“Someone’s Going To Jail” Gingrich Warns Mueller’s Russia ‘Witch Hunt’ Too Big To Fail Now

After the Washington Post-New York Times-CNN axis got the public worked into a lather by effectively trying President Donald Trump and his administration in the court of public opinion, Americans are desperate to see somebody held accountable for…wait…what is it again? Collusion? Obstruction? The narrative changes so quickly, it’s difficult keeping track.

Enter Former Speaker Newt Gingrich, who told Fox’s Sean Hannity on Friday that the investigators who’ve been hired by Special Counsel Robert Mueller won’t quit until they’ve found their own Scooter Libby-type figure to play the role of political pariah.

“Somebody” will likely go to jail following the FBI’s investigation into Russian election meddling, but said it won’t be President Trump.

“There are too many lawyers who are high powered to go home without a scalp. They’re going to get somebody. I don’t think they’re going to get the president, but they’re going to get somebody, and they’re going to get him for something. And they’re probably going to go to jail,” Gingrich told Fox News’s Sean Hannity.

 Investigators smell blood in the water, Gingrich said. And it’s making them desperately hungry for what will likely be a historic bust.

“This is like watching an old-fashioned Western movie. This is an Indian hunting party,” Gingrich said. “They’re out looking for a couple scalps, and they’re not going to go home until they get some.”

The hypocrisy of the investigation into Trump’s inner circle is staggering, as Gingrich rightfully pointed out. Even high-ranking Democrats are now questioning whether one of their own, former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, illegally tried to influence the outcome of the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information. Former FBI Director James Comey admitted as much during his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in May that the suspicious “impromptu” meeting inspired him to unilaterally announce the end of the Clinton investigation because he was worried about the optics.

As Gingrich noted, following Comey’s testimony, California Senator Dianne Feinstein suggested that “something stinks” with that situation.

“What’s amazing to me about the Republican passivity here is that Senator Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee, said last week after Comey’s testimony ‘you know we really have to look into exactly what’s going on with Loretta lynch and with president Obama.’ Now I was waiting for one of the intel chairmen in the House and Senate to get up and say they’re opening a new investigation into exactly what Loretta lynch said to Comey”

“They said we have to look into it. Fine: Let’s look into it.

The conversation then turned to a discussion of the relationship between Special Counsel Robert Mueller and Comey, who have shared a long-time, well-documented friendship.

“Mueller has a legal obligation to recuse himself from anything involving Comey. Why would they have picked a guy who’s close friends with him to investigate anything involving Comey?”

Mueller has reportedly hired 13 lawyers for the federal investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, and plans to hire more.

Gingrich took to twitter on Thursday to criticized the special counsel for intentionally undermining the Trump presidency, eliciting an amusing response from none other than NBC’s very own Chuck Todd.

Muelleris now clearly the ti[p of the deep state spear aimed at destroying or at a minimum undermining and crippling the Trump presidency.

— Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) June 15, 2017

Amazing that a former Speaker of the House would be this conspiratorial. https://t.co/oO7McSOADZ

— Chuck Todd (@chucktodd) June 15, 2017

Conspiratorial? The only thing conspiratorial here is the seeming agreement between lawmakers of both parties to let Lynch slide, while continuing to stomach the Congressional and FBI “witch hunts” into the conduct of Trump and his associates – even though not a shred of evidence to back up their claims has been made public.