RECAP
Trump committed no crime. Democrats need to get over it.
President Trump delivers remarks on infrastructure investment and deregulation at the Transportation Department in Washington on Friday. (Michael Reynolds/European Pressphoto Agency)
Before the angry mob of breathless Democrats gets too spun up and ahead of itself, the anti-Trumpers should calm down and try to absorb just how preposterous it is to suggest that President Trump may have committed a criminal offense by supposedly obstructing justice during the Russia/Michael Flynn investigation.
Consider for a moment what would have happened if Trump had placed an op-ed in a prominent newspaper, arguing that the investigation into his campaign and former national security adviser Flynn was misguided, a wasteful use of government resources, and that he thought it should stop. To do so would be foolish, but not criminal.
Similarly, what if the president paraded up and down Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the Justice Department with a bullhorn shouting, “Stop the Flynn investigation!”?
It would be unwise and inappropriate, but no one would say the president committed a crime. And he certainly could not be charged with obstruction of justice.
So, if the president’s wishes about an investigation can be loud and public, how is it possible that he violated the law by having a private conversation with a member of his own administration? How can it be that a bold position made in public would be legal, yet an arguably reserved position made in private is somehow considered criminal?
When it comes to obstructing justice before an audience, does size matter? I would love to hear from lawyers about this.
Anyway, everyone should also carefully consider the arguments made by constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz. Dershowitz presented some compelling legal insight. “The president,” he writes, “is the head of the unified executive branch of government, and the Justice Department and the FBI work under him and he may order them to do what he wishes.”
Former FBI director James B. Comey likewise confirmed during yesterday’s testimony that, “as a legal matter, [the] president is the head of the executive branch and could direct, in theory, we have important norms against this, but direct that anybody be investigated or anybody not be investigated. I think he has the legal authority because all of us ultimately report in the executive branch up to the president.” “Norms” are important, and Trump is not big on playing by the rules, but that does not mean he has broken a law.
Comey’s testimony should be enough to let this issue of criminality fade away, but the Democrats and their allies in the media are heavily invested in bringing the president down. Yesterday did not go as they wanted it to, and the Democrats’ rage won’t let them see the truth.
Again, Dershowitz argues, “it is important to put to rest the notion that there was anything criminal about the president exercising his constitutional power to fire Comey and to request — ‘hope’ — that he let go the investigation of General Flynn.”
Democrats will continue to lash out and contort Comey’s testimony, but the facts speak for themselves. President Trump has not asked anyone to lie, he has not prevented anyone from performing his or her legal obligations, and he has most certainly not obstructed justice.
Comey’s testimony was not flattering toward the president, but, as I wrote yesterday, it did more to help Trump than to hurt him. No matter how much the Democrats and mainstream media outlets try to spin a crime out of the straw that was Comey’s testimony, the facts just do not take us there.
The president still has the advantage of being innocent. If the Democrats want to impeach Trump, they will have to keep looking. I’m sure they will.
Alan does have an occasional bad hair day -
ReplyDeleteOPEN LETTER TO ALAN DERSHOWITZ
June 9, 2017
American Freedom Law Center
Dear Professor Dershowitz:
We write as attorneys who have, like you, litigated in support of fundamental constitutional freedoms, in particular one of the most foundational: religious liberty. According to published reports, you will be offering a freedom of religion defense for three individuals in Michigan recently charged with violating federal law prohibiting Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). We respectfully disagree that this barbaric practice must be permitted under the First Amendment or the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).....
http://pamelageller.com/2017/06/yerushalmi-muisYerushalmi and Muise Respond to Dershowitz: Religious Liberty Does Not Legitimate Female Genital Mutilation
Comey must have praised Mueller about eight different times in his testimony.
ReplyDeleteComey admitted there was no Russian Collusion and No Crime.
Comey leaked to the press, his FBI notes on meeting with Trump.
Comey admitted the purpose of the leak was to institute a special investigation where there is no crime.
Comey compromised Mueller.
The Republicans need to end this.
However, there is a need for a special prosecutor or counsel on a crime that does exist and is known to exist.
Mueller is not the man to lead that probe.
Trump is not the target.
Real crimes have been committed by the Clintons and the Obama Administration
Haven't been a big fan of Gowdy til now.
DeleteJust as Comey "couldn't" say Trump was under investigation, he "can't" (chooses not to) commit to investigating and prosecuting leakers.
Dirty Scum Traitor
June 10, 2017
ReplyDeleteSome Simple Questions for James Comey
By Jack Hellner
In the wake of the James Comey spectacle in Congress Friday, it's pretty reasonable to see the double standards, the unasked questions, the bias toward one side of the political spectrum. So what would an intelligent citizen have to ask the former FBI director? How about this:
You said you wrote a memo on your meeting with Trump because you were afraid he would lie. So, why didn't you have your agents record the meeting with Hillary Clinton since she is a known liar? Was it because it was a "matter" and not a real investigation? Isn't it extremely odd that if it was an actual serious investigation that you din't have Hillary testify under oath?
Or this:
Isn't it true that when President Obama said he didn't see anything that jeopardized the nation's security in Hillary Clinton's illegal, unsecured private server that that was a message to the FBI and Justice Department not to charge her? Did you get queasy when Obama said that?
Or this:
Hadn't you essentially decided not to charge Hillary no matter what she did, since you essentially exonerated her prior to interviewing her? Had someone from Justice or the White House essentially sent the message to not to charge Hillary?
And let's not forget this:
You have said that the Justice Department and FBI have to be apolitical. Doesn't your and Loretta Lynch's pecial treatment of Hillary Clinton show how much politics actually influenced the decision not to charge her, despite her obvious guilt?
Can you give any other examples where a government official trafficked classified documents for years and was not charged?
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/06/some_simple_questions_for_james_comey.html
Donations to The Clinton Foundation have tanked, as predicted, now that they have nothing to sell.
More Dershowitz
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJ15ymETv-s#t=11.241124
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePooper has cum on the brain.
ReplyDeleteGreat blog I enjoyed reeading
ReplyDelete