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.
Emails Show 2016 Links Among Christopher Steele, Bruce Ohr, Glenn Simpson and Russian Oligarch Oleg Deripaska (VIDEO)
JUST WHO WAS THE COLLUSION WITH?
From the Washington Examiner, emails in 2016 between former British spy Christopher Steele and Justice Department official Bruce Ohr suggest Steele was deeply concerned about the legal status of a Putin-linked Russian oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, and at times seemed to be advocating on the oligarch’s behalf, in the same time period Steele worked on collecting the Russia-related allegations against Donald Trump that came to be known as the Trump dossier. Hmm. As John Solomon of The Hill (Video) states, “Fusion GPS’s work and its involvement with several FBI officials have been well reported, but a close review of these new documents shows just how closely Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, who reported to Obama-era Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, maintained contact with Fusion — and, in particular, its primary source, former British spy Christopher Steele — before, during and after the election. So just who was colluding with who? The individuals who were colluding and up to no good appear not to have been Trump, it was the deep state.
Byron York of the Washington Examiner talks about the link between Steele and DOJ official
Emails in 2016 between former British spy Christopher Steele and Justice Department official Bruce Ohr suggest Steele was deeply concerned about the legal status of a Putin-linked Russian oligarch, and at times seemed to be advocating on the oligarch’s behalf, in the same time period Steele worked on collecting the Russia-related allegations against Donald Trump that came to be known as the Trump dossier. The emails show Steele and Ohr were in frequent contact, that they intermingled talk about Steele’s research and the oligarch’s affairs, and that Glenn Simpson, head of the dirt-digging group Fusion GPS that hired Steele to compile the dossier, was also part of the ongoing conversation.
The emails, given to Congress by the Justice Department, began on Jan. 12, 2016, when Steele sent Ohr a New Year’s greeting. Steele brought up the case of Russian aluminum magnate Oleg Deripaska (referred to in various emails as both OD and OVD), who was at the time seeking a visa to attend an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in the United States. Years earlier, the U.S. revoked Deripaska’s visa, reportedly on the basis of suspected involvement with Russian organized crime. Deripaska was close to Paul Manafort, the short-term Trump campaign chairman now on trial for financial crimes, and this year was sanctioned in the wake of Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election.
Steele also asked Ohr when he might be coming to London, or somewhere in Europe, “as I would be keen to meet up here and talk business.” Ohr replied warmly the same day and said he would likely travel to Europe, but not the U.K., at least twice in February.
Steele emailed again on Feb. 8 to alert Ohr that “our old friend OD apparently has been granted another official [emphasis in original] visa to come to the US later this month.” Steele wrote, “As far as I’m concerned, this is good news all round although as before, it would be helpful if you could monitor it and let me know if any complications arise.” Ohr replied that he knew about Deripaska’s visa, and “to the extent I can I will keep an eye on the situation.” Steele again asked to meet anytime Ohr was in the U.K. or Western Europe.
BETTER LATE THAN NEVER AND THEY SHOW EXACTLY WHAT WE SUSPECTED …
On Saturday, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton announced documents related to the FISA warrants on Donald Trump’s former campaign advisor, Carter Page, were released by the FBI and received at the JW headquarters. This is a long time in coming. From JW, the pending document production comes in a February 2018 Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed after the DOJ rejected a July 19, 2017, FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-00245)). The docs show exactly what many of us suspected since the outset. These documents are heavily redacted but seem to confirm the FBI and DOJ misled the courts in withholding the material information.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton made the following statement regarding today’s release of 412 pages of documents about FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) warrants targeting Carter Page, who had been a Trump campaign adviser:
These documents are heavily redacted but seem to confirm the FBI and DOJ misled the courts in withholding the material information that Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the DNC were behind the “intelligence” used to persuade the courts to approve the FISA warrants that targeted the Trump team. Given this corruption, President Trump should intervene and declassify the heavily redacted material.
The documents were due to Judicial Watch yesterday but were emailed around 5:30 pm today.
The warrants are controversial because the FISA court was never told that the key information justifying the requests came from a “dossier” that was created by Fusion GPS, a paid agent of the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee. The initial Carter Page warrant was granted just weeks before the 2016 election. Today’s document release supports criticisms by Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee who released a memo that criticized the FISA targeting. The memo details how the “minimally corroborated” Clinton-DNC dossier was an essential part of the FBI and DOJ’s applications for surveillance warrants to spy on Page.
Fitton and others call for declassification of documents.
ED SCHULTZ PASSES AWAY …
Today it comes as a surprise that longtime broadcaster Ed Schultz has died at the age if 64. Media reports state that he dies of “natural causes” as Schultz passed quietly early morning on July 5 at his home in Washington, D.C. I can’t say I agreed with much Ed Schultz had to say, although I can agree that passing away at the age of 64 is far too young. After his show was canceled at MSNBC Schultz joined TT America to produce “The News with Ed Schultz.” As reported at the Washington Free Beacon, Schultz and his new show were criticized by many of his fellow progressives for taking a new positive tone towards both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Republican President Donald Trump. None more evident where I never agreed more with Ed Schultz as he ripped Hillary Clinton a new one for not having the common decency to give her concession speech, but instead prolonging the BS by sending out her campaign chair Podesta instead. Schultz stated, this is the same campaign that was questing Trump to how he would handle the outcome of the election.”
Schultz rips Hillary Clinton for not speaking on election night
Ed Schultz, the longtime broadcaster who churned up the Fargo-Moorhead area airwaves before moving into the national spotlight as a progressive firebrand, died of natural causes Thursday, July 5, at his home in Washington, D.C.
Schultz, the host of “The News With Ed Schultz” on RT America, was 64.
“We at RT America are sad to announce the passing of Edward Andrew Schultz. Ed Schultz passed quietly early morning on July 5 at his home in Washington, D.C. This announcement comes as a shock to all of us here at RT America,” the network said in a statement.
Schultz never shied away from controversy. If anything, he sought it out.
He was a man of contrasts. A political chameleon with a driving ambition. [...]
In 2004, Schultz took his radio show nationwide. Then in 2009, he moved to national television, becoming a prime-time progressive voice on MSNBC through 2015, when his show was dropped.
He started his job at RT America, formerly called Russia Today, in early 2016, hosting the half-hour show “The News With Ed Schultz.”
Schultz, who was critical of Russian President Vladimir Putin while at MSNBC, said when he took the RT job that he didn’t anticipate any problems. “Nobody is going to tell Ed Schultz what to say,” he told The Forum.
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: