Behind every questionable political plot, there’s a story waiting to unfold. Sometimes, though, the truth is so buried that it takes years to come to light.
Nearly ten years have passed since Donald Trump found himself at the center of one of the largest fabrications in U.S. political history. Those who manipulated government authority to implicate him are now grappling with significant legal challenges.
The key players involved in the notorious Russian scandal should be feeling uneasy. Recently, it was revealed that the Justice Department has summoned a significant grand jury to examine the expanding evidence related to the case. This could lead to further prosecutorial action.
According to Jonathan Turley, this situation highlights one of the largest political frauds ever committed against Americans. It appears to finally be coming to light.
There was never an actual conspiracy between Trump and Russia. Instead, there was an effort aimed at falsely accusing him of such a conspiracy.
When individuals provide false testimony, deceive government bodies, or create fraudulent documents, it constitutes a crime, especially if officials are involved in persecuting an innocent person.
The primary individuals under scrutiny are John Brennan, James Comey, and James Clapper—high-ranking officials in the Obama administration’s CIA, FBI, and Office of the Director of National Intelligence, respectively. They played crucial roles in a flawed investigation targeting Trump known as “Crossfire Hurricane,” which lacked credible evidence.
Conversely, these officials were keenly aware that the claims of conspiracy were merely a political ploy to detract from Hillary Clinton’s own email scandal, a matter where she undeniably compromised herself.
Documents indicate that Brennan rushed to the White House to inform President Obama about potential risks stemming from Clinton’s strategy. During meetings in late July and early August 2016, Brennan conveyed that Clinton’s scheme was to discredit Trump by alleging interference from Russian intelligence.
Instead of being forthcoming with the American public, Obama and those around him concealed Clinton’s intentions. They used falsified documents, which had covertly been funded by Clinton’s campaign, to frame Trump as a Russian asset, fully aware that he was not.
Despite their efforts, Trump won, and there was no evidence of Russian meddling—let alone any conspiracy. Nonetheless, Obama, Biden, and their security team misrepresented facts to harm Trump’s reputation and conspired to fabricate evidence.
A December 2016 Intelligence Report stated that foreign actors were using cyberattacks on election infrastructure, but also concluded that there was no evidence suggesting these actions aimed to alter election outcomes.
This conclusion didn’t align with the narrative they were pushing. As a result, Obama ordered a new Intelligence Community Assessment that falsely stated that President Putin favored Trump and that such support would enhance Trump’s electoral prospects. This document appears to have been strategically crafted by Brennan, Comey, and Clapper.
In prior congressional testimonies, they provided a filtered version of events, claiming that relevant documents played no role in their assessments, omitting critical information. Newly released documents indicate that manipulations occurred, leading to misleading conclusions about Russian backing for Trump’s victory.
Moreover, there’s a strong case suggesting that Comey misled a FISA court judge while securing surveillance warrants aimed at Trump campaign associate Carter Page, effectively validating the dubious documents and the claims of author Christopher Steele.
Giving false testimony in a federal lawsuit constitutes perjury, and making fraudulent statements is also punishable. Both can lead to five years in prison.
Conspiracy to commit perjury or to submit deceptive documents could incur additional charges with similar penalties.
In legal terms, the statute of limitations kicks in when the final overt act is committed or when evidence is uncovered. Some of this appears to be quite recent.
It’s crucial that Hillary Clinton’s actions are thoroughly investigated in the grand jury’s deliberations. After all, the genesis of this entire scandal traces back to her approval of the plan in July 2016, as documented.
Clinton didn’t act alone, and several members of her campaign may soon find themselves compelled to testify or submit documents to the grand jury. This includes key figures like Campaign Manager Robby Mook and Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri, among others.
A declassified report from special counsel John Durham suggests that it was Smith who initially proposed this spin on the conspiracy tale to Clinton. While he has vague recollections, it indicates a network of coordination at play.
The Durham report additionally references Leonard Bernardo from George Soros’ Open Society Foundation, who has denied certainty about Clinton’s involvement but may become a witness.
There’s substantial evidence suggesting that many in Clinton’s senior campaign team facilitated the spread of the Russian narrative, believing that Trump had colluded with Putin to win the election. This narrative gained traction with media outlets that were inclined to support it.
As for potential charges, prosecutors might consider conspiracy to commit government fraud, particularly in obstructing electoral processes with false documentation. There’s also the possibility of charges related to the violation of civil rights for purposely depriving individuals, like Trump, of their constitutional entitlements.
Some individuals may choose to invoke their Fifth Amendment rights to avoid self-incrimination. There’s a range of perspectives on whether these grand jury proceedings could lead to perjury, with some individuals perhaps having more to hide than others. That being said, it doesn’t prevent the possibility of a solid case being constructed.
The Intelligence Community has witnesses who have observed misconduct and are inclined to testify. Those with first-hand knowledge of how false evidence was manipulated to target Trump could become vital to the investigation.
Interestingly, former President Obama has already benefited from legal immunity in previous cases, due to a Supreme Court ruling that recognized presidential actions as broadly protected, though he remains susceptible to scrutiny for actions outside of that scope.
The documents that have emerged suggest Obama was deeply involved in orchestrating certain narratives against Trump, including navigating the investigation to assist Clinton with her email issues.
Obama would argue that his actions were part of his official capacity, which is likely to ignite legal debates. However, prosecutors might hesitate to delve into those murky legal waters.
Meanwhile, if the grand jury decides to pursue the matter further, there’s a chance they could extend inquiries beyond Trump’s first term, capturing the initiatives of Biden’s DOJ as they might impact the electoral landscape as we head into 2024.
Now, that might not be the best venue for politically charged cases, considering Trump’s minimal support in Washington during the last election. With the jury pool heavily leaning against him, securing a conviction becomes a steep challenge.
In any case, the fundamental principle remains—everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, even in such turbulent circumstances.
