Gregg Jarrett

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!!

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.

Gregg Jarrett: The Trump-Russia ‘collusion’ and other great hoaxes

Amid the tragic events in Las Vegas this week, what would otherwise constitute a major news event in Washington received only passing notice. Which was perfectly fine with the mainstream media since it would prefer to ignore the news anyway. It does not hew to their carefully constructed narrative of Donald Trump as villain. Here is the news: after an exhaustive 9-month investigation, the bipartisan leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee offered no evidence whatsoever that Trump or his associates “colluded” with Russia to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. Nothing. But wait, what about all those media stories which all but indicted and convicted President Trump for “collusion”? Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr said on Thursday that his committee’s findings would contradict some of them. “We will find that quite a few news organizations ran stories that were not factual”, he noted. Gee…what a surprise. Yet, in a bizarre twist, the Republican and Democratic co-chairs said that the issue of collusion is “still open”. In other words, they’ve got bupkis… but they still might nose around. Only in Washington can you spend 9-months hunting for evidence, come up empty-handed, yet keep the probe going. It makes sense, I suppose, in the contorted ways of Congress. Why end the investigation when you can continue to squander endless taxpayer dollars chasing nonexistent evidence? After all, people keep hunting for the elusive Sasquatch and the Loch Ness Monster. Maybe someday… Since government redundancy is endemic on Capitol Hill, the House Intelligence Committee has been conducting a parallel investigation for the better part of a year. It, too, has come up with goose eggs. Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., has flatly denied there is any evidence of “collusion.” Even leading democrats, like Senators Diane Feinstein (D-CA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV), have said they have seen no evidence of Trump- Russian collaboration. Both sit on the Senate Intelligence Committee. If such evidence existed, they would certainly know about it. But even more compelling are the statements of senior Obama administration intelligence officials who were privy to all the information gathered by both the FBI and the alphabet soup of intel agencies which began investigating the matter more than a year ago. Take a gander at what they have said. James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence, has twice confirmed that he has seen no evidence of collusion. As the basis for his conclusion, he cited reports from the NSA, FBI and CIA. John Brennan, the former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, has said the same thing –no sign of “collusion.” And then there is James Comey. When asked if Clapper’s assessment was correct, the fired FBI Director testified that Clapper was “right,” there is no known evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians. The search for incriminating evidence has not been for lack of trying. This was underscored by the Senate Intelligence Committee when it disclosed that it had conducted in excess of 100 interviews over 250 hours, held 11 open hearings, produced more than 4,000 pages of transcripts, and reviewed some 100,000 documents. Every intel official who drafted the report on Russian election meddling was interviewed, as were all relevant Obama administration officials. Every Trump campaign official the committee wanted to hear from was questioned. Still nothing. Zero. The Obama administration was even more aggressive in its hunt for a smoking-gun, going so far as to spy on Trump and his campaign. Recent reports reveal that the FBI “wiretapped” former Trump campaign manager, Paul Manafort, both before and after the election, as well as Carter Page, a Trump foreign policy adviser. While this was going on, intelligence agencies were conducting secret surveillance that captured various Trump associates, listening in on their conversations. Obama officials “unmasked” their names and leaked at least one of them, former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, to the media which then published it. This constitutes a crime under federal law. Yet amid all the spying and eavesdropping on Trump and his campaign, including his transition team, no evidence of “collusion” with the Russians has surfaced. Why? Likely because it never happened. It is indisputable that the Russian government meddled in the 2016 election, attempting to sow chaos in our democratic process. But, as the Senate Intelligence Committee pointed out, “No vote totals were altered by Russia.” Were voters, nonetheless, unduly influenced by fake advertising on social media websites, hacked emails and other propaganda? It’s unclear. But what’s abundantly clear is that there is no evidence revealed thus far which demonstrates that the Trump campaign collaborated or conspired with Russia to influence the election. This is completely consistent with the president’s repeated insistence that he never spoke with any Russians about the election and, if someone else in his campaign did, he knew nothing about it. Yes, the president’s son met during the campaign with a Russian lawyer who allegedly promised information on Hillary Clinton. It is not prohibited under federal election laws, as explained in earlier columns. It is perfectly legal. It is also true that Jeff Sessions and Michael Flynn met with the Russian Ambassador, as did many democrats on Capitol Hill. Such meetings are not unusual, despite the mainstream media’s unabashed hysteria. There is no evidence the election was ever discussed. Even if there were conversations about the campaign with the Russians, “collusion” is not a crime under America’s criminal codes, except in cases of antitrust. There is not a single statute outlawing collaboration with a foreign government in a U.S. presidential election or any election. But these legal distinctions are irrelevant if it never happened. The special counsel investigating all matters Russia appears to be focusing on Manafort and Flynn. Should Robert Mueller decide to seek an indictment of the pair, the charges will likely have nothing to do with Russian meddling or so-called “collusion.” Their respective business dealings and financial transactions outside the Trump campaign orbit have been under scrutiny for quite some time. Washington is a place where secrets are kept about as often as politicians keep their word. The nation’s capital leaks like an old rusty bucket. And the torrent of leaks to the media on the multiple investigations into whether Trump colluded with the Russians leaves little doubt that if any evidence exists, we would surely know about it by now. So, when President Trump dismisses the notion of Russian “collusion” as a hoax, he is striking a resonate chord. Most in the biased mainstream media loathe it, but only because they are tone deaf. They will not be deterred in their quest to convict the president, evidence be damned. While they are chasing hoaxes, they may as well try to hunt down Nessie in the Scottish Highlands. Or Bigfoot in the Pacific Northwest. Their chances of finding conclusive evidence is about the same as proving what has become “The Great Collusion Hoax.”

No kidding!  Former defense attorney, and Fox News anchor Gregg Jarrett is responsible for that excellent op/ed.

Jarrett: Hillary’s got FORTY-THREE reasons why she didn’t win. Really?

Hillary Clinton has long had an aversion to the truth. She twists it, bends it and contorts it to fit her own needs and ambitions. And so it goes in Clinton’s current “blame tour” as she hawks her book with an eye toward fattening her already considerable bank account. If you are expecting the truth of “What Happened,” the title of her mythical memoir, you will be left bereft. It bears no resemblance to the truth of what happened in her losing quest for the presidency. Instead, Clinton engages in what psychiatrists call “projection” –when people persistently blame others for their own failings. They view themselves as chronic victims, refusing to accept personal responsibility for the decisions they alone make. In Clinton’s universe, everyone is to blame but her. She is very much like Richard Nixon who said of the Watergate scandal that forced his resignation as president, “I accept the responsibility, but not the blame.” And, like Nixon, Clinton’s name is synonymous with scandals and controversies, all of them self-created. No one forced her to set up a private email server. No one made her pocket $225,000 from Goldman Sachs for a speech. No one coerced her into using her foundation in a way that smacks of influence peddling and self-dealing. In rationalizing her behavior, Clinton tends to manipulate the facts and engage in wholesale deceptions, peddling one fatuous canard after another. She does it so often and so cavalierly that it seems second nature. Distortions and fabrications are endemic in her personality. Yet, Americans saw through it. Polling data consistently showed that a majority of voters did not trust Clinton because they didn’t believe her. In politics, if they don’t believe you, they’ll never believe in you. This is Hillary Clinton’s fatal character flaw. The truth is Clinton was an uninspiring candidate who ran a flawed campaign. She ignored the advice of experienced political professionals. She never understood what voters truly cared about and failed to devise a coherent message that resonated with Americans. And, of course, she was marred by scandals of her own making and the copious excuses she conjured that few seemed to believe. But in her book and in her many public appearances and interviews, Clinton refuses to acknowledge the truth. That would take the kind of courage that demands honest self-reflection. She is incapable of doing so. If you want to empty your wallet for a book of fiction disguised as non-fiction, be my guest. For those who don’t, click here to see a list of all of those who Clinton blames for her losing presidential bid. The list will, undoubtedly, grow as she continues talking about it.

Click anyway!  Current Fox News anchor, and former attorney, Gregg Jarrett is responsible for this excellent op/ed.

Gregg Jarrett: Hillary’s ‘What Happened’ needs a better name — How about ‘I was entitled’?

Hillary Clinton has always been adept at blaming everyone but herself. Her soon to be published memoir of the 2016 presidential election is no exception. It’s officially called “What Happened.” Based on the excerpts reviewed so far, it bears little resemblance to what happened. I can only imagine the conversation that led to the publisher’s selection of such a beguiling title.

What follows is a fictitious exchange between Hillary and her “publisher” courtesy of Gregg Jarrett; a former attorney and current Fox News anchor.  It is truly hilarious.  Click above and enjoy!    🙂

Gregg Jarrett: Trump vs. crooks, liars and the liberal media

President Trump’s speech in Phoenix brought out the usual cast of misfits and miscreants. And no, I’m not just referring to the “Antifa” anarchists who were, for the most part, denied their typical practice of wielding clubs, hurling feces, throwing rocks, setting vehicles ablaze and destroying buildings. I’m talking about chronic Trump critics like James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence. Spouting off on CNN immediately after the speech, Clapper said he questioned the president’s “fitness to be in this office.” Clapper seems to be making a career out of trashing Trump. He’s like a guy who can’t resist cramming a cannoli in his mouth every time he passes a pastry shop. Whenever Trump speaks, Clapper starts yapping. It is no coincidence that his mouth, and the lie that came out of it back in 2013, is what should have landed him behind bars. While testifying before Congress, Clapper was asked, “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?” The DNI responded, “No.” It was a breathtaking lie, of course. Soon thereafter, the story broke that the National Security Agency had, indeed, been doing exactly what Clapper denied under oath. When confronted with his lie, he told a reporter, “I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or at least untruthful manner by saying ‘no.’” Huh? Later, Clapper apologized for his “clearly erroneous” answer, but explained he had simply forgotten all about the massive government operation to secretly collect metadata on hundreds of millions of U.S. citizens. That’s like saying Christmas slipped his mind. Lying to Congress is a felony. Yet Clapper managed to avoid prosecution for criminal perjury by hiding behind President Obama. Obama’s pal, Attorney General Eric Holder, made sure the case was tossed in a broom closet somewhere, never to be seen again. So, when Clapper decries the “complete intellectual, moral or ethical void” of President Trump, the irony is lost on no one. Clapper became the poster child for ethical decay when he served as the nation’s chief intelligence officer. At roughly the same time Clapper was spewing his usual drivel, Hillary Clinton was attempting to sideswipe Trump with her own revisionist rubbish. Clinton, who mangled her presidential aspirations with acts of self-immolation unmatched in modern political history, is at it again. Old habits are hard to break. You’ll recall that she famously blamed her husband’s infidelity with a young intern on a “vast right-wing conspiracy” two decades ago. She has been playing the narcissistic “blame game” ever since. Her latest incantation is really quite laughable. In a breathless recitation of excerpts from her new book “What Happened,” Clinton bemoans that the mere sight of Donald Trump during the campaign made her skin crawl. It is the tripe of dime novels, but no less hypocritical. Wouldn’t Hillary want to crawl out of her own skin because of her self-destruction? Wouldn’t she blame herself for the utterly unnecessary, but fatal, scandal of her own making? When she looks in the mirror, does she see a crook staring back? How could she not? Like Clapper’s lies, Clinton managed to escape prosecution and prison for what appears to be a clear violation of the Espionage Act in the mishandling of classified documents. Once again, Obama’s Justice Department provided cover, with a significant assist from then-FBI Director James Comey. Perhaps Clinton’s most revealing line in her book is when she recounts her “lifetime of dealing with difficult men trying to throw me off.” While it is intended to be a swipe at Trump, it sounds more like an angry confession of living a tortured life in the company of Bill Clinton. There will be more self-serving excerpts to come. Lucky us. But Hillary Clinton and James Clapper are like pesky flies compared to the mainstream media. Driven by its pronounced liberal bias, they immediately condemned Trump for denouncing them at the rally. The president knows he can provoke them into revealing their prejudices. And when he did so during the speech, they reacted like Pavlov’s dogs. The gnashing of teeth at CNN was predictable, if not comical. Calling the president “unhinged” and “wounded,” anchor Don Lemon declared that Trump “came out on stage and lied directly to the American people. His speech was without thought, without reason, devoid of facts, devoid of wisdom.” Lemon blathered on and on, but you get the picture. He seemed to light up like a pinball machine when his guest, Clapper, launched into his “unfit for office” shtick. Is it any wonder that the convention hall crowd began chanting, “CNN sucks?” The pompous media has never understood why much of America does not embrace their liberal values. Most members of the press are too insular and dogmatic to ever conceive of any intelligent beliefs beyond their own. Which is why journalists never imagined that Trump would be elected president. When it happened, they lapsed into something akin to “septic shock” from which they have yet to recover. Likely, they never will. They will persist in predicting Trump’s imminent demise and assert their own intellectual and moral superiority. In so doing, they are sowing the seeds of their own destruction. Not as a professional endeavor. There will always be journalists. But America will no longer hold them in respectable regard.

I would venture to guess they don’t already, Gregg.  Former attorney, and current Fox News anchor, Gregg Jarrett is responsible for that outstanding op/ed.   🙂

Gregg Jarrett: Donald Trump Jr. has broken no law

Erasmus, the noted classical scholar, described lawyers this way: A most learned species of profoundly ignorant men. He had a point. How else do you explain the wild pronouncements of lawyers like Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, former White House ethics lawyer Richard Painter and Senator Tim Kaine, D-Virginia? Each have suggested Donald Trump Jr. committed treason by meeting with a Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya. All three lawyers earned their degrees at Harvard or Yale. Yet, they appear to have slept through their class on constitutional law. Treason is defined in Article 3 of the Constitution and codified in 18 USC 2381: “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, either levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort with the U.S. or elsewhere.” Meeting with a Russian lawyer is not treason. The U.S. is not at war with Russia. Even if the president’s son received information from the Russian government or otherwise collaborated with foreign officials, it constitutes neither waging war against the U.S. nor aiding the enemy. If it were otherwise, a myriad of Republican and Democratic Senators who admit meeting with the Russian Ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, might be somehow guilty of treason. In these meetings, information is surely exchanged. No one has ever suggested it rises to the level of criminality. Indeed, it is what diplomats and foreign officials do. It is what our own officials do in foreign lands. Even if the Trump campaign had acted on information provided by the Russian lawyer, it would still not constitute treason. Even conspiring to subvert the government does not rise to the level of treason. Under our Constitution, Americans are permitted to speak against the government, undermine political opponents, support harmful policies or even place the interests of another nation ahead of those of the U.S. You would think these lawyers, however misguided by their political prejudices, would nevertheless comprehend such a fundamental principle of constitutional and statutory law. Clearly, they do not. Each harbor their own biases which have blinded them to the law. Tribe and Painter sued President Trump within days of his taking office. They claim his many business dealings violate the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. Their case is without merit. Kaine might be described as a “sore loser,” having lost the presidential election as Hillary Clinton’s vice presidential running mate. Before perpetuating the treason canard, these lawyers should reread the famous 1953 case of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. They were convicted of espionage after providing nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union. They were not charged with treason because the U.S. was not “at war” with the Soviets. So let’s dispense with all this silliness over treason. Now, amid the cacophony of claims that the Trump campaign committed the criminal offense of “collusion” with the Russians, no one has managed to point to a statute that makes colluding with a foreign government in a political campaign a crime. Why? Because it cannot be found anywhere in America’s criminal codes. As explained in an earlier column, “collusion” is a loaded word conjuring all manner of incriminating behavior. Yet, it exists only in anti-trust laws which forbid price fixing and other anti-competitive activities under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Collusion has nothing whatsoever to do with elections and political campaigns. Of course, that inconvenient fact has not stopped politicians, pundits and journalists from either misunderstanding the concept and/or misconstruing its application to the Trump-Russia hysteria. It also renders special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation meaningless. He is tasked with finding a crime that does not exist in the law. It is a legal impossibility. The only conceivable crime tangentially related to collusion is found at 18 USC 371, entitled “Conspiracy to Defraud the United States.” It makes it a felony for two or more persons to enter into an agreement to interfere or obstruct a lawful function of the government. An election would be a lawful government function. However, it must be done by “deceitful or dishonest means.” So let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that the Russian lawyer provided information damaging to the Clinton campaign and the Trump campaign then acted on the material by disseminating it to the public. How is that deceitful or dishonest? It is not. But this is not what happened, as best we know. According to Trump Jr., the lawyer offered no information at all. Indeed, the lawyer insists the subject of the campaign was never broached. Let’s play another “what if.” What if the Russian lawyer handed Trump Jr. a file and said, “here is information which we hacked from the DNC and the Clinton campaign?” If the president’s son accepted the file, then he could be accused of knowingly receiving stolen property. But again, there is no evidence this ever happened. It is worth remembering that the hacked information was not made public by Wikileaks until after the June 9th meeting. Months later, in October, the U.S. government officially acknowledged Russian interference in the election. There is one final law to be considered. Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, soliciting and/or receiving foreign donations is prohibited (11 CFR 110.20). This includes “money or other thing of value.” Is information, by itself, a “thing of value?” One could attempt to make that argument, but it has never been interpreted that way. To the contrary, the law specifically states that “services” are not contributions and that foreign nationals are permitted to volunteer their services to U.S. political campaigns. Moreover, campaign election laws are rarely the subject of criminal prosecutions. The vast majority of cases are civil violations resulting in fines. But again, both Trump Jr. and the Russian lawyer agree that no information related to the presidential campaign was conveyed. If true, this statute is inapplicable. As much as President Trump’s opponents may wish it to be, it is not a crime to meet with a Russian. Nor is it a crime to meet with a Russian lawyer or government official. Even gathering information from a foreign source is permissible. Unwise and ill-advised, yes. Illegal, no. Until such time as Congress decides to pass a bill – and the president signs it into law – criminalizing “collusion” with a foreign government in an American political campaign … no law has been broken here.

Case closed!  Please feel free to forward this outstanding legal analysis by former defense attorney, and current Fox News anchor Gregg Jarrett, on to family members, friends and others who have been sucked into this Russia hysteria promulgated by the dominantly liberal mainstream media.