Tucker Carlson notes that Professor Alan Dershowitz asks a question that nobody else has asked, “What’s the crime to which this special counsel is responding?” Dershowitz states he voted for Clinton and somehow did so very proudly, as evidence that he’s not politically motivated to make his positions known but is doing so based upon respect for and the preservation of American civil liberties.
He supports construing statutes narrowly, as they were written, saying, “I just don’t see a crime here. I see perhaps some political wrongdoing. I see leaking information on both sides. But even if, for example, the campaign coordinated, which there’s no evidence of, but coordinated its activities with Russia, and even if Russia and the campaign said, ‘Gee, wouldn’t it be better if Trump were elected,’ that’s political wrongdoing but it’s just not a crime.”
Dershowitz continues, “Nobody can point me to a statute that would be violated and a prosecutor is only allowed to look for evidence of a federal crime. And the reason I think Trump may benefit from this is it will be a secret proceeding, Mueller is a very honorable guy so he’s not going to leak anything, and in the end he’s going to find no crime. Maybe he’ll issue a report, which in my view would be improper because he only hears half of the evidence, only the prosecutor’s part of the evidence, but he will say there’s no crime. Maybe, the worst case scenario for the Trump administration, is maybe Flynn gets indicted for lying, the President probably pardons him at that point, but it’s two years from now or a year and a half from now. In the mean time he has a reprieve.”
“If they had appointed,” Dershowitz explains, “an independent investigatory commission, [as the ACLU is now agitating for as well] the whole story would come out and then it would depend on whether it’s inculpatory or exculpatory, the public would know. But now it’s going to be done in secret, behind closed doors, and all we get in the end is no indictment or a low level, former official gets indicted, and I think in the end that helps the Trump administration, not hurts them.”
Dershowitz – Of course not, why would that be a crime?
Tucker takes the conversation back to the original point Dershowitz made, asking about the allegations of the Democrats, the supposed coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russians on the timing of the WikiLeaks dump. He asks, “If that turns out to be true, that’s not a crime?” Dershowitz replies, “Of course not, why would that be a crime? It would be like the Washington Post publishing WikiLeaks. As long as the Trump administration or no individual told them to hack the DNA [DNC?], that would be obviously very different. Or gave them information that was useful in hacking the DNA, but just knowing that they hacked the DNA, taking advantage of that fact, it’s not a crime.”
Carlson asks why, then, is there a special counsel appointed. Dershowitz says, “There shouldn’t be,” offering evidence, saying, “Look at the letter. The letter says you should look into the Russian thing and anything that grows out of it. Nobody points to any kind of crime and there can’t be obstruction of justice for the President to fire Comey. That’s his constitutional and statutory right to do that. Even if the President did say ‘let it go’ when it comes to Flynn, under the unitary theory of the executive, the President has the right to direct the Justice Department and the right to direct the FBI in what to do.
He says, in his opinion, Rosenstein put Mueller in as special counsel to save his own reputation, motivations and actions that he says are similarly self-serving and disloyal as those of Sally Yates and James Comey.
Thank you for reading and sharing my work – Please look for me, Rick Wells at https://www.facebook.com/RickRWells/, https://gab.ai/RickRWells, https://plus.google.com/u/0/+RickwellsUs and on my website http://RickWells.US – Please SUBSCRIBE in the right sidebar at RickWells.US – not dot com, and also follow me on Twitter @RickRWells.