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.
COULD IT REALLY BE POSSIBLE, IS HILLARY CLINTON GOING TO RUN YET AGAIN?
In an OPED by Michael Goodwin of the New York Post, he speculates that Hillary Clinton, could yet be running again one more time in 2020. Personally, I doubt it but I would certainly be in favor of it. The more the merrier in the Democrat Presidential primary food fight. There really is no leader of the Democrat party, the so-called front runners Jone Biden and Bernie Sanders are dinosaurs. Who are Hillary’s competition, Sen. Kamala Harris in California, Sen. Cory Booker in New Jersey and Gov. Andrew Cuomo in New York? Really? It is yet another disastrous situation left from the Obama years, the Democrats have no bench.
Hillary Clinton lost the race in 2016 no one thought she could ever lose. She has all but never accepted her loss to Trump and has blamed everyone but herself. Could she be that delusional to run one more time. Oprah appears to be out. Is it really possible that Democrats have no one else but Hillary Clinton to run again?
The messages convey a sense of urgency, and are coming with increasing frequency. They are short, focused reactions to the latest “outrage” committed by President Trump.
Some end by asking for money, some urge participation in protests. All read as if they are sent from the official headquarters of the resistance.
Hillary Clinton is up to something.
Five times in the last month alone, she sent emails touting her super PAC’s role in combating President Trump. Most seized on headline events, such as the family separation issue at the southern border.
Under the message line, “horrific,” she wrote June 18: “This is a moral and humanitarian crisis. Everyone of us who has ever held a child in their arms, and every human being with a sense of compassion and decency should be outraged.” She said she warned about Trump’s immigration policies during the 2016 campaign.
Three days later, she was back again, saying that her group, Onward Together, raised $1 million and would split it among organizations working to change border policy, including the American Civil Liberties Union and a gaggle of immigrant, refugee, Latino and women’s groups.
Here’s how I believe she sees the playing field, and why she can’t be ignored.
First, because there’s no clear front-runner for the nomination 18 months into Trump’s presidency, Clinton remains the closest thing to an incumbent. She’s also got numerous advantages, from name recognition to campaign experience to an off-the-shelf cabinet, that could give her a head start.
Second, a crowded, diverse field diminishes the chances of anyone knocking her off. Recall how Trump outlasted 16 GOP rivals by having a committed core of supporters that grew as the field shrank. Clinton could be in a similar position — unpopular among many, but also unbeatable by a single opponent.
Third, looking ahead to the 2020 primaries, she sees no reason to fear the favorite daughters and sons in key blue states. She would almost certainly beat Sen. Kamala Harris in California, Sen. Cory Booker in New Jersey and Gov. Andrew Cuomo in New York.
And please — forget Sanders and Joe Biden. Sanders is already 76 and Biden, at 75, has never been a viable candidate for president and still isn’t.
Fourth, money is not an issue. Some donors will resist Clinton at first, but any Dem nominee can count on all the money in the world to run against Trump.
YAWN … Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton & Bernie Sanders Top 2020 Democratic Presidential Candidates in New Poll
POLL SHOWS THAT 3 DINOSAURS LEAD FOR DEMOCRAT PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES FOR 2020 …
According to a recent Harvard CAPS/Harris poll, with more than two years to go before the 2020 presidential election, former Vice President Joe Biden is the early favorite to represent the Democrats, Hilary Clinton is second and Bernie Sanders third. That is correct, the same old tired usual suspects are the leading candidates to take on President Trump in 2020. So the Democrats have the following as their best presidential candidates. Crazy Uncle Joe Biden, did we forget to mention CREEPY was first with 32%, Hillary Clinton, two time presidential candidate loser and the women who lost lost in the greatest political upset in history was second with 18%. And socialist Bernie Sanders was third with 16%. Doesn’t that just make you want to run out and vote? Did we mentions that for the 2020 elections, Biden will be 77, Hillary Clinton 72 and Sanders 78. What is this Jurassic Park 10? Honestly, I just can’t see Hillary running again after her 2016 debacle and her never getting over her loss. Sorry, but Biden and Sanders are too old. However, something tells me that Sanders will run and take the Democrat party of the liberal socialists cliff.
Others making the poll and showing the further lack of a Democrat bench were Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) was fourth with 10%, who will be 71. She was followed by Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) 6%, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg 3%, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) 2%, and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo each with 1%. Wow, that’s it? Others who have been rumored to be running are Former Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe, Former U.S. attorney general Eric Holder, Former Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick.
With more than two years to go before the next presidential election, former Vice President Joe Biden is the early favorite to represent the Democrats and try to unseat President Donald Trump in the 2020 election, according to a new poll.
Biden was the choice of 32 percent of Democrats in a Harvard CAPS/Harris June poll that was obtained by The Hill. The party’s 2016 standard bearer, Hillary Clinton, came in second with 18 percent and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., was third with 16 percent.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., was fourth with 10 percent of the vote.
Biden, who would be 77 on Election Day in 2020, has been one of Trump’s most vocal critics since the 2016 campaign. On at least two occasions, the former vice president has indicated that he wishes he was back in high school so that he could physically confront the president over his comments about women. (Trump responded in a tweet that Biden would “go down fast and hard, crying all the way” if they fought.)
Although Clinton has given no indication she intends to run again, both Biden and Sanders have not ruled out a run in 2020.
Among other Democrats included in the poll, The Hill reported that Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., got 6 percent, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg got 3 percent, Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., got 2 percent, while Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo each got 1 percent.
IG Report: Former FBI Director Comey Used Gmail for FBI Business when Director Despite Warning Employees Against It & Going After Hillary Clinton for the Same
OH THE IRONY …
I guess we now know why Comey went soft on Hillary Clinton when it came to Hillary Clinton using her personal email and server when she was Secretary of State. As it turns out, from the IG Report and according to CNBC, James Comey used his personal Gmail account to do FBI business.
James Comey used a personal Gmail account to conduct FBI business on numerous occasions when he was director of the bureau — even though he had bluntly warned FBI workers they would be in “huge trouble” for doing the same thing, the Justice Department’s internal watchdog revealed Thursday.
His frequent use of a personal email account for unclassified FBI business was “inconsistent with” Justice Department policy, according to a report issued by the Office of the Inspector General.
Comey was criticized in that report for usurping the power of the attorney general in his handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server for State Department business.
Comey had publicly said in the summer of 2016 that he was not recommending any criminal charges in connection with Clinton’s use of that email server.
Comey told FBI agents that if they used their personal email they would be in big trouble. But of course that same standard does not apply to crooked Comey.
But Comey added, “I have gotten emails from some employees about this, who said, ‘If I did what Hillary Clinton did I’d be in huge trouble.’”
“My response is you bet your ass you’d be in huge trouble,” Comey said in that speech.
“If you used a personal email, Gmail or if you [had] the capabilities to set up your own email domain, if you used an unclassified personal email system to do our business in the course of doing our business even though you were communicating with people with clearances and doing work you discussed classified matters in that, in those communications, TS/SCI, special access programs, you would be in huge trouble in the FBI,” Comey said.
From The Hill, Attorney General Jeff Sessions defended the firing of of the FBI’s top two former executives, FBI Director and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and warned that the forthcoming IG report on the FBI’s handling of the Hillary Clinton probe could result in more people being fired.
On the eve of the release of a potentially explosive new report, Attorney General Jeff Sessions defended the termination of the FBI’s top two former executives and warned that the forthcoming report on the FBI’s handling of the Hillary Clinton probe could result in more people being fired.
In an exclusive interview with The Hill’s new TV show “Rising,” which aired Thursday morning, Sessions defended the decision to fire ex-Director James Comey, who he said “made a big mistake” that belied a “serious breach of discipline.”
Sessions also made clear that he is open to firing more employees if the Justice Department inspector general’s soon-to-be-released report warrants it.
“I think it will be a lengthy report and a careful report,” he told “Rising” co-host Buck Sexton. “I think it will help us better fix any problems that we have and reassure the American people that some of the concerns that have been raised are not true.”
Everyone awaits the release of the IG’s report later today.