The left has been constantly attacking President Trump ever since he took office. They’ve been throwing all kinds of accusations and critics at him. Several of them have even went for an impeachment. And that didn’t work out too well for them. Some kept on claiming that he was violating the Constitution, for example when he fired former FBI director James Comey. Well, a former Harvard Law professor strongly disagrees with this, and here’s why.
Via the Federalist Papers Project:
According to CNS News:
Retired Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz said a constitutional crisis would erupt if Congress tries to charge President Trump with obstruction of justice for exercising the authority granted to him under Article II of the Constitution.
He spoke to “Fox & Friends” on Monday morning:
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 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.
In other words, this is well within his constitutional prerogative.
Many Presidents have made very similar moves, and yet Congress did not make similar cries.
It isn’t a Constitutional issue, it is a Trump issue. Let’s just get that clear.
And, if Trump firing James Comey is an obstruction of justice, why wouldn’t you pardon Mike Flynn?
Dershowitz on Monday said President Trump could have pardoned Flynn if he really wanted to end the special counsel’s criminal investigation:
“He (Trump) 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,” Dershowitz said.
Dershowitz has repeatedly argued that the Mueller investigation is a political, rather than legal, tool, and that it is part of a growing trend of criminal prosecutions being used for political gain. However, as Eliason wrote in the Washington Post, the Mueller investigation was formed by Trump’s Department of Justice. Regardless of any liberal enthusiasm or dreams of impeachment, the Mueller investigation is not a political ploy by the Democrats.