Axios is reporting that Trump attorney and ace Twitter impersonator John Dowd is throwing up firewalls against what seems to be the most obvious of charges that Special Counsel Robert Mueller could bring against Donald Trump.
The "President cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under [the Constitution's Article II] and has every right to express his view of any case," Dowd claims.
According to Dowd, as the head of the justice system, Trump is entitled to put his fingers into any case—and apparently to stir, chop, or puree—without any concern over obstruction. Because he’s the uber-judge.
Trump's legal team is clearly setting the stage to say the president cannot be charged with any of the core crimes discussed in the Russia probe: collusion and obstruction. Presumably, you wouldn't preemptively make these arguments unless you felt there was a chance charges are coming.
It’s an extremely interesting theory. Especially since the evidence for this reading of the Constitution seems singularly weak.
19 years ago this month, the House of Representatives impeached Bill Clinton for, you guessed it, obstruction of justice:
Dowd hustled to follow up his claim with a statement that, just because he’s saying Trump is immune to obstruction charges, doesn’t mean he obstructed anything. Nope. Not at all.
The actual charges against Bill Clinton.
In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the
United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of justice ...
If only Dowd had been there to defend Clinton.