There’s been a lot of noise lately about Trump being investigated for obstruction; the Left has made a big deal about this, acting as though they were *really* going to get him. First, they claimed he “colluded” with the Russians, then they claimed that while there was no evidence at all for that collusion, Trump had been so nervous about it that he obstructed justice to cover up the crime… well, the crime he didn’t, by their own admission, commit. Yeah, process that for a bit. That’s the Left.
So now there’s an “independant” (he’s not, he’s operating under the direct authority of the DoJ–one more lie) investigator supposedly investigating Trump for the crime of obstruction. While it might seem strange, you can actually be found guilty of obstruction even when you didn’t commit the crime you supposedly obstructed. I know that sounds crazy, but just take my word for it, it’s true. So they are chortling with glee, thinking they really have Trump now!
Let’s ignore the fact that Trump has the absolute authority to control any FBI investigation he wishes, so in order for there to be obstruction, he’d have to commit some actual act of tampering with evidence to be found guilty–like the way Nixon cut out some tape. No one even pretends that kind of thing happened, so it’s a non issue, but hey, hope springs eternal in the socialist breast.
But here’s the thing, or perhaps I should say THING, because it’s that huge: The president cannot be indicted for a crime. Period. End of discussion. Yeah, I know, that sounds crazy, too, but it’s not only true, it’s important.
You see, the executive branch is co-equal with the other two branches. And while there are more than 500 congressmen and senators and thousands of federal judges in the legislative and judicial branches, there is only one president to balance them. So back in 1973, some smart people in the DoJ got together to look at this, and they realized that almost anyone could destroy the balance of power in the government by ceaselessly attacking the president with charge after charge, thus preventing him from doing his job. That made this a serious constitutional question about maintaining checks and balances.
In the fall of 1973, the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) in the DoJ wrote a memorandum addressing this constitutional problem, concluding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.”
After Clinton got into office, the man’s morally bankrupt and criminal behaviour caused the OLC to review the 1973 decision to see if it still held water. In its conclusion in 2000, the OLC said: “In 1973, the Department of Justice concluded that the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unduly interfere with the ability of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned duties, and would thus violate the constitutional separation of powers. No court has addressed this question directly, but the judicial precedents that bear on the continuing validity of our constitutional analysis are consistent with both the analytic approach taken and the conclusions reached. Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution.”*
Let’s just read part of that again: “[A] sitting President is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution.” You cannot indict a sitting president. Period.
So even if the DoJ lawyer hired for this witch hunt finds Trump as guilty of sin, of a real crime, they still cannot indict him. Cannot. Can. Not. Not “should not;” not “will not;” “cannot.”
And even if the DoJ chooses to change it’s policy, nothing changes for Trump. Trump acted in reliance of this document (whether he knew he was or not), and they cannot apply the change to him ex post facto. (NB: If you ask an IRS agent for advice, and he gets it wrong, they can still go after you even if you relied upon his advice; but if you rely on advice from anyone with prosecutorial powers–such as a DA or the DoJ itself–then even if the giver of advice was in error, you cannot be punished for acting in reliance on that advice.)
So why isn’t Trump laughing at these little Leftist attack dogs (remember, Mueller is a lifetime buddy of leak-master Comey, and the attorneys on the job are Clinton stooges; talk about conflict of interest!) and pointing out they “got nothin'”? Simple. First, if they spend $10 million on the investigation and then he points out he’s protected by the DoJ policy, they look like the utter morons they are, and serious questions about why they spent the money on something that wouldn’t matter would be raised. Second, there is an old military aphorism which says: “Never interrupt the enemy while he’s making a mistake.” While they do this, they aren’t off on anything else, so it makes sense to keep them on something he has absolutely locked up.
Moreover, Mueller may not even conduct an investigation! Think about it: If the point of this decision is to prevent the president from dealing with the hassles of a criminal investigation while in office, then how is an active investigation *not* the very kind of hassle they mean? That means that Mueller has already violated the decision by not stating no such investigation exists, because he has a positive duty to announce that no investigation is being conducted, not merely a negative one to keep silent. Otherwise we’re back to the president dealing with the hassle caused when the populace and the news media (especially the latter, given their insane bias to the left) think he’s under investigation.
Now, having said all of that, don’t think this is a license to murder for a sitting president, there’s still the threat of impeachment. Vesting that power in Congress was intended as a way of preventing a president from doing as he pleased; and note it doesn’t have to be just for a crime, it can be for almost anything, and the president doesn’t need to meet all of the elements of any crime to be impeached, so it’s a powerful tool.
Indeed, Trump could still be impeached for the obstruction of justice, even though he didn’t do it, and it wouldn’t have been criminal if he did. It’s something about which we still have to be concerned. That fact is, however, that to do it, Congressional Republicans (well, RINO’s) would have to buck the will of their constituents, and good people really do still support Trump.
So you know what? Once again, Trump proves he’s a lot smarter than the viciously evil socialists trying to drag him down.
I’m still not tired of all the winning.