哈佛法学院教授希拉里支持者Alan Dershowitz 的观点很有意思
他说总统可以直接让FBI调查什么或不调查什么。这是行使宪法职权。根本与阻碍司法无关。他举了小布什的例子。小布什曾下令停止对他手下的调查，并赦免之。一切结束。搞得调查人员似无赖。这个人投票是投给了希拉里，是哈佛法学院教授，以前接手过OJ SIMPSON CASE, 做过最高法院的CLERK.
因为为总统可以赦免任何罪行。所以没有阻碍司法之说。
他也说了，你们要弹劾是根本不需要任何理由的，只要凑够了票数就行…… 老川就算直接命令comey不许查福临，查了就解职都不可能spin成阻碍司法公正。因为其性质和奥巴阻止已经明确触犯联邦移民法的非法移民一样，属于direct执法部门执法重点。唯一算阻碍司法公正的如果总统本人正在被调查
In 1992, then-President George H.W. Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger and five other individuals who had been indicted or convicted in connection with the Iran-Contra arms deal. The special prosecutor, Lawrence Walsh, was furious, accusing Bush of stifling his ongoing investigation and suggesting that he may have done it to prevent Weinberger or the others from pointing the finger of blame at Bush himself. The New York Times also reported that the investigation might have pointed to Bush himself.
Yet Bush was neither charged with obstruction of justice nor impeached. Nor have other presidents who interfered with ongoing investigations or prosecutions been charged with obstruction.
It is true that among the impeachment charges leveled against President Richard Nixon was one for obstructing justice, but Nixon committed the independent crime of instructing his aides to lie to the FBI, which is a violation of section 1001 of the federal criminal code.
President Trump also had the constitutional authority to order Comey to end the investigation of former national security adviser Mike Flynn. He could have pardoned Flynn, as Bush pardoned Weinberger, thus ending the Flynn investigation, as Bush ended the Iran-Contra investigation. What Trump could not do is what Nixon did: direct his aides to lie to the FBI, or commit other independent crimes. There is no evidence that Trump did that.
The president can, as a matter of constitutional law, direct the attorney general, and his subordinate, the director of the FBI, tell them what to do, whom to prosecute and whom not to prosecute. Indeed, the president has the constitutional authority to stop the investigation of any person by simply pardoning that person.
Assume, for argument's sake, that Trump had said the following to Comey: "You are no longer authorized to investigate Flynn because I have decided to pardon him." Would that exercise of the president's constitutional power to pardon constitute a criminal obstruction of justice? Of course not. Presidents do that all the time.
这个教授的简介
选择“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”
选择“don't run on pages on this domain”
