Contrast in Charges about Trump and Clinton

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government reviews the contrast in the treatment of allegations about the Trump and Clinton campaigns.

The awaited testimony of former FBI Director Comey produced two major results. The first is that it is clear that there is no evidence of any action by the President that justifies a consideration of impeachment. The second is that Comey had substantial concerns that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch colluded with the Clinton campaign. Little information or clarity was added to the issue of Russian collusion.

By the way, Alan Dershowitz writes: “Throughout American history — from Adams to Jefferson to Lincoln to Roosevelt to Kennedy to Obama — presidents have directed (not merely requested) the Justice Department to investigate, prosecute (or not prosecute) specific individuals or categories of individuals.”

That leads to the salient questions: Was it appropriate to appoint a special counsel to examine allegations about the Trump campaign? Was it appropriate to not appoint a special counsel or otherwise commence an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s profiting from the sale of uranium to Russia?

The Code of Federal Regulations, Title 28, Chapter VI, Part 600.1 states that a special counsel should be appointed:

“when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and—(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney’s Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and (b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.”

The key issue is whether there is sufficient substance in the allegations concerning the charge that the Trump campaign “colluded” with Russia. Similarly, there must be a description of what actions occurred which would amount to “collusion.” Strangely, there appears to be a total lack of interest in very specific and open information concerning illicit Russian contacts with the Clintons.

According to the law firm of Burnham & Gorokhov “In most cases, a federal investigation is triggered by the filing of a credible crime report. Sometimes, it may also commence as a result of information law enforcement agents receive from defendants in pending criminal cases who are hoping to receive leniency (i.e., cooperators). In other cases, a federal investigation may result from data gathered by a federal intelligence agency, such as the CIA…”

There has been no evidence presented of Trump campaign officials meeting with Russian officials in anything other than a casual or nonrelated capacity, for example, at general events attended by many in the Washington orbit. Indeed, even if—and there has been no evidence of this—Trump campaign officials engaged in specific planned meetings with Russian officials, there is no description of how this constituted an actionable violation of the law by the campaign of a candidate for president, or that anything was specifically said or agreed to that constituted a violation of the law, sufficient to warrant an investigation.
Most of the health professionals recommend for 100mg dosage as a superior one for the male patients & indeed it is a standard one for viagra prescription online jelly. However, many men search for a solution that can permanently cure this problem with the help of Lawax capsules. cialis 25mg Counseling will help determine the exact cause of the psychological icks.org generic viagra without visa problems like anxiety, stress and depression. The only drawback with the medicine was free consultation cialis review the high cost.
Some individuals with significant ties to the Trump Administration and campaign have had previous business dealings with Russian officials. The extent to which this has been stretched to being evidence of “collusion” is extraordinary, symbolized by demands that any records of Russian officials staying at hotels owned by Trump interests be released.

The refusal to present evidence sufficient to commence an investigation, and the hostile reaction to requests for the presentation of such evidence, is worrisome. Notably, in an exchange during a House Intelligence Committee Hearing, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) specifically asked former CIA Director John O. Brennan about the existence of any evidence of Trump campaign wrongdoing. Brennan testily replied that “I don’t do evidence.” The anger of CIA officials at being asked to produce substance behind the allegations was further highlighted by the threatening comments by Former CIA Official Phil Mudd, who, as reported by Fox News, said Gowdy should “have his ass kicked” for his questioning the lack of evidence.

The unsubstantiated claims that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia has been called a cover-up for unlawful surveillance the Obama Administration engaged in against the Republican 2016 presidential candidate.

The misappropriation of government assets, including the intelligence services, for partisan political purposes characterized the Obama Administration.

Circa reports that “The National Security Agency under former President Barack Obama routinely violated American privacy protections while scouring through overseas intercepts and failed to disclose the extent of the problems until the final days before Donald Trump was elected president last fall, according to once top-secret documents that chronicle some of the most serious constitutional abuses to date by the U.S. intelligence community.”

The move was consistent with other Obama Administration abuses, including the use of the IRS to harass political opponents, and the Justice Department surveillance of reporters.

Breitbart quotes Mark Levine describing the Obama White House’s practices as those of “a police state… and suggested that Obama’s actions, rather than conspiracy theories about alleged Russian interference in the presidential election to help Trump, should be the target of congressional investigation.”

The Report concludes tomorrow.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.