DEEP STATE CONSPIRACY – PLAN A FAILED – HILLARY LOST – PLAN B – BRING TRUMP DOWN

Gregg Jarrett: Did the FBI and the Justice Department, plot to clear Hillary Clinton, bring down Trump?

By Gregg Jarrett | Fox News

Fox News Channel logo.svg

There is strong circumstantial evidence that an insidious plot unprecedented in American history was hatched within the FBI and the Obama Justice Department to help elect Hillary Clinton and defeat Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election.

And when this apparent effort to improperly influence the election did not succeed, the suspected conspirators appear to have employed a fraudulent investigation of President Trump in an attempt to undo the election results and remove him as president.

However, this apparent plot to keep Trump from becoming president and to weaken and potentially pave the way for his impeachment with a prolonged politically motivated investigation – if proven – would constitute something far more nefarious and dangerous.

Such a plot would show that partisans within the FBI and the Justice Department, driven by personal animus and a sense of political righteousness, surreptitiously conspired to subvert electoral democracy itself in our country.

As of now, we have no proof beyond a reasonable doubt of such a plot. But we have very strong circumstantial evidence.

And as the philosopher and writer Henry David Thoreau wrote in his journal in 1850: “Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.”

Newly revealed text messages about the apparent anti-Trump plot are the equivalent of a trout in the milk. It smells fishy.

The Plans

The mainstream media and Democrats dismiss talk of an anti-Trump conspiracy by the FBI and Justice Department as right-wing nonsense – paranoid fantasies of Trump supporters with no basis in facts. But there are plenty of facts that lay out a damning case based on circumstantial evidence.

Recently disclosed text messages between FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page suggest there may have been two parts of the apparent anti-Trump plot.

“Part A” was to devise a way to exonerate Clinton, despite compelling evidence that she committed crimes under the Espionage Act in her mishandling of classified documents on her private email server.

Absolving Clinton cleared the way for her to continue her candidacy at a time when all polls and just about every pundit predicted she would be elected president in November 2016. If Clinton had been charged with crimes she would likely have been forced to drop her candidacy, and if she remained in the race her candidacy would have been doomed.

But “Part A” of the apparent anti-Trump plot was not enough. A back-up plan would be prudent. It seems the Obama Justice Department and FBI conjured up a “Part B” just in case the first stratagem failed. This would be even more malevolent – manufacturing an alleged crime supposedly committed by Trump where no crime exists in the law.

And so, armed with a fictitious justification, a criminal investigation was launched into so-called Trump-Russia “collusion.” It was always a mythical legal claim, since there is no statute prohibiting foreign nationals from volunteering their services in American political campaigns.

More importantly, there was never a scintilla of evidence that Trump collaborated with Russia to influence the election.

No matter. The intent may have been to sully the new president while searching for a crime to force him from office.

But thanks to the discovery of text messages, circumstantial evidence has been exposed.

The Texts

The text messages exchanged between Strzok and Page, who were romantically involved, confirm a stunning hostility toward Trump, calling him an “idiot” and “loathsome.”

At the same time, the texts were filled with adoring compliments of Clinton, lauding her nomination and stating: “She just has to win now.”

One text between Strzok and Page dated Aug. 6, 2016 stands out and looks like the proverbial smoking gun.

Page: “And maybe you’re meant to stay where you are because you’re meant to protect the country from that menace.” (This is clearly a reference to a Trump presidency).

Strzok:  “Thanks. And of course I’ll try and approach it that way. I can protect our country at many levels .…”

It is reasonable to conclude that Strzok had already taken steps to “protect” the country from what he considered would be a dangerous and harmful Trump presidency.

Just one month earlier, then-FBI Director James Comey had announced he would recommend that no criminal charges be filed by the Justice Department against Clinton. Given all the incriminating evidence against Clinton, Comey’s view that she should not be prosecuted made no sense by any objective standard.

This is where Strzok played a pivotal role. As the lead investigator in the Clinton email case, he is the person who changed the critical wording in Comey’s description of Clinton’s handling of classified material, substituting “extremely careless” for “gross negligence.”

As I explained in an earlier column, this alteration of two words had enormous consequences, because it allowed Clinton to evade prosecution. This removed the only legal impediment to her election as president.

Documents made available by the Senate Homeland Security Committee also show that Comey intended to declare that the sheer volume of classified material on Clinton’s server supported the “inference” that she was grossly negligent, which would constitute criminal conduct. Yet this also was edited out, likely by Strzok, to avoid finding evidence of crimes.

This seems to be what Page and Strzok meant when they discussed his role as protector of the republic. It appears that Strzok was instrumental in clearing Clinton by rewriting Comey’s otherwise incriminating findings.

Were Page and Strzok also referring to the investigation of Trump that was begun in July 2016, right after Clinton was absolved?  After all, Strzok was the agent who reportedly signed the documents launching the bureau’s Trump-Russia probe. And he was a lead investigator in the case before jumping to Robert Mueller’s special counsel team.

If there is any doubt that Strzok and Page sought to undermine the democratic process, consider this cryptic text about their “insurance policy” against the “risk” of a Trump presidency.

Strzok:  “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office – that there’s no way he gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.…”

The reference to “Andy” is likely Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who was also supervising the investigation of Clinton’s emails at the same time his wife was receiving roughly $675,000 in campaign money in her race for elective office in Virginia from groups aligned with Clinton.

What was the “insurance policy” discussed in Andy’s office? Was it the FBI’s investigation of Trump and his associates?  Or was it the anti-Trump “dossier” that may have been used by the FBI and the Justice Department as the basis for a warrant to wiretap and spy on Trump associates? Perhaps it was both.

The Dossier

The “dossier” was a compendium of largely specious allegations about Trump, compiled by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS. The dossier was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Comey called it “salacious and unverified.”

Various congressional committees suspect the dossier was illegally used to place a Trump campaign associate, Carter Page, under foreign surveillance. When asked about that on Wednesday during a hearing on Capitol Hill, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein refused to answer, which sounds like an implicit “yes.”

Using a dubious, if not phony, document in support of an affidavit to obtain a warrant from a federal judge constitutes a fraud upon the court, which is a crime.

The dossier scandal recently ensnared Bruce Ohr, a top Justice Department official, who was demoted last week for concealing his meetings with the men behind the document.

Ohr’s wife worked for Fusion GPS. This created a disqualifying conflict of interest for Mr. Ohr. He was legally obligated under Justice Department regulations to recuse himself from the Mueller investigation of Russia’s role in the election, but he did not.

Congress needs to find out whether the dossier was exploited as a pretext for initiating the Russia probe against President Trump. It would also be unconscionable, if not illegal, for the FBI and Justice Department to use opposition research funded by Clinton’s campaign to spy on her opponent or his campaign.

Both agencies have been resisting congressional subpoenas and other demands for answers, which smacks of a cover-up. Since the Justice Department cannot be trusted to investigate itself, a second special counsel should be appointed.

This new counsel should also reopen the Clinton email case and investigate the conduct of Strzok, Page, Comey and others who may have obstructed justice by exonerating Clinton in the face of substantial evidence that she had committed crimes.

If Strzok or anyone else allowed their political views to shape the investigations of either Clinton or Trump and dictate the outcomes, that is a felony for which they should be prosecuted.

The Mueller investigation is now so tainted with the appearance of corruption that it has lost credibility and the public’s trust.

It is very much like a trout in the spoiled milk.

THIS SESSION IS OVER

Gregg Jarrett – FOX NEWS

Jeff Sessions should never have accepted the position of Attorney General of the United States.  His leadership has proven unproductive and ineffectual.

There are two reasons for this.

First, he deceived President Trump by concealing his intent to recuse himself from the federal investigation into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election.  Hours after he was sworn in, Sessions began setting his recusal in motion by meeting with Department of Justice officials to discuss stepping aside from the probe.  Failing to disclose such a material matter to the president was an egregious betrayal.

Trump was reportedly disgusted and angry with Sessions when he learned of the recusal – rightly so.  “If he was going to recuse himself, he should have told me prior to taking office, and I would have picked someone else,” said Trump at a news conference.  The president was entitled to know the truth, but Sessions actively hid it from him.  Sessions’ deception deprived him of Trump’s confidence and trust which are essential to the job of Attorney General.  This ethical impropriety renders him unfit to serve.

Second, Sessions appears either incapable or incompetent.  He has resisted producing the documents relevant to the anti-Trump dossier which were subpoenaed by the House Intelligence Committee.  He has failed to appoint a special counsel to reopen the case against Hillary Clinton for likely violations of the Espionage Act in the use of her email server, obstruction of justice for destroying 33,000 emails under congressional subpoena, and potential self-dealing for profit through her foundation.  The evidence is compelling.

Moreover, Sessions has taken no action to investigate the unmasking of Trump aides during intelligence surveillance by the Obama Administration.  Evidence continues to mount that the incoming president was spied upon for political reasons.  Transition officials were unmasked, perhaps illegally.  And in one case, the unmasking was leaked to the media which is a crime.  Yet Sessions is twiddling his thumbs.

And why hasn’t Sessions investigated the possible criminal conduct of James Comey?  The fired FBI Director appears to have falsely testified before Congress, stolen government documents, and leaked them to the media.

Jeff Sessions may have been a fine Senator, but he has proven to be a feckless Attorney General.  He should resign.  But before he does, he can attempt to rectify the wreckage he has wrought by initiating several necessary criminal investigations and/or appointing a special counsel to do so.

James Comey

Comey was asked, under oath, by the House Judiciary Committee if he decided not to pursue criminal charges against Hillary Clinton before or after he interviewed her.  He testified, “After.

Yet, a document uncovered by the Senate Judiciary Committee belies his testimony.  A full two months before the FBI ever interviewed Clinton and her top aides, Comey drafted a statement exonerating Clinton.  Absent some extraordinary explanation, it appears that Comey’s investigation of Clinton was nothing more than a charade and that he may have lied under oath.  If it can be proven, it would constitute the crime of perjury under 18 USC 1621 or a false statement under 18 USC 1001.

This document establishes persuasive evidence that Comey predetermined that Clinton would not be charged.  What prosecutor writes a statement absolving a suspect beforethe evidence is fully gathered, especially from the principal witnesses?   No prosecutor I know of.  Unless, of course, the fix was in.  Unless someone instructed him to protect Clinton or he decided to do it all on his own with a presidential election hanging in the balance.

Either way, it might well constitute obstruction of justice.  It is a felony to interfere with a criminal investigation.  It is also illegal to use your public office for a political purpose, if that is what Comey was doing.

But Comey’s misconduct and potential illegality don’t stop there.  As FBI Director, he converted government documents to his own personal use and leaked at least one of them to the media.  As FBI Director, he crafted seven presidential memorandums which are government property, took them into his personal possession when he was fired, and then conveyed one or more of them to a friend for the sole purpose of leaking them to the media.  Under 18 USC 641, this could be a crime.

Under no circumstances were these memos “personal,”, as Comey claims.  They were authored during the course and scope of his employment, composed on a government computer, shared with government employees, and pertained directly to meetings with the president that were central to his job as FBI Director.

Under the Federal Records Act, they are government records.  This is indisputable, regardless of what Comey and his lawyers allege.  They know this because Comey signed an “Unauthorized Disclosure Agreement” promising that, under penalty of legal action, he would not disseminate workplace documents.  If the facts are as stated, he should be prosecuted under the Privacy Act.

Finally, four of the seven memos were “classified,” according to the FBI.  If Comey conveyed any of them to an outside source, this would constitute an Unauthorized Removal of Classified Documents (18 USC 1924) or a violation of the Espionage Act (18 USC 798) under which Clinton should have been charged when Comey was FBI Director.  The irony is lost on no one.  Yet, Sessions appears to have taken no action.

Before he resigns, Sessions must open a full investigation and convene a grand jury to determine whether criminal charges should be brought against Comey.  In the alternative, he can appoint a second special counsel to investigate the case.  The current special counsel, Robert Mueller, is a long-time friend, ally and mentor to Comey.  Mueller is not likely to include Comey in his current investigation, even though he has authority to do so under the directive he received.

Hillary Clinton

The case against Clinton is, by now, self-evident.  She stored 110 emails containing classified information on her home computer server, an unsecured and unauthorized place.  It is a crime to mishandle classified information under the Espionage Act.

Yet Comey misinterpreted the criminal statute by claiming Clinton did not “intend to violate the law.”  This is not the legal standard, as any knowledgeable lawyer will tell you.  The standard is whether she committed intentional acts, such as intentionally setting up her personal server and knowingly using it for her work documents, including classified materials.  Clinton clearly intended to do these things.

Regardless, the law under 18 USC 793 requires only “grossly negligent” behavior.  Here, Comey insisted Clinton was “extremely careless.”  However, the two terms are synonymous under the law.  Indeed, there is a frequently used jury instruction which explains that gross negligence is extremely careless behavior.  So, in essence, Comey was admitting Clinton violated the law, although he twisted the statute to conclude otherwise.

There is strong evidence that Clinton obstructed justice.  All of her emails were under a congressional subpoena.  She was required to preserve and produce every single one of them.  She did not.  Instead, she deleted roughly 33,000 emails in defiance of the subpoena and cleansed her server of any incriminating evidence.  Destruction of evidence under a lawful subpoena constitutes obstruction.  Under the law, it is no excuse to claim that some of the emails were personal in nature.

Growing evidence suggests that Clinton used her office as Secretary of State to confer benefits to donors and foreign governments in exchange for financial contributions to her foundation and cash to her husband.  If proven, it would support various crimes of corruption.

It has been reported that Clinton helped UBS avoid the IRS.  Thereafter, Bill Clinton got paid $1.5 million and the Clinton Foundation received a ten-fold increase in donations by the bank.  It has also been reported that Clinton’s state department approved billions of dollars in arms sales to several nations whose governments gave money to the Foundation.

And then, there is the infamous Uranium One deal.  After the State Department under Clinton signed off on the U.S. sale of one-fifth of our nation’s uranium production capacity to the Russians, millions of dollars from Russian sources connected to the Kremlin began to flow to the Clinton Foundation, and Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a speech in Moscow.  Coincidence?  Or criminal “pay-to-play?”

In his confirmation hearing, Sessions promised to recuse himself from any matter involving Hillary Clinton.  Therefore, before he resigns, Sessions must appoint a special counsel to reopen the Clinton investigation and decide anew whether criminal charges are merited.

Susan Rice

In March, the former National Security Adviser to President Obama insisted she “knew nothing” about Trump transition officials swept up in surveillance at the end of the Obama administration.  Her statement was not true, and not the first time Rice conjured a false narrative.  When confronted with evidence to the contrary, she admitted she knew of the incidental collection and, further, she is the one who requested that names be unmasked.

If Rice or UN Ambassador Samantha Power or any other person requested the unmasking of names for a reason other than national security, it is a crime.  And so too is the leaking of those names to the media which clearly occurred.  Under the Hatch Act, it is against the law for a public official to use his or her office for a political purpose.

Congress is vigorously investigating Rice and others.  Yet Sessions seems detached and unconcerned.  As the nation’s top lawyer, he is duty-bound to pursue such a substantial breach of intelligence operations.

Before he resigns, Sessions should launch a criminal investigation into the unmasking of names or appoint a special prosecutor to do the same.

Jeff Sessions either wittingly or unwittingly bungled his confirmation hearing, which led to the recusal that is said to have angered Trump and alienated the AG from the president.  Regardless, Sessions’ performance as Attorney General ever since has been notable only for a series of failures to act when action is demanded.

The moment the President of the United States no longer has confidence in his Attorney General, it is time for him to submit his letter of resignation.  But first, Sessions can restore integrity to the Department of Justice and salvage his own tattered reputation by taking aggressive action against Comey, Clinton and Rice.

Then he should quietly bow out.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/09/19/gregg-jarrett-sessions-should-resign-but-not-before-taking-action-against-clinton-comey-and-rice.html

JAMES CLAPPER – NOT FIT TO BE DOG CATCHER

WHITE HOUSE

Gregg Jarrett: Trump vs. crooks, liars and the liberal media

Gregg Jarrett

 

President Trump’s speech in Phoenix brought out the usual cast of misfits and miscreants.

And no, I’m not just referring to the “Antifa” anarchists who were, for the most part, denied their typical practice of wielding clubs, hurling feces, throwing rocks, setting vehicles ablaze and destroying buildings.

I’m talking about chronic Trump critics like James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence.  Spouting off on CNN immediately after the speech, Clapper said he questioned the president’s “fitness to be in this office.”

Lying to Congress is a felony. Yet Clapper managed to avoid prosecution for criminal perjury by hiding behind President Obama. So, when Clapper decries the “complete intellectual, moral or ethical void” of President Trump, the irony is lost on no one.

Clapper seems to be making a career out of trashing Trump.  He’s like a guy who can’t resist cramming a cannoli in his mouth every time he passes a pastry shop.  Whenever Trump speaks, Clapper starts yapping.  It is no coincidence that his mouth, and the lie that came out of it back in 2013, is what should have landed him behind bars.

While testifying before Congress, Clapper was asked, “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?”   The DNI responded, “No.

It was a breathtaking lie, of course.  Soon thereafter, the story broke that the National Security Agency had, indeed, been doing exactly what Clapper denied under oath.  When confronted with his lie, he told a reporter, “I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or at least untruthful manner by saying ‘no.’”   Huh?

Later, Clapper apologized for his “clearly erroneous” answer, but explained he had simply forgotten all about the massive government operation to secretly collect metadata on hundreds of millions of U.S. citizens.  That’s like saying Christmas slipped his mind.

Lying to Congress is a felony.  Yet Clapper managed to avoid prosecution for criminal perjury by hiding behind President Obama. Obama’s pal, Attorney General Eric Holder, made sure the case was tossed in a broom closet somewhere, never to be seen again.

The pompous media has never understood why much of America does not embrace their liberal values. Most members of the press are too insular and dogmatic to ever conceive of any intelligent beliefs beyond their own.

So, when Clapper decries the “complete intellectual, moral or ethical void” of President Trump, the irony is lost on no one.  Clapper became the poster child for ethical decay when he served as the nation’s chief intelligence officer.

At roughly the same time Clapper was spewing his usual drivel, Hillary Clinton was attempting to sideswipe Trump with her own revisionist rubbish.

Clinton, who mangled her presidential aspirations with acts of self-immolation unmatched in modern political history, is at it again.  Old habits are hard to break.  You’ll recall that she famously blamed her husband’s infidelity with a young intern on a “vast right-wing conspiracy” two decades ago.  She has been playing the narcissistic “blame game” ever since.

Her latest incantation is really quite laughable.  In a breathless recitation of excerpts from her new book “What Happened,” Clinton bemoans that the mere sight of Donald Trump during the campaign made her skin crawl.  It is the tripe of dime novels, but no less hypocritical.

Wouldn’t Hillary want to crawl out of her own skin because of her self-destruction? Wouldn’t she blame herself for the utterly unnecessary, but fatal, scandal of her own making? When she looks in the mirror, does she see a crook staring back? How could she not?

Like Clapper’s lies, Clinton managed to escape prosecution and prison for what appears to be a clear violation of the Espionage Act in the mishandling of classified documents.  Once again, Obama’s Justice Department provided cover, with a significant assist from then-FBI Director James Comey.

Perhaps Clinton’s most revealing line in her book is when she recounts her “lifetime of dealing with difficult men trying to throw me off.”  While it is intended to be a swipe at Trump, it sounds more like an angry confession of living a tortured life in the company of Bill Clinton.

There will be more self-serving excerpts to come.  Lucky us.

But Hillary Clinton and James Clapper are like pesky flies compared to the mainstream media.  Driven by its pronounced liberal bias, they immediately condemned Trump for denouncing them at the rally.  The president knows he can provoke them into revealing their prejudices.  And when he did so during the speech, they reacted like Pavlov’s dogs.

The gnashing of teeth at CNN was predictable, if not comical.  Calling the president “unhinged” and “wounded,” anchor Don Lemon declared that Trump “came out on stage and lied directly to the American people.  His speech was without thought, without reason, devoid of facts, devoid of wisdom.”  Lemon blathered on and on, but you get the picture.  He seemed to light up like a pinball machine when his guest, Clapper, launched into his “unfit for office” shtick.  Is it any wonder that the convention hall crowd began chanting, “CNN sucks?”

The pompous media has never understood why much of America does not embrace their liberal values.  Most members of the press are too insular and dogmatic to ever conceive of any intelligent beliefs beyond their own.

Which is why journalists never imagined that Trump would be elected president.  When it happened, they lapsed into something akin to “septic shock” from which they have yet to recover.  Likely, they never will.  They will persist in predicting Trump’s imminent demise and assert their own intellectual and moral superiority.

In so doing, they are sowing the seeds of their own destruction.  Not as a professional endeavor.  There will always be journalists.

But America will no longer hold them in respectable regard.

Gregg Jarrett is a Fox News legal analyst and former defense attorney.