Gregg Jarrett

Jarrett’s Advice for Trump on Possible Mueller Interview: Keep Your Mouth Shut or ‘End Up Like Bill Clinton’

Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett said President Trump should avoid an interview with Special Counsel Robert Mueller or he could “end up like Bill Clinton.” There has been no known official request by Mueller’s office to interview the president yet, but Trump’s lawyers are anticipating that Mueller may request information from Trump related to his investigation into Russia’s attempted meddling in the 2016 election. The president’s legal team is reportedly considering a number of possible options for such an interview, including an in-person interview of Trump, written responses to questions submitted by Mueller’s team or an affidavit signed by the president stating his position on the case. “If I were his lawyer, I’d say, ‘Keep your mouth shut and just talk to me or you’ll end up like Bill Clinton,'” Jarrett said on “Lou Dobbs Tonight.” He explained that Clinton was forced to talk to independent counsel Ken Starr pursuant to a grand jury subpoena, and he ended up in a “world of trouble” for lying, resulting in an impeachment. Dobbs pointed out that there was evidence of a crime in Clinton’s case, but there is no evidence that Trump broke the law. “There’s no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion,” Jarrett agreed. “But what I would worry about as a lawyer is an obstruction entrapment by Mueller during the course of such an interview.” He explained that Mueller could ask Trump why he asked former FBI Director James Comey to take it easy on former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and why he later fired Comey.

Former defense attorney, and current Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett is exactly right here.  IF Mueller decides he wants to talk to or depose Trump, then getting a written/signed statement is the wisest course of action..

Gregg Jarrett: Mueller’s allegedly lawless acts have corrupted his probe and demand his removal

Special Counsel Robert Mueller is accused of acting in complete disregard for the law and must be removed. And so, too, must his entire team. There is devastating new evidence to suggest that Mueller and his staff of lawyers improperly, if not illegally, obtained tens of thousands of private documents belonging to President-elect Trump’s Presidential Transition Team (PTT). The material includes emails, laptops and cell phones used by 13 PTT members. Critically, a “significant volume of privileged material” was taken by Mueller, according to the Trump transition lawyer, and then used by the special counsel team in its investigation. Mueller’s staff apparently admits this egregious violation, which the law strictly forbids. Under the law, the only remedy is Mueller’s dismissal from the case. The Presidential Transition Act states that all records of transition operations are private and confidential. On November 16, 2016, roughly ten days after Trump was elected president, the Chief Records Officer of the U.S. Government sent a letter to all federal agencies reminding them that “the materials that PTT members create or receive are not Federal or Presidential records, but are considered private materials.” Yet Mueller seems to have ignored the law. Without a warrant or subpoena, his team of lawyers brazenly demanded these private records from the General Services Administration (GSA) which held custody of the materials. The GSA does this as a service to all incoming presidents out of courtesy, but it neither owns the documents nor is authorized to release them to anyone under any circumstances because they are deemed entirely private. Counsel for the Trump Transition Team has sent a letter to Congress alleging the Fourth Amendment was violated in “failing to obtain a warrant for the search or seizure of private property in which the owner has a reasonable expectation of privacy (Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 489).” Mueller might contest the claim of an unlawful seizure because the GSA willingly handed over the documents, but this disregards the fact that the GSA broke the law and Mueller surely knew it when he pressured the agency to do so. The most serious charge against Mueller is that he obtained, reviewed and used material that is privileged. For months, Mueller allegedly failed to disclose to the transition team that he acquired these privileged documents. Under the law, he and his lawyers are not entitled to possess or read any of them. Even worse, the transition team says it warned the special counsel six months ago that it had no right to access the records without gaining permission from the PTT. Courts have clearly stated what prosecutors are supposed to do under these circumstances: “An attorney who receives privileged documents has an ethical duty to cease review of the documents, notify the privilege holder, and return the documents.” (U.S. v. Taylor 764 Fed Sup 2nd, 230, 235) Did Mueller do this? Apparently not. He never notified PTT when his staff of lawyers encountered the privileged documents and he compounded his violation of the law by possessing and accessing them for months. Only the owner of such materials can waive the privilege that protects them. Since the GSA does not, under the law, own the records, only the transition team can make such a waiver. It did not. Hence, if any illegally obtained documents have been used in the Trump-Russia case, then the results are tainted and invalid. This is a well-established principle of law. The use by Mueller of even one privileged document can, and must, result in his disqualification from the case. The case of Finn v. Schiller, 72 F.3rd 1182, 1189 spells out the required remedy for this violation of the law: “Courts have frequently used their supervisory authority to disqualify prosecutors for obtaining materials protected by the attorney-client privilege.” Statutory law also demands Mueller’s removal. Pursuant to 5 C.F.R. 2635.501, government employees, including prosecutors, are directed to “take appropriate steps to avoid an appearance of loss of impartiality in the performance of his or her official duties.” The lawyer for the Trump transition team states that the special counsel’s office admitted in a telephone conversation on Friday that it failed to use an “ethical wall” or “taint team” to segregate any privileged records. This is often done to keep them isolated from lawyers and investigators involved in the case. Yet, Mueller did not adopt such precautionary measures. Instead, he apparently allowed his team to utilize the documents while questioning witnesses in the Trump-Russia case. If true, Mueller’s conduct is not only unethical and improper, it constitutes lawlessness. On this basis, he must be removed and replaced. Given the insular nature of the special counsel operation, it is reasonable to conclude that all the lawyers and investigators likely accessed the privileged documents. Therefore, not just Mueller, but his entire team must be dismissed. This would include Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein who oversees the case. Either Congress should take aggressive action or the Presidential Transition Team (now Trump for America, Inc.) must petition a federal judge to order their removal. The integrity of the special counsel probe has been deeply compromised by numerous allegations of corrupt acts. In its current composition, it seems beyond repair.

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

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!    🙂