I’m sure you’ve noticed that most of the “normal” Democrat politicians (meaning the ones pretending to “not” be extremists) have stopped using the word “collusion” when they speak about President Trump.
Normally, we’d be cheering this small victory… but sadly, the Democrats always find a way to wreck good news.
While they’ve stopped using the collusion argument and instead they’ve pivoted to a similarly evil sounding… “obstruction of justice” argument.
Here is Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) barfing up the worst argument you’ve ever heard:
I hope my Republican colleagues in the U.S. Senate will take the lead on this issue and also on obstruction of justice. There is a credible case of obstruction of justice against Donald Trump
If you take the President’s own statement, his tweet that he knew Michael Flynn was lying to the FBI when he fired him, which means that he knew Michael Flynn committed a felony when he asked Comey to stop the investigation of him, and when he fired Comey when he refused to do so, and when he fired Sally Yates and when he called Michael Flynn in April to tell him to stay strong, all of these acts are to impede and obstruct justice.
It’s not just us who have noticed this ridiculous new Democrat argument. Here’s Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) mocking the Democrats who are now pretending that this is actually a serious thing.
BRET BAIER: Obstruction of justice, that’s the going case up on Capitol Hill thing talked about.
REP. TREY GOWDY (R-SC): Only because the collusion case hasn’t been made. I mean keep in mind, two of these folks you just showed (Sens. Mark Warner (D-VA), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), they were talking about collusion this time six months ago but there’s no evidence of that so now they pivoted to obstruction of justice. It’s an interesting legal argument.
In fact, the argument is so ridiculous that even leftwing lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, can’t believe that the Democrats are trying it.
Here he is on Fox & Friends explaining why the charge makes no sense.
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.
The charge of obstruction is even more ridiculous than the previous charge of collusion. At least the collusion charge could have been based in reality (if it had been true), but the obstruction charge is completely and utterly without merit.
I hope, as Dershowitz does, that Mueller refuses to play the politics game and ends this investigation soon.