Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn’s guilty plea has triggered a heated debate on the prospects of the Trump-Russia investigation. Speaking to Sputnik, Wall Street analyst Charles Ortel opined that potential disclosures are not a cause for US President Donald Trump’s concern, adding that the Clintons’ case deserves far more scrutiny.
Although more than a year has passed since the US 2016 presidential election, no solid evidence confirming the alleged “collusion” between Donald Trump and Russia has emerged, Wall Street analyst and investigative journalist Charles Ortel told Sputnik.
“So far, I have seen little hard evidence supporting the strident claims by Deep State actors and mainstream media proving claims of ‘collusion’ — this is surprising given that so much time has now passed since 8 November 2016,” Ortel pointed out.
Flynn’s Guilty Plea Not a Cause for Trump’s Concern
On December 1, former national security adviser to President Trump, Michael Flynn, pleaded guilty to lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigations about his communications with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and agreed to cooperate with Special Counsel Robert Mueller who is overseeing the Trump-Russia probe.
Following Flynn’s plea, the Western mainstream media reported that Trump’s aides are extremely nervous over potential disclosures. Citing Flynn’s Plea Agreement, Politico specified that the former national security advisor had concluded a deal with government prosecutors, which envisages his participation in “covert law enforcement activities” to avoid a potentially lengthy prison term.
“It is always alarming, under our system, when a Special Counsel trains its attention on a set of suspects,” Ortel said commenting on the issue. “I understand that laws were toughened following September 11, 2001, that makes it quite dangerous to lie to interrogators. Moreover, I imagine that our government has many ways to find information out on topics of interest.”
However, the Wall Street analyst sees “little danger in what Flynn seems to have admitted implicating President Trump himself.”
At the same time, the investigative journalist suspects that Mueller and his team “have yet to play all of their cards in public.”
“Meanwhile, revelations pouring out that seem to confirm how partisan many members involved in this investigation truly are undermining public confidence in the integrity of the process, possibly well beyond repair,” he highlighted.
While Trump’s opponents are rubbing their hands in anticipation at Flynn’s potentially explosive disclosures, Preet Bharara, the former US attorney for the Southern District of New York who was fired by Trump in March 2017, questions whether Flynn’s revelations will be as meaty as everyone expects.
Citing Bharara’s latest podcast, Vox noted that the former national security adviser is “clearly offering some information, but the question is just how important it will be.”
“I suspect Bharara is correct about the implications for Trump or Flynn’s testimony/cooperation,” Ortel said. “We will only learn more about what actually happened following 8 November 2016, as bitter opponents of Donald Trump (and of Republicans) were forced to accept that Hillary Clinton was trounced, and that Democrats would remain in the minority in the House of Representatives and in the Senate.”
What Foreign and Domestic Actors Could Have Meddled in US 2016 Vote?
What deserves more attention is “the role that Clinton and Obama loyalists played obstructing Trump from November 9, 2016, onwards, and fighting Republicans from January 20, 2009, forwards,” the investigative journalist believes. According to Ortel, this particular investigation would have proven “quite damaging for many Democrats as well as for many ‘never Trump’ Republicans.”
Commenting on the prospects of the Trump-Russia inquiry into Moscow’s alleged “meddling” in the US presidential vote, the analyst said that besides finding out what actors — foreign and domestic — “may have conspired to intervene illegally inside the national elections” the Americans need to understand how the White House may have intervened in foreign votes worldwide.
“In this era, where technology is so much more advanced than say in 1989, when unregulated ‘globalism’ started to gain adherents, it is more than ironic that the integrity of elections everywhere are called into question,” Ortel said.
According to the analyst, voters everywhere deserve to understand what persons may have an influence over the voting machines that many places use to tabulate results. “Who owns the companies that make and service these machines? And who makes sure no one is tampering?” he asked.
Why DoJ Reluctant to Boost Inquiries Into the Clintons
There is also a lot of controversy about the Justice Department’s alleged unwillingness to boost the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s role in the Uranium One deal and the Clinton Foundation’s alleged fraud, while the Trump-Russia probe is continuing ahead at full throttle.
So General Flynn lies to the FBI and his life is destroyed, while Crooked Hillary Clinton, on that now famous FBI holiday “interrogation” with no swearing in and no recording, lies many times…and nothing happens to her? Rigged system, or just a double standard?
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 3, 2017
”I think the Clinton Foundation probes likely have uncovered so many leads and examples of actionable charity fraud and public corruption that they are overwhelming investigators and prosecutors,” Ortel, who is carrying out a private investigation into the alleged Clinton charity fraud said. “Fortunately, the US public across the political spectrum seems interested to finally starve the swamp, even if we cannot completely drain it.”
After years of Comey, with the phony and dishonest Clinton investigation (and more), running the FBI, its reputation is in Tatters — worst in History! But fear not, we will bring it back to greatness.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 3, 2017
Ortel opined that any inquiry “must go back to early 2008 to examine whether the Clintons and the Obamas may have colluded to hide the truth about the poor state of the Clinton Foundation, and then to harness portions of incoming donations to finance partisan political campaigns.”
The analyst noted that if true, “this serious criminal activity” may have started even before the November 2008 presidential election and likely continues even now.
Given this it is hardly surprising that many powerful people are trying to keep the Clintons’ cases swept under the rug — “they have much to lose,” Ortel underscored. “So, the prosecutors and their bosses are certainly treading carefully,” he said.
“I certainly hope, following sentencing this past Monday of former Congressman Corrine Brown for a far smaller $800,000 charity fraud — she got 5 years in Federal prison at age 71 — that Americans soon may learn an important lesson: No one is above our laws, especially those who believe they are entitled to hold our highest political positions, and already have done so!” the Wall Street analyst concluded.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.