ShareThis Page
Whatever Trump has done, it can’t be obstruction of justice, lawyer John Dowd argues |

Whatever Trump has done, it can’t be obstruction of justice, lawyer John Dowd argues

The Los Angeles Times
Monica Goodling, former Justice Department liaison to the White House, talks to her attorney John Dowd before she testifies before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, May 23, 2007, as it looks into the dismissal of several U.S. Attorneys.

WASHINGTON — As the special counsel investigation inches deeper into the White House, President Donald Trump has repeatedly insisted that he has done nothing wrong, denying any collusion with Russia and decrying the allegations as a “hoax.”

On Monday, one of his lawyers offered a backup argument as Trump faces new questions about whether he improperly tried to shield his former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, from an FBI investigation and then fired FBI Director James B. Comey to block the inquiry. Interfering with the case could be construed as obstructing justice, a potential federal crime.

It’s impossible, the lawyer said, for the president to obstruct justice under the law. The reason? He’s too powerful.

Trump “cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under (Article II of the Constitution) and has every right to express his view of any case,” John Dowd, a lawyer for the president, told Axios, a news website. Article II details the president’s authority over the executive branch, which includes the Justice Department.

Trump’s potential legal jeopardy is separate from any political liability: Obstruction-of-justice charges were among the articles of impeachment filed against both President Richard Nixon, who resigned in disgrace, and President Bill Clinton, who served out his term.

But Dowd’s claim sparked a sharp debate among legal scholars and others as to how far a president can stretch his constitutional powers without breaking the law and the extent of a president’s legal immunity in office. While the Constitution lays out conditions under which a president can be impeached and removed by Congress, it does not say whether the president can be prosecuted. Neither does federal law. Courts have never ruled on the issue.

“It’s an unanswered question,” said Susan Low Bloch, a Georgetown University law professor who doubts a sitting president can be indicted on criminal charges. “We’ve never done it.”

Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor, said the question “has been a parlor game for constitutional scholars for decades.”

Turley believes a president could be indicted, noting that federal judges aren’t immune from criminal charges. “Why assume a limitation with regards to presidents when it clearly doesn’t exist for other impeachable officials?” he asked.

Dowd’s comment was made after special counsel Robert S. Mueller, who is investigating whether anyone in Trump’s orbit helped Russian operatives interfere with last year’s presidential campaign, rocked the White House by making a plea deal with Flynn, a retired three-star Army general who was one of Trump’s closest advisors during the campaign.

On Friday, Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI in January about his contacts with Sergey Kislyak, then the Russian ambassador, during the presidential transition. On Saturday, Trump tweeted that he had fired Flynn as national security adviser in February in part because he knew Flynn had lied to federal agents.

Trump’s claim for the first time that he knew Flynn may have committed a felony was so extraordinary that Dowd later said he had written it, not the president. Either way, it cast a new spotlight on Senate testimony from Comey, the former FBI director who Trump fired in May.

The day after Flynn was forced out of the White House, Comey later testified, Trump asked him to go easy on his former national security adviser.

“I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go,” Comey recalled the president saying.

Trump denied on Sunday telling Comey to stop investigating Flynn. Raj Shah, a White House spokesman, referred questions to Dowd, who declined to comment. Trump has previously said that he’s not personally under investigation.

Mueller has not said one way or another, but all indications are his investigation is far from over. So far he has charged four people and two of them — Flynn and another campaign aide, George Papadopoulos — have pleaded guilty and agreed to assist the FBI.

Jed Shugerman, a law professor at Fordham University, said Dowd’s comment showed he was concerned about Trump’s legal vulnerability. “Dowd and others have to argue that a president can’t obstruct justice because the facts are increasingly stacked against them,” he said.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat and ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, told NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday that she sees “a case of obstruction of justice” in Trump’s decision to fire Comey.

“It is my belief that that is directly because (Comey) did not agree to ‘lift the cloud’ of the Russia investigation,” she said. “That’s obstruction of justice.”

Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz told Fox News on Monday that Feinstein “simply doesn’t know what she’s talking about” because Trump was within his rights to fire Comey.

“There’s never been a case in history where a president has been charged with obstruction of justice for merely exercising his constitutional authority,” Dershowitz said. “That would cause a constitutional crisis in the United States.”

Solomon Wisenberg, a lawyer who worked with the Office of Independent Counsel that investigated President Clinton, said obstruction cases generally required a suspect to have been engaged in a pattern of activity intended to impede an investigation or have been involved in the original criminal activity that’s under scrutiny.

Nixon’s downfall was accelerated by a White House recording that revealed he was involved in a plan to thwart an FBI investigation into the illegal bugging of Democratic campaign offices at the Watergate. Obstruction was the first of three articles of impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee. He resigned in 1974 before the impeachment process advanced to the full House.

Clinton was impeached by a Republican-controlled House in 1998 after his affair with Monica Lewinsky, a White House intern, was revealed. One of the allegations was obstruction of justice. The effort to remove Clinton from office stalled in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

Richard J. Davis, a lawyer who served on the Watergate prosecution task force, said both Democrats and Republicans have agreed that obstruction of justice is an impeachable offense.

“I remember a lot of debate about whether a sitting president could or should be indicted, but none of it was premised on the notion of whether the president could commit the crime of obstruction of justice,” he said. “He clearly can.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.