What’s next for Trump?

WASHINGTON — After chatting excitedly about all the ways Donald Trump was in deep trouble, how James Comey’s testimony had set tough traps for the president, how other witnesses would corroborate the damning account and leave the president isolated, Barack Obama’s former aides arrived at a glum conclusion. None of it matters — for now. They concluded that there are a variety of legal and political reasons that prevent anyone from forcing the president from office, even if evidence of obstruction of justice mounts, and even if the Russia scandal grows.

“This is depressing. It is. Because Trump has immunity by Republican majority,” Dan Pfeiffer, a former White House aide to Obama, said Thursday on his podcast.

“There’s no crime he could commit that would lead to the Republicans impeaching him — (for) now.”

There’s a scholarly debate about whether a sitting U.S. president could even be removed from office through criminal charges, or only via impeachment. Some believe a democratic decision would have to precede a law-enforcement move.

And impeachment is just not on the table right now.

Republicans control both chambers of Congress and, although they’ll occasionally mutter their mild frustration with the president, few are willing to openly criticize him given how popular he is with their voters, let alone remove him from office.

Most Democrats in Washington won’t even say the I-word.

Furthermore, there’s even a debate about whether the allegations against Trump, which he denies, would amount to a crime. Trump said Friday he’d be willing to testify under oath: “100 per cent.”

But constitutional law scholar Alan Dershowitz says it doesn’t make a difference if he told someone to lay off an investigation — the president has the power to pardon people, Dershowitz says, and he has authority over the police, so how is it illegal to want an investigation halted? Many legal analysts beg to differ. That includes two veterans of Watergate, who say they that what we’ve heard being described is indeed a crime. Some key players in that 1970s saga have resurfaced to draw parallels with the modern-day presidential scandal.

One counsel to the Watergate prosecution team, Philip Allen Lacovara, wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post titled: “I helped prosecute Watergate. Comey’s statement is sufficient evidence for an obstruction of justice case.”

An assistant prosecutor from that team says there’s evidence of “corrupt intent up the wazoo”: Trump’s alleged loyalty demands of Comey, his requests to lay off an investigation, clearing the room of witnesses before their discussions, and hinting at firing him.

There’s also the fact he did indeed fire Comey, his admission that he had the investigation in mind when he did so, and the likelihood that Comey’s account might be corroborated by people he told at the time.

“I’d say (Trump’s) in deep trouble,” said Nick Akerman, who after Watergate became assistant attorney for New York. “It’s not just one conversation. I’d say you have to look at the totality of the evidence...

“It would appear that Trump has put himself in the middle of an effort to obstruct the FBI investigation, which is a federal felony.” And then what? The Watergate team faced this same dilemma in 1974. Akerman said the team was gathering evidence against Richard Nixon for different crimes, including obstruction of justice and tax evasion: “There were a number of things he could have been indicted for.”