Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-35355House OversightFBI Report

Allegations of Presidential Harassment of Deputy FBI Director and Potential Indictment Hurdles

The passage repeats widely reported claims about Trump’s alleged retaliation against Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and discusses legal arguments about indicting a sitting president. It offers no n Claims that Trump harassed and sought to dismiss Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe after McCabe’s te Discussion of DOJ Office of Legal Counsel opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Sug

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #030261
Pages
1
Persons
1
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage repeats widely reported claims about Trump’s alleged retaliation against Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and discusses legal arguments about indicting a sitting president. It offers no n Claims that Trump harassed and sought to dismiss Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe after McCabe’s te Discussion of DOJ Office of Legal Counsel opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Sug

Tags

potential-obstruction-of-justiindictmentfbilegal-opinionpolitical-retaliationlegal-exposurehouse-oversightpresidential-misconductspecial-counsel

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
Clinton's campaign. The third episode detailed in the indictment began on June 7th, after reports that Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe would confirm statements made by James Comey about how the president had tried to intimidate him. In response, the President began a campaign of harassment, threats, and intimidation against McCabe. On March 16, 2018, after McCabe testified before Congress, the President, in retaliation, caused his dismissal and the loss of his pension. The Mueller team may have a high hurdle in convincing Rosenstein to approve the indictment. In its preparation for a possible indictment, the Mueller team argues that nothing in the Constitution or in a statute suggests a status with regard to criminal prosecution for the President different from any other federal office. Nor is there any statute or case law that finds that impeachment has to come before an indictment. But the Department of Justice's standing view precludes charging a sitting president with a crime. This is based on an opinion written by the Office of Legal Counsel in the Watergate era and recently expressed in hyperbolic terms by Giuliani: the President could kill James Comey if he wanted to without fear of prosecution. But, according to several former DOJ lawyers, Rosenstein in this circumstance may have the power to override the Office of Legal Counsel opinion. 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 White House has made the argument—supported in many television appearances by Trump legal surrogate, Alan Dershowitz— that a president cannot be prosecuted for exercising his constitutional prerogatives, even if those actions foster a crime, that the President, as the ultimate federal office, and the nation's chief law enforcement officer, enjoys nearly unfettered latitude in 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." An indictment for obstruction of Justice is described in similar

Related Documents (6)

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
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 9OtherUnknown

From: Lesley Groff

1p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

From: Lesley Groff <MIEll

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.