If attorney and Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett is right, you can take that “lock her up” chant out of mothballs, because Hillary Clinton is in deep trouble over the Uranium One scandal and revelations she helped fund the infamous “Trump dossier.”
In an appearance on “Hannity” this week, Jarrett identified no less than “13 potential crimes committed by Hillary Clinton” and said “she could be charged with six anti-corruption statues — they were all felonies.”
“She could also be charged with racketeering for using her charity as a criminal enterprise,” Jarrett said, refererring to donations made to the Clinton Foundation by individuals related to Uranium One before Clinton’s State Department signed off on the 2010 deal that gave nuclear giant Rosatom access to 20 percent of American uranium production capacity.
“And then you’ve got all of the email crimes, two of them under the Espionage Act and two additional,” Jarrett said.
This week’s revelation that the Clinton campaign and the Democrat National Committee paid for the work that went into the document that became known as the Trump dossier could turn into ammunition against Clinton too, Jarrett said.
“And now you’ve got this latest dossier information — you can’t pay a foreign national relative to a political campaign,” he said. “And it appears she also — and the DNC — hid it in their disclosure reports, which could also be criminally charged.”
Will Clinton face 13 charges, as Jarrett speculates she might?
Let’s face facts — on the email server, no matter how optimistic of a conservative you may be, that plane has long since left the departure gate. But even though Hillary and former President Bill Clinton have a long and storied history of evading the legal strictures of these United States, Jarrett isn’t just serving up nothingburger stuff.
In a longer piece for Fox News published last week in the wake of the latest Uranium One/Russia allegations, the former defense attorney spelled out some of the charges he thinks Hillary might be facing in greater detail.
“It is a crime to use a public office to confer a benefit to a foreign government in exchange for money,” Jarrett wrote.
“It is often referred to as ‘pay-to-play,’ but it can be prosecuted under a variety of anti-corruption laws passed by Congress, including the federal bribery statute (18 USC 201-b), the federal gratuity statute (18 USC 201-c), the mail fraud statute (18 USC 1341), the wire fraud statute (18 USC 1343), the program bribery statute (18 USC 666), and the Travel Act (18 USC 1952).”
“The FBI evidence, if true, would seem to show that one or more of these illegal ‘pay-to-play’ laws were broken. The government would have to prove that Hillary and Bill got paid, while the Russians got to play. And prosecutors are required to show a ‘quid pro quo’ or ‘nexus’ between the payments and the benefit provided,” Jarrett wrote.
“But it appears that the FBI already possesses all the evidence it needs to make a compelling case.
“If Hillary leveraged her public office as secretary of state for personal enrichment, but also used her charity as a receptacle or conduit for money obtained illegally, that would also constitute racketeering, as I first argued in a column almost a year ago,” he continued.
Then there’s the Trump dossier stuff. At least one nonpartisan group has already filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission noting that if Clinton and the DNC knowingly obscured their role in funding the dossier, they likely broke election law.
Jarrett also brings up the fact that most of this money went to Britisher Christopher Steele, who was contracted by Fusion GPS to do the intelligence work for the dossier. Whether this constitutes “pay(ing) a foreign national relative to a political campaign” or would be an avenue authorities would be willing to pursue is up in the air. It could be difficult to prove, not in the least because you’d have to prove Clinton specifically knew Christopher Steele or other foreign nationals were being paid with Fusion GPS money.
After all, one of the first things you learn when you get to Washington is the true meaning of the words “plausible deniability.” Hillary Clinton — and the rest of her extended clan — are exceptionally good at making those two very important words work for them, which means I wouldn’t get super-excited about seeing Hillary out of the woods and into a courtroom just yet.
However, at the very least, I would take your “lock her up” chant back out of storage. I get the feeling you’re going to get to use it again real soon.
Please like and share on Facebook and Twitter with your thoughts on what Gregg Jarrett had to say.
(via: Conservative Tribune)
