Anonymous wrote:
+1

"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. That's what Thomas Jefferson did, that's what Lincoln did, that's what Roosevelt did. We have precedents that clearly establish that,"

Dershowitz warned that in order to go after a president for obstruction of justice, "clearly illegal acts" would have had to have been committed."

Even in the case of former President Bill Clinton, who influenced potential witnesses not to tell the truth, there was no obstruction of justice charges ever seriously considered, the liberal-affiliated attorney added.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have we heard anything from the elected Republicans who stated that firing Mueller would be a red line for them? Or have they mysteriously decided that red line is more of a warm beige and it's not that big a deal anymore

Mueller works for Trump so it would be perfectly legal for Trump to fire him. Democrats don't understand separation of powers. That why Obama thought he.could legislate things like DACA via executive order when Congress wouldn't pass the laws that he wanted.

Obstruction of justice is illegal. This includes acts taken for the purpose of influencing an investigation. This includes firing Comey. This includes firing the Acting Deputy AG. This includes Sessions pressuring Wray to fire McCabe. This includes ordering the WH Counsel to fire Rosenstein. See a pattern?

The chief law enforcement officer of the u.s. is trump so firing someone to influence an investigation is actually well within the law and not obstruction. Again you don't understand separation of powers. Still waiting on Mueller to tell us what illegal conduct trump was trying to cover up by firing comey, which then might constitute obstruction. If Trump wasn't covering up a crime by firing comey, then sorry nothing was obstructed.