'The Russia Hoax': Best-Selling Author Makes His Case for What Really Happened During the 2016 Election
- [Reporter] What's the realstory about Russian influence
in the 2016 election?
It's not what has been widely reported.
The Russia Hoax by Fox Newslegal analyst Greg Jarrett
reveals how persons within the FBI
and Barack Obama's Justice Department
abused their positions ofpower to subvert our system
of government and underminethe Democratic process
to help elect Hillary Clintonand defeat Donald Trump.
Those same people appear to have pursued
a contrived investigationof President Trump
in an attempt to undo the election results
and remove him as President.
- Well author and journalist Greg Jarrett
is joining us now from New York.
Greg it's a terrific book.
It's called The Russian Hoax.
How come you wrote this book?
What got you going on it?
- Well I'm a lawyer by trade,
but I have been a journalistfor three decades.
And as I watched all of this unfold,
I knew that there were people at the FBI,
the Department of Justice who were abusing
their positions of power
to try to influence the election.
Not so much the Russians,but our own government.
People like James Comey, PeterStrzok, Lisa Page at the FBI,
Andrew McCabe, and Bruce Orrat the Department of Justice.
James Comey on the veryday that he wrongfully
cleared Hillary Clinton,
his FBI was meeting secretly in Europe
with the author of this fabricated dossier
and armed with that document,
the FBI and the Department of Justice
tried to frame Donald Trumpfor so called collusion.
Crimes he never committed.
- Well let me ask you,
that dossier was written by a man
who has been discreditedbut he was on the payroll
of the FBI wasn't he?
- He was. He received 11 payments, Pat.
And he was also on thepayroll of Hillary Clinton.
And yet when they went to FISA judges
to spy on the Trump campaignthrough a wire tap warrant,
they concealed that evidenceand deceived the judges
committing a fraud on the court.
And that fraud went on for a full year.
And it also involved thecurrent Deputy Attorney General
Rod Rosenstein who signed off on that
final FISA renewal warrant
without the properevidence required by law.
- Oh there's so many things in your book
that I wanna bring up but,
Comey apparently had ameeting with the President,
taped some comments,
went out and then gavethose comments to the press.
Comment on that.
That apparently is aviolation of law, isn't it?
- It is. And I point out thevarious violations of law
and felonies that James Comeyappears to have committed.
For example he stole thosegovernment documents.
Those Presidential memosare not his to keep
and take away from the Hoover Building
in Washington DC and use forhis own personal purposes.
That's a direct violation of the law.
And then he leaked it to themedia for the sole purpose
of triggering a specialcounsel to investigate
the man who had fired him, Comey,
and who gets picked asthe special counsel?
Comey's long time friend,ally, and partner,
Bob Mueller who shouldnever have accepted the job
because of multiple conflicts of interest
as I write in the book.
- What relationship didComey have with Mueller?
- Comey and Mueller werelongtime friends and partners
in fact it was a protege,mentor relationship.
These two would handle cases in the past
and as I point out in the book,
the most notorious casewas the anthrax case
in which they so badly bungled it.
It cost American taxpayerssix million dollars
in damages to an individualthey falsely accused.
So these guys go back decades together
along with Rod Rosensteinwho also should have
recused himself because he'sa key witness in the case
and yet he's Mueller's boss.
You can't be a prosecutor and a witness
all rolled into one.
So all of this is a cesspool of corruption
at the FBI, The Department of Justice,
as well as the SpecialCounsel Investigation.
- You pointed out very cogently
that in order to have aSpecial Counsel appointed
he has to be pursuing a crime.
They have to designate a crime.
Was there a crime designatedwhen Rod Rosenstein
or set up the mandate for him?
- No absolutely not.
You're right, Pat.
There must first underthe law be a stated crime.
Look at the authorizationorder appointing Mueller.
There's no crime stated there.
It says look into linksbetween Trump and Russia
during the 2016 election.
The so called collusion.
Collusion's not a crime foundanywhere in the criminal codes
except in anti-trust law
and it's no other relevant felony as well
including honest services fraud,
or conspiracy to defraud the government.
So this was always aninvestigation in search of a crime.
And that is turning the law
and the federal regulations upside down.
It was an illegitimateinvestigation to begin with.
- Rosenstein just kind of kept
expanding the mandate didn't he?
If what Mueller was doingdidn't fit the mandate,
he expanded the mandate didn't he?
- He did and without authorization
and in violation of thefederal regulations.
And Rosenstein also issueda secret authorization order
but for the lawyers of the Manafort case,
we still wouldn't even know about it.
That is also in violationof federal regulations
in the spirit of the law.
Rosenstein has a lot to answer for.
And one of the reasonswhy he is been obstructing
lawful subpoenas from congress
is because he has been involvedin this illicit scheme.
And he has a motive to cover it up, Pat.
- They said that Trump obstructed justice
when he fired Comey.
He was legally authorizedto do just that wasn't he
if he wanted to?
He's the President.
- He was.
Article two of the Constitution
gives him complete andunfettered authority
to fire somebody who's the head
of a federal executiveagency like James Comey.
And Robert Mueller has no legal basis,
no legal right to question the President
about exercising hisConstitutional authority.
I think we know now thatMueller doesn't even
wanna question the Presidentabout obstruction of justice
because he knows thelaw does not support him
pursuing the President on that.
So all he's got left is collusion.
And there was never anyevidence that Trump colluded
with the Russians to win the election.
- Greg you know the President,
whether the people like it or not,
has turned this economy around.
It is booming like wecan't remember in decades.
The unemployment rate is down
to the lowest level we can imagine.
Everything, the GDP is up.
What is this business about impeaching?
What has President Trumpdone that would justify
some kind of impeachment?
Democrats calling for impeachment.
- Absolutely nothing.
But remember impeachmentis not a legal process.
Yes, treason, high crimesof misdemeanor, bribery,
and so forth.
But it really is a political mechanism
that the founding fathersestablished in the Constitution.
And Gerry Ford probablysaid it best back in the day
when he was a congressmanbefore he became President.
He said impeachment isanything congress says it is
on any given day.
I think it's a terriblemistake for Democrats
like Nancy Pelosi orMaxine Waters certainly
to be arguing for impeachment.
Because like it or not,the economy is doing great,
people's wages are up,manufacturing is up,
unemployment is down.
Just look at the laundrylist of consumer optimism
and people may disagree withDonald Trump's personality
or his approach or his tweets.
But you cannot object tohis performance on policy,
especially the economy.
- Greg one last question.
When I read this book, you know I get mad.
I'm sure a lot of people do.
They think there's gotta be some way
of calling this JusticeDepartment to account.
How can we do it?
- You need a new Attorney General
and Deputy Attorney General
and I'm convinced thatafter the midterm elections,
Jeff Sessions and Rod Rosenstein
will be relieved of their dutyand bring in somebody else.
Somebody like congressman John Ratcliffe,
House Judiciary Committee.
Strong legal background,former US Attorney,
former top DOJ official.
This is a guy who would not only reopen
the Hillary Clinton e-mailcase as it should be.
But I think he wouldpresent all of this evidence
of corruption by the FBI,by the Department of Justice
to a Grand Jury so an honest prosecutor,
and honest and legitimate Attorney General
I think would presentthis to a Grand Jury.
And I think if that happenedthere would be indictments.
- You think they have committed crimes,
there's no question about it, right?
- I'm convinced they are.
And I'd lay out a wide variety of crimes
that I believe thatwere committed by people
at the FBI and the Department of Justice.
Obstruction of justice,abuse of power, perjury,
the list goes on and on.
Ladies and gentlemen,Gregg's terrific book
is called The Russia Hoax.
The illicit scheme toclear Hillary Clinton
and frame Donald Trump.
I hope you sell a lot of 'em.
Are they going well?
- Thank you.
It's been the number onebook on the New York Times
for three weeks in a row.
My liberal friends have read it
and said you know what Greg,
you've totally turned mearound and convinced me.
So I hope people read it.
- Well it's a brilliant work.
And I commend to our readers.
Thank you very much for being with us.
- My pleasure, Pat. Thank you.