There Is No ‘Obstruction of Justice’ by President Trump

There Is No ‘Obstruction of Justice’ by President Trump

August 23, 2018 

There Is No ‘Obstruction of Justice’ by President Trump

Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law School

The Democrats and the presstitutes continue to try to create a case, any case, against President Trump. They are trying to make false charges true by constantly repeating them.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/12/04/dershowitz_no_case_for_obstruction_of_justice_against_trump_would_be_constitutional_crisis.html

Dershowitz: No Case For Obstruction Of Justice Against Trump, Would Be "Constitutional Crisis"

Posted By Ian Schwartz 

On Date December 4, 2017

Alan Dershowitz said there is no case for obstruction of justice against President Trump and if Congress were to charge him with exercising his Article II authority, we'd have a "constitutional crisis." Dershowitz said if Trump were afraid of charges he would have pardoned Flynn, which he has the power to do according to the law professor.

"Look, the president could have pardoned Flynn if he were really thinking about trying to end this investigation," he said. "He would have pardoned Flynn and then Flynn wouldn't be cooperating with the other side, and the president would have had the complete authority to do so, and Flynn never would have been indicted, never would have turned as a witness against him. So I think the fact that the president hasn't pardoned Flynn, even though he has the power to do so, is very good evidence there's no obstruction of justice going on here."

Dershowitz said Flynn talking to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak was the right thing to do. He said it was stopping the lame-duck President Obama from tying the hands of incoming President Trump.

"The other thing they're claiming is that by the president trying to influence foreign policy during his transition, for example, by having Flynn talk to the Russian ambassador, Kislyak, and say please either vote against the U.N. resolution or delay the U.N. resolution somehow that's wrong, that was the right thing to do. I think he did the absolute right thing by trying to stop the president lame-duck from tying his hands," he said.

BRIAN KILMEADE: Democratic Senator and Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee Dianne Feinstein, who's being primaried, by the way, claiming she sees an obstruction of justice case forming against President Trump. Is there actually a case? Let's ask Harvard Law School professor and author of Trumped Up, Alan Dershowitz. Professor, is she right? Do you see a case for obstruction building?

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: No, I don't. And I think if Congress ever were to charge him with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional authority under Article II, we'd have a constitutional crisis. You cannot charge a president with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional power to fire [former FBI Director] James Comey and his Constitutional authority to tell the Justice Department who to investigate, who not to investigate. That's what Thomas Jefferson did, that's what Lincoln did, that's what Roosevelt did. 

We have precedents that clearly establish that. When George Bush, the first, pardoned Casper Weinberger in order to end the investigation that would have led to him, nobody suggested obstruction of justice. For obstruction of justice by the president, you need clearly illegal acts. With Nixon, hush money paid. Telling people to lie. Destroying evidence. 

Even with Clinton they said that he tried to influence potential witnesses not to tell the truth. But there's never been a case in history where a president has been charged with obstruction of justice for merely exercising his constitutional authority. That would cause a constitutional crisis in the United States, and I hope Mueller doesn't do that and Senator Feinstein simply doesn't know what she's talking about. When she says it's obstruction of justice, to do what a president is completely authorized to do under the constitution.

KILMEADE: So let me get specific, for example, going up to the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and saying to Senate Burr, hey, guys, can you wrap this up? Where are you at with this Committee, can you wrap this up? Is that obstruction?

DERSHOWITZ: Of course not. The president has the authority to speak to Congress, tell the Congress what he wants them to do, and Congress has the power to say, no, we have separation of powers. You can't have obstruction of justice by each party with separation of powers exercising their authority. 

Look, the president could have pardoned Flynn if he were really thinking about trying to end this investigation. He would have pardoned Flynn and then Flynn wouldn't be cooperating with the other side, and the president would have had the complete authority to do so, and Flynn never would have been indicted, never would have turned as a witness against him. So I think the fact that the president hasn't pardoned Flynn, even though he has the power to do so, is very good evidence there's no obstruction of justice going on here.

KILMEADE: Right. I think you need people -- some channels are hoping to see this --

DERSHOWITZ: Oh, I think this is hope over reality. And the other thing they're claiming is that by the president trying to influence foreign policy during his transition, for example, by having Flynn talk to the Russian ambassador, Kislyak, and say please either vote against the U.N. resolution or delay the U.N. resolution somehow that's wrong, that was the right thing to do. I think he did the absolute right thing by trying to stop the president lameduck from tying his hands.

More from Guest Contributions ↓