US Attorney General Palm Bandy has ordered the prosecutors to open legal proceedings in the allegations that Donald Trump’s political opponents may have conspired to make a false accusation of confrontation with Russia in the 2016 presidential election.
According to BBC American partner CBS News, prosecutors will present evidence to a grand jury – a group of members of the public who will decide whether formal allegations will be filed.
This is not clear, however, what those allegations can be and which can be charged.
Trump was elected President in the 2016 election by defeating Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. He has always accused political enemies of staining political enemies on the allegations of so -called Rousgate.
Last month, National Intelligence US director Tulsi Gabbard accused former President Barack Obama and his national security team of “long coup for years long” against Trump.
Gabbard alleged that about intelligence Russian meditation was politicized in the 2016 White House election Obama made Trump false by the White House in Russia.
Trump reacted by accusing Obama of “treason” – and an Obama spokesperson called that claim “bizarre”.
Democrats said that there is nothing American intelligence in Gabbard’s findings. Evaluation in January 2017 It concluded that Russia had demanded damage to Clinton’s campaign and promoting Trump in a vote three months ago.
A 2020 bipartisan report The Senate Intelligence Committee also found that Russia had tried to help Trump’s 2016 campaign.
Fox News stated last month that former-CIA director John Brainon and former-FBI director James Comi Trump-Russia were under criminal investigation related to the investigation. Both have long denied any wrongdoing and accused Trump of abolishing the justice system.
Half of Trump’s first chairmanship was overshadled by an inquiry from his justice department as to whether he hatched a conspiracy with Russia to increase the 2016 result.
As a result, there was no evidence in Muller’s report that Trump or his campaign had coordinated with Kremlin, and no one was accused of such crimes.
The debate on Riagate was revived last week when an appendix was arrested for investigation by another justice department.
29 page John Durham’s interrogation from the special lawyer cited a March 2016 memorandum from an American intelligence source, saying Hillary Clinton had approved the plan to smear Trump as a Russian property.
Durham said “what is visible or the original to be original” is email that may be obtained from an employee associated with Russian intelligence, who may be obtained from an employee with a non-profit organization run by Liberal Donor George Soros.
One of the messages was sent by Leonard Benardo, Senior Vice President of the Open Society Foundation, Philanthropic hand of Soros. This clearly refers to Juliana Smith, a Clinton, Foreign Policy Advisor.
On 26 July 2016, it is written in the dated email: “Julie says it will be a long-term case to display Putin and Trump. Now it is good for a post-convention bounce. Later the FBI will put more oil in the fire.”
Nothing is illegal about a political spot, but Trump colleagues suggested email, if real, showed that the federal investigators could have been part of the plan. Durham, however, found no evidence of such an FBI conspiracy.
According to the Appendix, Benardo told Durham that “for the best of his remembrance” he did not draft email, although he noted that some of the few actions seemed to be down as he would have said.
The special lawyer also interviewed Smith, who said that he does not remember to receive such an email from Benardo.
Durham did not determine in his appendix as to whether emails were authentic, or if they were trapped by Russian spies.
His main 306-page report published in 2023 found that Trump’s campaign lacked “analytical rigidity” in the original FBI investigation and “raw, unpublished and uncontrolled intelligence”.
US officials found that the Russian medaling in 2016 included bot farms and democratic email hacking on social media, but they eventually concluded that the effect was probably limited and did not really change the election results.