Jonathan Turley: If Trump Meeting is Illegal, then Clinton Dossier is Criminal Too … Actually Much More Criminal
SO WHY DOES THE MSM ONLY SEE THAT TRUMP’S ACTION WERE CRIMINAL AND NOT HILLARY?
From Jonathan Turley of The Hill comes the following logic when trying to figure out why the liberal media would call one action by Donald Trump Jr. a crime, but completely dismissing the actions of Hillary Clinton and the Russian dossier. The liberal media in their efforts of “gotcha” of President Trump at any and all cost have basically described a crime, that of which Hillary Clinton did, not Donald Trump.
CNN, co-host Alisyn Camerota claims claimed that it is an “open and shut case” that taking dirt on Hillary from the Russians was a crime by the Trump campaign. Really? The CNN host does realize that no dirt was gained and the meeting was ended soon after, correct? Now compare that with what Hillary Clinton did. Dear Ms. Camerota, then what would you call it when Hillary Clinton bought and paid for the so called Russian Dossier from former British spy Christopher Steele (a foreign national) who dealt with the Russians to get info? As lawyer and legal scholar, Jonathan Turley clearly points out in a fair and unbiased manner, fi the LEFT thinks what the Trump campaign did was a crime, then the Clinton campaign was times 100! One was a meeting, end of story, the other was a bought and paid for Russian dossier by Hillary.
Take the crime being proclaimed as “open and shut.” Before Camerota came to this conclusion, the CNN anchors discussed federal election laws that make it a “crime for any person to solicit, accept, or receive, anything of value from a foreign person or U.S. political campaign for the purpose of influencing any elections for federal office.” Thus, if Trump Jr. was willing to review evidence of criminal conduct by Clinton, it must be a type of foreign campaign contribution and, therefore, a federal crime.
Such logic is so inescapable that Camerota responded, “I mean, what more really is there to talk about after that one?” The answer is “a lot more.” The Russians setting up the meeting said their government had evidence of criminal conduct connected to the Clinton Foundation soliciting illegal donations. According to witnesses, Trump Jr. asked for the promised evidence but Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya said she did not have it and only wanted to talk about Magnitsky Act limitations on Russian adoptions. The meeting ended shortly thereafter.
Consider the implications of what the critics are suggesting. It would mean treating information as a form of political contribution as no different from money, for purposes of a criminal charge, even information about criminal acts by an election candidate. That would mean administrations could prosecute political opponents for merely attending meetings with foreign individuals to discuss the criminal conduct of a sitting American president. Democratic politicians could be charged if they reviewed evidence of alleged bribes or quid pro quos by Trump.
Indeed, it could be any foreign source, since the law is ambiguous. Does that not include foreign organizations like environmental and other public interest groups? How about journalists or lawyers sharing evidence of crimes by powerful politicians? Fortunately, courts likely would reject such an interpretation as a major threat to First Amendment freedoms of speech and even the press. So why are so many journalists and activists blind to implications of such an expansion? The answer is rage. We live in the age of rage, from Trump tweets to cable news crusades.
The latest media frenzy is part of the Newtonian principles that now guide both politics and journalism: “To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction.” However, journalists and lawyers are trained to avoid immediate involuntary reactions, particularly when the potential costs are so prohibitive. Responding to a sweeping political tweet with a sweeping legal interpretation is neither equal nor wise. In the end, the Trump Tower controversy is not based on “fake news” as claimed by the president, but the federal crime alleged by the media is based on fake law.
ANOTHER FBI SCANDAL, FBI HAD 3 VERSIONS OF FBI SO-CALLED RUSSIAN DOSSIER …
Bombshell from by John Solomon at The Hill:
Was the FBI using circular information flows to create the case of collusion against Trump? It sure looks that way and they were very well aware of it.
“The pattern is so troubling that one investigator said this to me: “The dossier and its related dirt was on a circular flight path aboard a courier service called ‘Air Clinton,’ and the FBI kept signing for the packages.”
Like dandelions in an untreated lawn, the now infamous Russian dossier apparently multiplied in numbers — and emissaries delivering it to the FBI — the closer Donald Trump got to the White House.
We know from public testimony that dossier author and former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele shared his findings with the FBI in summer and fall 2016 before he was terminated as a confidential source for inappropriate media contacts.
And we learned that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) provided a copy to the FBI after the November 2016 election — out of a sense of duty, his office says.
Now, memos the FBI is turning over to Congress show the bureau possessed at least three versions of the dossier and its mostly unverified allegations of collusion.
Each arrived from a different messenger: McCain, Mother Jones reporter David Corn, Fusion GPS founder (and Steele boss) Glenn Simpson.
That revelation is in an email that disgraced FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok wrote to FBI executives around the time BuzzFeed published a version of the dossier on Jan. 10, 2017.
“Our internal system is blocking the site,” Strzok wrote of the document posted on BuzzFeed. “I have the PDF via iPhone but it’s 25.6MB. Comparing now. The set is only identical to what McCain had. (it has differences from what was given to us by Corn and Simpson.)”
The significance of Strzok’s email is obvious to investigators who reviewed it in recent days. The FBI is supposed to be immune to manipulation by circular information flows, especially with sensitive investigations such as evaluating whether a foreign power tampered with an American election.
Rep Trey Gowdy (R-SC) Eviscerates Lying, Obstructionist FBI Agent Peter Strzok on Dossier Lies (VIDEO)
AMONG THE CIRCUS, THERE WAS SOME ASTONISHING THINGS THAT WERE MADE EVIDENT … STRZOK WAS BIAS AND ACTED ON IT.
Watch below, as Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) destroys FBI agent Peter Strzok. Earlier in the day Strzok had refused to answer Gowdy’s questions on the advise of FBI attorneys. Then finally, after the House committee had returned and Strzok was told he could answer such questions, this smug little SOB, who is paid by tax payers and works for us, provided a snotty, wise ass answer that was a non-answer and stated he couldn’t remember. That’s when Rep. Gowdy took Strzok a part piece by piece and showed Strzok for the bias liar that he is.
Then as what happened all day, when the GOP got close into nailing Strzok, the Democrats on the committee tried to obstruct and confuse the hearing.
HILLARY EMAILS GOING TO UNAUTHORIZED SERVER AND STRZOK COULD HAVE CARED LESS …
In a day that was filled with a lot of insanity, fireworks and ridiculousness, there were some bits and pieces that that should have made everyone stand up and notice. Rep. Gohmert (R-TX) made an astonishing revelation that FBI agent Strzok could have cared less about Hillary Clinton’s 30,000 emails going to an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia. And just as Strzok did during the so-called investigation of Hillary’s emails, he did during the hearing, he could have cared less. But of course there was no bias.
Strzok: I remember meeting Mr. Rucker on either one or two occasions. I do not recall the specific content or discussions.
Gohmert: Mr. Rucker reported to those of you, the four of you there, in the presence of the ICIG attorney, that they had found this anomaly on Hillary Clinton’s emails going through their private server, and when they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her emails, every single one except four, over 30,000, were going to an address that was not on the distribution list. It was a compartmentalized bit of information that was sending it to an unauthorized source. Do you recall that?
Strozk: Sir, I don’t.
Gohmert: He went on the explain it. And you didn’t say anything, you thanked him, you shook his hand. The problem is it was going to an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia and from what you’ve said here, you did nothing more than nod and shake the man’s hand when you didn’t seem to be all that concerned about our national integrity of our election when it was involving Hillary Clinton. So the forensic examination was done by the ICIG — and they can document that — but you were given that information and you did nothing with it. And one of the things I found most egregious with Mr. Horowitz’s testimony, and — by the way Mr. Horowitz got a call four times from someone wanting to brief him about this, and he never returned the call.
The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) found an “anomaly on Hillary Clinton’s emails going through their private server, and when they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her emails, every single one except four, over 30,000, were going to an address that was not on the distribution list,” Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas said during a hearing with FBI official Peter Strzok.
“It was going to an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia,” he added.
Gohmert said the ICIG investigator, Frank Rucker, presented the findings to Strzok, but that the FBI official did not do anything with the information.
Strzok acknowledged meeting with Rucker, but said he did not recall the “specific content.”
“The forensic examination was done by the ICIG and they can document that,” Gohmert said, “but you were given that information and you did nothing with it.”
He also said that someone alerted the Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz to the issue.
“Mr. Horowitz got a call four times from someone wanting to brief him about this, and he never returned the call,” Gohmert said.
The ICIG spotted the oversight after the FBI missed it, texts between Strzok and his mistress, former FBI lawyer Lisa Page, show.
“Holy cow,” Strzok wrote, “if the FBI missed this, what else was missed? … Remind me to tell you to flag for Andy [redacted] emails we (actually ICIG) found that have portion marks (C) on a couple of paras. DoJ was Very Concerned about this.”
In late 2017, ICIG Chuck McCullough — who was appointed by former President Barack Obama — took the unusual step of coming forward publicly to say that he perceived pushback after he began raising the alarm about issues with Clinton’s servers to then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.
WHAT DOES SHE HAVE TO HIDE, BESIDES A LOT!!!
FBI attorney Lisa Page will not comply with a Congressional subpoena and appear before a closed door Judicial hearing today. It appears that the former FBI love-bird has not had enough time to prepare. REALLY, not enough time? Defy a Congressional subpoena? So just what does Page have to hide from Congress and We the People? Lisa Page and FBI agent Peter Strzok were caught making some rather outlandish and bias texts against Donald Trump. They were so free and willing to text each other when they thought no one was watching, so then why doesn’t she want to explain herself? Strzok, her former boyfriend, is slated to appear in a public hearing on Thursday. The corruption, bias and conspiracy that took place at the highest levels of the FBI and DOJ is breath-taking.
These lovebird should soon be jailbirds. Let alone the conspiracy to affect an election these two took part in, they should be jailed for the amount of time they sent each other tens of thousands of texts to each other of a personal nature while they were on the job and being paid with tax payer money.
Page’s lawyer said in a statement obtained by Politico that she will not comply with a congressional subpoena to testify before the House Judiciary and the Oversight and Government Reform Committees.
“Instead of responding to our requests to explain the scope of the interview and provide sufficient notice to allow her to prepare, the Committees chose to issue a subpoena,” Page’s attorney wrote.
“The Committees would be asking Lisa about materials she has not yet been shown,” the lawyer continued. “As a result, Lisa is not going to appear for an interview at this time.”
The response from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte:
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) blasted Page’s announcement in a statement Tuesday night, accusing the former FBI lawyer of having “something to hide.”
“She has known for months that the House Judiciary Committee has sought her testimony as part of our joint investigation with the Oversight Committee into decisions made by the Justice Department in 2016, and she has no excuse for her failure to appear,” Goodlatte wrote.
“We will use all tools at our disposal to obtain her testimony. Americans across the country are alarmed at the bias exhibited by top officials at the Justice Department and FBI, and it is imperative Congress conduct vigorous oversight to ensure that never happens again.”