October 31, 2017

Still no evidence of Trump-Russia 'collusion' - but Hillary is a different matter

Dana Mathewson

Yesterday, Special Counsel Robert Mueller finally produced some results after what seems like eons of dithering. You'll remember he was supposed to be delving into the alleged "collusion" between the Trump For President campaign and (gasp) Russia. Specifically,

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.”
However, there's a problem here, because
the law (28 CFR 600) grants legal authority to appoint a special counsel to investigate crimes. Only crimes. He has limited jurisdiction. . . . 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.
This is because "collusion," as has previously been pointed out by no less a legal authority than Alan Dershowitz, is not a crime.

Mueller knew he had to produce something for all his effort, and to satisfy the vultures in Washington it needed to be somebody who had a connection to the President, no matter how tenuous, so he nabbed Paul Manafort, who had worked briefly for the campaign.
(T)he 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.

However, the fun part of this is that, potentially, Hillary Clinton (remember her?) could find herself roped and tied to Russia by Mueller's investigation, as it is she and her husband, not Trump, who played footsie with Putin and Co.

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. 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.

Wouldn't we all love to see Hillary exchange her pantsuit for an orange jumpsuit?

The entire article is found here: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/10/30/gregg-jarrett-still-no-evidence-trump-russia-collusion-but-hillary-is-different-matter.html

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:26 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 755 words, total size 6 kb.




What colour is a green orange?




19kb generated in CPU 0.06, elapsed 0.5067 seconds.
35 queries taking 0.4827 seconds, 90 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.