Gregg Jarrett: What is Robert Mueller investigating (since collusion is not a crime)?

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/05/23/gregg-jarrett-what-is-robert-mueller-investigating-since-collusion-is-not-crime.html
** VIDEO INCLUDED IN ARTICLE **

Gregg Jarrett: Mueller should resign as special counsel

Robert Mueller is tasked with finding a crime that does not exist in the law.  It is a legal impossibility.

As special counsel, Mueller can engage in all manner of spectacular jurisprudential gymnastics. 
However, it will not change the fact that colluding with Russia is not, under America’s criminal
codes, a crime.  It’s just not there.

Maybe it should be.  Perhaps someday Congress will pass a law criminalizing such conduct in
political campaigns.  But for now, there is not a single statute outlawing collaboration with a
foreign government in a U.S. presidential election.  Or any election, for that matter.

Why, then, are so many people who are following the Trump-Russia saga under the
mistaken impression that collusion is a crime?  Principally, because it is a loaded word
with an historic criminal connotation.

“Collusion” became a prominent part of the legal lexicon when Benjamin Harrison occupied
the White House and Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890 outlawing
collusion in some business practices.  Specifically, price fixing and other anticompetitive
activities became a criminal offense under Section 1 of the Act.  Almost overnight, the word
“collusion” was converted into a legal pejorative.

But collusion is only criminal in an antitrust setting.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with elections. 
Yet that has not stopped politicians, pundits and journalists from either misunderstanding the
concept and/or misconstruing its application to the Trump-Russia hysteria that has reached a
deafening pitch. 

Both the Department of Justice and the FBI seem equally oblivious.

Treason

Treason

Some leftest democrats may be using such terminology along with impeachment but even they are backing off the impeachment narrative. No rational person could really be serious in thinking Trump committed treason, much less prove it. However, the whole asking for a special prosecutor may have backfired on the democrats since this investigation may potentially lead to Hillary and the DNC. Maybe that is why Trump and Sessions allowed a special investigation to occur in the first place? 

18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Some leftest democrats may be using such terminology along with impeachment but even they are backing off the impeachment narrative. No rational person could really be serious in thinking Trump committed treason, much less prove it. However, the whole asking for a special prosecutor may have backfired on the democrats since this investigation may potentially lead to Hillary and the DNC. Maybe that is why Trump and Sessions allowed a special investigation to occur in the first place?

maybe he meant "second degree treason" rather than "treason"
or "obstruction of justice", which can be confused with "treason" if he is not really putting a lot of thought into his posts unless it is one of the rare times he doesn't research them

This is a list of all the people in US history charged and sentenced for treason:

-    Philip Vigol and John Mitchell, convicted of treason and sentenced to hanging; pardoned by George Washington; see Whiskey Rebellion.
-    John Fries, the leader of Fries' Rebellion, convicted of treason in 1800 along with two accomplices, and pardoned that same year by John Adams.
-    Governor Thomas Dorr 1844, convicted of treason against the state of Rhode Island; see Dorr Rebellion; released in 1845; civil rights restored in 1851; verdict annulled in 1854.
-    John Brown, convicted of treason against the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1859 and executed for attempting to organize armed resistance to slavery.
-    Aaron Dwight Stevens, took part in John Brown's raid and was executed in 1860 for treason against Virginia.
-    William Bruce Mumford, convicted of treason and hanged in 1862 for tearing down a United States flag during the American Civil War.
-    Walter Allen was convicted of treason on September 16, 1922 for taking part in the 1921 Miner's March with the coal companies and the US Army on Blair Mountain,
            West Virginia. He was sentenced to 10 years and fined. During his appeal to the Supreme Court he disappeared while out on bail. United Mineworkers of America
            leader William Blizzard was acquitted of the charge of treason by the jury on May 25, 1922.
-    Herbert Hans Haupt, German-born naturalized U.S. citizen, was convicted of treason in 1942 and executed after being named as a German spy by fellow German spies defecting to the United States.
-    Martin James Monti, United States Army Air Forces pilot, convicted of treason for defecting to the Waffen SS in 1944. He was paroled in 1960.
-    Robert Henry Best, convicted of treason on April 16, 1948 and served a life sentence.
-    Iva Toguri D'Aquino, who is frequently identified by the name "Tokyo Rose," convicted 1949. Subsequently, pardoned by President Gerald Ford.
-    Mildred Gillars, also known as "Axis Sally", convicted of treason on March 8, 1949; served 12 years of a 10- to 30-year prison sentence.
-    Tomoya Kawakita, sentenced to death for treason in 1952, but eventually released by President John F. Kennedy to be deported to Japan.

That's it.  Treason is not a crime we tend to charge even for the worst US spies.  There have been several spies and spy rings prosecuted in the last 75 years, such as the Ames Spy Ring, Boyce & Lee, Robert Hanssen of the FBI, and Dr. Wen Ho Lee. 

Dr. Lee illegally downloaded and removed from Los Alamos massive amounts of classified nuclear weapons information--the equivalent of 400,000 pages of nuclear secrets, representing the fruits of 50 years and hundreds of billions of dollars worth of research.  We still don't know how China managed to get this information, but we know that they did.

Robert Hanssen spied for the Russians for 22 years and was not charged with treason.

If these types of intentional crimes don't rise to the level of treason, then you can stop trying to make out like Trump has committed that crime. 

This is the kind of anti-Trump Liberal/Socialist bullshit that will ensure Trump's reelection is a cakewalk!       

Well Mueller is SUPPOSED to investigate all leads regarding this Russia thing back to 2016 when Obama, Lynch etal were still in office.   The original story pushed was Russian "hacking".  Now if those who support this independent counsel appointment start backing away from the term "hacking" and start using another term then you can be very sure that the info given was not from external hacking but internal leaks.  Ironic how the current family spokesman for the Seth Rich family is Brad Bauman who also happens to work for the democrat party.   MSM reporting that the Rich family is enraged at their son's death being politicized, yet have a career DNC individual like Bauman speak for them.   It will all play out, in the meantime this country needs to get back on course and deal with the economy and sending the jihadis to hell.

Gregg Jarrett: What is Robert Mueller investigating (since collusion is not a crime)?

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/05/23/gregg-jarrett-what-is-robert-mueller-investigating-since-collusion-is-not-crime.html
** VIDEO INCLUDED IN ARTICLE **

Collusion can be a crime. Depends what they were colluding about.

Collusion can be a crime. Depends what they were colluding about.

That would be "conspiracy", which still is not a crime, because what they were allegedly colluding about was "interfering with the election."

There's nothing that says that's a crime.  In case you missed it, Russia is not under the jurisdiction of the US.

As far as I know, the only actual crime alleged to have taken place was unauthorized access of some email accounts on servers like yahoo and gmail.  Of course, there's no real proof, but that's the story.

There is another chance the information was leaked from within, and that no one hacked any emails.

Regardless, I fail to see any reason to believe Trump or his campaign needed to be involved.  It's rather easy to access public domain email accounts if you know how to social engineer the owner into granting access.

The Democrats are not the best when it comes to cyber security.  Just ask them about that private email server the Secretary of State was using.  That's their example of great cyber security.

If they are using free public email accounts to conduct DNC business, then that's their own fault.  it's not like they can't afford to set up private email servers for that stuff.

People believe what they want to believe, and using facts to illustrate their error is getting harder because they believe the SOURCES they got their erroneous information from.

That's exactly what Mueller is investigating, was there a crime committed? He will interview, he will subpoena, he will review documents, he will spend millions of taxpayer's dollars just like the Republicans did impeaching Clinton. After several years, he may finally come out and say that no crime was committed. In the meantime, our attention will have been diverted from Trump's agenda, Obamacare will still be on the books, and nothing will have been accomplished because no one wants to spend their political power supporting a President who is under investigation. For example, Trumpcare passed the House and will unlikely pass the Senate.

Is it right? Is it wrong? I don't know but that's how the system works. We all knew this before the election. We all knew this after the election. Since Nixon, this ain't no new thing. In Washington, if the politician doesn't play the game, then the game will play the politician. The only way to effectively change the game is to scrap the Constitution and go to a parliamentary system where the ruling party gets to make the rules but even they don't always get what they want.

I was talking to someone from the UK today. He said that even though the conservative party is in power with PM May, she can't make too many changes because they only have a small majority in the chamber. If she does make too many changes, then the opposition party can call for a no confidence vote and possibly kick her out. She has three years left on Cameron's previous term, so she's calling for a new public election which will reset the clock and possibly give her the significant majority needed to make the changes she wants to the government. If/when that happens, she can write British executive orders all day long with financial backing from the treasury department, all the things that Trump wants but can't reach.

My question is what is the worse that can happen if Trump comes clean with everything. Say that in an alternative universe, Trump was colluding with the Russians indirectly through his surrogates. He then releases his tax records that shows business deals with the Russians. What's the worst that can happen to him? My guess is that the public would eventually forgive him as long as he fires everyone that was involved and ask Trump for more details about his agenda items, probably by the end of this year. By next summer, they'll be making plans for a Trump International Airport in every State. Given Trump's ego, I'm not holding my breath.

The more I hear and read about Mueller, the worst it smells. He should not be leading this investigation because of his close friendship with Comey, in fact there should have never been an investigation in the first place. He should have recused himself from this mess. There certainly is a possible conflict of interest or lack of impartiality (legal definition). Mueller is staffing his team with a bunch of democrat lawyers that were Obama donors. If they really want to find some minor dirt on Trump, I'm sure they can. They could probably do that with most people or fabricate something. Things used to be based on specific laws but nowadays, democrats seem to get lawyers and judges to twist the laws and come up with alternative interpretations of the laws. If our republicans weren't so weak and had a backbone, we wouldn't have any investigations and Sessions would have never recused himself. I can almost guarantee if the shoe was on the other foot, the democrats would never have allowed one single investigation. 

So far, no one has provided any evidence that the Russians did anything to influence the election. 

Let's just say the Russians did get into Podesta's and Donna Brazille's email accounts.  What exactly would have been the "collusion"?  The Russian collusion would have been between them and WikiLeaks, who actually published the emails.

Remember, the State Department is the official "collusion" party that posted Hillary's emails she returned to them in dribs and drabs.  He emails and the server itself did more to sink her than the DNC emails, IMHO.  That's 100% on her, not any Russians.

Again,what collusion was needed?  The hackers, whomever they my be, were able to do what they did without the Trump Campaign.  If anything, the Democrats colluded with the hackers by having crappy security in the first place!     

So far, no one has provided any evidence that the Russians did anything to influence the election. 

Let's just say the Russians did get into Podesta's and Donna Brazille's email accounts.  What exactly would have been the "collusion"?  The Russian collusion would have been between them and WikiLeaks, who actually published the emails.

Remember, the State Department is the official "collusion" party that posted Hillary's emails she returned to them in dribs and drabs.  He emails and the server itself did more to sink her than the DNC emails, IMHO.  That's 100% on her, not any Russians.

Again,what collusion was needed?  The hackers, whomever they my be, were able to do what they did without the Trump Campaign.  If anything, the Democrats colluded with the hackers by having crappy security in the first place!     

I fully agree but the democrats think a little different about this stuff, hence the concern. So many things have happened since the campaigns first started that have really blown my mind, so just about anything is possible when it comes to Trump, and the hatred the democrats, and many republicans have for him.

The more I hear and read about Mueller, the worst it smells. He should not be leading this investigation because of his close friendship with Comey, in fact there should have never been an investigation in the first place. He should have recused himself from this mess. There certainly is a possible conflict of interest or lack of impartiality (legal definition). Mueller is staffing his team with a bunch of democrat lawyers that were Obama donors. If they really want to find some minor dirt on Trump, I'm sure they can. They could probably do that with most people or fabricate something. Things used to be based on specific laws but nowadays, democrats seem to get lawyers and judges to twist the laws and come up with alternative interpretations of the laws. If our republicans weren't so weak and had a backbone, we wouldn't have any investigations and Sessions would have never recused himself. I can almost guarantee if the shoe was on the other foot, the democrats would never have allowed one single investigation.

Rosenstein is a deep state operative who appointed Mueller clearly knowing of the mentor/protege relationship between Mueller and Comey, and that Comey was the leaker of multiple classified documents and/or information and would make an immunity agreement with his mentor Mueller to CYA. Does anyone really believe all these facts are coincidences? 

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/06/14/wapo-report-robert-mueller-investigating-obstruction-of-justice-claims/#more-134330

Rosenstein is a deep state operative who appointed Mueller clearly knowing of the mentor/protege relationship between Mueller and Comey, and that Comey was the leaker of multiple classified documents and/or information and would make an immunity agreement with his mentor Mueller to CYA. Does anyone really believe all these facts are coincidences? 

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/06/14/wapo-report-robert-mueller-investigating-obstruction-of-justice-claims/#more-134330

As soon as Chuck Schumer made a public statement regarding how great he thought the pick for Special Counsel was, I knew something was rotten in DCmark!

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. said, “Former Director Mueller is exactly the right kind of individual for this job.
I now have significantly greater confidence that the investigation will follow the facts wherever they lead."

Rare bipartisan moment: Both sides embrace Robert Mueller as special counsel

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/05/17/rare-bipartisan-moment-both-sides-embrace-robert-mueller-special-counsel/101810310/

And business as usual....already leaks from anonymous sources coming out of Mueller's team. Washington post reports...this article is a load of crap but this is what is to be expected from the MSM these days.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/special-counsel-is-investigating-trump-for-possible-obstruction-of-justice/2017/06/14/9ce02506-5131-11e7-b064-828ba60fbb98_story.html?utm_term=.e35ac5f425b2

And business as usual....already leaks from anonymous sources coming out of Mueller's team. Washington post reports...this article is a load of crap but this is what is to be expected from the MSM these days.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/special-counsel-is-investigating-trump-for-possible-obstruction-of-justice/2017/06/14/9ce02506-5131-11e7-b064-828ba60fbb98_story.html?utm_term=.e35ac5f425b2

Republican majority in the house.

DOJ can not indict a sitting president.

Trump can invoke Executive Privilege if anything is bad for him (ala Obama).

There is no feasible path to impeachment unless the establishment Republicans decide to go after him en mass.

The Democrats are writing a story that can't be finished.

Today we have a White House under siege. The new DOJ criminal investigation that the president is no doubt the subject of will attempt to discover whether he corruptly attempted to interfere with the work of an independent FBI and whether he attempted to bribe its then-director. The White House is also the subject of five congressional investigations involving the Russians and the 2016 election, the firing of Director Comey, and the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions from much of this. And the investigation of Clinton is back from the grave for a third time to determine whether she was exonerated because of a lack of evidence, a lack of will or an Obama political imperative.

These are perilous times for men and women of goodwill and intellectual honesty who are charged with enforcing our laws and running the government. The government should not be terrifying. But it must be fair and transparent. And it must always enjoy the consent of the governed. For without that consent, it is illegitimate.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/06/15/napolitano-how-could-tables-have-turned-so-quickly-on-trump-and-who-turned-them.html

It amazes me that Trump's greatest supporter and defender is Putin. In the 80s, this was considered unacceptable.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/senate-overwhelming-votes-to-curtail-trumps-power-to-ease-up-on-russia-sanctions/2017/06/14/8c02d73a-5134-11e7-be25-3a519335381c_story.html

That would be "conspiracy", which still is not a crime, because what they were allegedly colluding about was "interfering with the election."

There's nothing that says that's a crime.  In case you missed it, Russia is not under the jurisdiction of the US.

Again, conspiracy or collusion are not crimes in and of themselves. It is what is being conspired to or colluded that makes something a crime. If I conspired to give you a surprise birthday it is not a crime, if I conspired to rob you that is a crime.

We might as well throw in that "attempting" is not a crime.

We might as well throw in that "attempting" is not a crime.

Cop/prosecuting attorney/judge: "Let's see... some idiot has ignorantly written on this arrest report that you are charged with "attempted robbery" and "attempted rape" and "attempted murder"... you are obviously free to go. We apologize for any inconvenience."