Elder Patriot – The Democrats are barreling towards a cliff of their own making and they appear to be committed to charging headlong over it.
Yesterday the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Dianne Feinstein continued doubling down on the evidence-lacking charge of obstruction of justice against President Trump when she was interviewed on NBC’s Meet the Press.
Apparently the Democrats have given up on their claims that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia and are now prepared to die on the hill of obstruction.
Feinstein made the claim that Trump’s dismissal of James Comey is the foundational bedrock underlying their case.
“I would begin by saying this, as you know, I’m ranking on Judiciary, and the Judiciary Committee has an investigation going as well. It involves obstruction of justice. I think what we’re beginning to see of the putting together of a case of obstruction of justice. I think we see this in the indictments; the four indictments and pleas that have just taken place and some of the comments that are being made. I see it in the hyper phonetic attitude of the White House, the comments, the continual Tweets. And I see it most important in what happened with the firing of Director Comey, and it is my belief that that is directly because he did not agree to lift the cloud of the Russia investigation. That’s obstruction of justice.”
Sorry Dianne, but that does not constitute obstruction of justice. Not even close. It would seem that she knows that as well and her attempts to conflate entirely separate legal issues in a vague argument really displayed her contempt for your intelligence.
Let’s examine the facts.
Two of Trump’s associates, Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, were indicted. That’s true but both pertained to an entity created by Manafort in 2005 that conducted political consulting. Manafort was replaced as Trump’s campaign manager in mid-August of 2016 almost three months before Trump’s election and more than five months before Trump was inaugurated. Where’s the obstruction?
Then there have been two guilty pleas. What do they tell us? The first guilty plea came from George Papadopoulos for making false statements to the FBI about his contacts with Russian representatives.
But if no case for collusion exists what did he lie about? Papadopoulos had no role in the Trump administration following the inauguration so it’s hard to see where the case might be for his role in any obstruction.
Even former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn’s plea deal does more to disprove collusion and obstruction than it does to support such charges as Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz explained on Saturday:
“…there is nothing there, and he [Mueller] had to, finally come down and indict him for lying, which makes him a useless witness.”
All of this leaves the sole basis for obstruction on the firing of Jim Comey. Even if Comey wasn’t fired for cause because he’s a dirty cop, evidence of which was in the public arena prior to Trump’s election, the FBI director serves at the pleasure of the president.
Keep in mind that the Senate, with a 92-5 affirmative vote, confirmed the man Trump appointed to replace Comey. That’s overwhelming bi-partisan support. It wasn’t as though the Senate was divided along party lines because Democrats feared that the fix was in.
Again, we turn to Constitutional law expert Alan Dershowitz for the facts:
“If Congress were to ever charge him with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional authority under Article 2, we’d have a constitutional crisis. You cannot charge a president with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional power to fire 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 Caspar Weinberger in order to end the investigation that would have led to him. Nobody suggested obstruction of justice. For obstruction 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.”
In fact, Trump would even be within his Constitutional rights to fire Mueller though it would trigger a political shitstorm. Instead, there has been no evidence, to date, that Trump withheld evidence or that he attempted to unduly influence any of Mueller’s – or Comey’s – witnesses.
As with everything else they try selling us, the Dems are counting on dazzling you with bullshit to save their failing Marxist agenda. That makes them desperate to remove Trump from office before he further dismantles the Obama legacy.
It’s time – actually it’s well past time – for Republicans to put an end to this lynch mob. If they don’t we can only be left to conclude that they are complicit with the Dems in protecting Obama’s legacy. That shouldn’t come as a surprise since they funded every aspect of Obama’s agenda.