http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/10/30/gregg-jarrett-still-no-evidence-trump-russia-collusion-but-hillary-is-different-matter.html" rel="nofollow - http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/10/30/gregg-jarrett-still-no-evidence-trump-russia-collusion-but-hillary-is-different-matter.html
Over the weekend, the mainstream media was
absolutely giddy with delight upon learning there would be an indictment
by special counsel, Robert Mueller.
This was proof positive, they
insisted, that Trump “colluded” with Russia to influence the 2016
presidential election. Their exuberance was the equivalent of a two
day-long tailgate party. Too bad it was premature. Manafort & Gates
The celebration came to a crashing end when the
indictments of Paul Manafort and his business associate, Rick Gates,
were unsealed Monday morning. It turns out the charges are, basically, a
tax fraud case. The two men stand accused of hiding their income from
their lobbying work for Ukraine in order to avoid paying taxes, then
lying about it. That’s it.
The 31-page indictment makes no mention of Trump or
Russia or “collusion.” The media seemed as dejected as a kid who wakes
up on Christmas morning, only to find there are no presents under the
tree. Gee whiz.
The truth is, it should have come as no surprise to
anyone, much less the media, that Manafort was in legal jeopardy for his
business dealings. The FBI raided his home over the summer. It was
later learned that the FBI wiretapped his conversations as far back as
2014. And it was widely reported that Manafort had been told by
Mueller’s team that he would be criminally charged.
It could be said that Hillary
Clinton is the one who was conspiring with the Russians by breaking
campaign finance laws with impunity.
The media became even more dispirited when they read
through the indictment, discovering that nearly all of Manafort’s
alleged wrongdoing substantially pre-dates his brief stint as chairman
of the Trump campaign. In other words, there is no connection to either
Trump or his campaign.
Somewhere, I’m sure, ABC’s Martha Raddatz and CNN’s Van
Jones were crying. Again. Just like the tears they shed on camera
election night when Hillary lost.
Papadopoulos
But wait. Shortly after the indictments were unsealed,
the media’s spirits were suddenly boosted when the special counsel
revealed that a former adviser to Trump pleaded guilty to lying to the
FBI about his contacts with a Russian national during his time on the
Trump campaign. Surely this was evidence of illegal “collusion,” right?
Wrong. George Papadopoulos pled guilty to a single
charge of making a false statement to the FBI. He was not charged with
so-called “collusion” because http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/05/23/gregg-jarrett-what-is-robert-mueller-investigating-since-collusion-is-not-crime.html" rel="nofollow - no such crime exists in American statutory law, except in anti-trust matters. It has no application to elections and political campaigns.
It is not a crime to talk to a Russian. Not that the
media would ever understand that. They have never managed to point to a
single statute that makes “colluding” with a foreign government in a
political campaign a crime, likely because it does not exist in the
criminal codes.
To put it plainly, Mueller is tasked
with finding a crime that does not exist in the law. It is a legal
impossibility. He is being asked to do something that is manifestly
unattainable.
But that did not stop them from accusing Donald Trump,
Jr., of illegally conspiring with the Russians when he met with a
Russian lawyer to obtain information on Hillary Clinton. What law did
he break? None. The Federal Election Commission has made it clear that
it is perfectly lawful for foreign nationals to be involved in
campaigns, as long as they are not paid and do not donate money. Which
brings us to Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton
It is against the law for the Clinton campaign
and the Democratic National Committee to funnel millions of dollars to a
British spy and to Russian sources in order to obtain the infamous and
discredited Trump “dossier.” The Federal Election Campaign Act (52 USC
30101) prohibits foreign nationals and governments from giving or
receiving money in U.S. campaigns. It also prohibits the filing of
false or misleading campaign reports to hide the true purpose of the
money (52 USC 30121). This is what Clinton and the DNC appear to have
done.
Most often the penalty for violating this law is a
fine, but in egregious cases, like this one, criminal prosecutions have
been sought and convictions obtained. In this sense, it could be said
that Hillary Clinton is the one who was conspiring with the Russians by
breaking campaign finance laws with impunity.
But that’s not all. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/10/18/gregg-jarrett-clinton-cover-up-brought-to-by-same-guys-who-are-investigating-trump.html" rel="nofollow - Damning new evidence
appears to show that Clinton used her office as Secretary of State to
confer benefits to Russia in exchange for millions of dollars in
donations to her foundation and cash to her husband. Secret recordings,
intercepted emails, financial records, and eyewitness accounts
allegedly show that Russian nuclear officials enriched the Clintons at
the very time Hillary presided over a governing body which unanimously
approved the sale of one-fifth of America’s uranium supply to Russia.
If this proves to be a corrupt “pay-to-play” scheme, it
would constitute a myriad of crimes, including bribery (18 USC 201-b),
mail fraud (18 USC 1341), and wire fraud (18 USC 1343). It might also
qualify for racketeering charges (18 USC 1961-1968), if her foundation
is determined to have been used as a criminal enterprise.
Despite all the incriminating evidence, Clinton has
managed to avoid being pursued by a special counsel. Trump, on the
other hand, is being chased by Robert Mueller and his team,
notwithstanding a dearth of evidence.
Robert Mueller
The indictments of Manafort and Gates now present a unique opportunity to challenge the authority of the special counsel.
Until now, no one had legal “standing” to argue in
court that the appointment of Mueller was illegal. The criminal charges
change all that. The two defendants will be able to argue before a
judge that Mueller’s appointment by Acting Attorney General Rod
Rosenstein violated the special counsel law.
As I pointed out http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/05/23/gregg-jarrett-what-is-robert-mueller-investigating-since-collusion-is-not-crime.html" rel="nofollow - in a column last May , the law (28 CFR 600) grants legal authority to appoint a special counsel to investigate crimes.
Only crimes. He has limited jurisdiction. Yet, in his order
appointing Mueller as special counsel (Order No. 3915-2017), Rosenstein
directed him to investigate “any links and/or coordination between
the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of
President Donald Trump.” It fails to identify any specific crimes, likely because none are applicable.
To put it plainly, Mueller is tasked with finding a
crime that does not exist in the law. It is a legal impossibility. He
is being asked to do something that is manifestly unattainable.
If the federal judge agrees, Mueller and his team would
be disbanded by judicial order. The Department of Justice would have
to seek a new indictment of Manafort and Gates without the special
counsel or drop the case entirely.
The naming of Robert Mueller was tainted with
disqualifying conflicts of interest from the beginning. Fired FBI
Director James Comey admitted he leaked presidential memos to the media
for the sole purpose of triggering the appointment of a special counsel
who just happens to be Comey’s longtime friend, ally and partner.
It is no coincidence that Rosenstein appointed
Mueller. We now know both men were overseeing the corrupt Uranium One
sale which involved Russian bribes, kickbacks, extortion and money
laundering. They appear to have kept it secret, even hiding it from
Congress which would surely have cancelled the transaction involving a
vital national security asset. A cover-up? It has the stench of one.
How can Americans have confidence in the outcome of the
Trump-Russia matter if the integrity and impartiality of Mueller and
Rosenstein has been compromised by their suspected cover-up of the
Clinton-Russia case? Both men should resign.
And a new special counsel should be appointed – this time to investigate Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump.
Medclinician
------------- "not if but when" the original Medclinician
|