My thanks to FOX News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett for appearing with me on “Huckabee” on TBN this past weekend. In his bestselling book “THE RUSSIA HOAX: The Illicit Scheme To Clear Hillary Clinton And Frame Donald Trump” and in personal interviews, he has an almost startlingly clear way of pointing out what’s going on with Lady Justice’s blindfold these days, as President Trump stands accused of so-called “crimes” that are actually non-crimes and President wannabe Hillary Clinton is excused for “non-crimes” that are actually crimes. There has never been anything like this in my lifetime.
I’ll tell you who needs to read the book most of all: anyone who provides commentary on CNN, MSNBC or any one of numerous other news outlets that used to be worthy of at least a little respect. They should be ashamed of themselves for committing journalistic fraud in their so-called coverage of these investigations.
On Sunday with Maria Bartiromo, Jarrett expounded on one of the main reasons justice got turned on its head: the odd job performance of Attorney General Jeff Sessions ever since his first day at the DOJ. It started before then, actually, because it’s still a mystery why he took the job in the first place when he decided on DAY ONE that he would recuse himself. I doubt that many of us were aware of this, but according to Jarrett, Sessions “told the Senate Intelligence Committee that he began his recusal his first day in office.” Sessions betrayed the President from the outset, Jarrett said, because he concealed the fact that he was going to recuse himself from all things related to Russia and the campaign. (I would add that the President failed to anticipate the potential problem with appointing someone who’d been involved with the campaign, but even so, Sessions should have brought it up with him before taking the job.)
Jarrett writes in his book about “the law enforcers who became the law breakers,” and points out that Sessions has done precious little to go after them. Why hasn’t Sessions gone after Hillary Clinton for her large-scale destruction of subpoenaed documents? Why hasn’t he reopened the investigation of her mishandling of classified information, when literally hundred of thousands of documents found on Anthony Weiner’s laptop were never examined? And why in blazes hasn’t he launched an investigation into her payment, through devious channels, of a British ex-spy to create an anti-Trump “dossier” out of Russian gossip (the only “Russian collusion” we’ve seen) and the fraudulent use of it by the FBI to deceive the FISA court?
The idea that a Presidential candidate is known to have been behind these things and is getting away with it is so preposterous, it’s hard to believe it isn’t some bizarre work of fiction, even more bizarre than the dossier itself.
Speaking of the dossier, Bruce Ohr, formerly the number-four in command at the Justice Department and also, unbelievably, the husband of Fusion GPS employee Nellie Ohr, will –- finally –- testify behind closed doors before congressional committees on Tuesday. He has a lot to answer for, not the least of which is why a DOJ official who wasn’t assigned to any part of the “Russia” probe was communicating so extensively with Christopher Steele, author of the so-called “dossier.” Jarrett says he’s got 63 pages of notes, emails and text messages that Ohr exchanged with Steele. So far, all of our suspicions about the “Russia” hoax have been proven right, and we know these two were up to no good. Since Sessions doesn’t appear to be at all interested in the details, it’s just going to take congressional hearings to bring those to light.
Bring ‘em on. In the meantime, not only should we all read THE RUSSIA HOAX –- Chapter 6 is all about the dossier –- but we should also study up a bit on campaign finance law. Why? Well, since no one has been able to tie Trump to Russian collusion, they’re stuck with trying to say he broke campaign finance law. The fact that campaign finance law is really complicated makes it easier to accuse him. Trump’s opponents get to put him in a situation in which they can condemn whatever decision he makes.
For example, they’re saying he was wrong –- wait, criminal –- by not counting payments made as part of non-disclosure agreements as campaign contributions. But if he HAD called them campaign contributions and used campaign funds for the payoffs, they would be saying he’d violated the law by diverting campaign funds for his personal use. Either way, they’d say he was breaking the law.
Andrew C. McCarthy talks about this and much more in his latest NATIONAL REVIEW column. So that’s your assignment for today, class. As far as we know, Bruce Ohr will be testifying tomorrow. Between now and then, I may even come up with a list of fun questions for him.