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.