Home / US / Gregg Jarrett: The indictment shows no evidence of an "agreement" by Trump-Russia

Gregg Jarrett: The indictment shows no evidence of an "agreement" by Trump-Russia


The indictment of President Trump's former political adviser, Roger Stone, who was arrested on Friday for obstructing an official trial, misrepresents and testifies to witness manipulation, reiterates that there is no evidence of "cooperation between Trump and Russia " gives .

Special adviser Robert Mueller has since May 2017 alleged that Donald Trump or his presidential candidates have worked with Russia to win the 2016 election. If Muller believed he had evidence of such activity, there would be no doubt that the special lawyer had accused Stone of committing a criminal offense involving conspiracy.

Significantly, Stone was not charged with collusion. In fact, not a single person was charged with the alleged crime against which Mueller had been called.


In his lawsuit from Stone, Mueller decided to do what he had done so often , He brought with him charges brought on by his own investigation. These are commonly referred to as "procedural offenses". That means they are violations of the legal process. Such violations typically occur when someone intervenes in the preliminary investigation.

Nowhere in the indictment of Müller is it claimed that Stone has conspired with, coordinated or cooperated with Russia to influence the 201

6 presidential election.

This is not intended to minimize the crime process. "These are serious violations of the law. A person should never lie, mislead, or interfere with a legitimate law enforcement investigation.

However, the distinction between a main crime and a process crime is significant. The former is an independent criminal act. The latter derives from the investigation of whether such an act has ever taken place.

"I will not be guilty of these charges," Stone told reporters following his arrest and appearance in federal court in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. "I will defeat them in court, which is a politically motivated investigation."

So far, Müller's extensive investigation has not produced any evidence and no charges for his original mandate. The special adviser has little to show for his efforts, which have cost the taxpayer tens of millions of dollars and hammered the president since his inauguration with unfounded allegations.

Müller's extensive investigation has so far provided no evidence and no charges for his original mandate. The special adviser has little to show for his efforts, which have cost the taxpayer tens of millions of dollars and hammered the president since his inauguration with unfounded allegations.

The inexorable truth is that a nefarious conspiracy that allegedly slipped inside the Kremlin between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin was a joke the whole time – it just never happened.

As President Trump has often said, "There was no collusion.

In fact, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's campaign paid for the unchecked Russian information and turned it over to the FBI and the Ministry of Justice in a plan to harm their political opponent Trump.

Therefore Trump-Russian "collusion" was nothing but a clever and deceitful invention. Clinton-Russian "collusion" was authentic and one of the dirtiest tricks in modern American politics.

The FBI became complicit in the plan to make Trump a series of false, if not corrupt, decisions bureau should never have launched a first investigation in July 2016, which later became the Mueller probe. There was no probable reason and no credible evidence to justify his investigation. Second, the FBI would never have misused an unverified anti-Trump "dossier" composed of a discredited and biased source to obtain a search warrant against spies foreign policy advisers to the Trump campaign.

In doing so, the FBI and the Department of Justice kept evidence against a secret service court and deceived the judges who issued the interception orders.

And finally, a special lawyer should never have been appointed. According to federal regulations, a crime must first be proven in order to appoint a special advocate. There was no such evidence.

If it had not been the misdemeanors of the FBI and the Department of Justice, Stone would never have carried out an investigation for alleged disability – meaning that no charges had been brought against him. [19659003] The simple truth is that the improper existence of Mueller's investigation has led to the crimes in which Stone Statues are accused of committing.

The indictment against Stone suggests that he may have prior knowledge or insider information about the content of Hacked Clinton campaign emails published by WikiLeaks in the summer of 2016.

WikiLeaks never said how it got the emails. It was reported that Russian intelligence agents were responsible for the hacks.

While Stones efforts to collect details about the emails and forward them to the Trump campaign are sure to create a tantalizing story, this activity is not a crime. At that time, hundreds of journalists – myself included – contacted the sources or tried to get more information directly from WikiLeaks. None of us was charged with a crime.

Stone seems to have speculated or suspected that the hacked e-mails would hurt Clinton's campaign very much. This, of course, was the obvious.

A study of Stone's e-mail shows that he offered little more than the same information that WikiLeaks had already publicly indicated. Stone's mistake, if anything, is that he had the appearance of what he knew more than he actually did.

But millions of people exaggerate every day their knowledge of all sorts of things to make themselves smarter or more important than they really are. After all, they are not charged with crimes.

Unless it can be shown that Stone was somehow involved in the actual hacking of Clinton emails, he violated no criminal laws. Therefore, he was not charged with a conspiracy crime.

Five of the charges against Stone have been made on false statements during the Müller investigation. This will be extremely difficult for the Special Prosecutor to prove. The statute governing these offenses (18 USC, 1001) requires proof that false statements are made "knowingly and intentionally".

A defective memory or diminished memory is not sufficient to fulfill the special purpose of the indictable charge. If Stone remembered events differently than they were interpreted by Müller, this is not a crime.

In addition, Stone has supplemented some of his statements with corrected statements. This is introduced as evidence of his defense.

The charges of witness manipulation and interference with an investigation may be more problematic for Stone. Much will depend on the facts if developed.

At the moment, Müller's indictment on Stone should be read by a skeptical lens. Prosecutors present only their own version of events. At the trial, Stein's defense lawyers will present their opposing evidence and arguments. Like all defendants, Stone must be considered innocent, unless the prosecution can plead guilty.

Unfortunately, Muller's "trial lawsuits" against Stone and others in the Trump orbit are a selective and unequal prosecution when compared to the treatment of Clinton's allies. Neither Top Clinton consultant Huma Abedin nor Cheryl Mills were charged with making false statements to the FBI over Clinton's email scandal during their 2016 interviews, in which Clinton inappropriately created a private email server instead of the required e-mail system used by the State Department when she was Secretary of State.

Abedin and Mills both insisted that they did not know about Clinton's private email server until they left the State Department. However, the exchange of e-mails proved that their statements were clearly wrong.

Former FBI Director James Comey said that no prosecution of Abedin and Mills was justified and dismissed Parliament's House Legal Committee as saying, "There are always conflicting factual memories."

The same guy who twisted the facts and distorted the law to free Clinton from the crime statutes she had so violently violated. Comey misunderstood the law in a way that could only have been deliberate. He armed the law to investigate Trump without any legal justification or credible evidence.


. The same double standard is now used by Comey's longtime friend and ally, Robert Mueller.

The enemies of President Trump are desperate to find anything – in the Mueller investigation, which points to Trump's wrongdoing, because they want to see the President being charged with ex officio. So far, nothing has been posted about the "smoking weapon" that they think Trump could do criminal activity.


Source link