As always, when you think you hear it all, the Left can only get worse. While the FBI was trying to figure out if Donald Trump was colluding with Russia, the top bureau’s attorney Andrew Weissmann went secretly to a Ukrainian Oligarch’s U.S. attorneys looking for dirt to slap President Trump.
With dirty request comes dirty deals and no one is more corrupt than the Left. In exchange for any dirt, the FBI was willing to drop a case against Dmitry Firtash, a Ukrainian who was slapped with corruption charges along with bribery linked to a U.S. aerospace deal in India.
The Hill reported, “According to a defense memo recounting Weissmann’s contacts, the prosecutor claimed the Mueller team could “resolve the Firtash case” in Chicago and neither the DOJ nor the Chicago U.S. Attorney’s Office “could interfere with or prevent a solution,” including withdrawing all charges. “The complete dropping of the proceedings was doubtless on the table,” according to the defense memo.”
The FBI was really scrambling for evidence which was never there to go after President Trump with anything that could stick. Pete Strzok sent multiple text messages before Weissmann’s overture. The plan backfired as it turned out embarrassing for Strzok as the case against Firtash was going down the drain. The Hill reported this, “Two central witnesses were in the process of recanting testimony, and a document the FBI portrayed as bribery evidence inside Firtash’s company was exposed as a hypothetical slide from an American consultant’s PowerPoint presentation, according to court records I reviewed.”
As Weissmann reached out for dirty evidence, the DOJ had two high profile cases going downhill. Robert Mueller was appointed as special counsel and was granted the task to further investigate what the FBI could not find on President Trump and anyone associated with him.
Weissman went above and beyond to no avail with the Ukrainian government only to come up with theories with no evidence to back up those theories. Further reports were released according to the Hill, “Prosecutors in plea deals typically ask a defendant for a written proffer of what they can provide in testimony and identify the general topics that might interest them.
But Weissmann appeared to go much further in a July 7, 2017 meeting with Firtash’s American lawyers and FBI agents, sharing certain private theories of the nascent special counsel’s investigation into Trump, his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Russia, according to defense memos.
For example, Firtash’s legal team wrote that Weissmann told them he believed a company called Bayrock, tied to former FBI informant Felix Sater, had “made substantial investments with Donald Trump’s companies” and that prosecutors were looking for dirt on Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner.
Weissmann told the Firtash team “he believes that Manafort and his people substantially coordinated their activities with Russians in order to win their work in Ukraine,” according to the defense memos. And the Mueller deputy said he “believed” a Ukrainian group tied to Manafort “was merely a front for illegal criminal activities in Ukraine,” and suggested a “Russian secret service authority” may have been involved in influencing the 2016 U.S. election, the defense memos show.”
While in Austria waiting on extradition charges, Firtash declined a deal with Weissmann. He declined due to there was no evidence against President Trump or anyone associated with him. The DOJ called out Weissman’s approach as it was politically motivated and nothing more.
They noted, “The possible cessation of separate criminal proceedings against the applicant if he was prepared to exchange sufficiently incriminating statements for wide-ranging comprehensively political subject areas which included the U.S. President himself as well as the Russian President Vladimir Putin.”
Firtash was extradited to Chicago and his legal team included Weissmann’s overture in the evidence. There were documents submitted which drew concerns on the relevancy of those documents. Even the New York Times published an article questioning the validity last December. The documents were never used as evidence due to the concerns.
Firtash’s U.S. legal team stated, “Submitting a false and misleading document to a foreign sovereign and its courts for an extradition decision is not only unethical but also flouts the comity of trust necessary for that process where judicial systems rely only on documents to make that decision.”
So with all the hoorah, Weissmann stirred up, they only found one thing. They had no evidence to work with from the beginning. How many times do we have to go through this in America?