Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-23049House OversightOther

Speculative discussion of presidential immunity and potential indictment hurdles

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #029170
Pages
1
Persons
1
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage offers general commentary on legal arguments about presidential immunity and internal DOJ dynamics, but provides no concrete names, dates, transactions, or actionable leads. It repeats kno Mentions Alan Dershowitz advising the President on immunity claims References a letter from the President's lawyers to the Special Counsel in January Notes potential DOJ policy conflicts regarding in

This document is from the House Oversight Committee Releases.

View Source Collection

Tags

government-policymueller-investigationlegal-strategypresidential-immunitydoj-policylegal-exposurehouse-oversight
Ask AI about this document

Search 264K+ documents with AI-powered analysis

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
dismisses the argument made most aggressively by Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz—who offers frequent legal advice to the President both in person and via television—and repeated recently by the President, and in the recently revealed letter sent by his lawyers to the Special Counsel in January, that a president cannot be prosecuted for exercising his constitutional prerogatives, even if they foster crimes. Again, the team argues that there is no statute or constitutional authority that puts the President above the law or that allows him to contribute to breaking the law. Curiously, the tradition breakers in the White House—supported by a many lawyers, both right and left leaning—now argue that the President's traditional and constitutionally mandated executive powers give him wide latitude for how he carries out his duties. "I don't think you are going to find a court who will not see the president's role as unique," said one White House advisor. "The Mueller theories are wishful thinking." Such an indictment is described in similar ways by both Mueller and White House insiders: it puts the President's public behavior on trial. The nature of that behavior, for the Mueller team, is corrupt; this, according to the White House, is how voters elected the President to behave. The Mueller team may have a high hurdle in convincing Rosenstein to approve the indictment. Giuliani recently put standing DOJ policy against the indictment of a president in hyperbolic terms: the President could kill James Comey if he wanted to without fear of prosecution. But, according to one former senior DOJ lawyer, Rosenstein in this circumstance may have the power to override the DOJ guidelines. The Mueller team appears to believe that Rosenstein's pledge before congress that, absent malfeasance, he will support the Special Counsel's independence with regard to the Russian investigation, means he will let the indictment go forward. In one view—and in the suspicion of some in the White House—he may have already authorized Mueller to proceed with the indictment. The counsel's office does, however, according to the papers I have reviewed, worry about the possibility that Trump will replace Rosenstein with someone who will fire Mueller or curtail the investigation. Indeed, the Mueller investigation seems concerned or shadowed by daily procedural questions of an existential nature—

Related Documents (6)

House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Draft transcript excerpt mentions Jeffrey Epstein invoking the Fifth and a reference to Alan Dershowitz

The passage provides a vague, uncited reference to Epstein and Dershowitz refusing to answer questions in a hearing. It lacks concrete details—no dates, transactions, or specific allegations—making it Jeffrey Epstein allegedly took the Fifth Amendment during a court hearing. A question about Alan Dershowitz was raised, and he also invoked the Fifth. The excerpt is labeled as a rough draft and appe

1p
House OversightUnknown

Discovery Dispute Over Alan Dershowitz's Document Control in Defamation Suit

Discovery Dispute Over Alan Dershowitz's Document Control in Defamation Suit The passage outlines a procedural battle over production of documents and metadata in a defamation case involving Alan Dershowitz. While it flags potential evidence that could expose communications or internal materials, it lacks concrete details about the content, dates, or parties beyond the litigants, limiting immediate investigative value. However, the mention of “control” and alleged refusal to produce metadata could merit follow‑up to determine what information is being withheld and whether it relates to broader controversies surrounding Dershowitz. Key insights: Plaintiffs allege Dershowitz is withholding documents and metadata under the claim of ‘control’.; The objection is framed as ‘word play’ and gamesmanship, suggesting possible intentional concealment.; Discovery objections focus on timeframe limits, implying plaintiffs seek records spanning an undefined period.

1p
House OversightUnknown

Dershowitz seeks to seal Giuffre affidavit in Edwards‑Cassell defamation case, claims media attacks are fabricated

Dershowitz seeks to seal Giuffre affidavit in Edwards‑Cassell defamation case, claims media attacks are fabricated The passage hints at a possible concealment of evidence in a high‑profile defamation dispute involving Alan Dershowitz, a prominent attorney, and references the infamous Giuffre allegations. While it names well‑known legal figures, it provides no concrete financial transactions, dates, or new factual revelations beyond already public claims, limiting its investigative utility. However, the suggestion that a court record may be sealed to hide potentially damaging testimony offers a moderate lead for further document‑review and freedom‑of‑information requests. Key insights: Dershowitz requests the court to declare portions of Ms. Giuffre’s affidavit confidential.; He publicly denies the allegations on BBC Radio 4, framing them as a coordinated false‑story campaign.; Dershowitz threatens perjury prosecution against accusers and seeks disbarment of opposing counsel.

1p
DOJ Data Set 10OtherUnknown

EFTA01656173

20p
House OversightUnknown

Alleged criminal extortion plot discussed during Alan Dershowitz's 2015 Broward County deposition

Alleged criminal extortion plot discussed during Alan Dershowitz's 2015 Broward County deposition The passage references a claim that Alan Dershowitz disclosed a criminal extortion scheme involving unnamed clients during a deposition, and mentions related defamation lawsuits. While the details are vague and unverified, the involvement of a high‑profile attorney and a federal courtroom provides a concrete lead (date, location, parties) that could be pursued. The claim is moderately controversial and potentially sensitive, but it lacks clear novelty and specific financial details, limiting its score. Key insights: Dershowitz allegedly told lawyers Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell that "your clients were involved" in a criminal extortion plot.; The statement was made on October 15, 2015, during a deposition in Broward County, Florida.; Bradley and Cassell had sued Dershowitz for defamation, and Dershowitz had filed a countersuit.

1p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Alan Dershowitz defends representing Mike Tyson amid campus backlash

The passage only recounts public criticism and debate over Dershowitz's representation of Mike Tyson, without revealing new facts, financial transactions, or links to powerful officials. It offers lit Dershowitz faced letters and attacks for defending Tyson on appeal. Students threatened sexual harassment complaints over his classroom discussions. The controversy centers on the ethical debate of r

1p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.