Clinton Corruption

Gregg Jarrett: How an FBI official with a political agenda corrupted both Mueller, Comey investigations

How is it possible that Hillary Clinton escaped criminal indictment for mishandling classified documents despite incriminating evidence that she violated the Espionage Act? Why did Donald Trump become the target of a criminal investigation for allegedly conspiring with Russia to influence the presidential election despite no evidence that he ever did so? The answer, it seems, comes down to one person who played a vital role in both cases: Peter Strzok, deputy director of counterintelligence at the FBI. Strzok was exchanging politically charged texts with an FBI lawyer that denigrated Trump and lauded Clinton at the same time he was leading the bureau’s criminal investigation of Clinton. He is also the one who changed the critical wording of then-FBI Director James Comey’s description of Clinton’s handling of classified material that resulted in no charges being brought against her. Then, Strzok reportedly signed the document launching the 2016 investigation into Russia’s meddling in the election and whether the Trump campaign played any role. After leading the FBI’s probe into Trump, he then joined Robert Mueller’s special counsel team as an integral investigator. Thus, it appears that one man with a strident political agenda accomplished his twin goals of clearing Clinton and accusing Trump, evidence be damned. And then he was caught. The Department of Justice inspector general, Michael Horowitz, discovered the electronic texts Strzok exchanged with his lover, FBI lawyer Lisa Page. The messages were so politically incendiary and so threatened the integrity of Mueller’s investigation that Strzok was quietly canned over the summer from the special counsel team, where he was a pivotal participant. Did Mueller or anyone else notify Congress that both the Trump investigation –and the Clinton case before it– were corrupted? Of course not. This was covered up. Mueller surely knew that if the truth were revealed, it would further discredit a Trump-Russia probe that had already taken on the stench of dead fish. The House Intelligence Committee could smell it and knew something was amiss. It demanded answers. But the Justice Department and the FBI refused to respond or otherwise produce relevant documents that the committee subpoenaed. They are still stonewalling many of Congress’s valid requests and should now face contempt charges. Importantly, all of the anti-Trump and pro-Clinton messages should be made public. Americans should decide for themselves whether our system of justice has been compromised by unscrupulous influences. Just how rife with political prejudice and corrupt motives is the special counsel’s investigation? Instead of choosing prosecutors who could be neutral, fair and objective, Mueller stacked his staff with Democratic donors. Apparently, he conducted little or no vetting of both prosecutors and investigators. How else does one explain the presence of Strzok and Lisa Page on the investigative team? It appears that Mueller selected people of a particular political persuasion without discerning review or scrutiny. We were supposed to simply trust Mueller’s judgment, notwithstanding his own disqualifying conflict of interest under the special counsel statute that demanded his recusal. The Trump-Russia investigation is now awash in illegitimacy. Mueller and those who work for him have squandered all credibility. It is imperative that the special counsel be dismissed, the current staff fired, and a new counsel appointed to re-evaluate the evidence objectively. Do not expect Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to make these changes. He, too, should be removed in his capacity as Mueller’s supervisor. As both a witness and prosecutor, Rosenstein has his own conspicuous and disabling conflict of interest. Yet he has refused to step aside. Attorney General Jeff Sessions is duty-bound to remove both Mueller and Rosenstein. Given what we know about the composition of the special counsel team, there may well be others who harbor a blatant political bias and have expressed their animus toward Trump in emails or texts. The computer accounts of the entire staff need to be examined by Congress and the DOJ Inspector General. Failing that, news organizations should file a request under the Freedom of Information Act. The examination should begin with Andrew Weissmann, who has close ties to Hui Chen, whom he hired at the Justice Department and with whom he worked at the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Eastern District of New York. Documents show the DOJ approved a salary for her position of $711,800 for two years of work, which is more than the attorney general earns.

No kidding!!  To read the rest of this spot-on legal op/ed by former defense attorney, and current Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett, click on the text above.  Excellent!!

Mueller is ‘compromised,’ should resign: GOP congressional resolution states

A Republican congressman from Florida introduced a resolution Friday urging Special Counsel Robert Mueller to resign from the Russia probe, saying the one-time FBI director has his own conflicts of interest. Rep. Matt Gaetz said Mr. Mueller, who was FBI director in 2010, botched an investigation into Russian attempts to bribe and extort their way to a deal to buy a portion of U.S. uranium resources. Mr. Gaetz said the Justice Department sat on information for four years and silenced a whistleblower who tried to alert Congress to questionable activity. “These deeply troubling events took place when Mr. Mueller was the Director of the FBI. As such, his impartiality is hopelessly compromised. He must step down immediately,” Mr. Rep. Gaetz said. The resolution wouldn’t be binding but, were it to gain a vote and pass, would be a stunning statement of no confidence in the man leading the probe into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives. Earlier this week Mr. Mueller announced indictments against two former Trump campaign officials on lobbying disclosure and tax evasion charges, and secured a guilty plea from a campaign foreign policy advisor for lying to FBI agents over contacts with Russian-backed operatives.

Robert Mueller’s appointment as the special counsel was tainted from the get-go.  He and his protege, James Comey, had not only a professional relationship.  But, they had a personal one as well.  So, right there, we had clear conflict of interest as Mr. Mueller clearly could not be objective or impartial with respect to Mr. Comey.  These latest revelations only add.  Unfortunately, due to “optics” and politics, Trump really cannot remove him, even though he technically has the power to do so.  More members of Congress need to step forward and put pressure on Mr. Mueller to step down, if he doesn’t have the personal integrity to do so on his own.

Gregg Jarrett: Still no evidence of Trump-Russia ‘collusion’ – but Hillary is a different matter

Over the weekend, the mainstream media was absolutely giddy with delight upon learning there would be an indictment by special counsel, Robert Mueller. This was proof positive, they insisted, that Trump “colluded” with Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election. Their exuberance was the equivalent of a two day-long tailgate party. Too bad it was premature. The celebration came to a crashing end when the indictments of Paul Manafort and his business associate, Rick Gates, were unsealed Monday morning. It turns out the charges are, basically, a tax fraud case. The two men stand accused of hiding their income from their lobbying work for Ukraine in order to avoid paying taxes, then lying about it. That’s it. The 31-page indictment makes no mention of Trump or Russia or “collusion.” The media seemed as dejected as a kid who wakes up on Christmas morning, only to find there are no presents under the tree. Gee whiz. The truth is, it should have come as no surprise to anyone, much less the media, that Manafort was in legal jeopardy for his business dealings. The FBI raided his home over the summer. It was later learned that the FBI wiretapped his conversations as far back as 2014. And it was widely reported that Manafort had been told by Mueller’s team that he would be criminally charged. The media became even more dispirited when they read through the indictment, discovering that nearly all of Manafort’s alleged wrongdoing substantially pre-dates his brief stint as chairman of the Trump campaign. In other words, there is no connection to either Trump or his campaign. Somewhere, I’m sure, ABC’s Martha Raddatz and CNN’s Van Jones were crying. Again. Just like the tears they shed on camera election night when Hillary lost. But wait. Shortly after the indictments were unsealed, the media’s spirits were suddenly boosted when the special counsel revealed that a former adviser to Trump pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with a Russian national during his time on the Trump campaign. Surely this was evidence of illegal “collusion,” right? Wrong. George Papadopoulos pled guilty to a single charge of making a false statement to the FBI. He was not charged with so-called “collusion” because no such crime exists in American statutory law, except in anti-trust matters. It has no application to elections and political campaigns. It is not a crime to talk to a Russian. Not that the media would ever understand that. They have never managed to point to a single statute that makes “colluding” with a foreign government in a political campaign a crime, likely because it does not exist in the criminal codes. But that did not stop them from accusing Donald Trump, Jr., of illegally conspiring with the Russians when he met with a Russian lawyer to obtain information on Hillary Clinton. What law did he break? None. The Federal Election Commission has made it clear that it is perfectly lawful for foreign nationals to be involved in campaigns, as long as they are not paid and do not donate money. Which brings us to Hillary Clinton. It is against the law for the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee to funnel millions of dollars to a British spy and to Russian sources in order to obtain the infamous and discredited Trump “dossier.” The Federal Election Campaign Act (52 USC 30101) prohibits foreign nationals and governments from giving or receiving money in U.S. campaigns. It also prohibits the filing of false or misleading campaign reports to hide the true purpose of the money (52 USC 30121). This is what Clinton and the DNC appear to have done. Most often the penalty for violating this law is a fine, but in egregious cases, like this one, criminal prosecutions have been sought and convictions obtained. In this sense, it could be said that Hillary Clinton is the one who was conspiring with the Russians by breaking campaign finance laws with impunity. But that’s not all. Damning new evidence appears to show that Clinton used her office as Secretary of State to confer benefits to Russia in exchange for millions of dollars in donations to her foundation and cash to her husband. Secret recordings, intercepted emails, financial records, and eyewitness accounts allegedly show that Russian nuclear officials enriched the Clintons at the very time Hillary presided over a governing body which unanimously approved the sale of one-fifth of America’s uranium supply to Russia. If this proves to be a corrupt “pay-to-play” scheme, it would constitute a myriad of crimes, including bribery (18 USC 201-b), mail fraud (18 USC 1341), and wire fraud (18 USC 1343). It might also qualify for racketeering charges (18 USC 1961-1968), if her foundation is determined to have been used as a criminal enterprise. Despite all the incriminating evidence, Clinton has managed to avoid being pursued by a special counsel. Trump, on the other hand, is being chased by Robert Mueller and his team, notwithstanding a dearth of evidence. The indictments of Manafort and Gates now present a unique opportunity to challenge the authority of the special counsel. Until now, no one had legal “standing” to argue in court that the appointment of Mueller was illegal. The criminal charges change all that. The two defendants will be able to argue before a judge that Mueller’s appointment by Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein violated the special counsel law. As I pointed out in a column last May, the law (28 CFR 600) grants legal authority to appoint a special counsel to investigate crimes. Only crimes. He has limited jurisdiction. Yet, in his order appointing Mueller as special counsel (Order No. 3915-2017), Rosenstein directed him to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.” It fails to identify any specific crimes, likely because none are applicable. To put it plainly, Mueller is tasked with finding a crime that does not exist in the law. It is a legal impossibility. He is being asked to do something that is manifestly unattainable. If the federal judge agrees, Mueller and his team would be disbanded by judicial order. The Department of Justice would have to seek a new indictment of Manafort and Gates without the special counsel or drop the case entirely. The naming of Robert Mueller was tainted with disqualifying conflicts of interest from the beginning. Fired FBI Director James Comey admitted he leaked presidential memos to the media for the sole purpose of triggering the appointment of a special counsel who just happens to be Comey’s longtime friend, ally and partner. It is no coincidence that Rosenstein appointed Mueller. We now know both men were overseeing the corrupt Uranium One sale which involved Russian bribes, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering. They appear to have kept it secret, even hiding it from Congress which would surely have cancelled the transaction involving a vital national security asset. A cover-up? It has the stench of one. How can Americans have confidence in the outcome of the Trump-Russia matter if the integrity and impartiality of Mueller and Rosenstein has been compromised by their suspected cover-up of the Clinton-Russia case? Both men should resign. And a new special counsel should be appointed – this time to investigate Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump.

Agreed!!  And well said, Gregg!!  Gregg Jarrett is a former defense attorney, and current Fox News legal analyst.

Hillary Clinton Spotted Cavorting with Focus of Mueller Investigation, Tony Podesta

Former Secretary of State and two-time losing Democrat candidate for President Hillary Clinton was spotted meeting this weekend with figures who feature prominently in an investigation into corruption, spearheaded by special counsel Robert Mueller. Tony Podesta and Sidney Blumenthal both appeared at Clinton’s 70th birthday party held at Elizabeth Frawley Bagley’s house in Washington, DC, on Sunday, Politico reported. Podesta’s appearance is uncomfortable for Clinton because he and his brother, Clinton campaign chief John Podesta, are currently a focus of Mueller’s corruption investigation with their political consultancy business, the Podesta Group. The Podesta Group came under the microscope for working with lobbyist Paul Manafort who Mueller indicted on Monday for tax evasion and other charges. Long before he joined Trump’s campaign, in 2012, Manafort worked with the Podestas to lobby Congress on behalf of Ukraine’s bid to join the European Union. Only hours after news of Mueller’s indictment of Manafort broke, Tony Podesta announced that he was stepping down from the firm that bears his name. Podesta handed over the operational reins to firm CEO Kimberley Fritts, according to reports on Monday afternoon. Podesta reportedly said he felt he needed to confront the Mueller investigation as an individual and not while representing the Podesta Group. White House spokesperson Sarah Sanders Huckabee pointed out that Mueller’s indictments thus far prove that his investigation has “nothing to do with the president.” “Today’s announcement has nothing to do with the president, and has nothing to do with the president’s campaign or his campaign activity,” Sanders told reporters at the White House on Monday. Sanders also noted that Trump hasn’t spoken to Manafort in months. “The last known conversation was back all the way to February, and as far as anything beyond that, with Paul, I’m not sure.”

French: The Russia Dossier Story: A Perfect Storm of Clinton Deception, Media Irresponsibility, and Democratic Moral Blindness

Remember that infamous Russian “dossier,” the unverified document that BuzzFeed unceremoniously dumped into the public square earlier this year? You might recall it as making a series of incredibly salacious and completely unproven accusations against the sitting president of the United States. Well, it turns out that it was a piece of partisan opposition research, bought and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, both of which then denied having anything to do with it after the fact. Last night the Washington Post reported that the Clinton campaign and the DNC used a lawyer named Marc Elias to retain the oppo-research firm Fusion GPS to conduct research on the Trump campaign (the firm had previously worked on behalf of a still-unidentified Republican to investigate Trump). Fusion GPS then hired a former intelligence officer named Christopher Steele, who conducted an investigation and authored the dossier. According to the Post, the Clinton campaign and the DNC used the law firm to pay Fusion GPS right until the end of October 2016. As my colleague Andrew McCarthy notes, it’s a clever arrangement. The use of the law firm adds a layer of deniability, and when controversy arises, Fusion GPS is able to appeal to attorney-client privilege to shield itself from scrutiny. It would be easy, at this point, to start to wander down the rabbit hole, to wonder how much of the so-called “Russia controversy” is based on the Clinton campaign’s opposition research, but let’s not speculate. The truth will emerge. Instead, let’s do something else: Let’s consider how the Russian-dossier story has thus far represented a perfect storm of classic Clintonism, media irresponsibility, and Democratic moral blindness. First, the Clintonism. The New York Times’s Maggie Haberman responded to the Post story with a perfect tweet: “Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year” “Sanctimonious lying” is Clintonworld’s M.O. From Bill to Hillary to key members of her team, they lie constantly, repetitively, and with style, and the lies often conceal no-holds-barred, bare-knuckle politics designed to win races and destroy political opponents. The lies here are important. It’s one thing to review a dossier compiled by a “former intelligence agent” and consider its contents as the product of an objective process. It’s another thing entirely to review that same work as the direct product of an opposing campaign’s opposition research. The goal of an opposition researcher is to collect everything and share everything with the client. A proper intelligence analysis, however, involves separating truth from fiction and provable claims from unverifiable allegations. Those who pitched the Russian dossier treated it not as opposition research but rather as a form of intelligence report. It had distinctive formatting. It used terms of art. It looked like a government document. How many people did it fool? Then there’s the media irresponsibility. There are reasons why news outlets don’t simply publish partisan opposition-research files: they’re full of rumor, innuendo, and sometimes outright lies. Campaigns routinely keep gigabytes of information about political opponents, and those files can contain the most fantastical of allegations. Yes, there are often true allegations alongside the scurrilous ones, but responsible journalists research those allegations before publishing them. Responsible journalists know to treat dirt from opposing campaigns with special skepticism. They don’t simply take a campaign’s work, upload it to their servers, and press “publish.” Yet that’s exactly what BuzzFeed did when it published the dossier in January. We knew then that it was the product of Trump opponents. (After all, which Trump friend would commission such a report?) We did not know it was the product of the Clinton campaign. A news outlet took a rumor-filled document of then-unknown origin, failed to verify its claims, and published it anyway. At the time, BuzzFeed called its work “ferocious reporting,” but anyone can publish an opposition-research file. It was shameful for BuzzFeed to publish the dossier then. It’s even more shameful now. Finally, let’s talk for a moment about Democratic moral blindness. One of the more incredible aspects of the emerging post-election narrative is the hero-worship that greets Hillary in some progressive circles. Sure, there are Bernie Bros and others who are bitterly angry at her, but others greet her with hugs, cheers, and tears. This is absurd. It’s as if some Democrats see the 2016 election as a Lord of the Rings–style struggle of good versus evil, Frodo battling Gollum at the Cracks of Doom, only to see Gollum win. Nope, sorry.

Agreed…and well said, David.  Attorney, and Army Reserve officer (Major), David French is responsible for that spot-on analysis.  David was awarded the Bronze Star for his service in Iraq.

FEC complaint accuses Clinton campaign, DNC of violating campaign finance law with dossier payments

Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee violated campaign finance law by failing to disclose payments for a dossier on Donald Trump, according to a complaint filed Wednesday with the Federal Election Commission. The complaint from the nonprofit Campaign Legal Center said the Democrats effectively hid the payments from public scrutiny, contrary to the requirements of federal law. By law, campaign and party committees must disclose the reason money is spent and its recipient. “By filing misleading reports, the DNC and Clinton campaign undermined the vital public information role of campaign disclosures,” said Adav Noti, senior director of trial litigation and strategy at CLC and a former FEC official. “Voters need campaign disclosure laws to be enforced so they can hold candidates accountable for how they raise and spend money. The FEC must investigate this apparent violation and take appropriate action.” Media reports on Tuesday alleged that a lawyer for the Clinton campaign hired Fusion GPS to investigate Mr. Trump in April 2016. The private research firm reportedly hired Christopher Steele, a former British spy with ties to the FBI, to conduct the opposition research, and he compiled a dossier containing allegations about Mr. Trump’s connections to Russia. The Clinton campaign and the DNC funded the effort until the end of October 2016, just days before the election. “Questions about who paid for this dossier are the subject of intense public interest, and this is precisely the information that FEC reports are supposed to provide,” said Brendan Fischer, director of federal and FEC reform at CLC. “Payments by a campaign or party committee to an opposition research firm are legal, as long as those payments are accurately disclosed. But describing payments for opposition research as ‘legal services’ is entirely misleading and subverts the reporting requirements.”

Brit Hume on Russia Probe: ‘Tide May Now Be Turning on All of This and Not in a Way the Democrats Are Going to Enjoy’

Tuesday on Fox News Channel’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” network senior political contributor Brit Hume reacted to Carlson’s earlier report that an investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller has not solely focused on potential collusion between Russia and Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. Now reportedly it includes elements of Hillary Clinton’s campaign, Donald Trump’s opponent in that election. Hume said that the “tide may now be turning” on the probe, which is that it may now implicate some long-time Washington, D.C. Democrats. Transcript as follows: “CARLSON: Brit Hume is a Fox News senior political analyst and he joins us tonight. Brit, the fact, or the idea from our source that Paul Manafort was working for the Podesta group on behalf of Russian interests before running the Trump campaign changes this story completely, it seems to me. BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: It does to change completely, Tucker. It suggests that what collusion there have been between Paul Manafort and the Podesta group on behalf of Russian interests. And the Podesta group — these two guys, Tony and John, they lie at the heart of the Democratic Party and certainly of the Clintons and their political endeavors. So, this changes the whole character and focus and it does raise also the question, Tucker. When you’re coming around to getting at this now, and that’s remarkable on your part to have gotten this source to come and talk to you, how could it be that all these journalists working for other news organizations have been chasing this story, these many months, and never run across any of this? Remarkable indeed.

Indeed!!  This is a HUGE bombshell!  So many liberal media journalists at MSNBC, CNN, and so on…as well the entire political elite class in D.C. have egg on their face.  This is also, a major win for Trump!  To read the rest of Tucker’s interview with Brit, or heck toi just watch it, click on the text above.  Wow…