What About ‘Double Jeopardy?’ Why are House Dems Allowed to Try President Trump For The Same Offense For the Fifth Time?

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, speaks after a closed meeting on Capitol Hill, Tuesday, June 6, 2017, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Last I knew, this was the United States of America. We lived by a Constitution which guaranteed a set of protections against tyranny for our citizens.

One of those protections is a guarantee that a person accused of a crime cannot be “twice put in jeopardy” for the same crime. This is called double jeopardy.

The text book definition of double jeopardy is as follows: “A procedural defense which prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges and on the same facts, following a valid acquittal or conviction.”

President Trump was the subject of an FBI counterintelligence investigation which officially began in July 2016, although there is evidence that the FBI had been spying on his campaign before that time. The FBI investigation ended when the Special Counsel investigation was initiated in May 2017. FBI lawyer Lisa Page testified under oath that ten months into their investigation, there was still no evidence that Trump had colluded with the Russians to win the presidency.

After 22 months of intense examination, a highly partisan group of Democratic donors with unlimited resources at their disposal were still unable to find sufficient evidence that Trump had colluded with the Russians.

And boy did they try? We’ve already uncovered three instances in the Mueller report where members of his team manipulated information to misrepresent the facts.

First, they omitted a crucial sentence from a voicemail left by Trump’s attorney, John Dowd, to Michael Flynn’s attorney, Robert Kelner, which made it appear as if Dowd had obstructed justice. My colleague, Bonchie wrote about that here.

Last week, The Hill’s John Solomon learned that the Mueller team completely mischaracterized the role of Konstantin Kilimnik. They identified him as a Russian asset when in reality, Kilimnik was a top informant for the U.S. State Department and other Western intelligence agencies as well. I wrote about that here.

Finally, both the FBI and the Mueller team claim that the FBI began surveilling General Michael Flynn after they had recorded a phone call between Flynn and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak in December 2016. The reality is that the FBI began spying on Flynn shortly after he had called Kislyak in early January 2016 to express his condolences upon hearing of the death of former GRU Director Igor Sergun, who had died on Jan. 3, 2016. This has been proven by a recent DOJ court filing. I wrote about this here.

Mueller and his team have had their thumb on the scale for Democrats and still weren’t able to find sufficient evidence to recommend a Trump indictment.

While Mueller’s investigation was proceeding, the Senate and the House each opened investigations of their own and neither came up with evidence of collusion.

President Trump has now been investigated for the same offense four times.

Now House Democrats, led by the poisonous, repulsive, snake-like Adam Schiff and the buffoonish, fat, repellent Jerrold Nadler want to try the President for the fifth time.

Below is a video of the entire House Intelligence Committee hearing on “The Mueller Report: Lessons Learned.” Schiff’s opening statement begins at 8:15. Watch it if you can. It will make your blood boil and your stomach churn.

Schiff said, “Volume one of the report outlines a sweeping and systemic effort by Russia to interfere in the 2016 election for the benefit of Donald Trump. It establishes that the Trump campaign welcomed the Russian interference because it expected to benefit electorally from the information stolen and released through the Russian effort.”

“Contrary to the president’s often-repeated mantra and many misrepresentations of the attorney general, the special counsel reached no conclusion as to whether the Trump campaign’s many Russian contacts constituted collusion since that term is not defined in criminal law.”

Schiff is using the fact that the term “collusion” is not defined in criminal law as his excuse to continue what can only be described as a farce.

House Republicans described today’s proceedings as a “grotesque spectacle.”

The National Review’s Andrew McCarthy, a former U.S. attorney, tried to inject some sanity during his testimony. “McCarthy told the panel that Russia wasn’t backing Trump per se in the 2016 campaign, and was rather supporting the candidate seen at the time as most likely to lose.” He explained:

[Russian President Vladimir] Putin tends to back the candidates he believes will lose on the theory that an alienated losing faction will make it harder for the winning faction to govern…It is a mistake, I respectfully submit, to allow him to divide us by portraying him as on one side or another. He’s against all of us.

Attorney General Barr and prosecutor John Durham are investigating the genesis of this hoax and I feel confident that they will sort it all out.

Last weekend, Rep. Mark Meadows told Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo there would be a delay in DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’ report because he had received some new information.

Unfortunately, until their job is complete, Democrats will continue with “Take Five” of the Russia collusion investigation, trampling all over President Trump’s Constitutional rights and this travesty will continue.

Pretty soon, many Democrats will find themselves in jeopardy. Will they expect their own rights to be honored?

The post What About ‘Double Jeopardy?’ Why are House Dems Allowed to Try President Trump For The Same Offense For the Fifth Time? appeared first on RedState.