What point are you trying make with this link? This has nothing whatsoballsout to do with this discussion.
Were the Office Of President half of what you purport, there would be no need for a White House Counsel. Read that slowly, think about it a bit. Have a tall glass of milk, Have Mom change your clothes, and get the hell back to your "positions."
One other item that needs to be mentioned. When the impeachment committee voted to recommend impeachment of Nixon, one of the articles was obstruction of justice. But note--it was not due to the firing of Archibald Cox, which had happened some months prior. ---The firing did not constitute obstruction of justice since the president has the constitutional authority to do so. ---Here with Trump, the left is trying to claim obstruction of justice because he fired Comey. ---There is no obstruction. He had the right to fire Comey for any reason ( in this case incompetence). A president can only be impeached and removed from office. He/She cannot be criminally charged with anything. --furthermore if charged when not president, they will simply be pardoned. Presidents are above the law. Period.
In addition, obstruction of justice requires the defendant to have lied, threatened or bribed. ---None of that is evident with the current president.
Do they have Google on the Interwebs where you live? It's a fascinating thing. I just googled Youtube Trump Lies, and WOW, is it chock-full (and *hilarious*) -- whole *industries* have broken out in the vain attempt to keep ahead of the verbal fece-flow.... But in your defense of The OrangePhilandererInChief, you leave out that he has not been yet spoken under the oath of a court setting. He's one hand-raising away from an orange suit. (Talk about camo!)
Whether a president can be charged in a regular criminal court remains to be seen. The concept has never been tested in the courts. There is wide disagreement among law professors, prosecutors and prominent attorneys.
There may be wide disagreement but I can assure you, presidents cannot be indicted. In fact the DOJ agrees from 1973 forward: https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/sitting-president’s-amenability-indictment-and-criminal-prosecution "In 1973, the Department concluded that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions. We have been asked to summarize and review the analysis provided in support of that conclusion, and to consider whether any subsequent developments in the law lead us today to reconsider and modify or disavow that determination.1 We believe that the conclu sion reached by the Department in 1973 still represents the best interpretation of the Constitution. The Department’s consideration of this issue in 1973 arose in two distinct legal contexts. First, the Office of Legal Counsel (“ OLC” ) prepared a comprehensive memorandum in the fall of 1973 that analyzed whether all federal civil officers are immune from indictment or criminal prosecution while in office, and, if not, whether the President and Vice President in particular are immune from indictment or criminal prosecution while in office. See Memorandum from Robert G. Dixon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Amenability of the President, Vice President and other Civil Officers to Federal Criminal Prosecution while in Office (Sept. 24, 1973) (“ OLC Memo” ). The OLC memorandum con cluded that all federal civil officers except the President are subject to indictment and criminal prosecution while still in office; the President is uniquely immune from such process. Second, the Department addressed the question later that same year in connection with the grand jury investigation of then-Vice President Spiro Agnew. In response to a motion by the Vice President to enjoin grand jury pro ceedings against him, then-Solicitor General Robert Bork filed a brief arguing that, consistent with the Constitution, the Vice President could be subject to indict ment and criminal prosecution. See Memorandum for the United States Con cerning the Vice President’s Claim of Constitutional Immunity (filed Oct. 5, 1973), In re Proceedings of the Grand Jury Impaneled December 5, 1972: A Sitting President's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution Application of Spiro T. Agnew, Vice President of the United States (D. Md. 1973) (No. 73-965) (“ SG B rief’). In so arguing, however, Solicitor General Bork was careful to explain that the President, unlike the Vice President, could not constitu tionally be subject to such criminal process while in office. In this memorandum, we conclude that the determinations made by the Department in 1973, both in the OLC memorandum and in the Solicitor General’s brief, remain sound and that subsequent developments in the law validate both the analytical framework applied and the conclusions reached at that time. In Part I, we describe in some detail the Department’s 1973 analysis and conclusions. In Part n, we examine more recent Supreme Court case law and conclude that it comports with the Department’s 1973 conclusions.2"