Thursday, April 12, 2018
Nunes and the House's New GOP Generation Score the First Hit on Rosenstein and the Deep State DOJ and FBI
THE REAL NEWS TODAY IS THAT WE HAVE A COPY OF THE DOJ ORDER APPOINTING MUELLER. It was issued on May 17, 2017. That is almost 2 years ago. Here are its exact words : "Office of the Attorney General. ORDER NO. 3915-2017. APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS. By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 USC §§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as follows : (a) Robert S. Mueller III is appointed to serve as Specia] Counsel for the United States Department of Justice. (b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including : (i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 CFR § 600.4(a). (c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters. (d) Sections 600.4 through 600. l 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are applicable to the Special Counsel. May 17, 2017. Rod J. Rosenstein, Acting Attorney General." • • • IT IS A FLAWED DOJ ORDER. The Rosenstein Memo was the subject of an April 4 National Review article by Andrew McCarthy. In the article, McCarthy notes, as he has several times that Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein did not provide guidance to the special counsel, and that, in addition, Rosenstein "assigned Mueller to conduct a counterintelligence investigation, which is not a sound basis for appointing a special counsel; the regulations require grounds for a criminal investigation." • Andrew McCarthy is correct when he states that Rosenstein’s order appointing Mueller violated governing special-counsel regulations, which make the trigger for such an appointment the existence of a "criminal investigation of a person or matter," which a conflict of interest prevents the DOJ from conducting itself -- so that an attorney from outside the US government must be assigned to conduct the criminal investigation. BUT, Rosenstein’s order disclosed no basis for a criminal investigation and indicated no crimes that had allegedly been committed. Instead, states McCarthy : "the deputy attorney general assigned Mueller to conduct a counterintelligence investigation....[because] Rosenstein defined the probe as 'the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017.' In that testimony, Comey had quite explicitly confirmed a counterintelligence probe: 'I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.' ” • In addition, there is a connection between the grounds for appointing a special counsel and those for requiring the recusal of top DOJ officials -- if there is a need for recusal because of a conflict of interest, then a special counsel must be appointed. When we understand this, then we can also understand President Trump's anger -- almost bewilderment -- at the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions from the Russia investigation. It was at least premature. It was probably far to broad, covernign parts of the investigation for which Sessions had no conflict of interest. Attorney General Sessions acknowledged that his recusal was controlled by 28 CFR Section 45.2. But that regulation similarly states that disqualification is necessary only if there is a "criminal investigation or prosecution" as to which a prosecutor has a conflict of interest. • So, we have a double failure on the part of the DOJ -- failure to follow the law about both the appointment of a special counsel and about recusal. Comet admitted under oath that the Russia investigation was a counterintelligence investigation, and for such an investigation, there was no need for Sessions to recuse himself -- not until the Russia counterintelligence probe produced evidence of crimes that would warrant one or more "criminal investigations," triggering recusal on a case-by-case basis. McCarthy gives the best example of this -- "Sessions, because of his prominent role in the Trump campaign, would likely have had to recuse himself from the General Flynn case when criminal charges were brought against Flynn. As McCarthy explains it : "Sessions’s recusal in early March 2017....was too broad....if the counterintelligence investigation were to yield grounds for criminal investigations that arose out of the campaign, including any implicating Trump himself, Sessions would have been bound by ethics rules to disqualify himself from those matters." • • • BUT, ROSENSTEIN DID GIVE MUELLER GUIDANCE. It was "classified," as McCarthy explains : "We now have a redacted version of the deputy attorney general’s guidance to the special counsel. Eight months ago, in August 2017, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein secretly gave Special Counsel Robert Mueller specific guidance as to the crimes Mueller is authorized to investigate. The guidance came about ten weeks after Mueller’s May 17 appointment. This guidance purports to describe the grounds for criminal investigations, marking the limits of the special counsel’s jurisdiction....We learned Tuesday morning, based on a Monday-night court filing by Mueller, that Rosenstein’s amplification of Mueller’s jurisdiction was set forth in a classified memorandum dated August 2, 2017....About three weeks ago, Paul Manafort filed a motion to dismiss the money-laundering indictment Mueller filed against him in the District of Columbia (and he has since filed a motion to dismiss the bank- and tax-fraud indictment Mueller filed against him in the Eastern District of Virginia). The motion to dismiss, which was foreshadowed by a civil lawsuit Manafort filed in January, claims that the special counsel’s charges against him, based on Manafort’s dealings with a Kremlin-backed Ukrainian political party, exceed the jurisdiction outlined in Rosenstein’s appointment order, which focuses on Russia’s interference in the 2016 election." McCarthy says : "Manafort’s claim is a serious one." Nevertheless, McCarthy has said that "Rosenstein could easily cure the deficiency of his appointment order by granting Mueller additional jurisdiction to investigate any crimes arising out of Manafort’s involvement with Ukraine." • And, this is what Rosenstein did when, on August 2, he issued a classified memorandum that tried to correct the May 17, 2017, appointment’s order deficiencies by describing various grounds for a criminal investigation. • • • THE AUGUST 2, 2017, ROSENSTEIN MEMO. McCarthy says the August 2 Memo fails to do the job : "In the Memo, the deputy attorney general claims that his original order appointing Mueller did not mention the criminal investigations Mueller was authorized to conduct because Rosenstein wanted to make the public aware that Mueller was being appointed 'without confirming specific investigations involving specific individuals.' ” McCarthy is skeptical about this statement : "If that is what Rosenstein intended, he could have issued the classified memorandum defining Mueller’s jurisdiction at the same time he issued the appointment order -- i.e., on May 17. After all, the special counsel’s jurisdiction to conduct criminal investigations is supposed to be established at the time of the special counsel’s appointment, not ten weeks later." • Instead, McCarthy believes that Rosenstein wrote the August 2 Memo : "because he wisely concluded that the objections to his previous failure to do so had merit. Moreover, by August 2017, Rosenstein had to have been anticipating Mueller’s indictment of Manafort (along with Richard Gates), which occurred less than three months later. It would have been clear to Rosenstein and Mueller that they could face headwinds in the Manafort prosecution unless Rosenstein articulated a clearer jurisdictional basis for it." And, in fact, that is what happened when Manafort filed his motion for dismissal. • In addition, McCarthy says that : "The fact that Rosenstein’s August 2 memo is classified underscores the fact that the Russia probe is essentially a counterintelligence investigation. Such investigations are classified. In criminal investigations, sensitive information is tightly held, but it is almost never classified." • BUT, McCarthy here fails to draw the obvious conclusion -- if Mueller was undertaking a counterintelligence investigation, he could not have been appointed as a "special counsel" and there was no need for Sessions' recusal. • The 2-page August 2 Memo is heavily redacted, according to McCarthy. What is not redacted in the Memos says McCarthy, is that Rosenstein instructs Mueller as follows : “The following allegations were within the scope of the Investigation at the time of your appointment and are within the scope of the [May 17 appointment] Order.” But after that, everything is blacked out except for two 'allegations' regarding Paul Manafort. The redacted portion is four times bigger than the unredacted Manafort portion, so Rosenstein has obviously authorized Mueller to investigate several 'allegations' about which we are still in the dark." AND, McCarthy makes the very salient point that the Memo’s use of "allegation" is a proble, becasue : "The special-counsel regulations are not satisfied by mere allegations; they require that there be factual grounds warranting a 'criminal investigation of a person or matter.' Now, the regulation governing a special counsel’s jurisdiction (Section 600.4) is unclear on how much must be said about the grounds for the investigation -- the acting attorney general must give the special counsel 'a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated.' I believe the term 'specific factual statement' implies that more than a mere, conclusory allegation is required." • McCarthy then lists what we do not know about Rosenstein's guidance to Mueller : "Do these include 'allegations' that expressly name President Trump? We do not know....The two unredacted allegations against Manafort -- One is easy enough to grasp : the 'allegation' that Manafort 'committed a crime or crimes arising out of payments he received from the Ukrainian government before and during the tenure of President Victor Yanukovich.'....It is the other allegation (which is the first one that Rosenstein lists against Manafort) that is intriguing: The 'allegation' that Manafort committed a crime or crimes by colluding with Russian government officials with respect to the Russian government’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 election for President of the United States, in violation of United States law." • McCarthy rightly points out, as we have discussed in this blog many times, is that "collusion" is NOT a crime; as McCarhty says, "even 'colluding with Russian government officials.' ” The law requires CONSPIRACY" -- that is, an activity must rise to the level of conspiracy to commit a violation of federal criminal law. In addition, as McCarthy points out, "some similar form of joint criminal activity, such as aiding and abetting another person’s or entity’s commission of a federal crime" can be a Conspiracy...Rosenstein may invoke the words 'crime or crimes' and the phrase 'in violation of United States law,' but there is no factual statement describing actions that amount to concrete crimes." • SO, we have another failed Rosenstein effort to give justification to the Mueller special counsel probe. Again; McCarthy explains : "In this sense, the August 2 memo’s amplification of Mueller’s jurisdiction is no more edifying than the May 17 appointment order’s original grant of jurisdiction, which authorized Mueller to investigate 'any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of Donald Trump.' It is not a crime to have 'links' to, or to 'coordinate' with, Russia. To be sure, it would be a crime to, say, coordinate with Russia in the hacking of email accounts. But Rosenstein does not allege anything like that. So even with the amplification, we still do not know what crimes Rosenstein suspects, such that “collusion” should have prompted the appointment of a special counsel." • McCarthy tells us that another element lacking in the Rosenstein Auguat 2 Memo is any reference to the Steele Russia Dossier : "What is the source of an allegation that Manafort colluded with Russian officials 'with respect to the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 election'?....we do not know everything the FBI knows. The government is conducting an investigation, and we are informed only about what officials choose to reveal. We know the government has been investigating Manafort for a long time, and we can safely assume that the FBI has been digging deeply into his Russian ties for any connections to the 2016 election. Withal, we can confidently say two things: (1) Despite facing many counts of serious criminal misconduct, Manafort has never been charged with any crime connected to Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election, and (2) the most notorious information to allege explicitly that Manafort conspired in Russia’s election meddling is the Steele Dossier -- the unverified reports compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, whose political opposition research project was sponsored by the Hillary Clinton campaign....we know about the government’s use of the Steele dossier in connection with the investigation of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. It appears that uncorroborated and highly suspect Dossier allegations were used to apply for a FISA warrant against Page because the government would have lacked probable cause without them. The FISA court was not informed that Clinton campaign was behind the dossier. By contrast, we do not know to what extent, if any, the Dossier was exploited in the investigation of Manafort. CNN has reported that Manafort was also the target of surveillance warrants, but I do not believe that reporting has been confirmed by the Justice Department, any congressional committee, or any other government source. Assuming that Manafort was surveilled, we might also have assumed that his years of shady activities with Kremlin-backed Ukrainians would have given the government the probable-cause needed to justify any FISA warrants -- i.e., it would have been unnecessary for the government to resort to Steele’s suspect claims, as it did with Page. Based on anonymous sources, CNN’s report suggests that Manafort was surveilled around the same time that Page was (late 2016 into 2017), but that this monitoring was prompted by 'communications between Manafort and suspected Russian operatives, and among the Russians themselves.' Thus, the questions arise : Does the Steele Dossier form any part of the government’s basis for Rosenstein’s allegation that Manafort was complicit in Russia’s interference in the election? If not, what is the factual basis of that allegation, which to date has resulted in no formal charges against Manafort?" • McCarthy asks whether "the extensive redacted portions of Rosenstein’s memo contain allegations that other named Trump campaign officials were complicit in Russia’s interference in the 2016 election? Are those allegations, if any, based in any way on the Steele Dossier? If not, what is the factual basis for alleging that the named Trump campaign officials were complicit in Russia’s interference in the 2016 election? Is President Trump among the individuals named in Rosenstein’s allegations? Suffice it to say, we remain uninformed regarding the government’s basis for alleging that ‘collusion’ with Russia resulted in potential crimes warranting investigation." • McCarthy's conclusion is chilling : "Not only is Mueller invited to conduct a fishing expedition, with no specified crimes limiting his investigative jurisdiction, but counterintelligence probes are classified. Consequently, Mueller’s investigation proceeds in total secrecy: no boundaries on what may be examined, and no disclosures about what the special counsel is examining and why. Instead of badgering his attorney general on Twitter, perhaps the President could, you know, act like a President and instruct his Justice Department to comply with federal regulations. Sessions could be directed to consider whether his recusal complies with the regulation that limits disqualification to criminal investigations as to which there is a conflict. To the extent it does not, he should amend the recusal to conform to the regulation. Rosenstein could be directed to consider whether his appointment of a special counsel complies with the regulations that limit such appointments to criminal investigations or prosecutions as to which the Justice Department is conflicted. He could further be directed to specify exactly what potential crimes the special counsel is authorized to investigate. Finally, after Rosenstein specifies the crimes, Mueller could be invited to seek an expansion of his jurisdiction if he can demonstrate that he has legitimately found evidence of other crimes. If this were done, if the regulations were followed, all of us, including the president, would know what crimes the president is suspected of committing...if there are any." • • • THE HOUSE IS NOT AS PATIENT AS TRUMP'S LAYWERS. The young conservatives in Congress have worked their way into leadership positions. Representative Devin Nunes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, launched a nuclear missile at Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray, stating that they will face both contempt of Congress charges and the prospect of impeachment if they fail to produce thousands of subpoenaed documents. Nunes told Fox News’ Laura Ingraham that his Committee is particularly interested in a two-page electronic communication (EC) that contains the original justification for the investigation, by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI, of allegations members of President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign colluded with individuals linked to the Russian government (the August 2 Rosenstein Memo) : “I can tell you this -- we are going to get the document. We are going to get the two pages. They can either cough them up now, or it will get really complicated starting tomorrow night, and we’ll have to take all the steps necessary in order to get the documents.” When host Laura Ingraham pressed him for details, he added that “we will have a plan to hold in contempt and to impeach -- we’re not messing around here.” • Nunes got what he wanted -- immediately. It seems that the DOJ posse trying to round up President Trump and his team by use of threats of impeachment and criminal actions are not so brave when they are threatened with the same. TheHill reported on Wednesday that : "The Justice Department has provided House lawmakers with access to a two-page document that the FBI used to initiate its original counterintelligence probe into the Trump campaign's ties to Russia. All members of the House Intelligence Committee received access to the document, a Justice Department confirmed to The Hill on Wednesday. Committee chair Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) had requested access to the unredacted document, complaining that previous 'heavily' redacted versions were not adequate to the committee's own investigation. Nunes said Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein allowed him and House Oversight Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) to view the key document related to the FBI’s Russia probe one day after he threatened to hold FBI Director Chris Wray and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in contempt and initiate impeachment proceedings against them if they did not comply with the request for the unredacted document. 'During the meeting, we were finally given access to a version of the EC that contained the information necessary to advance the Committee’s ongoing investigation of the Department of Justice and FBI,' Nunes said in a statement. 'Although the subpoenas issued by this Committee in August 2017 remain in effect, I’d like to thank Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein for his cooperation today,' he added." • How often must we learn that the ProgDem cabal is a gang of thugs who laugh at courtesy and following the rules, but who will repsond to muscle and threats -- just like they deliver themselves. • Nunes recounting to Ingraham of his efforts to see the August 2 EC are telling : "Nunes noted that months ago, when the intelligence panel first requested the two-pager, he 'sent' Representative Trey Gowdy over to view the document, only to discover that it was 'fully redacted' and unreadable. 'I called back several times. I had conversations with Rod Rosenstein and with Director Wray,' he said. 'Mr. Gowdy and the investigators went over there again, and there [were] only a few more things that were unredacted, so most of it was still redacted.' The committee is now 'at a boiling point' where its members must view the complete, unredacted EC, Nunes said. The congressman said it seems that every time the DOJ and FBI 'hide something from us' for 'a long time,' lawmakers eventually discover that 'it was really bad.' So now, just the fact that they're not giving this to us tells me that there's something wrong here," he said. Nunes also pointed out that the New York Times and the Washington Post appear to have received and published leaked information contained within the EC before lawmakers even had a chance to view the document....Nunes said he expected that special counsel Robert Mueller would have been able to control the apparent flow of leaks from his team. 'It seems like the special counsel is good at leaking but not so good at actually finding major felony leakers,' he said. Nunes claimed some of his Democratic colleagues have accused him of purposefully serving Trump in his stubborn quest to view the EC and other documents. But Nunes told Ingraham that he would be 'the first person' to stand 'on the steps of the Capitol' and reveal if and when he found evidence of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. 'I haven't found it yet, but I've found a whole lot of other stuff that always puts DOJ and FBI in a bad light, unfortunately,' he said, accusing the DOJ and FBI of thinking 'that they're above the law.' Congress, the legislative branch, we created these agencies. They have a responsibility to give us documents when we ask for them. We have the appropriate clearances. That's why the House Intelligence Committee exists,' Nunes said. 'So, at the end of the day, we're going to win on this. It's just a matter of how tough they're going to make it for Congress to actually do our job under the Constitution and under the priorities that we're given.' " • • • BRAVO TO CONSERVATIVE FIGHTERS. To Devin Nunes. We need more Republican members of Congress ready to stand up the these ProgDem thugs who are destroying the constitutional underpinnings of the Republic. • Mark Meadows, chairman of the House Freedom Caucus who reportedly talks often with President Trump by phone, is standing with Nunes. Everyone sat up and took notice when he stated that the impeachment of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was a possibility, because, like Nunes, Congressman Meadows up in arms at DOJ and FBI failure to produce documents that would explain their conduct in the Russia investigation. Meadows told Judge Jeanine Pirro on Fox News last Saturday : "I think that if he does not turn over the documents, that there are a growing number of us on Capitol Hill who believe that someone else needs to do the job. And what happens there is, constitutionally, we have some things that we can do.... If the Deputy Attorney General is not willing to do it and not willing ot allow us to have our constitutional oversight authority supported, then we'll find someone who can.....The first area is Contempt of Congress. One of the things we have as a tool in our toolbox is impeachment." • Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio also stands with Nunes. Jordan, who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee, told TheHill that the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility identified four times McCabe appeared to lie to his superiors and investigators about communications he authorized between FBI officials and the press, including for an October 2016 Wall Street Journal story. Jordan dismissed McCabe's claims he is a victim of politics, saying the evidence gathered by career federal investigators supports Attorney General Jeff Sessions's decision to fire McCabe. "He misled his boss, James Comey, he misled the Office of Professional Responsibility -- their investigation -- and I think he gave false information twice under oath to the Inspector General. So four separate occasions where he wasn’t being square with people he’s supposed to be straight forward with, and he didn’t do that,” Jordan said. TheHill said McCabe has fought back against his firing, calling it part of President Trump’s attempt to discredit the FBI and special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling. But, Jordan said the concerns about McCabe's conduct came from inside the FBI and not from political appointees. “It was the inspector general who said he misled folks, he lied to them about the leak that took place with the Wall Street Journal back in October of 2016,” Jordan said. “It wasn’t Donald Trump, it wasn’t Jim Jordan, it wasn’t Mark Meadows [R-N.C.], it wasn’t Matt Gaetz [R-Fla.]. It wasn’t chairman of the Judiciary Committee or chairman of the Oversight Committee; it was his colleagues who said they recommended he be terminated, that he be fired." • And, according to Townhall : "Fired Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe raked in more than $500,000 from leftist sympathizers this week after setting up a legal fund and blasting President Trump. As a reminder, McCabe was fired by Attorney General Jeff Sessions after the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility and the DOJ Inspector General recommended he be terminated for a lack of candor. But it turns out, McCabe's pay day wasn't a result of a grassroots effort to defend him against false attacks. The GoFundMe page was set up by a Washington DC lobbying firm connected to President Barack Obama....Melissa Schwartz is a crisis and communications consultant who currently works for The Bromwich Group. She’s also McCabe’s present spokesperson. The Bromwich Group is a K Street consulting and PR firm headed by Michael R. Bromwich. Immediately prior to founding the firm, Bromwich served as the first director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management under President Barack Obama. On March 29, Schwartz sanctioned the official GoFundMe campaign by tweeting, “Correct. We launched the official campaign today.” Later that same day, in response to suspicion about the veracity of the fundraiser, she tweeted, “That is the official campaign we launched today.” (Notably, Schwartz is also the person who issued the Monday statement announcing the legal defense fund would stop accepting donations -- after repeatedly shifting its initial $150,000 goal upwards.) On Monday, the Bromwich Group ended McCabe's legal defense fundraising after it well surpassed the original goal of $150,000. Over the weekend McCabe's wife, Jill McCabe, wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post claiming her husband never used official resources to support her campaign for the Virginia Senate. McCabe in fact did use his official FBI email to ask fellow agents for support. In fact, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley asked the DOJ's Rosenstein for more information about McCabe's involvement in Jill McCabe's campaign last December : "E-mail communications recently released by the FBI in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request show that Deputy Director Andrew McCabe may have violated the Hatch Act and corresponding Department regulations prohibiting political activity during his wife’s 2015 campaign for the Virginia Senate. According to guidance from the DOJ’s Departmental Ethics Office, under 5 C.F.R. § 734.101-702, FBI employees are forbidden from 'engag[ing] in political activity while on duty, in a federal facility, wearing a uniform or official insignia, or using a federally-owned or leased vehicle.' " • • • DEAR READERS, did I hear someone say "SWAMP." The New York Post's Michael Goodwin wrote on Sunday, April 8 : "Given the stakes, the public has a right to know at this point what it all adds up to. If Mueller won’t speak for himself, his handler, Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general who created Mueller, should speak for him. A concise report about where the probe stands would be enough. Mueller could make a statement, or Rosenstein could testify to Congress." • Of course, this is not likely to happen because Rod Rosenstein undoubtedly considers himself untouchable. But, he ought to take heed of the House's determination to fulfill its constitutional oversight function. Rosenstein and all his Deep State co-conspirators ought to worry about what is coming at them. Rosenstein alone decided a special counsel was needed -- his name is on the signature line -- so he bears final responsibility for the probe. It is now clear that Nunes, Meadows, and the conservative members of Congress will demand that Rosenstein make the Mueller Russia probe follow order and accountability. The recent revelation that he wrote a secret memo in August, 2017, expanding Mueller’s jurisdiction illustrates the illegality of the entire phony, secretive Russia probe, and illustrates that Rosenstein knows it. It was begun with no evidence of any crime. It was approved by a DOJ overrun by Deep Staters and deprived of its head when Sessions recused himself -- we should note that he had the 'advice' of DOJ career attorneys, who are surely Deep Staters, too. It has continued far beyond any rational connection that even rises to the legally insufficient level of "allegations" that Trump and his team "colluded" with Russia to "fix" the election -- besides which, colluding is not even a crime. For there to be any crime, it must rise to "conspiracy." And, we are hard pressed to find "conspiracy" anywhere but in the ranks of the Deep State and ProgDems who are hellbent on destroying Trump and taking over the Republic unconstitutionally. While President Trump's lawyer is being subjected to an unreasonable seizure of client records and heaven know what else under Mueller's jackboot, the real co-conspirators Hillary and Bill and Lynch and Holder and Comey and Rice and Power and Brennan and Clapper and Obama and Soros are on a criminal joyride to run Trump under the bus. And, they are aided and abetted by a rogue DOJ and FBI. • There is no justice or fairness or reason to any of it. Americans are aware of all of this, even if Hillary thinks they are dim-witted Deplorables. The media crowing we now are hearing about a "wave" election for Democrats in November is so reminiscent of the catcalls before the 2016 presidential election that it is hard to imagine that the ProgDems are actually falling again into the same trap of believing the biased predictions of the Fake media they created. November 2018 will verify America's disgust with all Swamp politicians who think they own the keys to the Republic. They do not. American citizens do. Voting in November will be the only legal "conspriacy" -- to rid America of its criminal ProgDem political class.