Sean Hannity 7/12/17: More MSM Double Standard …Where is the Democrat Outrage of Hillary Clinton/Ukraine Collusion? (VIDEO)
THE LIBERAL MSM HYPOCRISY AND DOUBLE STANDARD …
Watch below … this is the reason why Sean Hannity is the new #1 and why the LEFT wants to destroy him. It is too bad Republicans in the House and Senate didn’t have a spine also.
Where is this Collusion Investigate: Ukrainian Government Officials tried to Help Hillary Clinton and Undermine Donald Trump
BIAS MEDIA AND WITCH HUNT … WHERE IS INVESTIGATION THAT HILLARY CLINTON COLLUDED WITH UKRAINIAN’S?
As the bias and liberal media conducts a Russian witch hunt on President Donald Trump, fueled by illegal leaks, weak-kneed establishment Republicans and a faction of Never-Trumper individuals, they all seem to have completed neglected the actual collusion that took place between Hillary Clinton and the Ukrainian government. That is correct, collusion. I would ask, what is the difference? Why is it Trump collusion when investigations have gone on for months and nothing has been found and when Hillary actually does collude, mum is the word? From the Politico, hardly alt-right news, comes the story of collusion between Ukrainian government officials who tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Donald Trump. Imagine that? So where is the investigations? Oh, that’s right, this does not fit the bias media’s liberal agenda and talking points to get Trump and overthrow a duly elected president. Instead, we go after Trump and his people for using Russian dressing on their salad, for drinking white or black Russians and eating chicken Kiev.
Forget the fact that Hillary Clinton had connections with Russia … why did Bill Clinton get paid $500,000 for a speech in Russia? Why did Secretary Hillary Clinton allow sale of United States uranium resources to Russia? Use your heads folks, you are being played by the MSM, Democrats, the LEFT and loser establishment Republicans who care more about power than this country and its people.
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.
A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.
The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort’s resignation and advancing the narrative that Trump’s campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine’s foe to the east, Russia. But they were far less concerted or centrally directed than Russia’s alleged hacking and dissemination of Democratic emails.
Yet Politico’s investigation found evidence of Ukrainian government involvement in the race that appears to strain diplomatic protocol dictating that governments refrain from engaging in one another’s elections.
Hillary Collusion … What difference does it make, the MSM will never investigate it
Folks, you really need to read this Politico piece, it is very informative an the MSM will never discuss it.
The Ukrainian antipathy for Trump’s team — and alignment with Clinton’s — can be traced back to late 2013. That’s when the country’s president, Viktor Yanukovych, whom Manafort had been advising, abruptly backed out of a European Union pact linked to anti-corruption reforms. Instead, Yanukovych entered into a multibillion-dollar bailout agreement with Russia, sparking protests across Ukraine and prompting Yanukovych to flee the country to Russia under Putin’s protection.
In the ensuing crisis, Russian troops moved into the Ukrainian territory of Crimea, and Manafort dropped off the radar.
Manafort’s work for Yanukovych caught the attention of a veteran Democratic operative named Alexandra Chalupa, who had worked in the White House Office of Public Liaison during the Clinton administration. Chalupa went on to work as a staffer, then as a consultant, for Democratic National Committee. The DNC paid her $412,000 from 2004 to June 2016, according to Federal Election Commission records, though she also was paid by other clients during that time, including Democratic campaigns and the DNC’s arm for engaging expatriate Democrats around the world.
UPDATE I: With Hillary Clinton, there was no intent to collude, there was actual collusion. So where is the outrage?
Peter Hasson of The Daily Caller reminded everyone of a Politico report detailing the coordination between the two: Democratic National Committee (DNC) operative Alexandra Chalupa met with Ukrainian government officials for dirt on Paul Manafort, who at the time was rumored to replace Corey Lewandowski as Donald Trump’s campaign manager.
Once Manafort officially became Lewandowski’s replacement, Chalupa shared her opposition research on Manafort with the DNC, and they were ecstatic about it.
The Ukrainian government denied the allegations made in the Politico report, but their denial was undercut by former Ukrainian embassy official Andrii Telizhenko admitting “that he was assigned to work with Chalupa” and that “they were coordinating an investigation with the Hillary team on Paul Manafort with Alexandra Chalupa.”
The DNC simply claimed that Chalupa’s coordination with the Ukrainian government were her actions alone.
Former FBI Director James Comey’s Private Memos on President Trump Conversations Contained Classified Material
IMAGINE THAT, FBI DIRECTOR COMELY BROKE THE VERY RULES HE WAS CHARGED TO INVESTIGATE HILLARY CLINTON … BOY SCOUT, EH?
From The Hill comes the following bombshell that should be filling up today’s news cycle if we had a fair and balanced media. According to interviews with officials familiar with the documents, former FBI director James Comey’s private memos he wrote regarding conversations he had with President Donald Trump have been determined to contain classified information. According to The Daily Caller, four of the documents have been marked by the FBI as containing information classified as both “Confidential” and “Secret.”
More than half of the memos former FBI chief James Comey wrote as personal recollections of his conversations with President Trump about the Russia investigation have been determined to contain classified information, according to interviews with officials familiar with the documents.
This revelation raises the possibility that Comey broke his own agency’s rules and ignored the same security protocol that he publicly criticized Hillary Clinton for in the waning days of the 2016 presidential election.
Comey testified last month he considered the memos to be personal documents and that he shared at least one of them with a Columbia University lawyer friend. He asked that lawyer to leak information from one memo to the news media in hopes of increasing pressure to get a special prosecutor named in the Russia case after Comey was fired as FBI director.
But when the seven memos Comey wrote regarding his nine conversations with Trump about Russia earlier this year were shown to Congress in recent days, the FBI claimed all were, in fact, deemed to be government documents.
While the Comey memos have been previously reported, this is the first time there has been a number connected to the amount of the memos the ex-FBI chief wrote.
Four of the memos had markings making clear they contained information classified at the “secret” or “confidential” level, according to officials directly familiar with the matter.
Oh the irony and maybe we can begin to understand why Comey took the position he did with regards to Hillary Clinton’s private email server and emails. Maybe Comey does the same thing. It certainly appears that he did when it comes to meetings he had with Donald Trump. Just how many more CYA memos does he have just like this that would only have seen the light of day if he needed to play a “trump” card?
It is not clear whether Comey as director signed the same agreement as his agents, but the contract is considered the official policy of the bureau. It was also unclear when the documents were shown to Congress whether the information deemed “secret” or “confidential” was classified at the time Comey wrote the memos or determined so afterwards, the sources said.
Congressional investigators had already begun examining whether Comey’s creation, storage and sharing of the memos violated FBI rules, but the revelation that four of the seven memos included some sort of classified information opens a new door of inquiry into whether classified information was mishandled, improperly stored or improperly shared.
Ironically, that was the same issue the FBI investigated in 2015-16 under Comey about Clinton’s private email server, where as secretary of State she and top aides moved classified information through insecure channels.
Senate Judiciary Committee Opens Probe into Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s Efforts to Shape the FBI’s Investigation With 2016 Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Campaign
IF THERE EVER WAS COLLUSION AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, LOOK NO FURTHER THAN OBAMA’S FORMER AG, LORETTA LYNCH.
During the Senate Judiciary Committee with former FBI director James Comey we learned there was actual collusion and obstruction of justice; however, it has nothing to do with the Trump administration, it was with the Obama one. On Friday, the Senate Judiciary Committee leaders said they are seeking information about former attorney general Loretta Lynch’s alleged efforts to stifle the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while Clinton was secretary of State. Yeah, that little investigation that Lynch wanted FBI Director Comey to call a matter. Comey testified, “When I said, we have opened a matter, they all reported the FBI has an investigation open. And so that concerned me because that language tracked the way the campaign was talking about FBI’s work and that’s concerning.” However, in the end Comey had no problem doing what she said. Hmm, no notes taken and no obstruction of justice decided by Comey. Imagine that?
Following this amazing admission under oath by the former FBI director, even Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said that there should be an investigation into former Obama administration Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s actions
The Senate Judiciary Committee has opened a probe into former Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s efforts to shape the FBI’s investigation into 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, the committee’s chairman announced Friday.
In a letter to Ms. Lynch, the committee asks her to detail the depths of her involvement in the FBI’s investigation, including whether she ever assured Clinton confidantes that the probe wouldn’t “push too deeply into the matter.”
Fired FBI Director James B. Comey has said publicly that Ms. Lynch tried to shape the way he talked about the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s emails, and he also hinted at other behavior “which I cannot talk about yet” that made him worried about Ms. Lynch’s ability to make impartial decisions.
Mr. Comey said that was one reason why he took it upon himself to buck Justice Department tradition and reveal his findings about Mrs. Clinton last year.
How is Robert Mueller Allowed to Be Independent Special Counsel When Special Counsel Statute Specifically Prohibits It Because of Conflict of Interest (VIDEO)
ISN’T THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL, SUPPOSED TO BE INDEPENDENT?
What would the LEFT be saying today if the individual picked to be the Independent counsel investigating the Russian hacking and any so-called involvement of Donald Trump and obstruction of justice was a friend and mentor of Trump? This is a legitimate question. According to the special counsel statute, it specifically prohibits individuals from serving if he/she has “a personal relationship with any person substantially involved in the investigation or prosecution.” The language is mandatory as it states “shall” disqualify himself. It does not say, might, kinda or sort of. Shall means shall. Gregg Jarrett of Fox News is 100% correct in that Robert Mueller has no business being the independent counsel. Mueller has a complete conflict of interest. The two men and former colleagues have long been friends, allies and partners. One has to wonder how Mueller was selected in the first place. Unless the fix is in.
28 CFR Section 45.2 provides in part:
Disqualification arising from personal or political relationship.
(a) Unless authorized under paragraph (b) of this section, no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with:
(1) Any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution; or
(2) Any person or organization which he knows has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution …
(c) For the purposes of this section:
(2) Personal relationship means a close and substantial connection of the type normally viewed as likely to induce partiality. … Whether relationships (including friendships) of an employee to other persons (outside his or her family) or organizations are “personal” must be judged on an individual basis with due regard given to the subjective opinion of the employee.
It does not matter whether Robert Mueller is an honorable man or a Boy Scout. Provisions like this are put in to maintain that there is no appearance of impropriety. It takes the subjectivity out of such an investigation. Honestly, who thinks some one can be objective to the man that fired his friend? If Robert Mueller was truly a man of honor as so many claim, he would understand and admit he is woefully conflicted and recuse himself. The canons of ethics and the law are greater than any one person and the blood lust to destroy them. Or are they?
The Washington Post is reporting that Robert Mueller is now investigating President Trump for obstruction of justice, examining not only the president’s alleged statement to James Comey in their February meeting, but also the firing of the FBI Director.
If true, this development makes the argument even more compelling that Mueller cannot serve as special counsel. He has an egregious conflict of interest.
The special counsel statute specifically prohibits Mueller from serving if he has “a personal relationship with any person substantially involved in the investigation or prosecution.” The language is mandatory. He “shall” disqualify himself. Comey is substantially involved in the case. Indeed, he is the central witness.
The two men and former colleagues have long been friends, allies and partners. Agents have quipped that they were joined at the hip while at the Department of Justice and the FBI. They have a mentor-protégé relationship. The likelihood of prejudice and favoritism is glaring and severe.
So, it is incomprehensible that the man who is a close friend of the star witness against the president… will now determine whether the president committed a prosecutable crime in his dealings with Mueller’s good friend. Mueller cannot possibly be fair in judging the credibility of his friend versus the man who fired him.
Is the special counsel now motivated to retaliate against the president for ending Comey’s career at the FBI? Will he be tempted to conjure criminality where none actually exist?
Even worse, are Mueller and Comey now “colluding” by acting as co-special prosecutors to bring down the president? By meeting in advance of the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, did they plan Comey’s testimony to depict Trump in the most incriminating light? These are legitimate questions that invite serious concerns.
UPDATE I: USA Today – Robert Mueller should recuse himself from Russia investigation: William G. Otis is an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center, a former federal prosecutor, and former special counsel for President George H.W. Bush.
Former FBI director is too close to his successor, James Comey, to be impartial.
Robert Mueller is a man of integrity with a long record of public service. In the abstract, he would be the right selection as special counsel in the Russia investigation. Under the specific circumstances of this case, however, with his longtime friend James Comey at the center of the inquiry, Mueller’s the wrong choice. The public cannot be as sure as it needs to be of his objectivity.
This is true for reasons similar to those that prompted Attorney General Jeff Sessions to recuse himself from the same investigation. Sessions testified Tuesday that he felt he had no proper choice because he had a potential political conflict of interest, having been a campaign adviser to President Trump. Mueller should likewise step away because he has a potential personal conflict of interest, having been a longtime friend of a crucial witness, Comey, and Comey’s key ally at the most important moment of his career.
Mueller and fired FBI Director James Comey are best buds. Family vacations, picnics, hours spent at the office, and a few cocktails after work. As an impartial arbiter Mueller will be tasked to determine whom he believes, but Muelller is predisposed to believe his friend Comey. Wouldn’t you? The elements of obstruction of justice can be highly interpretive, so expect some legal exposure for our president.
Comey stated that he “leaked” the Trump meeting memo to The New York Times to stimulate the appointment of a special counsel. That admission is enlightening. As the Director of the FBI, Mr. Comey had the authority, stature and responsibility to deal with a violation of law. What he appeared to lack is courage or conviction.
The fact that Comey leaked the memo places him in some legal jeopardy. He could be charged with two federal violations. Should we expect to place Mueller into the position to investigate his dear friend? Even if Mueller believes himself capable of being impartial, our hearts will usually override our minds.
Why Mueller should step down as special counsel or recuse himself from any aspect of the investigation involving Comey: