Does Special Counselor Mueller Have An Obstruction Of Justice Case Against President Donald Trump – How Can The Words Of James Comey Be Taken Seriously?

by Ruby Henley
When James Comey testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee, he would not actually say that he believed President Trump obstructed justice when he said he “hoped” the investigation of Michael Flynn would end. But Comey said he clearly believed Trump was trying to influence his decisions.
Poor Comey said he was confused about why Trump really fired him.  He complained  “the administration chose to defame him and more importantly the FBI” by claiming that he had failed to be a competent leader.  In fact, Comey testified, Trump never suggested to him that his performance was anything but great. Comey said he believes he was fired for the way he handled the investigation into Russian influence.
If I remember correctly, apparently Comey does not,  Comey was fired for his failed investigation into  Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of highly classified information.  Comey wrote Clinton off as not guilty before he had even finished the investigation.  No one seems to care about that; however, he is clearly a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Comey did not bother to directly address President Trump about his dismay with him, although he was with him privately twice.  Why did he not simply talk straight to Trump?  Comey couldn’t adequately explain why he failed to do that when asked by Sen. Marco Rubio. He said more than once he was “stunned” by Trump’s request.  
President Trump said to Comey,  “Mike Flynn is a good guy and has been through a lot.” He repeated that Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President. He then said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”
Comey said he replied only that “he is a good guy.”
I did not say, “I would let this go.”
I do not understand how Comey can be trusted after his investigation into Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified materials , and his participation in the “fake Trump dossier.”  We will be talking about that later.
Comey went on to say, “I immediately prepared an unclassified memo of the conversation about Flynn and discussed the matter with FBI senior leadership. I had understood the President to be requesting that we drop any investigation of Flynn in connection with false statements about his conversations with the Russian ambassador in December. I did not understand the President to be talking about the broader investigation into Russia or possible links to his campaign. I could be wrong, but I took him to be focusing on what had just happened with Flynn’s departure and the controversy around his account of his phone calls. Regardless, it was very concerning, given the FBI’s role as an independent investigative agency.”
I have asked myself time and time again why anyone should trust Comey’s “memo.”  I found my answer in Comey’s own testimony.
“The FBI leadership team agreed with me that it was important not to infect the investigative team with the President’s request, which we did not intend to abide. We also concluded that, given that it was a one-on-one conversation, there was nothing available to corroborate my account. We concluded it made little sense to report it to Attorney General Sessions, who we expected would likely recuse himself from involvement in Russia-related investigations. (He did so two weeks later.) The Deputy Attorney General’s role was then filled in an acting capacity by a United States Attorney, who would also not be long in the role. After discussing the matter, we decided to keep it very closely held, resolving to figure out what to do with it down the road as our investigation progressed. The investigation moved ahead at full speed, with none of the investigative team members – or the Department of Justice lawyers supporting them – aware of the President’s request.”
You can find Comey’s entire testimony at:  www.ibtimes.com/full-text-what-james-comey-will-say-hearing-about-trump-russia-mike-flynn-2549044
Oh, the last line really is so hypocritical.  Sure the investigation moved ahead at full speed, as Comey was supporting the “fake dossier” …he even offered to pay for it.  Comey is so fake and incompetent.  In researching this report, I found another reason to mistrust him.   
More information is coming out about the “fake dossier” as a new character has appeared on the scene.  He is the go between the spy, Christopher Steele, who compiled the fake dossier, and Senator McCain.  McCain then handed it over to the FBI.  The new character is the best friend of Christopher Steele,  Sir Andrew Wood. He told Fox News that his mission was “to tell the senator and assistants that such a dossier existed.” After receiving the goods on the Steele dossier, it was McCain who made sure the FBI paid special attention to the dossier Woods passed off to him.
Now the following is what has me confused about what Comey knew and when about the dossier.
August 2016 is a critical period, just after the FBI opened the Russia meddling probe, and after then-director James Comey recommended against prosecution for Clinton’s mishandling of classified information.
Wood said Steele had “already been in contact with the FBI” at the time.
If Comey had been in contact with Christopher Steele at the same time he failed to charge Clinton, he had to know the dossier was paid for by Clinton supporters and the DNC.  That is unless he failed to investigate Clinton or the dossier.  If he, as FBI Director, failed to investigate Clinton and the dossier thoroughly, he was truly incompetent, and President Trump had good reason to fire him.
On the other hand, if Comey knew at the time he let Hillary Clinton off without a charge for mishandling life and death classified information, that the dossier was indeed paid for by Clinton and her supporters, he is guilty of participating in a conspiracy of deception and treason against the Presidency.
If Comey failed to investigate the dossier thoroughly, even offering to pay for it, he is again compliant in the attempted ousting of President Trump, favoring Hillary Clinton.  
You are talking about the same dossier that was used to spy on Trump campaign officials, the same dossier that the FBI and entire Deep State would base their Trump-Russia collusion on, and the  same dossier that was commissioned by opposition research firm Fusion GPS and funded by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign.
You know THAT DOSSIER.  Yet, Special Counselor Robert Mueller does not seem to think any of the above matters.  He is going forward in an attempt to charge President Trump with “obstruction of justice.”
However, there is one man who says it will not happen, as Trump is not guilty of obstruction of justice.
www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/12/04/dershowitz_no_case_for_obstruction_of_justice_against_trump_would_be_constitutional_crisis.html
Alan Dershowitz said there is no case for obstruction of justice against President Trump and if Congress were to charge him with exercising his Article II authority, we’d have a “constitutional crisis.” Dershowitz said if Trump were afraid of charges he would have pardoned Flynn, which he has the power to do according to the law professor.
“Look, the president could have pardoned Flynn if he were really thinking about trying to end this investigation,” he said. “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.”
The following video is the interview with Dershowitz and Fox News:

 
This the partial transcript of the same interview:
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.
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.
In conclusion, I agree with Dershowitz, and I honestly attribute the fact that James Comey has not been charged due to the fact the Deep State is protecting him.  I am, also, rocked to my core that the Deep State is in charge at all.  If they want to impeach Donald Trump, I wonder if anyone can stop them; although Dershowitz makes it very clear President Trump is not guilty of obstruction of justice.