Gregg Jarrett

Gregg Jarrett: Armed couple who defended St. Louis home when threatened shouldn’t be prosecuted

Malcolm X once observed: “I don’t even call it violence when it’s in self-defense; I call it intelligence.” A St. Louis couple — Mark and Patricia McCloskey — recently chose to arm themselves for self-defense after a mob entered their property and allegedly threatened their lives. They insist they were acting justifiably and … yes … intelligently. They were also acting lawfully — as long as they were in fear and reasonably believed that the force of weapons they displayed was necessary to defend themselves from an imminent threat of harm. That is the law. As a logical extension of the Second Amendment right to bear arms, Missouri embraces a well-known common-law principle called the Castle Doctrine. The state’s expansive interpretation permitted the McCloskeys to use physical force to defend themselves and their home while on their own property, without requiring them to first retreat. There is some case law in Missouri that suggests that the couple would not have been permitted to shoot solely in defense of their property. However, the McCloskeys neither fired their weapons nor claimed they were protecting merely their land. Indeed, they say that several members of the mob were armed and vowed to set their home ablaze and murder them. If true, the couple was completely entitled under the law to brandish (and potentially use) physical force in self-defense. Patricia McCloskey told Sean Hannity on his Fox News show: “[They said] they were going to kill us. They were going to come in there. They were going to burn down the house. They were going to be living in our house after I was dead.” The McCloskeys explained that they first called 911 but no police arrived. They were left to defend themselves. Mark McCloskey told KSDK-TV that “the only thing that stopped the crowd was my rifle.” How is it possible, then, that St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner is investigating the McCloskeys but not the mob that allegedly knocked down a wrought-iron gate and knowingly trespassed (signs were posted) on the McCloskey’s property? This is backward. Repeated threats of physical harm uttered by the mob would constitute an assault under the law. Yet, Gardner appears to be poised to charge the homeowners with assault over their right to defend against an alleged assault. Legally, this is not just senseless, but insane. It is well-established that a person is allowed to threaten force if he or she is threatened. The perpetrators do not suddenly become helpless victims when they are averted. The idiocy of Gardner’s reasoning was explained to Fox News by Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, who stated that Gardner “has a record of making politically motivated decisions not based on the law.” No kidding. Schmitt called Gardner’s record in prosecuting violent crime “abysmal.” As chief prosecutor, Gardner cares more about defending criminals than helping victims. To her, justice is an antiquated bromide. This should come as no surprise, since Gardner’s 2016 election was funded, in part, by considerable cash funneled through a Super PAC backed financially by far-left billionaire George Soros. Gardner’s tenure has been notable only for the slew of lawsuits against her for allegedly ignoring public records requests. (Gardner appears to believe that the public is not allowed to read public records.) Her low conviction rate in prosecutions has brought solace and smiles to criminals. In a statement, Gardner called the mob “peaceful protestors who were met by guns and a violent assault.” There are two inconvenient problems with her remarks. First, Gardner has completely ignored or dismissed the evidence of the trespass and the McCloskey’s chilling account of the mob’s threats of arson and murder. Second, by publicly declaring the couple guilty of assault, she has demolished any presumption of innocence for the accused. The Constitution protects free speech, assembly and peaceful protests. These are cherished rights. But the First Amendment does not give license to demonstrators to transform themselves into criminals who engage in acts of threatened violence or other lawless conduct. The riots, looting, assaults, and murders that have escalated out of control in many cities across America in the aftermath of the George Floyd tragedy are not an excuse under the law to victimize innocent people and destroy property. Late last week, authorities armed with a search warrant seized the rifle that Mark McCloskey was shown holding the night of June 28. His wife’s pistol was already in the possession of their attorney. The seizure, together with Gardner’s statement, leaves little doubt that the McCloskeys will soon be facing criminal charges by an elected prosecutor who seems determined to abuse her power by capitulating to the demands of the mob. Gardner can’t possibly prevail if charges are brought. But I suspect that is not her objective. Prosecution of the McCloskeys serves a political nostrum. It would conform perfectly to the prevailing orthodoxy of liberal outrage that no one is now permitted to question without being condemned and/or canceled. We are told we must all recognize and affirm that disagreement, however well-reasoned, is no longer tolerated. Ideological purity must be elevated, as dissent is suffocated, we are told. The civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. was a legendary proponent of nonviolence. But he was not an absolutist. King well understood the moral and legal necessity of self-defense in a society that is not always civilized. King made this clear when he wrote: “The principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi.” Kimberly Gardner is not condemning self-defense as much as she is canceling it for purely political reasons driven by self-interest and self-promotion. She has no business being a government prosecutor if she harbors such contempt for the law.

Agreed 100%!!  Thanks to Gregg Jarrett for that spot-on legal analysis.  Gregg is a former defense attorney and adjunct law professor. He is the author of the No. 1 New York Times best-selling book “The Russia Hoax: The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump.” His latest book is the New York Times bestseller “Witch Hunt: The Story of the Greatest Mass Delusion in American Political History“

Gregg Jarrett: Flynn judge wrong to allow anti-Trump former Watergate prosecutors to interfere in case

It’s a sure sign of desperation whenever lawyers try to raise President Richard Milhous Nixon from the dead. And so it is that a group of former Watergate special prosecutors this week resurrected the Ghost of Watergate Past in a last-ditch effort to keep alive the federal court case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. The gang, adopting the sobriquet “Watergate Prosecutors,” asked permission from U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan to allow them to intervene in the Flynn case so they can – to put it bluntly – tell his honor how to think and what to do. The judge issued an order Tuesday indicating he will soon accept “amicus curiae” (“friend of the court”) submissions in the case. But in trial court proceedings involving crimes, only prosecutors and defense attorneys are permitted to be heard. Judges are supposed to render decisions based on evidence and arguments presented by the parties involved, not outside interests. The prosecution of Flynn, a retired Army lieutenant general, has been on life-support since the Justice Department belatedly moved last week to dismiss charges against him. He was accused of making false statements to the FBI during an interview that was nothing more than a devious perjury trap designed to “get Flynn to lie.” The FBI was creating a crime, not investigating one. A review ordered by Attorney General William Barr discovered that former FBI Director James Comey’s agents and Robert Mueller’s special counsel hit squad concealed vital exculpatory evidence from Flynn and his attorneys. The hidden documents showed that the retired lieutenant general did not lie to FBI agents, despite his coerced guilty plea under threat. The former Watergate prosecutors now want to meddle in the Flynn proceedings like uninvited house guests. In a court filing, they compare Barr’s decision to drop the Flynn charge to “the Watergate scandal” and Nixon’s infamous “Saturday Night Massacre.” The analogy is as tortured as the late President Nixon’s soul. Reading their “Statement of Interest” is a nauseating exercise in the hubris of war stories retold by old warriors prone to embellish. The former Watergate prosecutors imagine themselves as heroes who single-handedly salvaged democracy from the clutches of the demented Nixon. On that basis, they argue to the court, they are back to save the day. I’m reminded of what Butch kept asking Sundance: “Who are those guys?” Good question. The first name that pops out is Nick Akerman. He can be found on page 269 of my book “Witch Hunt: The Story of the Greatest Mass Delusion in American Political History.” He is one of the many media flamethrowers who constantly accused (without evidence) President Trump and his presidential campaign of colluding with Russia. At one point on MSNBC (July 11, 2017), Akerman said the following about Donald Trump Jr. and his conversation with a Russian lawyer at Trump Tower: “There’s outright treason. I mean, there is no question that what he’s doing is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.” No question? Really? Forget that Akerman’s hyperbolic claim of treason had no remote application or support in the law. The president’s son was never charged with any offense because Special Counsel Mueller found no agreement or conspiracy to do anything illegal. But don’t let facts get in the way of a good story, Nick. Another former Watergate prosecutor is Jill Wine-Banks, an MSNBC legal analyst who has a propensity to channel Nixon’s ghost at every turn. Earlier this year, she told Salon that “Trump is more dangerous than Nixon” and should be criminally indicted. On MSNBC, she declared that Trump is more of an “existential threat to democracy than Nixon.” Richard Ben-Veniste is also a Watergate alum who has carved out a late career as an inveterate Trump thumper. In a column for The Atlantic in 2017, he drew innumerable parallels between Nixon and Trump. In the same publication the next year, Ben-Veniste accused Trump of going the “full Nixon on Mueller.” One gets the distinct impression that Ben-Veniste’s Trump-Nixon obsession belongs on a psychiatrist’s couch. The 16 former Watergate prosecutors who are now determined to insert themselves into the Flynn case just happen to be the same lawyers (minus one) who penned a joint op-ed in the Washington Post on October 10, 2019 headlined “We investigated the Watergate scandal. We believe Trump should be impeached.” Of course, we know how that turned out. But the point is this: these individuals are hyper-partisans who despise Trump, but have convinced themselves that since they helped drive the demon Nixon from office 45 years ago they should now be given exalted status as super Trump-slayers. This kind of prejudicial interference from outside forces has no place in a court of law. It makes a mockery of both fairness and impartiality. Sadly, Judge Sullivan appears to have taken leave of his senses and decided to entertain the notion of allowing the former Watergate prosecutors to usurp the role of federal prosecutors. This resulted in his order Tuesday indicating he would permit “individuals and organizations” to file “amicus curiae” submissions. Hours later, Flynn’s lawyer, Sidney Powell, filed a well-reasoned opposition argument that courts are not a forum for special interests. “The ‘Watergate Prosecutors’ have no special role and no authority whatsoever to insert themselves in this litigation on behalf of anyone,” she wrote. Powell also pointed out that Sullivan rejected 24 previous attempts by parties to intervene in the Flynn case. In one of his prior refusals, the judge made this declarative statement: “The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not provide for intervention by third parties in criminal cases. Options exist for a private citizen to express his views about matters of public interest, but the Court’s docket is not an available option.” What has changed? Nothing. But Sullivan’s ruling may be a reflection of his own abiding prejudice. In a hearing last year, he all but accused Flynn of treason, only to retract his words after a recess. He seems to have a feeble grasp of the facts in this important case. The former Watergate prosecutors should be denied the opportunity to pursue their biased agenda in a court of law. Flynn has been victimized enough by corrupt and dishonest government officials. Let these former prosecutors resurrect the ghost of Richard Nixon in a more-friendly forum: the Trump-hating media. These media organizations are sure to roll out the welcome mat.

No kidding…  Thanks Gregg!  Gregg Jarrett is a Fox News legal analyst and commentator, and formerly worked as a defense attorney and adjunct law professor. He is the author of the No. 1 New York Times best-selling book “The Russia Hoax: The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump.” His latest book is the New York Times bestseller “Witch Hunt: The Story of the Greatest Mass Delusion in American Political History“

Gregg Jarrett: Ending Michael Flynn prosecution exposes and destroys Trump-Russia collusion hoax

The collusion house of cards has finally and fully collapsed. In a stunning turn of events Thursday, the Justice Department dropped its case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. Exculpatory documents concealed by the FBI and federal prosecutors for more than three years showed that the retired Army lieutenant general never lied or committed a crime. The FBI knew Flynn did not collude with Russians. He is a patriot, not a traitor. The notion that candidate Donald Trump conspired with Moscow to steal the 2016 presidential election was always an implausible phantasm built on a foundation of Russian disinformation commissioned by the Hillary Clinton campaign and Democrats. The malevolent James Comey, fired director of the FBI, knew this but it didn’t deter him. He and his lieutenants sedulously stacked the cards, one by one, against Trump by exploiting the bogus allegations and pursuing an illicit investigation designed to drive him from office. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and his sycophants in the media propagated the Russia hoax by insisting there was “solid evidence” that Trump was a secret Kremlin asset and predicting the imminent demise of his presidency. Except no such evidence ever existed. Collusion was nothing more than an illusion and a delusion. Tragically, people like Flynn became collateral damage amid the carnage of corruption, dishonesty, abuse and injustice. But the weight of all the lies and propaganda has inexorably toppled the house of cards in a slow-motion crash. I have long argued in numerous columns and two books that the retired Army lieutenant general was set up and framed by Comey, FBI Assistant Director Andrew McCabe and disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok. They invented a perjury trap under false pretenses and deceived Flynn. Their goal was “to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired.” They knew Flynn was innocent – and hidden records proved it. The two agents who interviewed him in January 2017 concluded “that Flynn was not lying.” Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his team of partisan prosecutors also knew Flynn was not lying, but they didn’t care. Utilizing the full force of the federal government and their unlimited resources, they intimidated and bullied an innocent man into pleading guilty to making a false statement. To accomplish this, they threatened to criminally charge Flynn’s son unless the father capitulated to their demands. That aspect of the coerced plea was hidden from the court when Flynn threw in the towel. He was financially ruined and his reputation shattered. He was forced to sell his home. Thanks to the intrepid work of Flynn’s new counsel, Sidney Powell, and a review of the case ordered by Attorney General William Barr, the ugly and unconscionable actions of the FBI and Mueller’s hit squad were uncovered and exposed. The distinguished retired three-star general has now been vindicated. In a recent column, I wrote that Flynn became “the victim of one of the worst miscarriages of justice in modern times” and “he should sue the very people and government that persecuted him under the pretext of a legitimate prosecution. Let the litigation begin. Damages should run into the millions of dollars. Flynn deserves it. And the Justice Department should now consider whether crimes were committed by those who deliberately obscured the truth and arguably obstructed justice. Another card that fell this week came from the Office of Director of National Intelligence. The office notified Schiff that transcribed interviews of 53 witnesses who appeared behind closed doors before the House Intelligence Committee in 2017 and 2018 would be released to Congress and the public, despite Schiff’s best efforts for more than two years to bury the testimony. Why would the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, who has demanded transparency from Trump, want to hide the truth about him? Because the declassified 6,000 pages produced not a scintilla of collusion evidence. Zero. Of course, Intelligence Committee Chairman Schiff knew this all along, since he questioned the witnesses. He just didn’t want the American public to know it, inasmuch as it completely undermined his false collusion narrative. “Schiff is in panic mode,” a senior administration official told Fox News. Not a single witness provided any evidence of collusion, according to two sources familiar with the transcripts. The transcripts utterly discredit Schiff and expose him as a poseur. For years during television appearances, Schiff professed to have uncovered the hobgoblin of a grand conspiracy involving Trump. Yet, he refused to offer any proof. He pretended that he was privy to evidence that he did not have. As I wrote in my book “Witch Hunt: The Story of the Greatest Mass Delusion in American Political History: “The more Democrats and the media worked in concert to advance their hallucination that Trump had colluded with Russia, the more audacious Schiff became in his public denouncements of the president. He frequently insinuated that he had special access to damning information that few others could procure. Even after the House Intelligence Committee issued its majority investigative report concluding that it had all been a hoax, Schiff announced, ‘I can certainly say with confidence that there is significant evidence of collusion between the campaign and Russia.’ He produced no such evidence because it did not exist.” On CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Schiff ventured that Trump “may be the first president in quite some time to face the real prospect of jail time.” This claim was ludicrous, of course. Yet, Schiff was so heavily invested in the scam and the celebrity it brought him that there was no reversing course. He knew it was untrue. But like a guy with a counterfeit bill, he kept trying to pass it off to others. Schiff is living proof that the truth always has a nemesis. Still another card fell this week when the Justice Department belatedly made public the unredacted version of the so-called “scope memo” penned by then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in August 2017 detailing the scope of Mueller’s Russia investigation. Rosenstein authorized Mueller to specifically target Trump campaign aide Carter Page for “colluding with Russian government officials with respect to the Russian government’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 election for President of the United States.” However, Rosenstein already knew that these allegations, based on the anti-Trump “dossier” –composed by ex-British spy Christopher Steele – had been discredited by the FBI. Seven months earlier, bureau agents had located Steele’s primary source of information. That source debunked the “dossier” as exaggerations and fabrications, according to the findings of Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz. At that point, the FBI should have shut down its probe. Instead, Comey persisted. When Comey was fired in May 2017, Rosenstein appointed Mueller to launch a new investigation – even though the deputy attorney general well knew there was no credible evidence that supported the appointment of a special counsel under federal regulations. Mueller knew this as well, since he was given the FBI files. On “Hannity” on Fox News on Wednesday, Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., stated that “the legal foundation to justify Mueller’s appointment in my view does not exist. … That’s why this (scope) memo is so important.” Graham is correct. The Mueller investigation was illegitimate from the outset, even though it eventually found no evidence of a collusion conspiracy. Rosenstein misconstrued – and thereby misused – the special counsel regulations. An “articulable criminal act” must first be identified. It must antecede the appointment, not vice versa. But when Mueller was appointed, the FBI had developed no such evidence. That was confirmed by Steele’s source, as well as the subsequent testimony of Comey and former FBI lawyer Lisa Page. The evidentiary premise of a crime was conspicuously missing. Thus, Mueller began his investigation in search of a crime, reversing the legal process mandated under the regulations. None of this seemed to matter to Rosenstein. He was determined to get rid of Trump. Evidence shows he plotted to secretly record the president and then use the recording as evidence to try to remove the president from office under the 25th Amendment. As a result, Rosenstein should have been disqualified from any involvement in the special counsel case. It was not possible for someone so noticeably antagonistic to the president to be an unbiased and neutral party overseeing that investigation. Not only was the naming of a special counsel unauthorized, but the FBI’s original investigation launched in July 2016 was improper. In an interview on Fox News last month, Attorney General William Barr called the three-year Russia probe “one of the greatest travesties in American history.” Barr made it abundantly clear that it should never have happened. He said: “Without any basis, they started this investigation of his (Trump’s) campaign, and even more concerning, actually is what happened after the campaign, (There was) a whole pattern of events while he was president … to sabotage the presidency … or at least have the effect of sabotaging the presidency.” Barr has vowed “to get to the bottom of it.” With his appointment of Connecticut U.S. Attorney John Durham, the attorney general has committed his department to holding individuals accountable. “If people broke the law, and we can establish that with the evidence, they will be prosecuted,” Barr promised. There is no doubt that Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Rosenstein, Schiff and a great many others were intimately involved in the scheme to sabotage Trump. They managed to initiate the Trump investigation with no evidence of a crime and then convince the country that an unparalleled investigation was necessary. Their phony collusion narrative was a conspiracy in and of itself, contrived as a political instrument and then weaponized by unscrupulous government officials. Now that their house of cards has collapsed, it is time for a reckoning.

Indeed..  LTG Michael Flynn, Ret., has been 100% exonerated, and this whole so-called Russia “collusion” has been proven to have been a complete hoax on the American people by corrupt officials at the FBI from James Comey on down, Hillary Clinton (and her campaign), the DNC, members of the dominantly liberal mainstream media, and many Democrat politicians hell bent on bringing down Trump no matter the cost.  And, in the process, lots of these people committed crimes.  Now it’s time for payback.  Hopefully Sidney Powell and the rest of Flynn’s very capable legal team are working on that.  The man is owed millions..and that’s just the civil side of things.  Lots of these folks should go to jail.  We’ll, of course, be keeping a close eye on this developing story.  Thanks to Gregg Jarrett for his spot on legal analysis.  He was one of the few legal commentators in the media that has been right about this story all along.

Gregg is a Fox News legal analyst and commentator, and formerly worked as a defense attorney and adjunct law professor. He is the author of the No. 1 New York Times best-selling book “The Russia Hoax: The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump.” His latest book is the New York Times bestseller “Witch Hunt: The Story of the Greatest Mass Delusion in American Political History“

Gregg Jarrett: New evidence on Michael Flynn — drop all charges and let him sue his persecutors

Michael Flynn is the victim of one of the worst miscarriages of justice in modern times — an innocent man who was unfairly targeted by the FBI, wrongfully prosecuted by special counsel Robert Mueller, and coerced into a guilty plea under threat. New court documents finally handed over to Flynn’s lawyer contain exculpatory evidence that has been long sought, yet concealed until now. The charge against him should be dismissed. Then, he should sue the very people and government that persecuted him under the pretext of a legitimate prosecution. The unvarnished truth is that the retired Army lieutenant general and former National Security Adviser never did anything wrong and committed no crimes. He was set up by unscrupulous FBI officials, then relentlessly pursued by Mueller’s team of overzealous prosecutors who were desperate to show that President Trump and his campaign colluded with Russia to win the 2016 presidential election. Of course, no such conspiracy with Moscow ever existed. It was a fantasy built on the sand of Russian disinformation and lies.The FBI knew it but didn’t care. As I wrote in a column as far back as 2018, the FBI lied to Flynn to ensnare him in the crime of making a false statement, even though Flynn did not lie at all about his perfectly legal and appropriate conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. In my 2019 book, “Witch Hunt: The Story Of The Greatest Mass Delusion In American Political History,” I laid out the evidence of Flynn’s innocence. Specifically, here is the FBI summary report on the interview of Flynn conducted by two bureau agents, including the notorious Peter Strzok. It is dated July 19, 2017: “Throughout the interview, Flynn had a very ‘sure’ demeanor and did not give any indicators of deception. Strzok and (redacted FBI agent) both had the impression at the time that Flynn was not lying or did not think he was lying.” So, how is it possible to charge someone with lying to the FBI when the only witnesses — the two agents — determined that the person they interviewed did not lie? The answer is quite simple: you cannot bring such a prosecution. Yet, Mueller did it anyway. The goal was to put pressure on Flynn to say something incriminating about Trump, even if that meant inventing a story that prosecutors wanted to hear. There is no indication that Flynn did this. But he did plead guilty to making a false statement. Why did he cop a plea? Because Mueller crushed him financially and threatened to take legal action against the retired general’s son. It was classic intimidation by ruthless prosecutors. Before being sentenced, Flynn changed course and hired new defense attorneys, including former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell. Armed with better counsel, Flynn has been trying to convince a federal judge to allow him to withdraw his guilty plea, citing “bad faith” on the part of prosecutors. Powell has waged an intense (and skilled) legal battle to get the government to turn over the exculpatory evidence that has long been hidden and is required under law (Brady v. Maryland) to be produced. Prosecutors and the FBI stonewalled, at one point claiming that the original witness report of Flynn’s interview (known as a FD-302) was “missing.” Right. Fortunately, Attorney General William Barr ordered a review of the Flynn case and guess what? Exculpatory documents have suddenly and magically been found. They were never missing, just buried by the FBI in a black hole of calumny and cover-up. The material is still under protective seal so that the public cannot yet read its contents. However, Powell has access and offered this insight in a court filing: “This afternoon, the government produced to Mr. Flynn stunning Brady evidence that proves Mr. Flynn’s allegations of having been deliberately set up and framed by corrupt agents at the top of the FBI. The government deliberately suppressed this evidence from the inception of this prosecution — knowing there was no crime by Mr. Flynn.” The case against Flynn was originally conceived by FBI Director James Comey and Assistant Director Andrew McCabe under the phony pretense of a Logan Act violation, which had no relevance or application. Once appointed as special counsel, Mueller accepted the baton and pursued the case against Flynn with a vengeance. It is now beyond dispute that Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn committed no crimes. But, it appears that top FBI officials and prosecutors may have. Evidence was concealed and justice obstructed. This is unconscionable behavior. The charge against Flynn should be dismissed, allowing him to seek redress in civil court. Moreover, U.S. Attorney John Durham should consider filing charges if the evidence shows that government officials breached their duty to uphold the law and abused their power to prosecute an innocent man.

Very interesting development in this story..  As an aside, even though LTG Flynn briefly worked for the Trump administration, he wasn’t exactly on the “Trump Train.”  The man is a registered Democrat.  Anyway, we’ll keep an eye on this developing story of big government abuse and corruption.  Thanks to Gregg Jarrett for that update!  Gregg is a Fox News legal analyst and commentator, and formerly worked as a defense attorney and adjunct law professor. He is the author of the No. 1 New York Times best-selling book “The Russia Hoax: The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump.” His latest book is the New York Times bestseller “Witch Hunt: The Story of the Greatest Mass Delusion in American Political History“

Gregg Jarrett: Coronavirus crisis — Trump must assemble economic recovery task force, before it’s too late

All across America, the fear of contracting the dreaded coronavirus is compounded by another crippling illness –acute financial despair as business closures and rampant joblessness grip the nation in a vise of economic hardship. It is welcome news, then, that President Trump is contemplating the creation of a second task force dedicated to devising a comprehensive plan to reopen the U.S. economy and rebound from the debilitating consequences of a pandemic that has all but ground businesses to a halt. Such a task force is not just imperative, it is indispensable if our country is to recover its economic vitality as rapidly as conditions reasonably permit. The idea, suggested by my Fox News colleague Dana Perino, is every bit as essential as the medical task force assembled by the president to battle the COVID-19 plague. That team advising the White House has done commendable work, but its sole objective of reducing transmission is understandably myopic. It was neither assigned nor qualified to consider the dire macroeconomic impact of widespread lockdowns that have ravaged and reversed the engine of commerce and growth. Pervasive unemployment, empty bank accounts and mounting debt are choking Americans in the wake of all the shuttered businesses that are the lifeblood of our economy. The result is a pecuniary pandemic that is just as frightening as the virus itself –perhaps more so. Trump well recognizes that human suffering has more than one dimension and that physical welfare is invariably intertwined with personal economic health. On Saturday, the president reiterated his earlier expressed belief that well-intended remedies must not be fatal. He told reporters, “The cure cannot be worse than the problem itself. We’ve got to get our country open.” If, as a nation, we ignore or minimize the unintended consequences of shutdowns designed to arrest the virus yet fail to craft a blueprint for a speedy recovery, we are quite like the surgeon who announces that “the operation was a success but the patient died.” Congress recently passed a $2 trillion economic aid package that offers some immediate, albeit limited, relief. But this is little more than palliative care. Perino has recommended an economic task force composed of “a nonpartisan/bipartisan mix of experts across industry sectors.” These are people who are more practiced than politicians on what is needed to resuscitate economic activity by restarting businesses and putting Americans back to work. This new task force should not compete with the White House team of medical professionals. Both should work in concert to weigh the economic exigencies against the health risks in determining when and where businesses can reopen while taking every precaution to safeguard the well-being of employees and the public at large. Reporters who incessantly remonstrate with Trump and clamor for him to declare a nationwide shutdown are (no surprise) mistaken. The coronavirus does not constitute the identical threat everywhere because the number of infected cases differs dramatically by region. City and state officials are better equipped to make those decisions, as the president has correctly explained. A one-size-fits-all approach would be inappropriate and counterproductive. An economic task force could provide needed guidance. In doing so, it should consider input from doctors on the frontlines of treating virus patients, like UCLA’s Joseph A. Ladapo who penned a column in USA Today arguing persuasively that it is too late for shutdowns. Dr. Lapado, who also holds a Ph.D. in economics, statistics and decision making, warned that “we will always be vulnerable to the virus spreading rapidly again as soon as shutdown measures are lifted, unless they are immediately reimplemented –over and over and over again.” As we await the production of an effective vaccine in the next 12 to 18 months, Americans may have to accept that the virus cannot be controlled and that our notion of shutdowns as a panacea is wrong, as well as destructive. According to Dr. Lapado, none of the economic models (nor common sense) supports shutdowns. He sums it up this way: “Can you imagine a United States in which children are forced to forgo proper schooling, unemployment and poverty decimate millions more lives and our economy is strangled into a persistent depression? And all for a virus that, when all is said and done, most people will recover from –even the elderly (death rates are highest in adults older than 80, at 10-20%)? The lockdown cost will be staggering –far more costly than COVID-19’s horrific wrath. Here is my prescription for local and state leaders: Keep shutdowns short, keep the economy going, keep schools in session, keep jobs intact, and focus single-mindedly on building the capacity we need to survive this into our health care system.” President Trump should move expeditiously to mobilize this new economic task force to tackle the financial calamity of business closures that, however well-intentioned, may cause lasting damage to America’s economic health. Viable solutions and a comprehensive plan for recovery is desperately needed now. Time is of the essence.

Indeed it is..  Thanks Gregg!  Gregg Jarrett is a Fox News legal analyst and commentator, and formerly worked as a defense attorney and adjunct law professor. He is the author of the No. 1 New York Times best-selling book “The Russia Hoax: The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump.” His latest book is the New York Times bestseller “Witch Hunt: The Story of the Greatest Mass Delusion in American Political History“

Opinion/Analysis: Trump’s conviction in impeachment trial not justified even if Bolton claims are true

After sitting on their hands and listening to arguments for a week in President Trump’s impeachment trial, senators were finally allowed to pose their own questions Wednesday. It proved to be illuminating. As is often the case, the first question was the most penetrating and important one. It got to the heart of the Democrats’ principal accusation regarding why they contend the president should be removed from office. Democrats claim that when Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to look into what Trump called troubling actions by former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter, Trump was seeking a political advantage against a prospective opponent in the November presidential election. This, argue Democrats, was an impeachable “abuse of power,” and was the basis of the first article of impeachment approved by House Democrats in December. Trump’s legal team has countered that the president had every right to ask Ukraine to examine and produce any evidence of a potentially corrupt act by a U.S. public official. The act to be examined was Joe Biden’s demand that Ukraine fire a prosecutor who was allegedly investigating Burisma, a Ukrainian natural gas company that employed his son. By any reasonable and objective standard, Hunter Biden’s employment was highly suspicious and unusual. At a time when his father was serving as vice president and in charge of Ukraine policy for the Obama-Biden administration, Hunter Biden was being paid $83,000 a month to sit on the natural gas company’s board – despite having absolutely no experience in the energy sector and no experience in Ukrainian affairs. The question put to Trump’s defense team by Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Mitt Romney of Utah was: “If President Trump had more than one motive for his alleged conduct such as the pursuit of personal political advantage, rooting out corruption and the promotion of national interest, how should the Senate consider more than one motive in its assessment of Article 1?” More than any other question, this one needed answering. Setting aside whether Trump was genuinely motivated by electoral gain, Deputy White House Counsel Patrick Philbin explained that presidents often make decisions that have multiple or “mixed motives.” This is an obvious truth. As I argued in my last column, nearly all presidential actions involve some ancillary political calculation. Sometimes there is a dual or overlapping purpose. History is replete with examples of how presidents, including Abraham Lincoln, have rendered decisions that benefited themselves and the nation simultaneously. This does not mean their judgments constituted an abuse of power. If it were otherwise, nearly all presidents would be impeached and evicted from office. Philbin reasoned that all elected officials are mindful of how their conduct will affect their political standing because “there’s always some personal interest in the electoral outcome of policy decisions.” In asking President Zelensky to look into then-Vice President Biden’s threat to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid from Ukraine unless the prosecutor allegedly investigating Burisma was fired, Philbin explained that Trump had a legitimate public purpose. “If there were a motive that was of public interest, but also some personal interest, it follows more clearly that it cannot possibly be the basis for an impeachable offense,” Philbin said. He added that “lots of their own witnesses from the State Department said that, on its face, it (Joe Biden’s actions) appeared to be a conflict of interest.” Constitutional law professor Alan Dershowitz was even more animated in defense of the multiple motives argument when he spoke in President Trump’s defense at the impeachment trial. “Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest,” Dershowitz said. “And, mostly, you’re right. Your election is in the public interest. And if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.” Dershowitz again cited the example of President Lincoln, who encouraged General William T. Sherman to grant his men leave from the battlefield to return to Indiana to cast votes for Lincoln’s reelection in 1864. Did Lincoln use the power of his office for personal and/or political gain? Of course, he did. Was it an impeachable “abuse of power?” No, said Dershowitz, “because the president believed it was in the national interest. He believed that his own reelection was essential to victory in the Civil War.” The retired Harvard Law School professor added: “Everybody has mixed motives, and for there to be a constitutional impeachment based on mixed motives would permit almost any president to be impeached. How many presidents have made foreign policy decisions after checking with their political advisers and their pollsters? If you’re just acting in the national interest, why do you need pollsters? Why do you need political advisers? Just do what’s best for the country.” Dershowitz tied his constitutional analysis together by stating: “For it to be impeachable, you would have to discern that he [the president] made a decision solely on the basis of, as the House managers have put it, a corrupt motive and it cannot be a corrupt motive if you have a mixed motive that partially involves the national interest and partially involves electoral interests.” Only an unlawful act by the president would be impeachable, Dershowitz concluded. Yet, House managers have not alleged a crime or violation of the law in their articles of impeachment. The defense argument – blending history, precedent and common sense – renders the prospect of the Senate calling new witnesses, such as former National Security Adviser John Bolton, superfluous. For the sake of argument, let’s assume – as The New York Times has reported – that Bolton’s upcoming book recounts how Trump mentioned in a conversation that he “wanted” to withhold $391 million in U.S. security assistance from Ukraine unless that nation investigated the Bidens. Let’s further assume that Trump’s motive was, in part, political. This still does not meet the proper impeachable standard for several reasons. First, can anyone truly argue that the behavior of the Bidens was not suspicious enough to merit an investigation? Democrats’ own witnesses said it posed a serious conflict of interest. Evidence produced by Republicans during the Trump impeachment trial has raised the specter of influence peddling and self-enrichment. Video clips were played of the media asking persistent questions regarding the Bidens and airing stories suggestive of corruption. This demonstrates that President Trump had a legitimate basis to ask Ukraine to scrutinize what happened. It was a matter of public interest. Even accepting that the leaked story about the Bolton book is accurate, a president wanting to do something and actually doing it are two very different concepts. Lots of presidents want to do things they never choose to do. After delaying U.S. military aid to Ukraine, Trump released the funds to the nation without any strings attached. No “quid pro quo” ever came to fruition. The idea – if there ever was one – was discarded. Importantly, President Zelensky and his foreign minister both stated they were never pressured to investigate anything and had no idea that American aid was temporarily halted until well after the fact. President Trump may have talked with Bolton about conditioning aid to Ukraine on an investigation of the Bidens, but such action never occurred. To remove Trump from office for merely discussing something with a senior aide is to turn Congress into the “thought police” where contemplation is tantamount to an impeachable offense. Finally, there’s the matter of Bolton’s suspected breach of confidential communications with Trump and the disclosure of classified material. Presidents have the right to obtain confidential advice and to engage in private deliberations without the intrusion of the legislative branch. The principle of executive privilege has been recognized and respected since President George Washington invoked it more than two centuries ago. It is a paramount privilege when matters of national security are at stake. Trump’s conversation with his national security adviser is most likely covered by the privilege. It is deeply disturbing that Bolton would have the temerity to write a book that would breach this privilege and profit by it financially. Three days before The New York Times reported its story based on (you guessed it) anonymous sources, a senior director at the National Security Council sent a letter to Bolton’s lawyer. The letter warned that the manuscript submitted to the council contains “significant amounts of classified information,” including some “at the TOP SECRET level.” Under federal law, and perhaps as well as under the nondisclosure agreement that Bolton signed as a condition to his employment, publication of the existing manuscript could subject him to criminal charges. The Times reports that Bolton has already circulated his book manuscript to “close associates” – something Bolton denies doing. If the newspaper report is correct and those individuals did not have the highest security clearance, the law may already have been broken. Whoever leaked to the Times could also be prosecuted if the information conveyed was deemed classified. Regardless of the security issues, senators are still not entitled to pierce the veil of executive privilege unless Trump waives the privilege or the federal courts determine that it does not apply. Is it really worth a protracted legal battle for the Senate to gain access to a purported presidential discussion of a “quid pro quo” that, in the end, never actually happened? To pose the question is to answer it.

Indeed…and well said, Gregg.  Gregg Jarrett is the author of that excellent legal analysis.   He is a former defense attorney and adjunct law professor, and the author of the No. 1 New York Times best-selling book “The Russia Hoax: The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump.” His latest book is the New York Times bestseller “Witch Hunt: The Story of the Greatest Mass Delusion in American Political History”  Excellent!    🙂

Opinion/Analysis: In ordering Soleimani killing, Trump acting correctly, decisively and constitutionally

President Trump ordered an airstrike that killed the notorious Iranian terrorist, Qassem Soleimani, who murdered hundreds of Americans. The President was constitutionally empowered to do so. Democrats, of course, reflexively whined that Trump abused his powers. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s predictable, Pavlovian response was to complain that the president acted without authorization from Congress. He did, indeed, because he needs no such authorization. Article II of the Constitution vests “executive power” in the president of the United States. As commander in chief of our armed forces, the president is granted broad and substantive authority to deploy military forces overseas to ensure U.S. national security and protect American lives. This is implicit within the vesting clause of the Constitution. On the president’s orders and without congressional permission, our military can engage hostile forces for these purposes. Exigent circumstances often demand immediate action. The delay caused by protracted congressional approval is both unworkable and dangerous. Express consent from Congress is required only “to declare war.” This is derived from Article I of the Constitution – which, unlike presidential powers, confines legislative powers to those “herein granted.” It serves as the basic framework that has enabled all past presidents to act unilaterally and swiftly when serious threats arise, but where a formal declaration of war is not merited. Trump’s action was entirely consistent with decisions made by his predecessors. Presidents have a fundamental duty to act quickly in the face of foreign aggression that jeopardizes both lives and U.S. national security interests. Until his hand was forced, Trump showed remarkable restraint. He did not retaliate with military action months ago when Iran shot down a U.S. drone or attacked oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman or fired rockets into an installation housing American military personnel. One can argue that his forbearance only emboldened Iran’s belligerence. The equation changed when Soleimani directed his terrorist militias to lay siege to the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, threatening American lives. This was preceded by a militia attack on a military base that wounded U.S. troops and killed an American contractor – again, orchestrated by the terror leader. Soleimani, who was there in Baghdad commanding these terror operations, was poised to murder more. According to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Trump’s decision to take out the terror leader disrupted another “imminent attack” and “saved American lives.” Soleimani “was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq,” the Pentagon revealed. The risk of doing nothing was enormous, Pompeo added. Ordering a military attack without congressional permission is not without considerable historical precedent. President Ronald Reagan launched air strikes against Libya in 1986, as did President Barack Obama in 2011. President Bill Clinton undertook a bombing campaign in Yugoslavia in 1999. In each of these actions, the War Powers Act of 1973 was disregarded or otherwise violated. Meant as a congressional check on the president’s military authority by imposing some restrictions, its constitutionality remains unresolved and it has never been consistently enforced. More relevant, however, is the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed by Congress in 2001. It gave then-President George W. Bush expansive authority to wage military campaigns against enemies connected to the 9/11 attacks. The opaque language of the AUMF has empowered every president since then to continue the war against terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. Given that Soleimani was head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quds Force that was designated by the U.S. in 2007 as a foreign terrorist organization, and given that he was operating in Iraq directing terror attacks against Americans, President Trump would be on firm legal ground to assert justification for his killing under the AUMF. Democrats like Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut are stricken with a combination of schizophrenia and hysteria. While admitting Soleimani “was an enemy of the United States,” Murphy suggested Trump was “knowingly setting off a potential massive regional war.” Murphy’s dire prediction (or pessimism) is far from certain. Does Murphy prefer that the terrorist leader, who is estimated by the Pentagon to have killed 608 American troops, remain at large to continue his murder spree? Does the senator have no confidence that American military might is capable of deterring any retaliatory aggression by Iran and defending against future attacks? Apparently not. He fails to comprehend that Tehran will continue its reign of terror until a strong leader and nation stands up to the malignant regime. Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., who served combat tours in both Afghanistan and Iraq, knows better. He adopted a more sensible view when he observed that Soleimani “got what he richly deserved, and all those American soldiers who died by his hand also got what they deserved – justice.” President Trump should be commended for acting correctly, decisively and well within his constitutional authority.

Agreed!!  And well said, Gregg.  Attorney and legal scholar Gregg Jarrett is the author of that spot-on legal op-ed.  Gregg is now a Fox News legal analyst and commentator, and formerly worked as a defense attorney and adjunct law professor. He is the author of the No. 1 New York Times best-selling book “The Russia Hoax: The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump.” His latest book is the New York Times bestseller “Witch Hunt: The Story of the Greatest Mass Delusion in American Political History”   Outstanding!!    🙂

Gregg Jarrett: Trump-Russia ‘collusion’ was always a hoax — and dirtiest political trick in modern US history

There was never any evidence that Donald Trump “colluded” with Russia to steal the 2016 presidential election from Hillary Clinton. It was all a hoax. It constituted what is surely the dirtiest political trick in modern American history. The hoax was based largely on an anti-Trump “dossier” conjured from the fertile imaginations of two nefarious characters: ex-British spy Christopher Steele; and Fusion GPS Founder, Glenn Simpson. It was commissioned by the Hillary Clinton campaign and Democrats, then peddled all over Washington to journalists, the FBI, the State Department and the Department of Justice. It spread like an airborne contagion in a 50 mile per hour wind. The premise of the ruse was as outlandish as the actions of those who advanced it. Steele was fired by the FBI for lying and went into hiding. Simpson eventually invoked the Fifth Amendment and clammed up. There were no credible facts when the FBI wrongfully launched its “collusion” investigation in July of 2016, violating its own regulations. There was still nothing remotely plausible in May of 2017 when fired FBI Director James Comey absconded with government documents and leaked them to the media for the sole purpose of triggering the appointment of a special counsel, Robert Mueller. If you harbor any doubts about the “paucity” of evidence, read the closed-door testimony of FBI lawyer Lisa Page and Comey. Their admissions will stun you. Along the way, the FBI obtained a wiretap warrant on a Trump campaign associate, Carter Page, by concealing vital evidence to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) and deceiving the judges. No one, as yet, has been held accountable for any of that. The last time I checked, perpetrating a fraud on a court is a felony. Several of them, in fact. Oh, and undercover informants were dispatched by the FBI to infiltrate the Trump campaign. Now, after an exhaustive 22-month investigation, we have finally learned from the new Attorney General, William Barr, that “the Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election.” Trump did not hack the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations. Trump did not hatch a plot in the bowels of the Kremlin to win the election. The infamous Trump Tower meeting with a Russian lawyer was not a crime. Carter Page was not a spy after all. The list of false accusations that Trump has suffered are too numerous to recount here. You’d need a calculator. To Democrats and most in the media such trivial things as evidence never mattered. They didn’t care about that. They treated facts as a mere nuisance. They allowed their political bias and personal animus toward Trump to blind them. Their obsessive belief in a nonexistent conspiracy with Putin consumed all common sense. As their hatred for Trump and his policies grew, they became more sedulous in propagating fictitious stories. Democrats in Congress like Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, Richard Blumenthal, Nancy Pelosi, Jerold Nadler, Maxine Waters, and so many others all claimed without a scintilla of proof that Trump “colluded” with Russia. For two years, they pronounced him guilty in the court of public opinion. Democrats convinced themselves that President Trump’s election was misbegotten. They accepted “collusion” as a matter of faith driven by their own prejudices, and teased by hope out of ignorance. Will they ever apologize? Of course not. They will conjure some vacuous excuse and move on to the next accusation. They’re already doing it. Many journalists were equally reckless and malevolent. Most of them never bothered to examine the facts, evidence and the law. They refused to do their jobs. Instead, they abandoned objectivity and suspended their sense of fairness. They allowed enmity to obscure their judgment. In the process, the media squandered credibility, its only currency. It is no wonder that many Americans have little trust in journalists to be honest in their reporting. Will network brass take action to punish those who so egregiously exaggerated or, in some cases, even lied to Americans? Not a chance. Network chiefs were complicit cheerleaders. The media, together with Democrats, are already parsing and pivoting. Without missing a beat, they are pivoting to obstruction of justice by parsing what Attorney General William Barr wrote in his summary letter to the heads of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. Barr stated, “Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction of justice offense.” Barr and Rosenstein, the two top officials at the Department of Justice, did not reach this conclusion in a vacuum. They sought the opinions of other lawyers at the DOJ, including the Office of Legal Counsel. They studied the evidence and the law. They consulted the same DOJ lawyers who were guiding Mueller on the subject of obstruction during his long investigation. They reached a firm consensus that, under the law, President Trump never acted “with corrupt intent” to obstruct “a pending or contemplated proceeding.” One of the reasons that led Barr and Rosenstein to their inexorable conclusion is that Trump had committed no underlying crime of conspiracy with Russia or, if you like, “collusion.” In simplistic terms, it is difficult to argue that someone intended to obstruct a non-crime. This is exactly the question Trump has posed on more than one occasion when he asked, rhetorically, “Why would I interfere in something I didn’t do?” Why, indeed. While Mueller was more than willing to conclude that Trump never “colluded” with Russia, he deliberately dodged rendering any decision on obstruction of justice. He left it entirely to Barr. In so doing, the special counsel abdicated his responsibility as the prosecutor who was hired to make this very decision. While shirking this authority, Mueller then took an inappropriate swipe at Trump by writing, “While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” This was a blatant cheap shot by Mueller, although thoroughly expected. It’s very much like a prosecutor who loses a case and then claims to the media, “Well, the jury may have found the defendant not guilty, but that doesn’t mean he’s innocent.” Technically, that’s true. But it’s how losers try to justify the result they don’t like. Mueller knew Trump did not obstruct justice in firing Comey. The president was constitutionally authorized to dismiss him for a stated reason or no reason at all. Even Comey admitted it in a letter to his staff, and there were a plethora of reasons to sack the director. The president’s subsequent public remarks about the firing did not come close to exhibiting a “corrupt intent” to interfere in the Russian investigation. Trump’s comments were widely misreported and misrepresented by the media. This should come as no surprise to anyone. As for Trump’s alleged remark to Comey that he “hoped” that his fired national security adviser Michael Flynn would be cleared by the FBI, this did not constitute an attempt at obstruction of justice, as I explained in detail in my book, “The Russia Hoax.” Again, Comey all but admitted this when he testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee. In separate hearings, Rosenstein, Comey and Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe all assured Congress that no one had tried to obstruct their investigations. I suspect Mueller ducked his obligation to render a decision on obstruction and inserted the “exonerate” language in his report so that rabid Democrats in Congress would take up the anti-Trump cause as a pretext for impeachment proceedings. Sure enough, within minutes of Barr’s letter, House Judiciary Chairman Jerold Nadler, D-N.Y., commenced the obstruction-impeachment battle when he tweeted, “In light of the very concerning discrepancies and final decision making at the Justice Department following the Special Counsel report, where Mueller did not exonerate the President, we will be calling Attorney General Barr in to testify before the House Judiciary in the near future.” The Russia Hoax begat the Witch Hunt… and Mueller has seen to it that the Witch Hunt is far from over.

Agreed!   Thanks to former attorney Gregg Jarrett for that outstanding recap.  Gregg formerly worked as a defense attorney and adjunct law professor. He is the author of the No. 1 New York Times best-selling book “The Russia Hoax: The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump.”

Jarrett: If Rod Rosenstein defies Trump’s order to declassify documents, he should be fired

President Trump has ordered that numerous documents involving the Russia investigation be declassified. The records have long been sought by Congress under lawful subpoenas. Yet, the FBI and Department of Justice have consistently obstructed the release of these materials under the guise of “classified” secrets. This is a convenient alibi all too frequently employed to cover-up wrongdoing and abuse of authority by those we entrust to uphold the law. These days, overzealous government officials automatically designate nearly all matters as national security risks, regardless of whether they truly are. Whenever the FBI orders Chinese take-out, it is labeled “top secret” because… you know… it involves the Chinese. False classification has reached absurd proportions. How do we know? Every time information is declassified we learn that the material should never have been classified to begin with. It was nothing more than a subterfuge. Here are two recent examples: In July, a substantial portion of the wiretap warrant applications presented to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court was declassified. It turns out that no vital sources or methods were revealed in a way that jeopardized either national security or the FBI’s secret investigative techniques. Instead, we learned that much of the application to spy on a Trump campaign associate, Carter Page, was based on an unverified “dossier” that was funded by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and composed by a British spy, Christopher Steele, who was fired by the FBI for lying. This critical information was never fully or candidly disclosed to the FISA judges. They were deceived and defrauded. Regulations clearly state, “only documented and verified information may be used to support FBI applications to the (FISA) court.” In February, the Republican version of the House Intelligence Committee’s memo on the Russian investigation was also declassified. Once it was made public, we discovered that there was nothing therein that justified its suppression at the highest level of classification, “top secret.” Indeed, it should never have been classified at all. The FBI’s real objection was that it contained “material omissions” that made the bureau look bad. That is not a legitimate reason for originating or maintaining classification status..

Indeed..  For more of this article by attorney, and Fox News host, Gregg Jarrett, click on the text above.

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..