Look up Bush v Gore. The decision to stop the count that won Bush the election was a decision that the court itself said could not be used as precedent in other cases. It specifically says "consideration is limited to the present circumstances", i.e. George Bush's chances in the election as "the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities". Of course it "presents many complexities" which is why the decision was so ridiculous, because it couldn't be use as legal precedent unless you were George Bush running for president.

I remember reading at the time that it was a per curiam decision because no justice would put their name on it and be recorded in the history books as actually having written such a decision. Justice Stevens ended his dissent of the decision with the following:

"Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law."

I think he was right.

And apparently doesn't have to as the Republican controlled congress is not bothering to hold him accountable in the least.

I don't think Jack Johnson or his descendants have much , but he did get a well-merited Presidential pardon.

The constitution specifically gives the president the power of pardons, so giving a pardon is not obstructing justice unless intent is also considered. For instance, the president giving some a pardon because he thinks someone is a nice person that deserves a break, or some other benign reason, there is nothing corrupt in that act. However, if the president gives someone a pardon because the president personally gains something (i.e. money or other favors, like not testifying against him) that's using the presidential powers for personal gain and that is obstructing justice that is against the law.

If it's not against the law, the president can sell pardon's to anyone for anything and can make anyone above the law for a price. If that's true then he's not a president, he's a king or a dictator, and we're not "supposed" to have those here. We're "supposed" to be ruled by law not men..

@redbai Do you have any evidence? We do know that Obama just got a $50 million contract from Netflix after enacting "net neutrality" while in office, which gave Netflix windfall profits. That corporation certainly is grateful to their Presidential benefactor.

@doug6352 Against who? I didn't accuse anyone of anything. I didn't say any particular president did anything, I simply pointed out how any president could be breaking the law by obstructing justice. So I guess my description reminds you of someone specifically without my even having to mention them.

As far as Obama getting a contract for $50 million dollars, do you have a site? Given that Netflix has not told anyone how much the deal is worth, you obviously have some kind of inside information about it. Either that or you're wrong and we do not "know that Obama just got a $50 million contract from Netflix" or why. You're just wildly speculating to distract from the point of the OP. Donald Trump and his lawyers aren't saying he didn't commit a crime, they are saying that if he did, he's president, so it's not a crime when he does it.

Didn't know we elected a "king".

@redbai The Presidency was designed to be almost a king for 4 years. Everyone knew the first President would be George Washington, and the founders trusted him as completely as any politician has ever been trusted. Leftists weren't worried when FDR issued over 3000 executive orders as President, but they are are now worried sick about Trump's 75. It is partisan nonsense.

Personally I would prefer a plural executive like they have in Switzerland, but the system of checks and balances we have here does seem to work somewhat. I was very worried when Obama and his left-wing pal Valerie Jarrett entered the White House, but after 8 years the Republic survived and we elected Trump. And after Trump's time in office we will elect someone else. Elections are preferable to civil war.

@doug6352 The presidency was NOT designed to be "almost a king for 4 years". No where in the constitution or any historical document does it say anything even remotely like that. That's just made up out of thin air.

I don't know what George Washington, FDR or Obama have to do with Donald Trump telling the world that he can pardon himself and can squash investigations into his own actions by the justice department. Maybe you can clarify. Otherwise I don't see the point of bringing them up except to blur the fact that Trump is saying that he's above the law and he even had lawyers to write up a document to justify that argument. I'm not aware of any historical scenario in which FDR, Washington or Obama requested such a document. But you may enlighten me.

What you "prefer" is available is Switzerland and nothing is stopping you from going to live under a government that you prefer. But we don't have that in the United States, so that's irrelevant. We have an elected president who is supposed to live by the same laws as the rest of us. He's a CITIZEN just like everyone else. The US President is not supposed to be above the law regardless of what they do in Switzerland.

There are plenty of options besides elections and civil wars. Dialog and civil protest come to mind just off the top of my head.