Donald Trump không thể bị truất phế? - Luật sư quên một điều rất sơ đẳng của luật hiến pháp

Subject: ***_Đây_!_Căn_ bản_pháp_lý_để truất_phế_TT_Donald_Trump_!!!
From: Mike Wilson
Date: Fri, June 09, 2017 8:02 am

Alan Dershowitz, luật sư lừng lẫy tiếng tăm của Mỹ đã lý luận như vầy trên MSNBC-TV hôm qua 8/6/17:

Donald Trump không thể bị truất phế vì y có quyền do hiến pháp qui định để đuổi bất kỳ nhân vật nào trong nội các và để yêu cầu ngưng, chấm dứt bất kỳ điều tra nào, và tha tội bất kỳ nghi phạm nào .

Tiếc thay, vị luật sư đầy kinh nghiệm này đã quên mất một điều rất sơ đẳng của môn học về luật hiến pháp :

Những điều trên, do vị luật sư này khẳng định, đều đúng, - nhưng nó không đúng trong những trường hợp, việc thi hành quyền lực ấy,
là để bao che cho chính Tổng Thống Mỹ,
cho những hành xử xâm hại lợi ích quốc gia,
và chỉ để bảo vệ chính TT Mỹ khỏi bị truy tố về tội hình sự hay tội phản quốc !

Nếu không, thì quyền hành TT Mỹ là bất khả xâm phạm, và hiến pháp Mỹ đã tự đặt TT Mỹ lên trên chính nó,- lên trên cả lợi ích và chủ quyền quốc dân !

Vấn đề là phải điều tra:
CÓ hay KHÔNG
việc Donald Trump phối hợp, công khai và bí mật, với nước Nga, (như y đã công khai kêu gọi Nga lấy và phát tán thông tin về Bà Clinton, để làm lợi cho y) để phá hoại nền tảng công bằng của cuộc tranh cử TT Mỹ 2016 .

và CÓ hay KHÔNG
việc Donald Trump và đồng bọn hứa hẹn trao đổi lợi ích hai quốc gia, trước khi y lên làm Tổng Thống, để đổi lấy việc phớt lờ, và kêu gọi, xúi giục Nga xâm nhập vi tính, phát tán thông tin tiêu cực và giả tạo,
vào hệ thống bầu cử TT Mỹ .

Nếu CÓ thì đó là bằng chứng tiến trình bầu cử TT Mỹ, nền tảng của cái gọi là bản chất "dân chủ", "dân biểu" của hệ thống chính trị Mỹ, đã bị ngoại bang xâm phạm, với sự đồng lõa của Donald Trump và đồng bọn !

Khi báo cáo của Cố Vấn Đặc Biệt Robert Mueller được đưa ra trình Quốc Hội với đầy đủ bằng chứng và kết luận, thì nhân dân sẽ đòi TRUẤT PHẾ TT DONALD TRUMP.

Vấn đề còn lại là đảng Cộng Hòa có còn đủ số phiếu trong QH hay không, và có can đảm để truất phế TT Mỹ hay không vì đó lại liên quan đến vận mệnh chính trị của đảng Cộng Hòa !

Đó đây, người dân Mỹ đã bắt đầu nêu khẩu hiệu, "Lock him up", "Bắt nhốt nó lại", "Khóa nhốt nó trong tù" để "lấy đầu" sự nghiệp chính trị sơ khai đầy gian trá, lủng củng, rắc rối, tồi tệ của Donald Trump .

nth-fl

_________________________________

Comey’s Testimony Sharpens Focus on Questions of Obstruction
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/08/us/politics/trump-legal-comey-hearing.html?_r=0

By CHARLIE SAVAGE JUNE 8, 2017


WASHINGTON — If one believes James B. Comey’s account of his encounters with President Trump, it could present a prosecutable case of obstruction of justice, several former prosecutors said Thursday.
But they also cautioned that little is normal about this situation. The Justice Department has long argued that the Constitution does not permit prosecuting a sitting president. And even if Mr. Trump left office first — through impeachment, or simply by losing re-election in 2020 — there is no guiding precedent in which any former president has been indicted on a charge of ordering a criminal investigation closed for improper reasons.

“Usually as a lawyer you look at the precedent and it makes it easy, but it hasn’t come up before,” said Samuel W. Buell, a former federal prosecutor who led the Enron task force and now teaches white-collar criminal law at Duke University. “We are way outside the realm of normal executive branch behavior.”

Federal law criminalizes actions that impede official investigations and can include actions that would otherwise be lawful if prosecutors can prove the defendant had corrupt intentions. Mr. Trump’s critics have been raising the specter of obstruction of justice since he fired the F.B.I. director, Mr. Comey, last month, then admitted on television that when he made that decision, he had been thinking about the F.B.I.’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election and possible coordination by Trump campaign associates.

But Mr. Comey’s testimony on Thursday before the Senate Intelligence Committee sharpened obstruction-of-justice questions while refocusing them on an earlier conversation Mr. Comey said he had with Mr. Trump on Feb. 14 about an F.B.I. criminal investigation of Michael T. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser.
Specifically, according to Mr. Comey’s testimony, after he met that day with Mr. Trump and others in the Oval Office, Mr. Trump ordered all the other officials out of the room — twice reiterating to lingerers, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Mr. Trump’s son-in-law and adviser, Jared Kushner, that they were to leave. Then, Mr. Comey said, Mr. Trump brought up Mr. Flynn, calling him a “good guy” and saying, “I hope you can let this go.”
“I took it as a direction,” Mr. Comey testified Thursday. “I mean, the president of the United States, with me alone, saying, ‘I hope this’ — I took it as, This is what he wants me to do.”
Senator Jim Risch, Republican of Idaho, responded to Mr. Comey, “You may have taken it as a direction, but that’s not what he said.” Mr. Risch also suggested that no one had ever been prosecuted for obstruction of justice based on saying, “I hope.”

In fact, there have been several cases showing it is possible to obstruct justice using those words. In a 2008 case involving a man who had pleaded guilty to bank robbery, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in St. Louis, upheld a judge’s decision to impose a longer sentence because the man had also obstructed justice by telling his girlfriend, a potential witness, “I hope and pray to God you didn’t say anything about a weapon.”

“We have examples all the time in criminal law of people saying things only slightly subtly, where everyone understands what is meant — ‘Nice pair of legs you got there; shame if something happened to them,’” Mr. Buell said.

In a statement shortly after the hearing, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, Marc E. Kasowitz, acknowledged that Mr. Trump had asked Mr. Comey about Mr. Flynn and had said that the former national security adviser was a “good guy.” But he denied that Mr. Trump had said or implied anything to Mr. Comey about stopping the investigation.
“The president never, in form or substance, directed or suggested that Mr. Comey stop investigating anyone, including suggesting that Mr. Comey ‘let Flynn go,’” Mr. Kasowitz said.

Still, Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor who is now a white-collar defense attorney and a partner at Thompson Coburn, said that the level of detail Mr. Comey offered — in particular, the accumulation of nuggets about how Mr. Trump cleared the room, showing how important it was to the president to have no one else present — was “stronger than what we heard before” as evidence of nefarious intent.

But defense lawyers could still argue for a benign interpretation, Mr. Mariotti said, and he suggested that while the publicly available evidence was sufficient for a United States attorney’s office to consider bringing an obstruction case if it involved a business executive or a low-level political figure, the higher stakes of going after a president would give prosecutors pause. They would recognize, he said, “that it’s a hard case and you might lose.”

“Based only on what we know now in public, a reasonable prosecutor might bring this case against an ordinary person,” he said. “But a prudent prosecutor would want more facts before bringing this case against a president.”

The Justice Department has not said whether the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, is looking into any obstruction by Mr. Trump in addition to his mandate to examine Russia’s interference in the 2016 election and possible coordination by Trump campaign associates. But Mr. Comey said on Thursday that he had given his memos recounting conversations with Mr. Trump to Mr. Mueller, which would appear only to be relevant to an obstruction inquiry.

Julie O’Sullivan, a former federal prosecutor who now teaches white-collar criminal law at Georgetown University, said there may yet be more to learn from Mr. Flynn that could connect the Feb. 14 episode to the broader legal questions raised by the Russia investigation. If Mr. Trump did ask Mr. Comey to drop the Flynn case, she asked why he would do so.
“My supposition as a prosecutor would be that Flynn has something on the president,” she added. “You will recall that Flynn asked for immunity, saying that he has a story to tell. Perhaps the president believed that ending the investigation meant that Flynn would never tell that story. I assume investigators will be delving into this, as it is clearly relevant to whether the president acted with a corrupt intent in trying to derail the Flynn investigation.”
__________
Adam Liptak contributed reporting.