How can the President’s inquiry about General Flynn be considered “Obstruction of Justice”?
Under the Constitution, President Trump could pardon Flynn, perhaps he was asking the FBI director if there was a case, if so he could exercise his authority to pardon him.
Failure to recognize the president’s power to pardon and claiming the conversation was an obstruction of justice, is ludicrous. MSM is harping on it and hoping they can sell it to the public.
Alan Dershowitz. a democrat, but a constitutional law teacher has acknowledged that the obstruction claim is bogus.
We should stop talking about obstruction of justice. No plausible case. We must distinguish crimes from pol sins https://t.co/Us4QKJB55M
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) June 9, 2017
As I have long argued, and as Comey confirmed in his written statement, our history shows that many presidents—from Adams to Jefferson, to Lincoln, to Roosevelt, to Kennedy, to Bush 1, and to Obama – have directed the Justice Department with regard to ongoing investigations. The history is clear, the precedents are clear, the constitutional structure is clear, and common sense is clear.
Yet virtually every Democratic pundit, in their haste to “get” President Trump, has willfully ignored these realities. In doing so they have endangered our civil liberties and constitutional rights.
Now that even former Director Comey has acknowledged that the Constitution would permit the president to direct the Justice Department and the FBI in this matter, let us put the issue of obstruction of justice behind us once and for all and focus on the political, moral, and other non-criminal aspects of President Trump’s conduct.
Join the conversation!
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.