Politics

The Clinton Collusions and Mueller's Blind-Eye

posted by Jeffrey Lord - 2.26.18

The unnoticed?

What do Jen Thornton of Great Britain, Gianni Pittella of Italy, Stephen Donnelly of Australia, and, most famously, Christopher Steele of Great Britain have in common? Not to mention oh-so-many-more from across this or that pond?

Let’s listen to Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh on the subject. Here is the relevant excerpt from Rush’s 2/21 show:

“Take a look at that indictment. This indictment is written very, very craftily. It is very, very good in its disinformation. The indictment describes all of the things the Russians were doing to try to interfere in our democratic process. It describes the trolling and the way they were using internet bots and other bad actors to influence the American people to think one way or the other.

But then when you get in the indictment to the charges, you see that the charges are not any of that. No. The Russians are charged with mail fraud. The Russians are charged with wire fraud. The Russians are charged with defrauding the U.S. government. The Russians are charged with identity theft. The Russians weren’t charged with interfering in American elections.

…So Sean played the clip of the radio show from Monday where we described this because there were some people that were all hot to trot on this, that it had to mean, logical conclusion, that Mueller had to next go after Hillary and Steele and Fusion GPS.

HANNITY: Rush Limbaugh had an amazing point on his radio show yesterday about why Mueller only indicted the Russians for certain crimes. He nails it. This is brilliant. Take a look.

RUSH ARCHIVE: The things these Russians were charged within the Mueller indictment are wire fraud, defrauding the United States, mail fraud. These charges that the Russians were hit within this indictment have nothing to do with the avowed purpose of the special counsel investigation, literally nothing to do with it.

And if these Russians were charged the way everybody thought charges were gonna happen, then they could charge Hillary, and they could charge Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS. But they can’t be charged just because the Russians have been because the charges are different.

HANNITY: That’s why they didn’t go after the FEC issues. That’s why they didn’t go after the FARC issue. What Rush is saying here is brilliant, is that Mueller may have been shielding Hillary Clinton by limiting the charges announced against the Russian trolls ’cause all of that could have been applied to Fusion GPS, Hillary Clinton, the campaign, Perkins Coie, and the rest of them. Brilliant point.

RUSH: Right. And that should have been an indication — thank you, Sean Hannity. This is a great indication of what Mueller is doing. He is protecting the Democrats in this. He’s protecting Hillary. He’s protecting Steele and Fusion GPS, and by extension, he’s protecting Obama.

Exactly right. Which is why Americans are not hearing much about all those people – and more – listed above. Who are these people – and what did they do?

They are every one of them, foreign nationals. And right here is the Federal Election Commission on the involvement of foreign nationals in American presidential campaigns. While the Commission has several cites on this, let’s look on this one, in which the focus is on what the Federal Election Campaign Act and Commission regulations prohibit. It reads:

The Act and Commission regulations include a broad prohibition on foreign national activity in connection with elections in the United States. 52 U.S.C. § 30121 and generally, 11 CFR 110.20. In general, foreign nationals are prohibited from the following activities:

* Making any contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or making any expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement in connection with any federal, state or local election in the United States;

* Making any contribution or donation to any committee or organization of any national, state, district, or local political party (including donations to a party nonfederal account or office building account);

* Making any disbursement for an electioneering communication;

With that understood, let’s see who the people listed above are and what they were doing in the 2016 campaign.

Jen Thornton is, according to BuzzFeed UK, a British Labour Party activist “who normally works in the office of Jo Stevens MP, the shadow secretary of state for Wales.”

Gianni Pittella is, according to Time magazine, “a longtime Italian member of the European Parliament.”

Stephen Donnelly of Australia is, according to CNN, “the assistant secretary of the Australian Labor Party.”

And what did they do?

Thornton, according to BuzzFeedUK, was one “of dozens of British volunteers campaigning for Clinton in the city. (The city being Charlotte, North Carolina.) “We’re all connected and have worked for Stronger In or for Labour MPs. Some are councillors.”

The Italian MP in the European Parliament, Mr. Pittella, was reported as follows by Time :

Gianni Pittella, a longtime Italian member of the European Parliament, hit the campaign trail this week. Sitting at the back of the Gran Caffe L’Aquila, he warned a group of local businesspeople and supporters of the evils of fascism. Except Pittella wasn’t touring Italy. He was sitting in Philadelphia, trying to convince American voters to oppose an American candidate: Donald Trump.

“I have taken the unprecedented step of endorsing and campaigning for Hillary Clinton because the risk of Donald Trump is too high,” Pittella told TIME. “I believe it is in the interest of the European Union and Italy to have Hillary Clinton in office. A Trump victory could be a disaster for the relationship between the U.S.A. and Italy.”

And CNN reported this of Australian Stephen Donnelly and his fellow countrymen, all pictured wearing “Aussies for Hillary” T-shirts: “This year they embarked on a trip to the US for what they call ‘the NBA of political election campaigns.’ Their goal is to get as many Americans involved in the electoral process, and encourage them to vote for Hillary Clinton.”

Note well. CNN runs video of the Australian group campaigning in Charleston, South Carolina. On screen there is an advisory of sorts. The words say that the group of Australians are “phone banking and door knocking.” And then its says this:

“Foreign nationals cannot make campaign contributions or vote, but they can serve as uncompensated volunteers. Federal Election Commission.”

Yet quite clearly all these people are recorded by the media as exactly making campaign contributions. And they are called in campaign vernacular “in-kind contributions.” and what does the FEC say about those? It says this:

Under limited exemptions in the law, persons may provide certain goods and services to a committee without making contributions. For example, when services are volunteered—not paid for by anyone—the activity is not considered a contribution.” This section has a link to this:

“Foreign national as campaign volunteer

Although he or she may not make contributions or expenditures (including advances of personal funds), an individual who is a foreign national may participate in campaign activities as an uncompensated volunteer. In doing so, the volunteer must be careful not to participate in the decision-making process of the campaign. The Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act) and Commission regulations specifically prohibit foreign nationals from participating in the decisions of any person involving election-related activity. For example, a foreign national volunteer may attend committee events and campaign strategy meetings, but may not be involved in the management of the committee.”

So per the FEC, say again, foreign nationals are specifically prohibited “from participating in the decisions of any person involving election-related activity.” Yet there on CNN, right there for all to see, is an Australian participating in the decision of an American voter by quite specifically telling an American voter he is “encouraging you to vote for Hillary.” And in Time magazine, there is the Italian European Parliament member Gianni Pittella, “sitting in Philadelphia, trying to convince American voters to oppose an American candidate: Donald Trump.” Which is to say Pitella was doing quite openly precisely what the FEC said he must not: “participating in the decisions of any person involving election-related activity.”

This applies as well to the British Ms. Thornton and all those British Labour Party activists who were busy in Charlotte, North Carolina doing the same.

Which brings us to the famous foreign national of the day – the British Christopher Steele. Of the endless descriptions of the dossier in the media, this one from the Washington Post will suffice:

“But in April 2016, Fusion was hired by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee to keep funding the research. (Marc E. Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained the firm.)

In early June, Fusion hired Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community, to examine Trump’s ties in Russia. The dossier is actually several memos, based on conversations with Russian sources, that were written between June and December of 2016.”

In other words? The Clinton campaign and the DNC were paying – through an intermediary – foreign national Christopher Steele to research and write a document, the dossier, that had as its purpose doing exactly what the FEC says a foreign national cannot do: be “participating in the decisions of any person involving election-related activity.” Indeed, that was the entire purpose of the dossier – to influence American voters not to vote for a specific candidate, Donald Trump.

Which in turn brings us back to the Mueller indictments and what Rush Limbaugh zeroed in on and Sean Hannity got instantly. Rush and Sean’s words again, bold print supplied:

RUSH ARCHIVE: The things these Russians were charged with in the Mueller indictment are wire fraud, defrauding the United States, mail fraud. These charges that the Russians were hit with in this indictment have nothing to do with the avowed purpose of the special counsel investigation, literally nothing to do with it.

And if these Russians were charged the way everybody thought charges were gonna happen, then they could charge Hillary, and they could charge Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS. But they can’t be charged just because the Russians have been, because the charges are different.

HANNITY: That’s why they didn’t go after the FEC issues. That’s why they didn’t go after the FARC issue. What Rush is saying here is brilliant, is that Mueller may have been shielding Hillary Clinton by limiting the charges announced against the Russian trolls ’cause all of that could have been applied to Fusion GPS, Hillary Clinton, the campaign, Perkins Coie, and the rest of them. Brilliant point.

Exactly right. And it lets off not only Hillary Clinton and her campaign but totally whitewashes the fact that in plain sight – recorded and reported by CNN, Time and BuzzFeedUK – in violation of FEC regulations, the Clinton campaign – over and over and over again – was relying on foreign nationals to influence the election.

Newsflash? You will not be reading this in the liberal media.

The views and opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sean Hannity or Hannity.com

Jeffrey Lord is a frequent contributor to Hannity.com.  You can follow him on Twitter @realJeffreyLord

You May Also Like