The Russia Hoax
Dedication
TO CATE, GRACE AND LIV,
FOR YOUR LOVE AND SUPPORT
Epigraph
The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal.
—JUSTICE LOUIS D. BRANDEIS (OLMSTEAD V. U.S., 1928, 277 U.S. 438, 479)
Contents
Cover
Title Page
Dedication
Epigraph
Preface: An Insidious Abuse of Power
Chapter 1: Hillary Clinton’s Email Server
Chapter 2: Comey Contorts the Law to Clear Clinton
Chapter 3: “The Fix”
Chapter 4: Clinton Greed and “Uranium One”
Chapter 5: The Fraudulent Case Against Donald Trump
Chapter 6: The Fabricated “Dossier” Used Against Trump
Chapter 7: Government Abuse of Surveillance
Chapter 8: Meeting with Russians Is Not a Crime
Chapter 9: Flynn’s Firing, Sessions’s Recusal, and the Canning of Comey
Chapter 10: Obstruction of Justice
Chapter 11: The Illegitimate Appointment of Robert Mueller
Epilogue
Acknowledgments
Notes
About the Author
Copyright
About the Publisher
Preface
An Insidious Abuse of Power
I write this the week that James Comey began peddling his vainglorious book. It reads like a Harlequin romance, except that the protagonist is in love with himself.
Comey sermonizes about lies and lying people. This is perversely ironic coming from a man who, more than anyone else, is responsible for the most notorious hoax in modern American history.
As director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Comey launched a dilating investigation into Donald J. Trump in the summer of 2016. There was not a whiff of credible evidence to legally justify the probe. So, in a deception worthy of a solid street hustle, Comey labeled it a “counterintelligence matter.” The clever feint allowed for a covert criminal investigation in search of a crime, reversing and bastardizing the legal process.
This is what abuse of power looks like.
For the better part of two years, the FBI, U.S. intelligence apparatus, mainstream media, Democrats, and, eventually, Special Counsel Robert Mueller, and his team of partisans peered furiously into every obscure corner and crevice for some proof that Trump “colluded” with Russia to steal the 2016 presidential election. They seemed to believe that Trump could not possibly have won absent some treasonous conspiracy hatched by him in the bowels of the Kremlin. They were convinced he was an illegitimate president. Besides, Comey and his minions didn’t like Trump—the man or his politics. They loathed him. The vaunted director, who surely knew better than naïve and gullible voters, would be the savior of the nation.
Armed with immense power, Comey and other top officials at the FBI became the law unto themselves. The end would justify the means, if only collaboration with the Russians could be found. Failing that, the investigation itself could be manipulated to create the illusion of wrongdoing. The ensuing scandal would be sufficient to annul Trump. It wasn’t merely that the flamboyant businessman-turned-candidate would upset the natural order of the political landscape, but as president he would likely show the director the door at the Hoover Building in Washington, D.C. There is nothing that will motivate a man like Comey more than the prospect of power forfeited. Something had to be done.
But first, Comey and his confederates had to turn an even tougher trick by exculpating Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee, from the sundry crimes she appeared to have committed by storing copious classified documents on her unauthorized private computer system at the Clinton homestead. Despite a subpoena to preserve her records, tens of thousands of government documents were deleted, her server wiped clean, and numerous devices destroyed. How exactly could the FBI circumvent the inevitable multicount indictments against Clinton for everything from obstruction of justice to mishandling of classified documents?
It would not be easy. Criminal codes would have to be creatively reinterpreted or deliberately misconstrued. A grand jury must be avoided or diminished at all costs. But the Department of Justice would acquiesce since it was brimming with Clinton allies, especially Attorney General Loretta Lynch. Best of all, President Barack Obama had sent out the clarion call on national television that his chosen Democratic successor should not be prosecuted since she never “intended” to jeopardize national security, notwithstanding what he characterized as her “carelessness.”
Comey was instrumental to this scheme. He penned an “exoneration statement” well before the FBI interviewed seventeen key witnesses, including Clinton herself. Then he commandeered the authority of the attorney general in delivering his infamous pronouncement that no charges should be brought. No mention was ever made of another vexing FBI probe into whether Clinton had engaged in corrupt acts with the Russians by hanging the equivalent of a “for sale” sign on her office door as secretary of state. That investigation quietly vanished under the auspices of the Obama administration. Thus, there was never a serious examination of Clinton and the various laws she seemed to have plainly violated. The entire exercise was a preconceived charade with a predetermined outcome.
All of this set the stage for Comey and the FBI to pursue its imaginary case of “collusion” against Trump. The evidence was scant, until a scurrilous anti-Trump “dossier” surfaced. It was secretly funded by the Clinton campaign and delivered to the FBI by a former British spy who claimed to have spoken to unidentified Russians. The FBI first met with the author of the “dossier” on the same day that Comey absolved Clinton. But try as it may, the bureau seemed unable to verify its inflammatory contents alleging that Trump had been collaborating with Russia for at least five years. No matter. The FBI appropriated the document as a pretext for spying on a Trump campaign associate while simultaneously advancing their investigation of the candidate who would unexpectedly become president. They actively hid the fact that Clinton and Democrats had underwritten the specious document. At the same time, Comey’s FBI deployed an undercover government informant to infiltrate the Trump campaign to induce (or entrap) associates into saying something incriminating.
The unverified “dossier” was leaked to the press and, by the time Trump was sworn in as president, the mainstream media had its “collusion” tale. It was off to the races as journalists propagated their nonstop narrative that Trump was undoubtedly guilty of collaborating with Moscow to win the election. But a curious thing happened on the way to their twin goal of indictment and impeachment. “Collusion” is not a crime, except in antitrust law. Reporters and anchors never bothered to cite a specific statute because none could be found in the criminal codes. Not that they ever bothered to look. They were satisfied, indeed anxious, to level the accusation as a legal conclusion because their bias against Trump was so impassioned and pervasive that it became impervious to the facts.
The media’s miscalculation was compounded by the inconvenient absence of any incriminating evidence to prove this invisible offense called collusion. They were adamant that meeting with, or talking to, a Russian, even on American soil, was somehow an undefined crime unprotected by the First Amendment. Any chance encounter or a casual handshake with a Russian was vilified. Breathless media accounts inflated trivial contacts beyond reason. They fanned tiny embers, repeatedly arguing that this much smoke means there will eventually be fire. When the truth finally sunk in that “collusion” appeared to be a myth, the press seamlessly shifted to a different accusation that Trump must have obstructed justice by attempting to impede the FBI’s investigation.
In this, Comey once again became the
central character. When he was fired as FBI director for repeated violations of the bureau’s regulations, he admitted pilfering government memorandums, which he improbably claimed as his own, for the sole purpose of triggering a special counsel who just happened to be his longtime friend and ally, Robert Mueller. When Comey testified before Congress, he all but accused the president of attempting to obstruct his investigation, even though the detailed memos offer no such allegation. It was a Machiavellian move to perpetuate the fabricated case against Trump.
Over the course of a year, Mueller’s investigation did manage to render several indictments. However, none of them had anything whatsoever to do with “collusion” with the Russians. Did Moscow meddle in the presidential election? Yes, in much the same way it had tried to tamper for decades. Their design was to sow discord in the Western democracy they so detest. But the notion that anyone in the Trump campaign had somehow been complicit was dispelled when the indictment of thirteen Russians revealed that no Americans knowingly participated. To date, no known actionable proof of “collusion” involving Trump has surfaced.
They did, however, sow their desired political discord, thanks to a deluded and compliant American left.
As I write this, Comey is several days into his “adoration tour,” hawking his book and pocketing millions of dollars. As he does so, he accuses Trump of being morally unfit, ignoring that he was all too willing to serve the same president he now so freely condemns. There is something profoundly incongruous about a man who pontificates about professional ethics but seems bereft of them himself. His hypocrisy was underscored when, three days after his book was published, it was confirmed that the inspector general of the Justice Department was investigating Comey for leaking the presidential memos and mishandling classified information. FBI agents were forced to conduct searches to contain the leak. It is conceivable that Comey committed the very offenses he helped Clinton escape. Self-righteous people tend to self-immolate.
The tale of The Russia Hoax is a labyrinth of intertwined stories. Clinton’s penchant for secrecy surrounding her dealings with foreign governments and money sources almost certainly propelled her to set up her private server. When caught, she spun a series of deceptions to justify her actions. Comey and company abided by contorting the law to clear her path to the presidency and influence its outcome. This same small group of Washington insiders then abused the power of their positions to conjure a case against Trump to defeat him in the election. When that failed, they doubled down to frame the new president for crimes he did not commit. The “dossier,” which Comey confessed was “salacious and unverified,” was their in flagrante delicto or “smoking gun.” Its lack of authenticity was irrelevant. It would be politicized and weaponized to achieve the objective of destroying Trump and driving him from office.
The provenance of this book can be found in the many opinion columns I began composing three years ago in which I argued that Clinton mishandled classified documents and violated the law. When Comey inexplicably absolved her, and launched a fraudulent investigation of Trump, even more columns were written. But the shape and theme of the book did not fully materialize until October 2017, when I published The Trump-Russian Collusion and Other Great Hoaxes, followed by a column titled “Did the FBI and the Justice Department Plot to Clear Hillary Clinton, Bring Down Trump?” By this time, it had become evident to me that the FBI, as well as the Department of Justice, had become cesspools of corruption that played a direct hand in attempting to influence the election and subvert the democratic process.
The greatest peril to democracy today is not a foreign force, but the abuse of power from within. Those who operate under color of authority are prone to exploit it for political reasons and personal gain. In a government of laws, they too often fail to follow the law themselves. As Justice Brandeis put it, “if the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.”
The most celebrated form of governance known to the world is democracy. It is a system of, by, and for the people. Because of this personal construct, democracy is susceptible to the same human frailties that afflict us all—greed, prejudice, hubris, intellectual dishonesty, and moral weakness. Government, therefore, is only as sound and effective as the people who are empowered to run it at any given time. This is its fundamental imperfection.
Sometimes, driven by these flaws of the human condition, democracy can be trifled with by those who hold the reins of power in government. Despite carefully devised checks and balances, individual positions are nevertheless misused in ways unseen by the public. Systems are unduly influenced in defiance of both the law and conscience. Misdeeds are covered up.
This is the story of The Russia Hoax. It is a cautionary annal of the damage wrought when those who serve in government seek to undermine it.
Comey and other participants in this hoax were not interviewed for the book. I doubted they would consent and distrusted their credibility. My conclusions about their motivations and intent are drawn from the extensive public record of their conduct in these matters and interviews with current and former employees of the FBI and Justice Department about such conduct, and, based on this record, no other conclusion is reasonably supportable.
GREGG JARRETT
APRIL 21, 2018
Chapter 1
Hillary Clinton’s Email Server
Convenience is not a legal principle.
—LORD JUSTICE EDWARD PEARCE, QUEENS BENCH, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND AND WALES (1961)
This is a story of corruption. It begins, as it must, with Hillary Clinton.
Clinton’s determination to set up a private email server in the basement of her home to use as the exclusive method for electronically communicating all of her official business as secretary of state was a fateful decision. At its core, the idea was fundamentally reckless. It also appears to have been criminal. More than any other event or factor, it led to the inexorable end to her aspiration to be President of the United States.
The Email Setup
Unraveling Clinton’s private server apparatus was complicated by the hidden nature of its design. The domain was not registered in her name, but under a separate identity even though the IP address was connected to the Chappaqua, New York, residence of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Indeed, the server itself was installed in the basement of their house.1 The State Department never certified the server as secure, as its rules require.2 Thus, anyone within the home, including those without security clearance, had physical access to it, as did the two individuals who were instrumental in its installation, operation, and maintenance, Justin Cooper and Bryan Pagliano. Neither was cleared for handling classified information.3
Why would Clinton want to keep all her communications as secretary of state on a private server? The obvious answer is often the correct one. With no emails on a government account, Clinton would be able to avoid complying with various requests filed by the media and the public under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). This explanation is reinforced by the conscious decision she and her staff made not to utilize an electronic program called SMART, which would have preserved her records for the government.4
The motivation behind Clinton’s decision to use a secret server invites the question: if someone has nothing to hide, why hide? People who engage in improper, if not illegal, activities often cloak them in darkness. They seek to obscure their illicit behavior. Clinton may have wanted to hide decisions and mistakes that would look bad when she ran for president. She may have wanted to keep from public view any evidence that she and her husband used her position of power in government to enrich themselves. As will be detailed in Chapter 4, their charity, the Clinton Foundation, served as the conduit for hundreds of millions of dollars that flowed from foreign sources at the same time Hillary appeared to have exerted influence on their behalf. At the same time, Bill pocketed tens of millions for speaking engagements overseas, many of them connect
ed to his wife’s work.
The improper use of Clinton’s surreptitious server stands in stark contrast to the promises she made before taking office. While campaigning for president in 2008, Clinton had promised complete transparency and vowed to fulfill all FOIA requests.5 In retrospect, her public assurances were nothing more than a carefully crafted deception. Her private server afforded her a clever and clandestine way to evade the public disclosure of her communications and to hide her self-serving deals.
On or about the day Clinton was sworn in to office, January 21, 2009, the State Department activated a classified email account on its secure government server for her benefit. Clinton never used it.6 Instead, she chose to utilize her unsecured private server for all her work-related communications, including classified documents.
How this went undetected during her four-year term remains inexplicable, unless those with knowledge were complicit in enabling her scheme or turned a blind eye to Clinton’s conduct. Staffers at the State Department and the White House, including President Obama, regularly communicated with the secretary of state at her private email address.7
Documents uncovered by the FBI show that Obama used a pseudonym in communicating with Clinton on her private email account.8 Sometimes he did so while his secretary of state was overseas using an unprotected mobile device. When the FBI showed a copy of one such Obama email to Clinton’s top aide, Huma Abedin, she exclaimed, “How is that not classified?”9 Indeed, it surely was classified. Thereafter, the White House refused to disclose the contents of any of the president’s emails involving his fake name. Obama was not only concealing his communications with an alias, he was mishandling classified information in the same negligent manner as Clinton. This may explain why the FBI and the DOJ were motivated not to charge Clinton. If they did so, Obama’s mishandling of classified communications would be exposed.