The political world is buzzing about the bombshell story that special counsel Robert Mueller is investigating Donald Trump for obstruction of justice.
Does he have a case?
A top Trump advisor revealed the truth about Trump’s status in the investigation.
Roger Stone has been a close Trump confidante for 40 years.
He initially worked on Trump’s presidential campaign before moving to an informal advisory role.
He blasted the reports that Mueller is investigating Trump for obstruction of justice and urged Trump to have the Department of Justice indict Barack Obama, Valerie Jarrett and Susan Rice for their roles in the illegal spying during the 2016 election.
Mueller will indict @realDonaldTrump despite no case. POTUS should order DOJ to indict Rice,Jarrett and Obama on NSA spying.#checkmate
— Roger Stone (@RogerJStoneJr) June 15, 2017
Trump himself tweeted the investigation was nonsense and based on the fake news Russia collusion story.
They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story. Nice
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 15, 2017
These tweets came in response to an explosive Washington Post story where Deep State leakers revealed Mueller is investigating Trump for obstruction of justice when he fired FBI Director James Comey.
But Trump can’t be guilty of obstructing justice by firing the FBI Director.
The FBI reports to the Department of Justice, which reports to Trump.
Trump has every right to order an investigation shut down or to fire a FBI Director for conduct he deems inappropriate.
Famed Harvard Law Professor Allen Dershowitz pointed out Trump can’t be accused of obstructing justice because his actions were Constitutional.
He wrote in an op-ed on Fox News.com:
“In analyzing the issue of whether President Trump can be guilty of obstruction of justice, two distinct questions must be addressed. The first is whether Trump had the constitutional authority to do what he did. The second is, if he acted within his constitutional authority, can his actions be a crime if they were improperly motivated.
The answer to the first question seems beyond dispute now, though some seemed to dispute it in weeks past. As Comey himself testified: “speaking as a legal matter, the president is the head of the executive branch and in theory… and we have important norms against this …[can] direct that anybody can be investigated or anybody not be investigated.” He is correct. As a matter of constitutional law, the president as the head of the executive branch may order the director of the FBI to end his investigation of Michael Flynn and may fire the director for refusing to obey his order. He could also pardon Flynn (as President George H.W. Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger) thus ending the criminal investigation of Flynn…
… With regard to the second question, some have argued that even if Trump acted within his constitutional authority, he may still have been guilty of obstruction of justice if his actions were “corruptly” motivated or intended. They look to these vague and elastic terms as satisfying the mens rea requirement for crime—the mental element. But this is a dangerous argument that would turn the exercise of a president’s constitutional authority into a crime based on what was in the president’s mind. Do we really want to give a jury the power to probe the president’s motives and intentions in order to convict him based on what he was thinking rather than what he was doing? Do we want the elected president to be subject to prosecution based on a finding that his constitutionally authorized conduct was “corruptly” motivated or intended? No one who cares about civil liberties should be willing to go down that dangerous road. And I doubt that those who are making this argument would be doing so if the political shoe were on the other foot—if Hillary Clinton had been elected president and the Republicans who were yelling “lock her up” were investigating the Clintons based on equally vague criteria.”
The investigation into Trump is a witch hunt.
It was set in motion by James Comey leaking his memos in hopes a special counsel would be appointed.
His good friend Robert Mueller was tasked with the job, and now he is inventing crimes to investigate Trump for.
Roger Stone and Allen Dershowitz are correct.
There is no criminal case to be made against Trump, but the rigged investigation is plowing ahead anyway.