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.
Dinesh D’Souza Reacts to IG Report: “In America Today There Are Quite a Few Criminals with Badges” (VIDEO)
CRIMINALS WITH BADGES AT THE FBI, WHAT IS GOING TO BE DONE ABOUT IT?
Following the release of the IG report, Dinesh D’Souza put forth on ‘ The Ingraham Angle’ that the FBI’s conduct in investigating the Hillary Clinton email scandal and their was obvious institutionalized corruption and bias by far left operatives throughout the upper echelons of the FBI. Dinesh D’Souza stated, “In America today there are quite a few criminals with badges.” He was referring to the FBI agents that operated above the law and tried to influence an election with their bias and opening rooted for one candidate over another saying, they would stop the Trump presidency.
Dinesh D’Souza: I think the American people like me are arriving at the dismaying realization that in America today there are quite a few criminals with badges. Now, growing up as I did in India we had a lot of corruption and we knew that there were criminals on the street and there were criminals with badges. But the criminals with badges were more dangerous because they don’t just violate the law they corrupt the law.
I could not agree with Dinesh D’Souza more. At this point I could care less about Hillary Clinton. She is damaged goods and a two time loser. Just like every sane, normal person knows O.J. Simpson got away with a double murder, they also know that Hillary Clinton got away with her espionage crimes with her private server/emails as well. The IG report all but states that the investigation was mishandled by the FBI. However, Hillary Clinton is one person and is done, the FBI and DOJ is another story. There must be accountability and heads must role there. Americans cannot sit by and allow a government entity with such power to ever have this go on ever again. The bias and partisanship that was exuded by the heads of the FBI and DOJ are obvious. The systemic bias was also obvious. And … many of those bias people are still there and must be removed.
DRAIN THE DAMN SWAMP!!!
House Republicans Unveil Resolution Officially Calling For Second Special Counsel to Investigate the Investigators, (DOJ & FBI) VIDEO
COULD THERE BE A SECOND SPECIAL COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE THE INVESTIGATORS?
House Republicans unveiled Tuesday a 12 page resolution calling for a second special counsel to investigate misconduct and possible crimes at the highest levels of the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation. House Republicans and members of the Freedom Caucus have called for a special counsel as they believe that the FBI and DOJ are incapable of investigating themselves. I would agree. During the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s server/emails and the so-called Trump-Russian collusion investigations, we have been witness to bias, partisanship and a double standard from high ranking members of the DOJ & FBI, the likes we have never seen.
The resolution is backed by Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., the chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus as well as two of the group’s co-founders — Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Rep. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla.
Fox News has learned the 12-page resolution will ask a second special counsel to probe matters related to three topics:The ending of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s personal email server, the progress of the Trump-Russia investigation from its origins through the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel, and abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) during the warrant application process.
The resolution is expected to say that a second special counsel would have greater autonomy to investigate those issues than the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General. Last week, Inspector General Michael Horowitz told lawmakers that he had completed his draft report on the Clinton investigation and submitted it to the DOJ and the FBI.
House Republicans Call For Second Special Counsel Press Conference 5/22/18
Read the FULL Resolution HERE.
Expressing the sense of Congress that the Attorney General
of the United States should appoint a Special Counsel
to investigate misconduct at the Department of Justice
and Federal Bureau of Investigation, including an inves-
tigation of abuse of the FISA warrant process, how
and why the Hillary Clinton probe ended, and how and
why the Donald Trump-Russia probe began.
Whereas there is an urgent need for the appointment of a
second Special Counsel in light of evidence that raises
critical concerns about decisions, activities, and inherent
bias displayed at the highest levels of the Department of
Justice (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) regarding FISA abuse, how and why the Hillary
Clinton email probe ended, and how and why the Donald
Trump-Russia probe began;
Whereas the concerns of the American people are serious and
the issues requiring an immediate, unbiased, inde-
pendent, and thorough investigation are broad;
Whereas misconduct during the 2016 presidential election by
high-ranking individuals within the FBI and DOJ may
have led to the premature conclusion of the FBI’s 2016
probe into then-presidential candidate and former Sec-
retary of State Hillary Clinton; [...]
Whereas the DOJ and FBI cannot be expected to fully inves-
tigate themselves regarding this matter:
Mueller may have a Conflict of Interest … Leads directly to a Russian Oligarch Oleg Deripaska (VIDEO)
MUELLER HAS HIS OWN RUSSIAN PROBLEM …
From John Solomon of The Hill, Special counsel Robert Mueller appears to have his own Russian problem and his name is Oleg Deripaska. In 2009, when Mueller ran the FBI, the bureau asked Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska to spend millions of his own dollars funding an FBI-supervised operation to rescue a retired FBI agent. So why does a Russian oligarch spend $25 million of their own money unless there was something expected in return and a quid pro quo?
Update: Now we find out that 3 FBI agents visit Deripaska in NYC and tell him that they believe Russians are colluding with Trump through Manafort. It is reported that Deripaska laughed and told the FBI agents that there is no way they were colluding. One wonders if this info was made available to the FISA courts?
The Hill’s John Solomon explains on ‘The Ingraham Angle.’
Special counsel Robert Mueller has withstood relentless political attacks, many distorting his record of distinguished government service.
But there’s one episode even Mueller’s former law enforcement comrades — and independent ethicists — acknowledge raises legitimate legal issues and a possible conflict of interest in his overseeing the Russia election probe.
In 2009, when Mueller ran the FBI, the bureau asked Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska to spend millions of his own dollars funding an FBI-supervised operation to rescue a retired FBI agent, Robert Levinson, captured in Iran while working for the CIA in 2007.
Yes, that’s the same Deripaska who has surfaced in Mueller’s current investigation and who was recently sanctioned by the Trump administration.
The Levinson mission is confirmed by more than a dozen participants inside and outside the FBI, including Deripaska, his lawyer, the Levinson family and a retired agent who supervised the case. Mueller was kept apprised of the operation, officials told me.
Sean Hannity 5/14/18 – John Solomon
They said FBI agents courted Deripaska in 2009 in a series of secret hotel meetings in Paris; Vienna; Budapest, Hungary, and Washington. Agents persuaded the aluminum industry magnate to underwrite the mission. The Russian billionaire insisted the operation neither involve nor harm his homeland.
“We knew he was paying for his team helping us, and that probably ran into the millions,” a U.S. official involved in the operation confirmed.
One agent who helped court Deripaska was Andrew McCabe, the recently fired FBI deputy director who played a seminal role starting the Trump-Russia case, multiple sources confirmed.
Deripaska’s lawyer said the Russian ultimately spent $25 million assembling a private search and rescue team that worked with Iranian contacts under the FBI’s watchful eye. Photos and videos indicating Levinson was alive were uncovered.
The FBI Launches New Clinton Foundation Investigation Into Any Pay-to-Play Politics or Other Illegal Activities (VIDEO)
NOW FOR THE REAL INVESTIGATIONS INTO CORRUPTION …
The shoe might finally have dropped on the Clintons’. The Hill is reporting that the Justice Department has launched a new into whether the Clinton Foundation engaged in any pay-to-play politics or other illegal activities while Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State in the Obama administration. A spokesperson for the Clinton’s has called the investigation a sham. However, as John Solomon writes, for years, “news media from the New York Times to The Daily Caller have reported countless stories on donations to the Clinton Foundation or speech fees that closely fell around the time of favorable decisions by Hillary Clinton’s State Department.” It is obvious from the Hillary Clinton email investigations that the Clinton’s received preferential treatment from the Obama DOJ and FBI in how that was handled. Why wouldn’t we think the same of this? What’s good for the gander should be good for the goose as well. Let’s have an independent prosecutor investigate the Clinton Foundation and her private email server and have it be an unlimited budget, open ended investigation while having all of the investigative team be Trump supporters and anti-Clinton folks. Go for it.
Sean Hannity: 1/4/18 – Hannity Fox News with John Soloman and Sara Carter
The Justice Department has launched a new inquiry into whether the Clinton Foundation engaged in any pay-to-play politics or other illegal activities while Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State, law enforcement officials and a witness tells The Hill.
FBI agents from Little Rock, Ark., where the Foundation was started, have taken the lead in the investigation and have interviewed at least one witness in the last month, and law enforcement officials said additional activities are expected in coming weeks.
The officials, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, said the probe is examining whether the Clintons promised or performed any policy favors in return for largesse to their charitable efforts or whether donors made commitments of donations in hopes of securing government outcomes.
The probe may also examine whether any tax-exempt assets were converted for personal or political use and whether the Foundation complied with applicable tax laws, the officials said.
One witness recently interviewed by the FBI described the session to The Hill as “extremely professional and unquestionably thorough” and focused on questions about whether donors to Clinton charitable efforts received any favorable treatment from the Obama administration on a policy decision previously highlighted in media reports.