The Stream

Obstruction, Witch Hunts and What Not

By Al Perrotta Published on June 15, 2017 •

Al Perrotta

Washington couldn’t even wait until Rep. Steve Scalise is out of danger before resuming its business of upending President Trump.

Last evening, the Washington Post breathlessly reported that Special Prosecutor and Comey BFF Robert Mueller was now investigating Trump for obstruction of justice. Assuming it’s not fully fictional, the story demonstrates the President has been victimized by yet another leak by people sworn to stop such things.

The article quotes five anonymous sources — naturally — saying the decision to widen the Russia probe expanded to include Trump himself after he sent Comey packing. Or more specifically because he sent Comey packing. (We’ll get to that in a second.)

President Trump greeted the news by tweeting that “they” only went for obstruction of justice after finding “zero proof” in the “phony collusion” story.

Calling it a “witch hunt” brought out the snark in California Democrat Ted Lieu.

Apparently, Lieu forgot that Trump a) doesn’t drink b) has his own winery. Perhaps Trump can send him a case for good measure. It’d certainly be a better case than what the Democrats have on the President.

Are Blockbuster Headlines About Obstruction of Justice Investigation a Real Blockbuster?

Nah. Let’s assume for a second Robert Mueller and his Democrat-funding squad of lawyers are actually playing it straight. It’d be proper for them to check out an obstruction of justice charge. Would actually be dereliction if Mueller didn’t.

Pal Jimmy told Congress he thinks he was fired specifically because of the Russian investigation. He implies Trump did it to thwart the investigation. Although Comey sacrificed all measure of honor by leaking his “memos” and heaven knows what else to the media, he was a former FBI director. Meaning, out of respect for the office you have to give it a look.

Plus, the Democrats in Congress would scream if you didn’t and life in the Swamp’s social circles would get awfully unfriendly.

Did Trump Obstruct Justice by Firing James Comey?

Even on its surface, this allegation is an easy swat over the fence. “Mr. President, did you fire James Comey because he was heading the Russian investigation?” “Yes.” (Gasps, shocks, excited murmurs. Rachel Maddow leaps with glee.) “I fired him because he was doing a horrible job of it.” (More gasps.)

“Oh, and I also fired him because I figured out he was one of the leakers undermining my administration. If I wanted a snake around me I’d have an aquarium, not a Rose Garden. (Gasps, fist pumps.) “Besides, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi wanted him fired a few months before, so I figured I’d take their advice as a token of my bipartisan goodwill.” (Annoyed looks.)

“Want some more reasons? How much time you got?”

Of course, that’s just the theater of it. What about the specific legalities of it?

Guy Benson answers this way at Townhall: “As Comey and his FBI successor have each attested under oath, no political pressure has been brought to bear on that probe. That’s really important.” (Emphasis his. And he’s right. If nothing is obstructed, there was no obstruction. The charge is a nothing burger with fries and a Coke.)

How About a Liberal?

But Benson is a conservative. We can’t count him. Well, how about Alan Dershowitz? He’s not just a liberal Democrat, he’s a fabled liberal legal scholar. He’s been a professor at Harvard Law School for 50 years. He’s been there since the Beatles released Sgt. Pepper. They made an Oscar-winning movie about the guy.

In a recent column, Dershowitz called the obstruction allegation “frivolous,” saying:

I think 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. Just as the president would have had the constitutional power to pardon Flynn and thus end the criminal investigation of him, he certainly had the authority to request the director of the FBI to end his investigation of Flynn.

He followed this Sunday with a pair of tweets about the dangerous path his Democrats are taking us down.

That, as Benson points out, is an allusion to a quip from one of Stalin’s top henchmen.

The Dems Are Saying

The Democrats clearly are saying, “Show me the Donald and I will find you the crime … somewhere, somehow, someday … even if it’s jaywalking.”

They won’t stop. Ever. They’re like The Terminator without the leather jacket and cool one-liners.

The only question on the table is whether Special Prosecutor Mueller will play it straight or play “gotcha.” Will he dare stare into the abyss of his protege’s leaking and the assorted surveillance claims, unmasking and illegal dissemination of intelligence information endured by the President? Or will he target only Trump?

I’ll make my prediction here: He will play it straight on Russia’s activities. He will pass on any unseemly or illegal actions directed against Trump. He will clear Trump of collusion. Then he will say there is evidence of obstruction, but not enough to make a criminal case out of it.

He will clear Trump while still exacting political damage.

In other words, Mueller will not find the “witches” Ted Lieu predicts, but he’ll find a broom and a pot and claim he has evidence that witches were here.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Like the article? Share it with your friends! And use our social media pages to join or start the conversation! Find us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, MeWe and Gab.

Inspiration
Military Photo of the Day: Soaring Over South Korea
Tom Sileo
More from The Stream

No related posts.

Recommended
More

Equipping Christians to Engage Culture

Connect with Us