Legal eagle Alan Dershowitz believes special counsel Robert Mueller will be good news for President Trump.
“He’s going to find no crime,” Dershowitz predicted.
“Political wrongdoing, but it’s just not a crime,” he said. “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.”
“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 this 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,” Dershowitz said.
“It’s going to be done in secret, behind closed doors, and all we get in the end is no indictment or a lower-level former official gets indicted,” Dershowitz said. “And I think in the end that helps the Trump administration, not hurts them.”
Rough transcript, via FOX News Channel:
ON: Democrats like Congresswoman Maxine Waters have hailed the appointment of a Special Counsel to investigate Donald Trump’s presidential campaign saying it’s the latest step toward his inevitable impeachment. But one of the country’s top lawyers is not convinced. Long-time Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz says, the special council could vindicate Trump rather than bringing about his downfall. Here it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALAN DERSHOWITZ, HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR: Show me the criminal statute. Istill sit here as a civil libertarian. I don’t want us ever to become what Stalinist Russia became when Stalin was told by Lavrentiy Beria, show me the man and I’ll find you the crime. What is the crime?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Professor Dershowitz joins us tonight. Professor, I was really struck by this. I don’t think you are a big Trump supporter.
DERSHOWITZ: I’m not.
CARLSON: But you asked a question I haven’t heard anybody — I know that. You asked a question nobody has asked, which is, “What is the crime to which the Special Counsel is responding”?
CARLSON: What is the answer?
DERSHOWITZ: Well, first, I’m here not as a supporter of Donald Trump. I voted for Hillary Clinton very proudly.
DERSHOWITZ: I’m here as a supporter for civil liberties and construing status narrowly as they were written. 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 is no evidence of, but coordinated activities with Russia. And even if Russia and the campaigns said, gee, wouldn’t it be better if Trump were elected? That’s political wrongdoing, but it’s just not a crime.
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 this 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 will issue a report, which in my view would be improper, because he only hear is half of the evidence. Only the prosecutors pointed the evidence. But he will say there is no crime.
May be 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. And in the meantime, he has a reprieve. If they had appointed an independent investigatory commission, 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 it and I think in the end that helps the Trump administration and that hurts them.
CARLSON: I want to get back to your first point which is there is, there is no crime being alleged. So, I’m hearing Democrats every night say, it’s likely that the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russians on the timing of the WikiLeaks dump. If there is no evidence of that, but if that turns out to be true, that’s not a crime?
DERSHOWITZ: 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, that would be obviously very different, or gave them information that was useful in hacking the DNC, but just knowing that they hacked the DNA taking advantage of that fact, it’s not a crime.
CARLSON: So this whole, why the — I mean, you know, I’ve been doing this almost every night for six months. And I’m embarrassed to admit I’ve never thought about the point that you made, not one time. Why is there than a Special Counsel?
DERSHOWITZ: Well, there shouldn’t be. 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 to Comey, let it go when it comes to Flynn. Under the unitary theory of the executive, the President has a right to direct the Justice Department and the right to direct the FBI what to do.
Thomas Jefferson told his Attorney General to prosecute Aaron Burr. He told them how to do it. He called witnesses. And he the President gave them immunity. He called the Chief Justice who was his cousin, John Marshall, and threatened to have him impeached if he didn’t convict Aaron Burr. Aaron Burr got acquitted in, but not to any failure to Thomas Jefferson. So, historically, the President is the head of the executive branch and he cannot be convicted of obstruction of justice for simply performing his constitutional duty.
DERSHOWITZ: Look, if he tore up a subpoena or erased tapes or put out a perjured testimony, that’s very different. But just by exercising his constitutional rights, there is no obstruction of justice here and I don’t see any crime here at all.
CARLSON: Then, on what grounds with the acting Attorney General have put Mueller in that job?
DERSHOWITZ: Well, I think he did it to protect his own reputation. I think we are seeing a lot of people doing a lot of things to protect their reputation. It starts with Sally Yates, she refuses to defend the travel order, to protect her reputation.
DERSHOWITZ: It goes to Mueller — Comey who wants to have his cake and eat it. He hugs the President and then he turns against him. We then see that — he wants to preserve his reputation. He does what the President tells him to do, write a memo. Now he’s turning against him. We’re seeing a lot of that going on here today. Reputation protecting, playing it both ways, wanting the President to like you but then when things turn sour, turning against him.
CARLSON: Amazing. There are about nine actual civil libertarians left in
America. And you are one of them.
DERSHOWITZ: Well, I’m going to speak out on civil liberties. And sometimes it’s going to help Trump. Sometimes it’s going to hurt him.
DERSHOWITZ: But I’m there to speak out on behalf of civil liberties. That’s more important than politics.
CARLSON: Well, God bless you. Thank you, Professor. I appreciate it.
DERSHOWITZ: Thank you.
CARLSON: Britain voted to leave the E.U. in part to protest higher immigration levels, now the U.N. is pressuring them to accept 10,000 additional refugees into the U.K. Katie Hopkins of the Daily Mail will be here to tell us what she thinks of that in just a moment.