web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > Gregg Jarrett

Gregg Jarrett: Adam Schiff’s drive to impeach Trump based on opinions, deception and illusions – Not facts

Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6098865922001_6098860875001-vs Gregg Jarrett: Adam Schiff’s drive to impeach Trump based on opinions, deception and illusions – Not facts Gregg Jarrett fox-news/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry fox-news/politics/house-of-representatives/democrats fox-news/politics/house-of-representatives fox-news/person/donald-trump fox-news/person/adam-schiff fox-news/opinion fox news fnc/opinion fnc cd1c10eb-ab4d-5a39-b7f7-0541b7160916 article

Rep. Adam Schiff is a poor man’s Harry Houdini. He is a cheap illusionist performing amateurish parlor tricks of deception in his quest to convince his audience that he possesses damning evidence of an impeachable offense committed by President Trump.

Schiff, D-Calif., has no such evidence, of course. But like most illusionists, Schiff employs misdirection and confusion. He attempts to convince you that opinions are evidence, while facts are not. This is the stuff of rank political magic where perceptions are distorted through clever manipulation of the process.

Schiff has become the master manipulator aided, in large part, by the secrecy of his faux magic act. He won’t allow you to peek behind the curtain to see for yourself the witnesses he has called in his “super top secret” impeachment inquisition. You are never permitted to view transcripts of depositions or examine testimony that purports to incriminate the president. That, of course, would ruin all the hocus-pocus.

DAVID BOSSIE: BASELESS TRUMP IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY BY DESPERATE DEMOCRATS MAKES DRAMATIC FLIP-FLOP

Republicans have spent weeks trying to pierce the veil of secrecy. They have now partially succeeded by pressuring House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., into a resolution for a full House vote on the heretofore partisan and unjust proceedings that are bereft of due process. At the very least, this new action will establish some fundamental rules of fairness and transparency that are the bane of pretend-illusionists like Schiff.

More from Opinion

Americans will finally get to see how the House Intelligence Committee chairman rigged his inquisition with hearsay witnesses and others who had nothing meaningful to offer except their own personal interpretations of a July 25 conversation between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

The best evidence of what transpired is, in fact, the only pertinent evidence. Everything else is secondary and immaterial. The transcript of the telephone call and the statements of the two participants, Trump and Zelensky, are the only relevant evidence. All other witnesses are simply offering their gratuitous interpretation and opinion of the conversation to which they were not a party.

Take, for example, William Taylor, acting ambassador to Ukraine. Schiff and his confederates leaked to their friendly media outlets that Taylor testified that Trump wanted to withhold U.S. military aid unless Zelensky vowed to investigate alleged Ukrainian meddling in the U.S. election and possible corrupt acts by former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

But wait. It appears that Taylor’s testimony was not based on any first-hand knowledge. Instead, it seems to have been his interpretation derived from conversations by others who had no first-hand knowledge. In other words, it was conjecture built on speculation. How’s that for reliability?

Schiff, the illusionist, can offer nothing but impressions, perceptions, judgments and opinions. It is all irrelevant and a sham. Facts are what matter. 

Another example was the much-anticipated testimony of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who oversees Ukraine policy at the National Security Council. Vindman listened in on the telephone conversation and then expressed his “concern” to his superiors about its propriety inasmuch as Joe Biden’s name was mentioned. But hold on. Isn’t that his judgment or opinion?  It most certainly is.

Vindman said, “I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen.” He can perhaps be forgiven for not knowing that the U.S. quite often enlists the assistance of foreign governments in investigations, many of them involving U.S. citizens.

Still, Vindman is offering nothing more than his opinion, and a mistaken one at that. His interpretation of what he thinks is “proper” in a phone call has no greater value simply because he heard it instead of reading it.

Anyone with computer access can download and read the transcript while forming their own opinion. What is indisputable are the facts contained in the transcribed conversation.

Nowhere is there a reference to a “quid pro quo” of U.S. military aid in exchange for an investigation of the Bidens or anyone else. There is no demand, no condition and no pressure.

Zelensky is on record stating there was no blackmail involved during the call and no pressure applied. “Nobody pushed me,” Zelensky said. “We had a great phone call,” he added. “It was normal.”

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR OPINION NEWSLETTER

Separately, the Ukrainian government has confirmed that it did not even know that the U.S. had suspended security funds until almost five weeks after the call with Trump. This seriously undermines the argument by Democrats that there was a “quid pro quo” for the aid.

It is impossible for there to be a “quid pro quo” when the recipient of the “quid” is oblivious to the existence of the “quo.” This is common sense, which is in short supply these days in the bowels of the House basement where Schiff pursues his “super top secret” inquisition.

It is folly for Democrats to argue that a diplomatic conversation of this nature somehow constitutes an impeachable offense. Schiff, the illusionist, can offer nothing but impressions, perceptions, judgments and opinions. It is all irrelevant and a sham. Facts are what matter.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

A hundred so-called “whistleblowers” relying on hearsay about a conversation to which they were never privy cannot change the factual equation laid bare by the transcript of the Trump-Zelensky telephone call.

Not even the great Houdini could pull off that trick.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE BY GREGG JARRETT

Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6098865922001_6098860875001-vs Gregg Jarrett: Adam Schiff’s drive to impeach Trump based on opinions, deception and illusions – Not facts Gregg Jarrett fox-news/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry fox-news/politics/house-of-representatives/democrats fox-news/politics/house-of-representatives fox-news/person/donald-trump fox-news/person/adam-schiff fox-news/opinion fox news fnc/opinion fnc cd1c10eb-ab4d-5a39-b7f7-0541b7160916 article   Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6098865922001_6098860875001-vs Gregg Jarrett: Adam Schiff’s drive to impeach Trump based on opinions, deception and illusions – Not facts Gregg Jarrett fox-news/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry fox-news/politics/house-of-representatives/democrats fox-news/politics/house-of-representatives fox-news/person/donald-trump fox-news/person/adam-schiff fox-news/opinion fox news fnc/opinion fnc cd1c10eb-ab4d-5a39-b7f7-0541b7160916 article

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Gregg Jarrett: Latest Pelosi-Schiff impeachment ‘witch hunt’ is venomous affront to constitutional principles

Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6095142247001_6095140934001-vs Gregg Jarrett: Latest Pelosi-Schiff impeachment ‘witch hunt’ is venomous affront to constitutional principles Gregg Jarrett fox-news/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry fox-news/politics fox-news/person/nancy-pelosi fox-news/opinion fox news fnc/opinion fnc article 9cb3d0f8-18de-55e8-bdac-6b35f477bccc

The quixotic quest to impeach President Trump is not only anathema to the fundamental principles of due process, but constitutes a full-frontal assault on the procedural protections inherent in the “due process” clause of the Constitution.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her chosen marionette, Rep. Adam Schiff, are operating in the shadows of secrecy. Their authority does not derive from the House of Representatives itself upon a full majority vote.  Instead, they have commandeered impeachment power by anointing themselves as the sole determinants.

They alone have chosen a “star chamber” approach to removing the president. The remaining members of the House are left in the dark without access to facts, documents and testimony. So, too, are President Trump and American voters who placed him in office.  What is the purpose of an electoral choice by the many if it can be reversed by the furtive maneuvers of the few?  Or two?

JOE BIDEN DEFENDS SON HUNTER’S UKRAINE WORK: ‘MY SON DID NOTHING WRONG. I DID NOTHING WRONG’ 

In any democracy, the principles of transparency and accountability demand that the actions and decisions of elected officials be open to public scrutiny. Citizens have a right to know what their government is doing. This is even more essential when Congress seeks to impeach a president. Secrecy corrupts the process and delegitimizes governance. The common good is undermined, as order gives way to chaos.

There is nothing more chaotic (and mysterious) than the current impeachment inquiry. Evidence of this is undeniably compelling. No one knows what’s going on behind closed doors. The select few who are present or have access to information have been threatened with eviction or an ethics investigation should they disclose to anyone what is happening.

Witnesses have been threatened with obstruction of justice if they refuse to appear in these secret proceedings.  Some have reportedly been told that legal counsel is not allowed.  As Democrats selectively leak damaging information, Republicans are prohibited from rebutting it.  The minority party is also deprived of subpoena power and forbidden from calling witnesses of its own.  This is an abuse of the process and an egregious deprivation of rights.

Much of this is compounded by the persistent confusion over what constitutes an official inquiry and which committee is really in charge. At first, it was Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler who claimed he was presiding over a “formal impeachment proceeding.”  Now, it seems that Schiff is doing the same. Has command been passed? Or are these now dueling inquiries?

No one seems to know, least of all Pelosi who feels no compulsion to inform the American people — who are understandably bewildered. Like a ship adrift, who’s the captain here?

In an effort to rationalize the abiding secrecy, Schiff suggested that his hearings are “analogous to a grand jury proceeding done out of public view.”  This is disingenuous, at best. A grand jury is a neutral body. Schiff and his fellow Democrats who control the Intelligence Committee are the antithesis of neutral.

It now appears that Schiff played a pivotal role in orchestrating the initial whistleblower complaint that led to the impeachment hysteria and then lied about it. Suddenly, he doesn’t want this anonymous informant to testify since that would surely implicate Schiff own partisan machinations and deceptions. It might expose the “witch hunt.”

The latest Pelosi-Schiff “witch hunt” has abandoned all pretense of fairness.  It is a venomous attempt to undo the 2016 presidential election and drive Trump from office by employing unconstitutional means. 

All of this could have been avoided if Pelosi had called for a full vote of House members to initiate an official impeachment inquiry and identified the controlling committee. If nothing more, it would have established basic rules of conduct and ensured some measure of fairness.  Instead, she acted unilaterally and without any real authority beyond her gavel. Mistakenly embracing a monarchy, Pelosi has become the self-appointed Queen.

As Queens and Kings are wont to do, the business of ruling is conducted by fiat. In turn, “due process” rights of the ruled are erased as if they never existed. But they do exist in a democracy and are enshrined in our own Constitution which is being trampled on with impunity.

White House Counsel Pat Cipollone pointed this out to Pelosi and Schiff in his October 8 letter on behalf of President Trump. He correctly cited decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court in Watkins v. United States (1957) and Quinn v. United States (1955) in which the Justices ruled that the Bill of Rights and “due process” guarantees apply to congressional investigations. They have also been recognized as a requirement in impeachment proceedings. For support, Cipollone quoted the very words of Nadler who stated, “the power of impeachment… demands a rigorous level of due process.” Indeed, it does.

Yet, the present impeachment inquiry, however misguided or unfounded, bears no resemblance to the procedural guarantees of “due process” found in the Fifth Amendment and enunciated more specifically in Supreme Court decisions throughout the years. Past presidential impeachment inquiries were all authorized by a vote of the House and the protections of “due process” were, in each instance, scrupulously followed. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

The latest Pelosi-Schiff “witch hunt” has abandoned all pretense of fairness. It is a venomous attempt to undo the 2016 presidential election and drive Trump from office by employing unconstitutional means.

More from Opinion

Could the Supreme Court intervene based on “due process” violations? It is possible, but not likely. President Trump could file what’s called a “Petition For Writ Of Mandamus” asking the high court to direct Speaker Pelosi to hold an impeachment inquiry vote before the entire House.  However, such a legal move is a considerable long shot. While mandamus petitions are intended to correct defects of justice, they often involve departments or agencies, not the legislature. Historically, the Supreme Court has been loath to involve itself in legislative-executive battles unless or until it is absolutely necessary. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

President Trump should continue to resist this misbegotten impeachment inquiry. If, for example, Schiff is foolish enough to seek enforcement of a subpoena in federal court, issues of “due process” could then be presented. 

Federal judges, including the justices on the high court, care deeply about precedent. They also respect and uphold basic rights guaranteed in our Constitution. Pelosi and Schiff couldn’t care less.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM GREGG JARRETT

Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6095142247001_6095140934001-vs Gregg Jarrett: Latest Pelosi-Schiff impeachment ‘witch hunt’ is venomous affront to constitutional principles Gregg Jarrett fox-news/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry fox-news/politics fox-news/person/nancy-pelosi fox-news/opinion fox news fnc/opinion fnc article 9cb3d0f8-18de-55e8-bdac-6b35f477bccc   Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6095142247001_6095140934001-vs Gregg Jarrett: Latest Pelosi-Schiff impeachment ‘witch hunt’ is venomous affront to constitutional principles Gregg Jarrett fox-news/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry fox-news/politics fox-news/person/nancy-pelosi fox-news/opinion fox news fnc/opinion fnc article 9cb3d0f8-18de-55e8-bdac-6b35f477bccc

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Gregg Jarrett: Did Mueller lie to Congress about meeting with Trump before he took the special counsel job?

Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6093270587001_6093271491001-vs Gregg Jarrett: Did Mueller lie to Congress about meeting with Trump before he took the special counsel job? Gregg Jarrett fox-news/politics/justice-department fox-news/politics/executive/white-house fox-news/politics fox-news/opinion fox-news/news-events/russia-investigation fox news fnc/opinion fnc article 80a2030f-c157-56f9-a1d0-7f7550074ad6

Editor’s note: This column is adapted from Gregg Jarrett’s new book “Witch Hunt: The Story Of The Greatest Mass Delusion In American Political History.”

It has always been suspicious that Robert Mueller met with President Trump in the Oval Office the day before he was officially appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to investigate Trump.

Newly uncovered documents show that Mueller and Rosenstein had been privately communicating in the days before that meeting. They worked sedulously to keep it a secret. Trump had no idea that Mueller was already on board to serve as special counsel.

So, why was Mueller there in the Oval? Was it part of a scheme to furtively gather evidence that, as special counsel, he could then use against Trump? Did he lure the president into a conversation under false pretenses? The answer appears to be yes. 

GREGG JARRETT: THE PELOSI-SCHIFF ‘WITCH HUNT’ TO IMPEACH TRUMP IS AN ABUSE OF POWER

When I interviewed president Trump for my new book, “Witch Hunt: The Story Of The Greatest Mass Delusion In American Political History,” I asked him why Mueller was there:

President Trump: “Mueller wanted very badly to have the job as FBI director and to return to the FBI. I didn’t want him. I rejected him. By the way, how much of a conflict is it when a guy comes in wanting a job, I say no, and the next day he’s your special prosecutor? It’s outrageous.”     

It was outrageous. It seems increasingly clear that Trump was being set-up, and that Mueller was neither forthcoming nor honest during the meeting.

He deliberately concealed from the president that he was about to launch a damaging investigation that threatened Trump’s presidency. The duplicity was more than a sufficient basis to require that he disqualify himself from the special counsel position.

The president’s account of his meeting with Mueller was corroborated by his then-assistant, Madeleine Westerhout, who arranged it and was privy to its purpose and content. I questioned her about this. She confirmed to me that, without a doubt, Mueller had been there interviewing for the job of FBI director. Recently, multiple administration officials backed up this account to Fox News. Newly released records also substantiate it.

There has been widespread speculation about Mueller’s intentions. Tuesday, Fox News’ Bret Baier and Jake Gibson reported that Mueller was indeed “pursuing the open post as the director of the FBI – something the former Russia probe special counsel denied under oath during congressional testimony this summer.”

So, has Mueller been lying about this all along? Consider his July 24, 2019 testimony before congress:

Mueller: “My understanding was I was not applying for the job.  I was asked to give my input on what it would take to do the job.

Question: So it is your statement that you didn’t interview to apply for the FBI director job?

Mueller: That’s correct.”

Mueller also denied telling Vice President Pence that he wanted to return to the top FBI post.

The last time I checked, failing to tell the truth under oath before Congress constitutes perjury. But it goes deeper than that. Much deeper.

During my June 2019 interview of President Trump, I asked him directly whether he and Mueller specifically discussed the reason Comey had been fired:

Jarrett: “Was there any discussion at all about your having just fired Comey?  Did you say to him, ‘This is why I fired Comey’?”

President Trump: (long pause)  I have no comment.”

Trump then told me he could easily answer the question because he had a strong recollection of their discussion that day.  However, he was reluctant to delve back into it.  “I just want to put this stupid thing to bed,” he offered by way of explanation.

The reader can draw his or her own conclusion. But it was abundantly clear to me, sitting there in the Oval Office with the President and judging his reaction and demeanor, that the answer was “yes.” Of course, they had talked about why Comey had just been fired. It would have been a natural, and perhaps necessary, subject. It is hard to imagine a scenario in which it would not have come up. 

This would make Mueller a fact witness in his own investigation, which is strictly forbidden.  A person cannot serve as both prosecutor and witness in the same case.  It is an egregious conflict of interest.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

Under questioning from Congress, Mueller was directly asked whether the president discussed with him the firing of Comey.  The special counsel replied, “Cannot remember.” Right. Then, the ensuing exchange took place:

Question: “You don’t remember?  But if he did, you could’ve been a fact witness as to the President’s comments and state of mind on firing James Comey.

Mueller:  I suppose that’s possible.” 

More from Opinion

It is difficult to fathom that Mueller could not remember a critical Oval Office conversation with the President that would have required his recusal.  More likely, the special counsel knew his disqualifying conflict of interest had been exposed and sought to deflect it by claiming total memory lapse.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Fox News has confirmed that the current investigation into the origins of the 2016 FBI Russia “collusion” case has now been expanded based on the findings of U.S. Attorney John Durham.  My colleague Catherine Herridge has reported there is new scrutiny of the Mueller appointment and the coordination between Rosenstein and Mueller in the days before he was named special counsel.

As Trump told me, “Bob Mueller should never have been allowed to do this case.”  The evidence continues to mount that the president was right.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM GREGG JARRETT

Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6093270587001_6093271491001-vs Gregg Jarrett: Did Mueller lie to Congress about meeting with Trump before he took the special counsel job? Gregg Jarrett fox-news/politics/justice-department fox-news/politics/executive/white-house fox-news/politics fox-news/opinion fox-news/news-events/russia-investigation fox news fnc/opinion fnc article 80a2030f-c157-56f9-a1d0-7f7550074ad6   Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6093270587001_6093271491001-vs Gregg Jarrett: Did Mueller lie to Congress about meeting with Trump before he took the special counsel job? Gregg Jarrett fox-news/politics/justice-department fox-news/politics/executive/white-house fox-news/politics fox-news/opinion fox-news/news-events/russia-investigation fox news fnc/opinion fnc article 80a2030f-c157-56f9-a1d0-7f7550074ad6

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Gregg Jarrett: The Pelosi-Schiff ‘witch hunt’ to impeach Trump is an abuse of power

Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6092400652001_6092401999001-vs Gregg Jarrett: The Pelosi-Schiff 'witch hunt' to impeach Trump is an abuse of power Gregg Jarrett fox-news/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry fox-news/person/nancy-pelosi fox-news/person/joe-biden fox-news/person/donald-trump fox-news/opinion fox news fnc/opinion fnc article 8cca76f1-bde7-5512-a419-738061917bdf

If Democrats were serious in their impulsive impeachment inquiry, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would dump Adam Schiff as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

Pelosi won’t do it, of course. She and Schiff are now dedicated collaborators who are joined at the political hip. Their goal is to destroy Trump’s presidency, remove him from office, and thereby undo the 2016 election result that they have never managed to get over.

Schiff is the antithesis of the able, fair-minded and even-tempered House chairmen who presided over the last two presidential impeachment proceedings in 1974 and 1998. He wears his partisan spite on his sleeve and tends to bungle attempts to hide his deviousness.

ANDREW MCCARTHY: IF THE HOUSE WON’T VOTE, IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IS JUST A DEMOCRATIC STUNT

Schiff’s malice goes much deeper than the inane statement he fabricated at the opening of his recent hearing that embarrassed both himself and his committee. His deceptions know no bounds. He insisted that “we have not spoken directly with the whistleblower.” The Washington Post fact-checker called this “flat-out false.” His deceit did not stop there.

Schiff became the notorious huckster of Russian “collusion” hysteria that, in the end, proved to be a one of the dirtiest tricks in modern politics. Now, Pelosi has handed him the gavel to pursue another incarnation.

Schiff stated that if not for the Intelligence Community Inspector General, his committee might never have learned of the so-called “whistleblower.” This was also untrue since it was Schiff and/or his staff that directed the “whistleblower” to the IG. His mendacity earned him the shame of “Four Pinocchios” from the Post. As former Rep. Trey Gowdy quipped, Schiff only got four “because you can’t get five.”

When I was researching my new book, “Witch Hunt: The Story Of The Greatest Mass Delusion In American Political History,” I was continually astonished by Schiff’s pattern of exaggerations, misleading claims and outright lies over the course of the interminable Russia “collusion” hoax.

  • Schiff peddled the ludicrous charge that Trump campaign adviser Carter Page was bribed by the Kremlin with an $11 billion stake in the oil company Rosneft in exchange for convincing then-candidate Trump to lift sanctions against Russia should he win the election.  
  • Schiff insisted that Justice Department official Bruce Ohr did not show the Steele “dossier” to the FBI until after the 2016 election when he knew that Ohr turned it over in July — the day before Comey’s FBI launched its formal investigation of Trump.  
  • Schiff argued to anyone who would listen that the “dossier” was not the bulk of the evidence used to get the FISA warrants when he well knew this was untrue.  
  • Schiff boldly and repeatedly told the media and Americans that he had access to a wealth of evidence that Trump had engaged in a traitorous conspiracy with the Kremlin when no such evidence existed.

This following is straight from chapter five of my book:

The truth always has a nemesis. Representative Adam Schiff spent more than two years pretending that he was privy to evidence that he did not have. That illusion gave him a comfortable home on television networks that offered no pretense of their antipathy toward Trump, especially CNN and MSNBC. The more Democrats and the media worked in concert to advance their hallucination that Trump had conspired with the Kremlin, the more audacious Schiff became in his public denouncements of the president. He frequently insinuated that he had special access to damning information that few others could procure.

Even after the House Intelligence Committee issued its majority investigative report concluding that it had all been a hoax, Schiff announced, ‘I can certainly say with confidence that there is significant evidence of collusion between the campaign and Russia.’ He produced no such evidence, because it did not exist. But that did not stop him from perpetuating the “collusion” delusion. On CBS’s Face the Nation, he ventured that Trump ‘may be the first president in quite some time to face the real prospect of jail time.’ 

Schiff was so heavily invested in the scam and the celebrity it brought him that there was no reversing course. Maybe a part of him really believed his claims, and he was hoping that some magical revelation would appear out of nowhere to vindicate them. Like a guy with a counterfeit bill, he kept trying to pass it off to others.

Schiff became the notorious huckster of Russian “collusion” hysteria that, in the end, proved to be a one of the dirtiest tricks in modern politics. Now, Pelosi has handed him the gavel to pursue another incarnation. Let’s call it Ukraine “collusion.” It is no less a hoax.

More from Opinion

There is nothing in the transcript of the telephone conversation between Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky that constitutes a crime. Career prosecutors in the Criminal Division of the Justice Department examined the official record of the call and found no violation of law.

Juxtapose with that the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. Independent Counsel Ken Starr presented to Congress 11 separate offenses that could constitute felonies, notably lying under oath, obstruction of justice, and witness tampering. These statutory crimes, as alleged, served as a legitimate basis for Articles of Impeachment.

Absent any criminal conduct that might fall under a strict constitutional reading of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” can Pelosi and Schiff nevertheless impeach Trump under the nebulous argument that he abused his powers? With majority control of the House, they can certainly try.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR OPINION NEWSLETTER

But “abuse of power” is an amorphous concept. There is no fixed or identifiable meaning that is universally agreed upon. It is a phrase of shifting sands that is highly subjective and therefore susceptible to partisan abuse. This is exactly what the Framers feared. They did not want a president to be removed on a pretext of purely political reasons or personal animus.

Pelosi knows this. In January of this year, she stated, “We shouldn’t be impeaching for a political reason.” Yet, that is precisely what she is now doing. As House minority leader during the 1998 impeachment of Clinton, she accused Republicans of being driven by “hatred” and “not judging the president with fairness, but impeaching him with a vengeance.” Pelosi, Schiff and many of their House colleagues are now guilty of the same.

Under the terms of a 20-year old treaty with Ukraine, President Trump had every right to ask Zelensky for assistance in an official Justice Department investigation into the origins of the FBI’s Russia probe and any foreign meddling in our 2016 election. As explained in my book, there is considerable and compelling evidence that Ukraine “colluded” with the Democratic National Committee to provide information damaging to the Trump campaign for the benefit of Hillary Clinton. This is a key component of Attorney General William Barr’s investigation being led by U.S. Attorney John Durham. Ukrainians, according to the DOJ, “have volunteered information to Mr. Durham, which he is evaluating.”

CLICK HERE FOR THE ALL-NEW FOXBUSINESS.COM

It was equally appropriate for the president to ask Ukraine to look into any potentially corrupt acts by a high-ranking American public official involving a Ukrainian natural gas company. If it was Joe Biden’s intent to protect or benefit his son by threatening to withhold $1 billion in taxpayer money in order to force the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor investigating that very company and Hunter Biden’s role, it might well constitute a violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and other federal felony laws. Biden is not exempt from adhering to those laws merely because he is now running for president.

President Trump was exercising a proper use of executive power, not abusing it. It is Pelosi and Schiff who are abusing the power of impeachment in their latest “witch hunt.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE BY GREGG JARRETT

Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6092400652001_6092401999001-vs Gregg Jarrett: The Pelosi-Schiff 'witch hunt' to impeach Trump is an abuse of power Gregg Jarrett fox-news/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry fox-news/person/nancy-pelosi fox-news/person/joe-biden fox-news/person/donald-trump fox-news/opinion fox news fnc/opinion fnc article 8cca76f1-bde7-5512-a419-738061917bdf   Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6092400652001_6092401999001-vs Gregg Jarrett: The Pelosi-Schiff 'witch hunt' to impeach Trump is an abuse of power Gregg Jarrett fox-news/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry fox-news/person/nancy-pelosi fox-news/person/joe-biden fox-news/person/donald-trump fox-news/opinion fox news fnc/opinion fnc article 8cca76f1-bde7-5512-a419-738061917bdf

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Gregg Jarrett: Trump did NOT commit an impeachable offense on call with Ukraine’s president – Here’s why

Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6091071271001_6091066246001-vs Gregg Jarrett: Trump did NOT commit an impeachable offense on call with Ukraine’s president – Here’s why Gregg Jarrett fox-news/world/conflicts/ukraine fox-news/world fox-news/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry fox-news/politics/elections fox-news/politics/2020-presidential-election fox-news/person/nancy-pelosi fox-news/person/mitch-mcconnell fox-news/person/donald-trump fox-news/opinion fox news fnc/opinion fnc article 4ece6283-b07d-5774-aae2-e42af0391ebf

In their delusive demands for the impeachment of President Trump, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Democrats are substituting partisan politics for the commands and intent of the U.S. Constitution. This became self-evident when Pelosi announced her impeachment folly the day before she even set eyes on the alleged evidence, which turned out to be no evidence at all.

The usual gaggle of misanthropes like Democratic Reps. Adam Schiff of California and Jerrold Nadler of New York have been searching for a reason – any reason – to impeach Trump ever since his improbable election in November 2016.

With a shove from the chronically vapid Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., Pelosi and her confederates have now settled on the most implausible of all their impeachment schemes peddled during Trump’s presidency – that his conversation with Ukraine’s president somehow constitutes an impeachable offense. It does not. Not even close.

HANNITY: BIDENS’ ‘SHADY DEALINGS’ OVERSEAS WOULD HAVE MEDIA ‘OBSESSED’ IF TRUMP CLAN WAS INVOLVED

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution defines the basis for impeachment as an act of “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Anything less than that is not an impeachable offense. Were it otherwise, those who authored that esteemed document would have so stated.

More from Opinion

Sadly, then-Republican Rep. Gerald Ford, as House minority leader in 1970, forever mangled the impeachment provision when he mistakenly observed: “An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.”

This was precisely what our framers did not intend. This is what they feared. They did not want a sitting president to be removed because a capricious Congress controlled by an opposing party disliked a chief executive or disagreed with his policies.

Yet, Ford’s misguided thesis has now been warmly embraced by legions of Democrats who despise Trump. They have dishonestly conjured up a pretext to undo the 2016 election result and drive him from office.

The charade may eventually succeed in the House, where Democrats holds a comfortable advantage and a simple majority is all that is needed to impeach. But conviction in a trial in the Republican-controlled Senate will fail miserably because a two-thirds majority is constitutionally required.

This was the wisdom of the framers. They knew that unscrupulous politicians would inevitably try to subvert the democratic process for purely political reasons. The framers made it exceedingly difficult for such politicians to achieve that end.

As I argued in an earlier column, Trump’s request that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky assist in an official and ongoing Justice Department investigation launched by Attorney General William Barr is neither criminal nor unusual.

Indeed, Trump’s appeal for help from Kiev conforms with a treaty two decades old that obligates Ukraine to cooperate with U.S. investigations or prosecutions in any criminal matters by furnishing relevant evidence upon request. This is what Trump did.

Moreover, asking for Ukraine’s help was no clandestine maneuver. On May 24 the president reminded assembled reporters on the White House lawn that Barr was investigating the origins of the Russia “collusion” hoax

“And I hope he looks at the U.K., and I hope he looks at Australia, and I hope he looks at Ukraine,” Trump said of Barr. “I hope he looks at everything, because there was a hoax that was perpetrated on our country.”

The president made it clear that Ukraine was suspected of having been involved in election meddling, along with other foreign actors. Much of this is described in my book, “Witch Hunt.

In several hearings in April and May, Barr candidly informed Congress that he was conducting this investigation. He appointed U.S. Attorney John Durham to lead the probe.

We now know that Barr asked Trump to initiate introductions between him and foreign leaders in furtherance of his probe. The president did so by approaching Ukraine’s president, while Australia initiated contact with the U.S. on its own accord.

Barr personally contacted officials in Great Britain, and he twice traveled to Italy to solicit assistance. His most recent trip occurred last Friday in the company of Durham.

There was nothing inappropriate about any of this. It was logical, sensible, and not at all uncommon. Other presidents have done the same thing. Our Justice Department has enlisted foreign help in numerous investigations over the years. It is pure sophistry for Democrats to declare such an endeavor is an impeachable offense.

Biden isn’t entitled to a “get out of jail” free card simply because he is now running for president.

Did Trump mention former Vice President Joe Biden and his son toward the end of the conversation?  Of course he did. He was right to do so.

If, in addition to meddling, Ukraine possesses evidence that the former vice president’s bragging about a “quid pro quo” was a corrupt act intended to benefit his son by extorting $1 billion in U.S. taxpayer funds. It is incumbent on Trump to ask Zelensky to investigate.

Biden isn’t entitled to a “get out of jail” free card simply because he is now running for president. Hillary Clinton coveted such a card, and it should never happen again.

Lost amid the cacophony of condemnation of Trump is the fact that the Criminal Division of the Justice Department examined the official record of the Trump-Zelensky telephone call and concluded there was no crime, not even a violation of campaign finance laws. “All relevant components of the Department agreed with this legal conclusion,” said the Justice Department.

Some constitutional scholars have ventured that a president’s abuse of his official powers might rise to the level of an impeachable offense, even though it may not fall under the conventional statutory definitions and strict language of crimes and misdemeanors.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR OPINION NEWSLETTER

This is not an entirely misbegotten argument. Yet, it has no application to what President Trump is accused of doing. He had every right to ask for foreign assistance in his attorney general’s official investigation. This was not an abuse of power, but a proper exercise of power.

Conversely, it is Democrats who are abusing their power of impeachment by deliberately contorting its constitutional meaning to serve their own political purpose.

Barr is determined to get to the bottom of how the “witch hunt” against Trump began. In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee at the conclusion of the probe by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Barr posed an imperative question:

CLICK HERE FOR THE ALL-NEW FOXBUSINESS.COM

How did we get to the point where the evidence is now that the president was falsely accused of colluding with the Russians and accused of being treasonous and accused of being a Russian agent?” Barr asked. “And the evidence now is that it was without a basis.”

Americans deserve to learn the truth of what happened. A handful of foreign governments may help provide the answers.

It is not an impeachable offense to ask.

 CLICK HERE TO READ MORE BY GREGG JARRETT

Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6091071271001_6091066246001-vs Gregg Jarrett: Trump did NOT commit an impeachable offense on call with Ukraine’s president – Here’s why Gregg Jarrett fox-news/world/conflicts/ukraine fox-news/world fox-news/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry fox-news/politics/elections fox-news/politics/2020-presidential-election fox-news/person/nancy-pelosi fox-news/person/mitch-mcconnell fox-news/person/donald-trump fox-news/opinion fox news fnc/opinion fnc article 4ece6283-b07d-5774-aae2-e42af0391ebf   Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6091071271001_6091066246001-vs Gregg Jarrett: Trump did NOT commit an impeachable offense on call with Ukraine’s president – Here’s why Gregg Jarrett fox-news/world/conflicts/ukraine fox-news/world fox-news/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry fox-news/politics/elections fox-news/politics/2020-presidential-election fox-news/person/nancy-pelosi fox-news/person/mitch-mcconnell fox-news/person/donald-trump fox-news/opinion fox news fnc/opinion fnc article 4ece6283-b07d-5774-aae2-e42af0391ebf

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Gregg Jarrett: Ukraine is just the latest ploy in ‘witch hunt’ to drive Trump from White House

Westlake Legal Group jarrett Gregg Jarrett: Ukraine is just the latest ploy in 'witch hunt' to drive Trump from White House Gregg Jarrett fox-news/politics/justice-department fox-news/politics/executive/white-house fox-news/politics fox-news/person/donald-trump fox-news/opinion fox-news/news-events/russia-investigation fox news fnc/opinion fnc f3b92477-c789-51fc-94b8-85284d54ad3b article

It is ludicrous to argue that President Trump’s telephone conversation with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky was an impeachable offense

Trump had every right to ask Ukraine to cooperate or assist in an official Department of Justice investigation into the origins of the Russia “collusion” hoax. His request was pursuant to an official probe being conducted by U.S. Attorney John Durham and initiated by Attorney General William Barr. In fact, Ukraine is required to comply under a binding treaty with the U.S.

SCHIFF SAYS AGREEMENT IN PLACE FOR WHISTLEBLOWER TO TESTIFY BEFORE COMMITTEE

The Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters obligates Ukraine to provide, upon request by the U.S., assistance “in connection with the investigation, prosecution, and prevention of offenses, and in proceedings related to criminal matters.” This treaty was negotiated by then-president Bill Clinton more than 20 years ago and approved by the U.S. Senate. Among other things, Ukraine agreed to furnish “documents, records, the taking of testimony or statements of persons” relevant to any U.S. investigation. 

READ THE PHONE CALL TRANSCRIPT

Unfortunately, Kiev has not always abided by this treaty. Beset by rampant corruption, past Ukrainian administrations have been less than cooperative with the U.S. Indeed, there is significant evidence that Ukraine actively meddled in the 2016 election by providing dirt on the Trump campaign at the behest of a Democratic National Committee subcontractor who wanted to help elect Hillary Clinton. This is detailed in my new book, “Witch Hunt.”

 What is driving the impeachment blather is an overwhelming desire by Democrats and the complicit media to destroy Trump’s presidency, undo the 2016 election, and evict him from office.

With the election of a new Ukrainian president who vowed to end the rampant corruption, President Trump saw an opportunity to reset relations and obtain assistance in the Durham investigation. As pointed out by columnist Marc Thiessen, the DOJ has disclosed that it is “exploring the extent to which a number of countries, including Ukraine, played a role in the counterintelligence investigation directed at the campaign during the 2016 election.” 

Despite media and Democrat misrepresentations of the conversation, the “do us a favor” remark by Trump was a request that Ukraine cooperate in the Durham probe. The president phrased it in a friendly manner to enlist Zelensky’s assistance, even though it is incumbent on Ukraine to do so under the terms of the treaty. It is not at all unusual for the U.S. government or its president to ask for help from a foreign nation in extant investigations conducted by the DOJ.

Trump’s reference to former Vice President Joe Biden and the suspicious activities of his son, Hunter Biden, comes later in the conversation:

“There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me.” 

It is indisputable that Biden is seen and heard on videotape bragging that he engineered the firing of Ukrainian prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, by threatening to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid to Ukraine. Shokin is on record telling the Washington Post that he was sacked because his investigators were “on his (Hunter Biden’s) tail” in a case of suspected corruption involving $3 million in fees that found their way into the pocket of the VP’s son. Joe Biden has dismissed this as nonsense and the mainstream media have accepted his explanation as gospel.  However, documents newly uncovered by The Hill’s John Solomon belie Biden’s claim. These records appear to show that that Shokin’s account, not Biden’s, was true.

Joe Biden’s boast about his “quid pro quo” with Ukraine is compelling evidence that he may have used his public office to confer a benefit ($1 billion) in exchange for something of value –shutting down an investigation to help his son. This is where the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act comes into play, as well as other federal felony statutes such as bribery, extortion, and honest services fraud. The Justice Department would be justified in investigating Biden to determine whether he took any official action involving taxpayer money as Vice President to benefit his son. 

Once again, President Trump had every right to ask Zelensky to assist the U.S. in any existing or prospective investigation. Biden doesn’t enjoy immunity simply because he is running in the Democratic primary for president. There is no amnesty for a prospective political opponent. Lest we forget, the Obama administration launched an investigation into the nominee of the opposing party during a presidential campaign.

TRUMP DEMANDS SCHIFF RESIGN OVER ‘PARODY’ READING OF UKRAINE CALL

Nowhere in the Trump-Zelensky telephone call was there a threat (like Biden’s), pressure, condition, or demand by Trump.  Impeachment hysteria, if not insanity, has obscured the facts.  Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said of Trump’s conversation with his counterpart, “What this shows is repeated, concerted, premeditated, criminal conduct.”  Columnist Michael Gerson wrote in the Washington Post, “For the first time in American history, the president has pleaded guilty to an impeachable offense.” This is effectively what happened…,” he added. 

It is easy to dismiss such obtuse pronouncements as partisan bloviating. In reality, it represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the law, international agreements, and federal investigations. The president’s words were neither a crime nor an impeachable offense. Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution imposes a duty on the president to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” If he is aware of potential evidence of lawlessness that resides in the hands of a foreign government, he is duty-bound to ask that such evidence be produced. 

What is driving the impeachment blather is an overwhelming desire by Democrats and the complicit media to destroy Trump’s presidency, undo the 2016 election, and evict him from office. Talk of impeaching Trump began before he was ever sworn in or unpacked his luggage at the White House.  Every act by the president has been branded “an impeachable offense.” 

At first, it was emoluments, then it was the firing of James Comey as FBI director, then it was the Trump-Russia “collusion” hoax, then it was Trump’s alleged remark about Gen. Michael Flynn, then it was obstruction of justice. Stormy Daniels was supposed to bring down Trump, then it white-nationalism and neo-Nazism, then it was Michael Cohen’s testimony, then it was Trump’s finances. The list extends ad nauseam.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

At every turn and with every perceived slight, howls of impeachment have reverberated through the halls of Congress and in liberal newsrooms across America. Trump’s demise is always just around the corner, they insist. Except it isn’t. Not if you consider those pesky things called facts. 

And so, here we are again. Trump-Ukraine “collusion” is just the latest incantation in the never-ending “witch hunt.”

Westlake Legal Group jarrett Gregg Jarrett: Ukraine is just the latest ploy in 'witch hunt' to drive Trump from White House Gregg Jarrett fox-news/politics/justice-department fox-news/politics/executive/white-house fox-news/politics fox-news/person/donald-trump fox-news/opinion fox-news/news-events/russia-investigation fox news fnc/opinion fnc f3b92477-c789-51fc-94b8-85284d54ad3b article   Westlake Legal Group jarrett Gregg Jarrett: Ukraine is just the latest ploy in 'witch hunt' to drive Trump from White House Gregg Jarrett fox-news/politics/justice-department fox-news/politics/executive/white-house fox-news/politics fox-news/person/donald-trump fox-news/opinion fox-news/news-events/russia-investigation fox news fnc/opinion fnc f3b92477-c789-51fc-94b8-85284d54ad3b article

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Gregg Jarrett: Comey’s FBI was running a secret counterintelligence operation against Trump, new docs show

Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6071487980001_6071492690001-vs Gregg Jarrett: Comey's FBI was running a secret counterintelligence operation against Trump, new docs show Gregg Jarrett fox-news/politics/executive/white-house fox-news/politics fox-news/person/james-comey fox-news/opinion fox-news/news-events/russia-investigation fox news fnc/opinion fnc c941d462-8e2b-55b5-b9ce-8696130bc403 article

Newly obtained documents confirm that James Comey’s FBI was running a secret and corrupt counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign in the summer of 2016 and repeatedly deceiving the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) thereafter in order to wiretap a Trump campaign associate.

The disclosure was the result of a federal lawsuit and a year of litigation. Despite efforts by FBI Director Christopher Wray to obstruct, a federal court issued an order that forced the FBI and Department of Justice to produce the records known as “302 reports.”  They are a summary of interviews FBI agents conducted with Bruce Ohr, a top DOJ official.

These 302s show that the FBI and DOJ were warned repeatedly by Ohr that ex-British spy Christopher Steele was virulently biased against the target of their investigation, Trump.

EX-FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR ANDREW MCCABE SUES DOJ OVER DISMISSAL

That bias tainted the credibility of the “dossier” Steele composed and upon which officials in the Obama administration relied when they officially launched their counterintelligence investigation on July 31, 2016.  The “dossier” was also the basis for the surveillance warrant against former Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page.

The FBI and DOJ ignored the warnings of bias and actively concealed it from the FISC. They never advised the judges that the information contained in the “dossier” was “unverified.”

They hid from the judges that it was all funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

The court was never told that Ohr’s wife helped cultivate some of the researched used against Trump. Having fired Steele for leaking to the media and lying about it, the FBI and DOJ represented to the judge that Steele was “reliable” when they knew he was not. They continued to rely on him months after his termination.

An apparent fraud was perpetrated on the court not once, but four times in successive warrants through June of 2017. These are dishonest, if not felonious acts.

Secret Meetings

On July 5, 2016, Comey stood before television cameras and microphones at a nationally watched news conference.

By mangling the law and contorting the facts, he announced that he was exonerating Hillary Clinton of any crimes for her mishandling of thousands of classified documents.

More from Opinion

At roughly the same time, some 3,660 miles away from Washington, Comey’s FBI was meeting in a London building with Steele who conveyed the contents of his initial “dossier” memo dated June 20, 2106, with agent Michael Gaeta. When the FBI agent read the document, he was stunned and remarked, “I have to report this to headquarters.” Thus, on the same day, Comey cleared Clinton, the witch hunt against Trump began in earnest.

On July 30 Steele met with Ohr at 9 a.m. at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington.

Steele shared his “dossier” but added that the FBI already had it in its possession.

Immediately thereafter, Ohr convened a meeting with FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and the FBI lawyer who worked for him directly, Lisa Page.

The 302 reports corroborate Ohr’s congressional testimony behind closed doors that was made public in February of this year.

He told lawmakers that he specifically warned McCabe and Page that the information in the “dossier” was highly dubious and driven by a biased author who despised Trump.

He also advised that it was commissioned by Fusion GPS where his wife worked because, “I wanted the FBI to be aware of any possible bias.”

Page 125 of Ohr’s congressional transcript is especially revealing. “I told them that Steele was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected,” he stated.

He pointedly informed McCabe and Page that Trump’s political rival, the Clinton campaign, was financially underwriting the “dossier,” which would call into question its veracity because the campaign had a motive to distort or fabricate in order to damage its opponent.

Ohr testified that he cautioned the FBI, “These guys were hired by somebody relating to –who’s related to the Clinton campaign.”

In truth, the funding wasn’t merely “related” to the campaign, it was the campaign, along with the DNC. Ohr also disseminated the “dossier” to Peter Strzok and Joe Pientka at the FBI. But Ohr wasn’t done.

Shortly after the July 30 breakfast with Steele, Ohr gave the same improbable intelligence to three prosecutors at the Justice Department during another meeting.

Two of those individuals, Andrew Weissmann and Zainab Ahmad, were later hired by Robert Mueller to be a part of his assembled team of special counsel prosecutors that escalated the investigation of Trump beyond the FBI and DOJ.  They, too, were informed by Ohr that the Clinton campaign and Democrats had paid for the “dossier” and that Steele was severely biased against Trump.

Instead of investigating Clinton and her confederates for conspiring with foreigners to defraud the U.S. government or violate campaign finance laws, the FBI used the Clinton-Russian “dossier” to target Trump despite a dearth of evidence that any of it was true.

Information Laundering Scheme

Even though Steele was fired by the FBI as a confidential informant, the new 302 reports confirm that Comey’s FBI kept returning him as a source.  By using Ohr as a conduit, they continued to receive information from Steele.

This continued even after Trump was elected and inaugurated as president. Indeed, Steele kept feeding the bureau his phony information through May of 2017.

To circumvent the rules they were breaking, the FBI set up an “information laundering scheme.” Steele would feed information to Ohr, who would pass it to his “handler” Joe Pienka, who would feed it to his partner Peter Strzok, who would give it to Andrew McCabe, who would deliver it to Comey.

Similar to a “money-laundering scheme,” the complex transfer cleansed the dirty information to obscure the original source –Steele.  But the information, of course, was largely fabricated and/or the product of Russian disinformation.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

It should be remembered that a counterintelligence investigation is designed to collect evidence of foreign threats to U.S. national security. Normally, the president is the beneficiary of such information.

Here, Comey’s FBI was abusing its counterintelligence authority by using it against Trump. Moreover, Comey appears to have been lying to the president about it.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

In early 2017, he kept assuring Trump he was not being investigated. These documents show that he obviously was, well into his presidency.  And yet, the FBI had no evidence that corroborated any of Steele’s “collusion” allegations.

As John Solomon of the Hill has reported, the FBI developed a “spread-sheet like document” that was 90 percent empty of any proof. This did not deter them. They continued to investigate Trump. And when Comey was fired, he helped engineer part two of the witch hunt –the special counsel investigation.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM GREGG JARRETT 

Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6071487980001_6071492690001-vs Gregg Jarrett: Comey's FBI was running a secret counterintelligence operation against Trump, new docs show Gregg Jarrett fox-news/politics/executive/white-house fox-news/politics fox-news/person/james-comey fox-news/opinion fox-news/news-events/russia-investigation fox news fnc/opinion fnc c941d462-8e2b-55b5-b9ce-8696130bc403 article   Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6071487980001_6071492690001-vs Gregg Jarrett: Comey's FBI was running a secret counterintelligence operation against Trump, new docs show Gregg Jarrett fox-news/politics/executive/white-house fox-news/politics fox-news/person/james-comey fox-news/opinion fox-news/news-events/russia-investigation fox news fnc/opinion fnc c941d462-8e2b-55b5-b9ce-8696130bc403 article

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

On March 5, Mueller Told Barr THREE Times His Non-Decision on Obstruction Had Nothing To Do With OLC

Westlake Legal Group Trump-Mueller-620x349 On March 5, Mueller Told Barr THREE Times His Non-Decision on Obstruction Had Nothing To Do With OLC Special Counsel Robert Mueller President Trump Mueller Investigation Impeachment of President Trump Gregg Jarrett Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump Allow Media Exception Alan Dershowitz Abuse of Power

 

In his statement this morning, Robert Mueller said “if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.” He also said that, because of Office of Legal Counsel guidance, his team did not have the option of charging a sitting president with a crime.

This is the opposite of what he told Attorney General William Barr and several other DOJ officials at a meeting which took place on March 5th.

Barr was asked about why Mueller had failed to come to a conclusion on the question of obstruction of justice during his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 1st. He said, “We were frankly surprised that they were not going to reach a decision on obstruction and we asked them a lot about the reasoning behind this. Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting, in response to our questioning, that he emphatically was not saying that but for the OLC opinion he would have found obstruction.”

Barr made a similar remark at the press conference he held prior to the public release of the redacted Mueller Report. He told reporters, “We specifically asked him about the OLC opinion and whether or not he was taking a position that he would have found a crime but for the existence of the OLC opinion. And he made it very clear several times that was not his position.”

Mueller has given fresh life to the ongoing impeachment debate among House Democrats. Until today, only one 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, Elizabeth Warren, fully supported the impeachment of President Trump. Following Mueller’s statement, Sen. Kamala Harris (CA), Sen. Cory Booker (NY), Sen. Kirsten Gellibrand (NY), Rep. Seth Moulton (MA), Mayor Pete Buttigieg (IN), and former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (TX) have all called for Trump’s impeachment.

Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz appeared on “The Sean Hannity Show” to explain the job of a special counsel. They are tasked with determining if there is sufficient evidence to bring an indictment. Is there sufficient evidence or isn’t there? If yes, the case goes to trial. If not, the case is dropped.

Special counsel Kenneth Starr outlined a list of 11 charges against Bill Clinton in his report, which included perjury and obstruction of justice.

Exoneration is not the job of any prosecutor. Because the cornerstone of the U.S. legal system is the presumption of innocence, the state must prove a defendant’s guilt. If the state is unable to do so, the defendant is found not guilty.

In other words, Mueller’s statement was disingenuous.

Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett weighed in on Mueller’s statement. In his report, Mueller wrote, “While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” Jarrett said:

In a singular sentence, Mueller managed to reverse the legal duty that prosecutors have rigidly followed in America for centuries.  Their legal obligation is not to exonerate someone or prove an individual’s innocence.  Nor is any accused person required to prove his or her own innocence.

Prosecutors must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. To bring charges they must have, at minimum, probable cause to believe that a crime was committed.

The special counsel took this inviolate principle and cleverly inverted it. He argued that he could not prove the president did not commit a crime.

Think about what that rationale really means. It is a double negative. Mueller was contending that he can’t prove something didn’t happen.

What if this were the standard for all criminal investigations? Apply it to yourself.

Simply put, Mueller was blowing smoke and he did so for political purposes. There was no obstruction of justice. Trump did not interfere with his investigation. He became angry at times, as anyone would who was falsely accused of a crime. He was innocent and he knew it. He asked the White House lawyer to have Mueller fired, but the lawyer refused to do so. And the investigation continued uninterrupted.

In an earlier post, I wrote that Mueller accomplished what he intended to today. Through his dishonesty, he left a dark cloud of doubt around the President and bolstered the House Democrats’ case for impeachment.

But he also showed that, above all, he is a creature of the deep state. Which should surprise no one.

The post On March 5, Mueller Told Barr THREE Times His Non-Decision on Obstruction Had Nothing To Do With OLC appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Trump-Mueller-300x169 On March 5, Mueller Told Barr THREE Times His Non-Decision on Obstruction Had Nothing To Do With OLC Special Counsel Robert Mueller President Trump Mueller Investigation Impeachment of President Trump Gregg Jarrett Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump Allow Media Exception Alan Dershowitz Abuse of Power   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com