Special Prosecutor Named For Russia Probe, Investigation Moving Forward
May 17, 2017 By Andrew West
The democratic storyline regarding the Russian “influence” on the 2016 election just won’t die.
Perhaps that has to do with Hillary Clinton’s own air of inevitability heading into the unconventional contest. Clinton, who it was revealed hoped to face off against Donald Trump in November, believing that he would be the simplest of the republicans to best, needed to invent an excuse for her embarrassing defeat. While taking responsibility for the American people’s mistrust of her due to numerous leaks of damning information was out of the question for the corrupt politician, raising the specter of an international boogeyman was certainly not above her shameless demeanor.
So began a long and arduous sputtering and spewing of pseudo-facts and contentious drivel aimed at connecting Donald Trump to Vladimir Putin.
In all honesty, Clinton had been planting the seeds of this insane conspiracy theory during the electoral debates – long before Americans headed to the polls. Perhaps it was her way of preemptively making excuses for her poor performance looming on the horizon. Perhaps Trump’s own willingness to show a diplomatic side when speaking on the subject of the Asiatic superpower was unnerving to the cold and bitter Clinton.
Whatever the case may be, we can all thank the incorrigible and crooked Hillary Clinton for getting us into this whole mess.
Now, amid heightened calls for an investigation into Russia’s influence on the 2016 election, a special prosecutor has been assigned.
“Former FBI Director Robert Mueller III was appointed as special counsel to oversee the FBI investigation of the Russian government’s efforts to influence the 2016 election, the Justice Department said.
“Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announced the appointment because Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from any investigation related to the 2016 race. Mr. Rosenstein said in a statement that ‘I determined that it is in the public interest for me to exercise my authority and appoint a Special Counsel to assume responsibility of this matter.’
“He cautioned that his decision wasn’t the result of a ‘finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is warranted.’
TREY GOWDY FULL ONE-ON-ONE EXPLOSIVE INTERVIEW WITH MARTHA MACCALLUM (5/16/2017)
Harvard Law School emeritus professor, liberal Democrat, and noted defense lawyer Alan Dershowitz has penned an op-ed in the Hillopposing the appointment of a special counsel to oversee the investigation into possible ties between President Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and the Russian government.
Dershowitz makes a three-part case against the special counsel. First, he says, the Trump campaign is not facing criminal accusations. Second, he says, even if collusion were to be found between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, or if Trump were found to have divulged secrets to the Russian foreign minister, none of that would be illegal, and ought to be punished by voters, not prosecutors. Third, he argues, Trump’s decision to fire James Comey does not constitute obstruction of justice, and a special counsel could not impeach him anyway.
The only legitimate targets of a special counsel, Dershowitz says, would be “those current and former intelligence officials who willfully leaked classified and highly secret information to the media” over the past several months.
So what will the special prosecutor be doing? The short answer is that we don’t know and may never know, because he will be operating in secret. His most powerful weapon will be the grand jury, which has the power to subpoena witnesses to be questioned without their lawyers behind closed doors. It is a crime to disclose or leak grand jury testimony (except in special situations).
At the end of his super secret investigations, the special counsel has essentially three options: he can issue indictments and prosecute the defendants, he can issue a statement that no indictments are warranted and close down his investigation, or he can issue a report.
If he were to issue a report, it would be one-sided and based on an investigation not geared towards knowing the whole truth, but rather to develop and present to the grand jury sufficient evidence to show probable cause that a crime may have been committed. The grand jury hears only one side — the prosecutor’s. A report, based on no criminal investigation, is likely to be one-sided and incomplete.
Dershowitz writes that he would have preferred to see “a non-partisan investigatory commission to uncover the whole truth” about Russia’s role in the election.
Read Dershowitz’s entire op-ed here.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He was named one of the “most influential” people in news media in 2016. He is the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.
Comey Caught Committing Perjury To Congress?