Two Liberal Lawyers Explain that there is “No Evidence” of a Trump-Russia Connection

Two of the most brilliant and famous legal minds in liberal America today are both taking on the media narrative (and the Democrat talking point) that there exists evidence that President Trump has done something wrong on the Russia issue.

Alan Dershowitz is as famous as lawyers get and he’s consistently sided with liberals throughout his lifetime of political activism. Jonathan Turley is the most important legal scholar for liberals today and he too as consistently come down on the side of his fellow liberals on many political issues. Both men are now openly expressing doubt with the current line of liberal attacks against President Trump and the focus by their fellow leftists on the President’s possible connections with Russia.

Dershowitz countered the current liberal worry of a mounting “constitutional crisis” by pointing out that it was President Trump who was in a “no-win” situation with a bad FBI director, but that President Trump could turn this situation into a big win for America.

Appearing on MSNBC with Greta Van Susteren Dershowitz said:

take our poll - story continues below

Should Jim Acosta have gotten his press pass back?

  • Should Jim Acosta have gotten his press pass back?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Constitution updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: Update: 1991, 1998, 2007: Barack Obama Bio States He was “Born in Kenya and Raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.”

“Comey disqualified himself from serving as head of the FBI. He lost his credibility, both with Republicans and Democrats. Both were being very selective in their criticism. ‘If you hurt me I criticize you. If you hurt my enemy I praise you.’ So there is enough hypocrisy on both sides to go around on this one, but I think he lost his credibility, and he should have resigned…

President Trump was faced with a very difficult situation. His deputy attorney general –a man of great distinction– says they don’t want to have [Comey] as head of the FBI. But only one person can fire him, the president, and the president has… an apparent conflict of interest. So he was in a no-win situation much like the situation Comey found himself in when he had to either remain silent or disclose what he was investigating.

I think the president made the wrong decision, but he can come out of this with the right decision if he does two things: Appoint somebody absolutely above reproach… and second, support a special investigative commission. Not an independent prosecutor, because I don’t think we have any probable cause, yet, that  crimes have been committed…”

Talking about the idea of a special prosecutor Professor Turley says there has to be a crime to necessitate a special prosecutor and he sees no evidence of a “crime.” However, he does see the need for a special investigator into the issue.

First of all for many weeks, I’ve actually questioned the need for a special prosecutor because I’m not too sure what the crime is. No one has yet to explain to me what the core crime that would be investigated with regards to Russian influence. The crimes that have been mentioned are things like failure to disclose items with General Flynn and that’s hardly something that a major crime justifying a special counsel.

I think the way that the White House fired Comey and the when and more importantly does give greater justification for the appointment of a special counsel. There’s a lot of people were not convinced by what the Deputy Attorney General (Rod Rosenstein) said that was the reasons for Comey’s termination.

I criticize many of those folks that are saying this had to be because the investigation’s closing in on Trump. I don’t see the crime, so I don’t see how it’s closing in on Trump. But I think the White House has created a major credibility problem.

If the two most important legal minds on the left can’t find a crime for liberals to be upset about… why do liberals keep pretending that a crime exists?

Tags 🇺🇸

I am the supreme law of the United States. Originally comprising seven articles, I delineate the national frame of government. My first three articles entrench the doctrine of the separation of powers, whereby the federal government is divided into three branches: the legislative, consisting of the bicameral Congress; the executive, consisting of the President; and the judicial, consisting of the Supreme Court and other federal courts. Articles Four, Five and Six entrench concepts of federalism, describing the rights and responsibilities of state governments and of the states in relationship to the federal government. Article Seven establishes the procedure subsequently used by the thirteen States to ratify it. I am regarded as the oldest written and codified constitution in force of the world.

Please leave your comments below

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.