They, along with a growing number of independents who are at least fair when it comes to politics, realize, too, that Trump isn't the guilty one here, it's Hillary Clinton, and there are a slew of legal experts who agree with them -- though at the time they were making their analyses, they were applying their opinions to the "Trump-Russia collusion" narrative.
The main piece of evidence indicating that this is a Hillary problem and not a Trump problem is the notorious “Trump dossier.”
In July 2017, Politico surveyed legal experts to get their opinion on what “collusion” is and whether or not it’s actually against the law. The article was published as special counsel Mueller was ramping up his probe into whether or not the Trump campaign “colluded” with Russia to “steal the election” from Hillary.
In Part I of this series, I featured a few of the experts that Politico surveyed; here are more of them:
— John Dean, legal counsel to President Richard M. Nixon: Unlike most of the other legal experts polled by Politico, he believes “‘collusion’ is the perfect word” to cover these kinds of “alleged crimes.”
Dean, who did four months in prison for his role in Watergate, said: “Collusion is the descriptive word the news media has settled on to cover many potential illegal actions by the Trump campaign, which could range from aiding and abetting (18 USC 2) to conspiracy per se (18 USC 371) to conspiring to violate several potentially applicable laws like: 18 USC 1030—fraud and related activity in connection with computers; 18 USC 1343—wire fraud; or 52 USC 30121—contributions and donations by foreign nationals. Also, 18 USC 2381—for, contrary to a widespread belief that there must be a declared war, the Justice Department as recently as 2006 indicted for ‘aid and comfort’ to our enemies, the form of collusion better known as treason. Collusion is the perfect word to cover such crimes, pejorative and inclusive.” (Related: Expert: Mueller ‘now conducting an impeachment investigation’ of Trump)
Question: By attempting to sabotage Trump’s candidacy with a fake collusion narrative using Russia-supplied information in a “dossier,” wasn’t Hillary Clinton giving ‘aid and comfort’ to an enemy? She and her defenders claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin hated her and as such, wanted Trump to win. But it was her campaign that paid for and used allegations of “dirt” supplied by a foreign operative (British citizen Christopher Steele) who got his dirt from Russian sources.
Plotting all of this amounts to “conspiracy;” if any part of the conspiracy was conducted via email, that’s a fraud-related activity “in connection with computers;” if Hillary colluded — and it appears she did — then she has committed the treason.
— Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor who handled many obstruction cases and is now a partner at Thompson Coburn LLP: He says that what really matters here is “whether someone in the Trump campaign joined a conspiracy, aided and abetted a crime, or actively concealed a crime.”
Question: Is openly plotting opposition research disguised as an ‘intelligence dossier’ using foreign assistance and sources an illegal conspiracy? Based on the legal opinions of many of Politico’s experts, the answer is yes.
But it wasn’t Team Trump who committed the conspiracy; it was Team Clinton, that much is obvious.
Besides, as former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy has said, the three people thus far charged and/or convicted of criminal activity who were associated with Trump and his campaign have not been charged with conspiracy, but only “process crimes” (like lying to the FBI). And no charges have been leveled against the president.
J.D. Heyes is editor of The National Sentinel and a senior writer for Natural News and News Target.