trump's position to make money from foreigners would not, then, be legal concerns.
Not only could he destroy the independence of the Justice Department and all other arms of government, he no doubt wants to tame the Courts. The most obvious way would be to install Supreme Court Justices who believe that there should be few if any limits to the power of the President. But he can also carve up Federal court districts to sideline judges he thinks are too liberal.
Of course, there may be a political price to pay if he continues down this path. But if he is able to convince his base that he has to demolish checks and balances in order to "drain the swamp", he may well be able to bully the GOP into standing behind him (at least until the 2018 mid-term elections, anyway).
Yes, Trump could be impeached as the Congress isn't bound by legal definitions of "high crimes and misdemeanours" - it's essentially a political issue. Undermining the independence of the Justice Department could easily justify impeachment. But while Trump has the GOP in his pocket and the GOP controls Congress, he has little to fear in that regard.
He's already showing his hand by demonising Mueller and his team, calling them "bad and conflicted men".
We've had similar brushes with this sort of centralisation of power in Australia. Rudd was a control freak and Abbott gave Peta Credlin a lot of power such that Abbott and Credlin were like co-rulers. Fortunately, both discovered that they ruled only at the pleasure of their parliamentary colleagues and we've stepped back from the US presidential model. And current ministers are now learning that they can't trash the courts like Trump does. Thank heavens for small mercies.
But he thinks that until such laws are passed by Congress, the President has the power to do all of those things. In his view, Trump Had the power to tell Comey to stop investigating Flynn and his campaign associates up front. Moreover, implying that Comey should stop investigating Flynn when he had the power to make it a specific direction couldn't be an obstruction either.
Others disagree with Dershowitz's view. But if Dershowitz is right, this underscores how vulnerable US democracy is to a strongman in the Oval Office. It may be that the President is like an Emporer who is free to do anything he pleases in his area of constitutional power.
He would be free to put flunkies in to the Justice Department and demand that it follows his demands to persecute his rivals and give his allies freedom from legal action. For instance, any allies of his could be protected from white collar criminal investigations. That's not just a theoretical possibility. Preet Bharara, the head of the New York financial crimes unit, was sacked by Trump amid reports that he was investigating Tom Price, Trump's Secretary of Health and Human Services. Apparently, there were suggestions that Price had used insider information that Price had as a Senator to make out like a bandit on the stock market. The day before Trump called on 8 Federal Prosecutors to resign, he called Bharara but, unlike Comey, Bharara refused to take the call as he believed doing so would be inappropriate. Bang, he was out.
Concerns about Kushner, Trump and his sons using Trump's position to make money from foreigners would not, then, be legal concerns.
Not only could he destroy the independence of the Justice Department and all other arms of government, he no doubt wants to tame the Courts. The most obvious way would be to install Supreme Court Justices who believe that there should be few if any limits to the power of the President. But he can also carve up Federal court districts to sideline judges he thinks are too liberal.
Of course, there may be a political price to pay if he continues down this path. But if he is able to convince his base that he has to demolish checks and balances in order to "drain the swamp", he may well be able to bully the GOP into standing behind him (at least until the 2018 mid-term elections, anyway).
Yes, Trump could be impeached as the Congress isn't bound by legal definitions of "high crimes and misdemeanours" - it's essentially a political issue. Undermining the independence of the Justice Department could easily justify impeachment. But while Trump has the GOP in his pocket and the GOP controls Congress, he has little to fear in that regard.
He's already showing his hand by demonising Mueller and his team, calling them "bad and conflicted men".
We've had similar brushes with this sort of centralisation of power in Australia. Rudd was a control freak and Abbott gave Peta Credlin a lot of power such that Abbott and Credlin were like co-rulers. Fortunately, both discovered that they ruled only at the pleasure of their parliamentary colleagues and we've stepped back from the US presidential model. And current ministers are now learning that they can't trash the courts like Trump does. Thank heavens for small mercies.