As a federal prosecutor, Weissmann helped drive the accounting firm Arthur Andersen out of business, costing tens of thousands of people their jobs, only to have the convictions reversed unanimously by the U.S. Supreme Court. The legal smackdown by the high court underscores what a wrongful prosecution he pursued. But Weissman was undeterred. He went after Merrill Lynch executives, putting them behind bars and destroying their lives, only to have that case also reversed—this time by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.65
All of this should have been enough for Weissmann to be banished from the Department of Justice. But Mueller came to the rescue by hiring him as general counsel at the FBI. Weissmann eventually made his way back to the Justice Department as head of the Criminal Fraud Division in the Obama administration. When Mueller became special counsel in the Trump-Russia investigation, he immediately turned to his old “pit bull” of a prosecutor, Weissmann, who joined the team. As former federal prosecutor Powell observed:
We all lose from Weissmann’s involvement. First, the truth plays no role in Weissmann’s quest. Second, respect for the rule of law, simple decency and following the facts do not appear in Weissmann’s playbook. Third, and most important, all Americans lose whenever our judicial system becomes a weapon to reward political friends and punish political foes.66
Mueller knew full well what he was doing when he brought Weissmann on board his team of partisans. Weissmann was the “partisan-in-chief.”
The special counsel also brought to his staff Jeannie Rhee, who was a partner with Mueller at the law firm WilmerHale. The hiring of Rhee was especially brazen since she defended the Clinton Foundation in a civil racketeering case and donated $5,400 to Clinton’s presidential campaign. Thus, Rhee is in a position to bring a prosecution against the person who defeated the candidate she supported and defended. It was a shamelessly bold hire by Mueller, given how obvious a conflict of interest Rhee has. She also worked for Andrew McCabe, who was fired by the FBI for lack of candor. She represented ex-Obama aide Ben Rhodes during the congressional investigation into the Benghazi attack, an inquiry that focused primarily on Clinton’s role.67
The Clinton connections extend to others on Mueller’s team of partisans. Aaron Zebley is on the special counsel team of lawyers, having previously served as Mueller’s chief of staff at the FBI. He represented Justin Cooper, who worked for Clinton and set up her private email server, registering the domain in his own name. He also admitted destroying Clinton’s BlackBerry devices, “breaking them in half or hitting them with a hammer.”68 He did not have security clearance for any of the classified documents on Clinton’s server, yet had access to it. Zebley’s involvement in the Clinton case creates yet another appearance of impropriety in the Mueller probe.
Another of Mueller’s lawyers is Kyle Freeny, who worked at the Justice Department. She was one of the prosecutors that U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen excoriated in a 2014 case for serious misconduct in her defense of President Obama’s executive actions on immigration. In a blistering critique, Freeny and other lawyers were accused of misleading the court in what the judge described as “intentional, serious and material” misconduct.69 After an apology from the DOJ, Judge Hanen said he would accept the department’s claims that the representations to the court were unintentional. Campaign finance records show Freeny donated money to both the Obama and Clinton campaigns.70
Just about every member of Mueller’s carefully chosen team has ties or allegiances to Democrats, Obama, or the Clintons. In an appearance before the House Judiciary Committee in December 2017, Rosenstein tried in vain to deflect repeated criticism that the special counsel’s investigation was tainted by insider bias. When confronted with the evidence that Mueller had hired no Republicans but nearly all Democrats, many of whom donated money to Trump’s opponent, Rosenstein insisted that it did not create even the appearance of impropriety which Justice Department regulations prohibit.71 It was an absurd defense of Mueller’s decision to pack his staff with political partisans.
Cheating in a game of cards can involve “stacking the deck”—arranging the cards in a way that advantages yourself while ensuring your opponent loses. It is almost certain that this is the way special counsel Robert Mueller approached his investigation. He chose to hire for his staff a group of lawyers who are Democrats and others, like Strzok and Page, who vented in their messages their hostility toward Trump. Factor into the equation Mueller and Rosenstein’s own disqualifying conflicts of interest, and you have an investigation that bears no resemblance to fairness.
The genuine fear is that this special counsel team is so rife with bias that it is more interested in convictions and the political damage that can be wrought on the president than in seeing that justice is done.
Epilogue
Subverting the Rule of Law
A government of laws, and not of men.
—JOHN ADAMS, “NOVANGLUS PAPERS,” NO. 7 (1774)
I am not a Trump apologist or sycophant. He will be the first to tell you that.
In the handful of conversations and meetings I had with the president over the past year, he gently reminded me of my earlier reporting that he regarded as negative or critical of him. He had a right to do so, and it was fair. Why, then, would I write a book that is, in large part, a defense of Trump?
In truth, this book is a defense of the rule of law. It came under sustained attack by high government officials who abused their positions of power to subvert our system of justice and undermine the democratic process. Trump was their target and their victim.
As facts emerged, I became incensed that top figures at the FBI and Department of Justice misconstrued the law in a manner that could only have been deliberate. They absolved Hillary Clinton of the felony statutes she so flagrantly violated. They weaponized other laws and regulations to investigate Trump without legal justification in an effort to destroy him.
These officials breached their duty to uphold the law. They compromised essential principles and damaged the nation’s trust. Their unconscionable actions inflicted significant harm to the reputation of federal law enforcement and the integrity of the thousands of individuals who serve faithfully and honorably.
The law is inviolate. If it is to function properly as the foundation of democracy, it must be fairly and equitably administered without favor regardless of politics and circumstances. This did not happen. When the legal system is corrupted, all Americans suffer. We lose confidence in our government of laws. As Adams warned, it becomes a government of men who empower themselves to transgress the very rights and liberties we cherish.
In this endeavor, the press plays a vital role. It is an indispensable check on excessive government authority. This is what the Framers envisioned when they embraced the First Amendment in our Bill of Rights. Sadly, it did not always occur in the reporting of this story by the mainstream media. All too often, journalists were complicit in advancing or excusing the abuse of power. They convicted Trump in the court of public opinion without evidence cognizable in law. This is another reason why I decided to write this book.
Fueled by the FBI’s unwarranted investigation, reporters became advocates. They condemned Trump for the least infraction and inflated any encounter with persons connected, however tangentially, to Russia. Many in the media, motivated by their own bias, drove the constant narrative that Trump and those in his orbit “colluded” with Moscow to steal the 2016 presidential election from Clinton. When the new president fired FBI director James Comey, the action was immediately interpreted and portrayed by the press as irrefutable proof of obstruction of justice.
Some journalists accused Trump of being “Putin’s puppet” or “a de facto agent” of the Kremlin.1 Articles were published implying that Trump was a “Manchurian candidate.”2 The unfairness of the media was palpable. Rank speculation was treated as fact. Stories were agenda-driven, not information-driven. Indictment and impeachment were persistent themes in both print and television news. At every turn, th
e media demonized the president by declaring him guilty of the conjured crime of “collusion.” It became their favored truncheon.
Examples of this abound. When Trump’s lawyer, Jay Sekulow, was interviewed on ABC News by anchor George Stephanopoulos, the following exchange took place about a Trump adviser who spoke to a person with Russian contacts:
SEKULOW: There is no crime of “collusion.” What is a violation of law here?
STEPHANOPOULOS: Collusion is cooperation!3
Viewers were left with the impression that the act of talking with someone constituted “collusion,” which equaled the commission of a crime. Yet, there was no evidence of a secret agreement to achieve some fraudulent or illegal or deceitful purpose. It was all too easy for the anchor to insinuate a crime by using a word that connotes a crime. The appearance of criminality seemed sufficient for many reporters.
Others took to the airwaves to imply or pronounce criminal “collusion” without ever identifying what law might have been broken or the specific facts that merited such a legal conclusion:
CARL BERNSTEIN (ON CNN): I think this is a potentially more dangerous situation than Watergate. We’re at a dangerous moment. And that’s because we are looking at the possibility that the president of the United States and those around him during an election campaign colluded with a hostile foreign power to undermine the basis of our democracy–free elections.4
DAN RATHER (ON MSNBC): Donald Trump is afraid. He’s trying to exude power and strength. He’s afraid of something that Mueller and the prosecutors are going to find out. A political hurricane is out there at sea for him. We’ll call it Hurricane Vladimir, if you will, the whole Russian thing. It is approaching Category Four.5
JAKE TAPPER (CNN ANCHOR): This is evidence of willingness to commit collusion. That’s what this is on its face.6
LAWRENCE O’DONNELL (MSNBC HOST): Donald Trump now sits at the threshold of impeachment.7
These were, by no means, the only instances in which the media proclaimed Trump and his associates culpable of criminal “collusion.” One anchor averred with certainty, “they’re confessing to colluding with the Russians.”8 Another speculated that “people might go to jail for the rest of their lives.”9 Still another insisted that “they’re acting super guilty because they’re guilty.”10 But guilty of what specifically? That vexing tidbit of information was conveniently omitted.
Throughout the Trump presidency, the media has obsessed over “collusion” without defining it. They assumed it was a crime that surely must exist buried somewhere in the vast body of dusty law books. One anchor became so giddy over the prospect of Trump’s arrest, she fantasized on air about the day he would barricade himself inside the White House as federal marshals banged on the door to take him into custody.11 The president’s imminent demise became daily fodder.
There has been no shortage of media malpractice in the age of Trump. Motivated by political bias and personal animus, some journalists were relentless in their quest to prove the president’s illegitimacy and drive him from office. They abandoned objectivity and suspended their sense of fairness. They allowed enmity to cloud their judgment. In the process, the media squandered credibility, its only currency. It is no wonder that many Americans have little trust in journalists to be honest in their reporting.12
The people who should read this book, probably won’t. Democrats, the liberal media, and the legion of Trump-haters have convinced themselves that his election was misbegotten. But they are intellectually dishonest in believing that the president must have committed some crime in connection with Russia. Most have never bothered to examine the facts or consult a statute. Their confidence in “collusion” is bereft of proof. They accept it as a matter of faith driven by their own bias, and teased by hope out of ignorance.
I have no illusion that what I have written in these pages will persuade them otherwise. The anti-Trump crowd is so adamant in their disdain that no amount of reason will reach them. Yet, they are equally blind to the astonishing level of corruption by those in government who sought to sabotage the president with false claims and drive him from office. Individuals who are sworn to uphold the law manipulated it for their own partisan purpose. Their self-righteous compulsion to correct what they perceived to be wrong in the election of Trump serves as the quintessential example of the arrogance of power.
It has been both challenging and frustrating to compose a book as events were still unfolding. It was akin to the struggle of keeping pace with a fast-moving train. There will be more revelations to come, as the Justice Department examines the venal conduct of those who cleared Clinton and targeted Trump. It may take months, if not years, before a true accounting is divulged. This is how cover-ups work. The truth is slow to emerge. Until then, the story told here presents more than sufficient facts for the reader to reach the inexorable conclusion that Trump was a victim, not the villain.
There was never any plausible evidence that Trump or his campaign collaborated with Russia to win the presidency. The FBI had no legal basis to initiate its investigation. Facts were invented or exaggerated. Laws were perverted or ignored. The law enforcers became law breakers. Comey’s scheme to trigger the appointment of his friend as special counsel was a devious maneuver by an unscrupulous man. His insinuation that the president obstructed justice was another canard designed to inflame the liberal media. Sure enough, they became witting accessories.
When powerful forces in government abuse their positions of trust to subvert the legal process, and when the media acts in concert to condone or conceal corrupt behavior, democracy is threatened. Reverence to the rule of law is lost.
This is the story of The Russia Hoax.
Acknowledgments
Winston Churchill once said that composing a book is an adventure. It begins as a toy, then evolves into an amusement, a mistress, a master, and, eventually, a tyrant. He was right. It is not an experience for the faint of heart.
There are many people to whom I am grateful. David Limbaugh, a fine lawyer and author in his own right, was kind enough to provide counsel and advice in negotiating the contract to write this book. I am indebted to him for his generosity.
Eric Nelson, executive editor at HarperCollins, was instrumental in shaping the content into a more readable book. He displayed both wisdom and patience for a first-time author. He also had the courage to tell me that not all of the roughly one hundred thousand words I submitted were good enough for print. His edits were sensible, yet judicious. I am thankful for his guidance. A special thanks to the rest of the team at HarperCollins.
Mike Plante furnished research and valuable assistance in many of the interviews that were conducted. I am most appreciative to all of the former federal prosecutors and FBI officials who gave freely of their time to be interviewed. Their insights and candor improved the book immeasurably. A special thank you to Joseph diGenova, Victoria Toensing, and Doug Burns.
My sincere thanks to Sean Hannity, who liked the notion of a book from the outset. He was a constant source of support, providing his friendship and good ideas as the chapters developed. More than anyone else, he unraveled and reported many of the corrupt acts identified in these pages. I owe him a great deal. His staff, Porter Berry, Tiffany Fazio, Bret Zoeller, Christen Limbaugh, Alyssa Moni, Francesca Nestande, and Lynda McLaughlin, were especially encouraging.
Lou Dobbs, a driving force at the Fox Business Network, contributed his enthusiasm for the book and his endorsement of me personally as a guest on his program. His great staff of Anne McCarton, Lilah Sabalones, Abigail Penn, Travis Altman, Robert Regan, Michael Biondi, Mike LaMarca, and Sabrina Lee have been exceedingly kind.
Many others at Fox News deserve recognition. My friend Lynn Jordal Martin, senior opinion editor for the Fox News website, kept urging me to write a book. Refet Kaplan, Greg Wilson, Janet Cawley, and Morgan Debelle Duplan gave prominence to my opinion columns. Kimberly Sialiano helped with the computer format and other advice. Courtney Stein Lesskis supplied n
eeded legal research in a pinch. Mary Kate Cribbin lent a friendly ear to my frustrations. Rich Reichmuth tolerated my anxieties and kept coaxing me to move forward. Lis Wiehl, a veteran author and good friend, offered wisdom when needed, which was fairly often.
My wife and two daughters were an endless supply of love, encouragement, and support. Without them, I would never have embarked on this “adventure.” My sister, Janet, kept faith in me, as she has since I can remember. My mother’s spirit is always a presence in me.
Finally, many of the quotations at the beginning of each chapter came from the books my late father left me. Joseph W. Jarrett bequeathed to me his vast law library, which has dwindled over the years. But I retained a few special books to which I turned when in need of quotes to help frame the issues at hand. My father also gave me his love of the law and its navigating principles. He was the finest lawyer I ever knew.
On a more personal note, I recognize my failings plainly and regret them. Like many people, I have faltered in life. Still, I chose to write this book myself. These are my words within the pages. If mistakes were made, they are mine alone.
Notes
Chapter 1: Hillary Clinton’s Email Server
1. Meghan Keneally, Liz Kreutz, and Shushannah Walshe, “Hillary Clinton Email Mystery Man: What We Know About Eric Hoteham,” ABC News, March 5, 2015; Josh Gerstein, “The Mystery Man Behind Hillary’s Email Controversy,” Politico, March 4, 2015.
2. Department of State, Foreign Affairs Manual, 5 FAM 8710 (“Users must not load classified information or Sensitive but Unclassified (SBU) information onto unclassified systems . . .”).
The Russia Hoax Page 26