Mediaboss Marketing

The Second Circuit held in United States v. Allen, an appeal arising from the first U.S. prosecution in connection with the LIBOR manipulation scandal, that it violates a defendants Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to present an investigating grand or a trial jury with testimony that the defendant was compelled to give to foreign officials, regardless of whether the compelled testimony was presented directly or through another witness.

On July 19, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the conviction of two former London-based bankers, Anthony Allen and Anthony Conti, who were convicted in October 2015 on multiple counts of bank and wire fraud in connection with a scheme to manipulate the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR). See United States v. Allen, Crim. No. 16-939 (2d Cir. July 19, 2017). Witnesses for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) before both the grand and trial juries had been exposed to inculpatory testimony that the defendants were compelled to give against themselves by the UK government pursuant to UK law, and the Court of Appeals held that using that compelled testimony violated the defendants Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The Second Circuit further held that the DOJ failed to carry its heavy burden under the U.S. Supreme Courts decision in United States v. Kastigar, 406 U.S. 441 (1972), to show that the testimony introduced before the grand and trial juries did not derive from the defendants compelled testimony. Because the prosecution failed to carry its Kastigar burden, and using the compelled testimony was not harmless error, the Second Circuit reversed the convictions and dismissed the indictments.

Alleged LIBOR Manipulation

Allen and Conti worked at Coperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank B.A. (Rabobank), a Dutch bank. During the 2000s, Rabobank was one of 16 banks that submitted its borrowing rates for U.S. dollars and Japanese yen on a daily basis to the British Bankers Association (BBA), the entity that calculated the LIBOR. The LIBOR is a series of daily benchmark rates at which banks can borrow funds in various currencies for various time periods. For each currency for which it calculated the LIBOR, the BBA accepted rates the banks submitted, discarded certain high and low submissions, and averaged the remaining submissions. Many financial transactions, including interest rate swaps, are tied to the LIBOR on a particular date, and those transactions are either profitable or not depending on the LIBOR in the relevant currency for the relevant time period on the relevant date, called the fixing date.

Allen and Conti each had, at various times and with varying frequency, responsibility for Rabobanks rate submissions to the BBA. Neither Rabobank nor the UK government had any policies concerning the submission of rates used to derive the LIBOR. Like a number of other banks that submitted their borrowing rates to the BBA, Rabobank was a party to a large number of LIBOR-tied transactions.

The prosecutions evidence at trial, which the Court of Appeals reviewed in detail, showed that the defendants received requests from Rabobank traders who had taken LIBOR-tied positions in transactions that would either make or lose money for the bank depending on the LIBOR. The Court of Appeals wrote, The Governments theory of the case was that these trader requests were dictated by the traders (and thus Rabobanks) interest in having LIBOR be higher or lower on particular dates based on the transactions that the trader had entered or positions they held.

The defendants conceded that it was inappropriate to base Rabobanks LIBOR submissions on rates that would benefit Rabobank, rather than on market-based evidence of the range of reasonable rates that fairly represented the rate at which Rabobank could borrow in dollars or yen for various intervals on that day. The defendants position at trial was that, although they received requests from traders for higher or lower submissions to the BBA, they did not honor those requests.

Financial Conduct Authoritys Investigation and Aborted Prosecution

The UKs Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) worked in parallel with officials from the DOJ to investigate allegations of LIBOR manipulation and to interview individuals, including the defendants, in 2013. It was undisputed in the proceedings before the Court of Appeals that defendants Allen and Conti were compelled, on pain of imprisonment, to testify before the FCA. The FCA offered the defendants direct use immunity for their compelled testimony, but not derivative use immunity, according to the court. In other words, the FCA could not use the defendants statements against them at trial (i.e., no direct use), but could introduce evidence against them that it obtained based on their compelled statements (i.e., derivative use).

In contrast, when the DOJ seeks to compel a witness to testify over the witnesss invocation of his or her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, the immunity order that is entered confers both direct and derivative use immunity. To avoid having the DOJs LIBOR investigation tainted by compelled testimony, the DOJ and the FCA interrogated witnesses on different days, with the DOJ interviewing first.

The FCA and the DOJ also investigated a Rabobank employee with rate submission responsibilities, Paul Robson, whom the FCA later charged with criminal conduct for his role in manipulating the LIBOR. As part of its pre-trial process in the UK, the FCA disclosed to Robson the compelled testimony that Allen and Conti had given. The Second Circuit stated that Robson closely reviewed that testimony, annotating it and taking several pages of notes. The FCA later abandoned its prosecution of Robson, and the DOJ picked up where the FCA left off.

In April 2014, a grand jury in the Southern District of New York indicted Robson and two other individuals but not Allen and Conti charging them with wire fraud, among other things. Robson proffered, signed a cooperation agreement, and pled guilty in summer 2014. Although Robson did not testify before the grand jury, information he provided to the DOJ was presented to the grand jury through an FBI agent. The grand jury subsequently indicted Allen and Conti, charging them with wire and bank fraud charges.

Allen and Conti waived extradition and filed a motion under Kastigar to suppress Robsons testimony at trial. The trial court deferred the Kastigar hearing until after trial. Robson testified at trial, and the jury convicted the defendants on all charges.

At the post-trial Kastigar hearing, Robson explained that he had been exposed to the defendants compelled testimony before the FCA. The trial court found, however, that Robsons statement that he had independent knowledge of the facts he presented at trial (and that had been presented to the grand jury through an FBI agent) was an independent source within the meaning of Kastigar.

Court of Appeals Holds Fifth Amendment Self-Incrimination Privilege Applies to Foreign-Compelled Testimony

The Court of Appeals held that the Fifth Amendments privilege against self-incrimination requires that a defendants statement to a foreign government official be voluntary before it can be admitted in a U.S. trial. The Second Circuit emphasized repeatedly that the self-incrimination privilege is a personal trial right that is absolute. As a result, in the courts opinion, the self-incrimination privilege applies to bar the admission in U.S. trials of a defendants compelled statements to a foreign government official even when, as in this case, the foreign government official acted pursuant to the foreign nations legal process in obtaining those statements. In short, if a sovereign power compelled the defendant to testify under the cruel trilemma of self-accusation, perjury or contempt, the statement cannot be used in a U.S. court to indict the defendant or obtain a conviction. The Court of Appeals was unwilling to countenance the DOJs position in the case, which would remove all impediment to introducing the defendants foreign compelled testimony, as in, the court wrote, Your honor, we offer Government Exhibit 1, the defendants compelled testimony.

The Second Circuit considered misplaced the U.S. governments concern that a foreign government might attempt to sabotage U.S. prosecutions by compelling and then broadcasting a defendants testimony to potential witnesses. The court quoted a speech by former Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division Leslie Caldwell, who spoke of the DOJs efforts to coordinate with its counterparts abroad in investigating and prosecuting crime. The court noted that the DOJ was aware of its burden to avoid using compelled testimony as reflected by the interview scheduling system used in this case. The court also left open the possibility that there may be a different result if the foreign power appeared to be attempting to undermine a U.S. prosecution, noting that it would call into question whether the testimony obtained was really involuntary.

Having defined the defendants Fifth Amendment rights, the court concluded that the government violated their privilege against self-incrimination by introducing Robsons testimony at trial and to the grand jury through an FBI agent. Relying on Kastigar, the court explained that the privilege against self-incrimination applies not only to the testimony itself but to evidence derived from that testimony. The court noted that, when a defendant has been compelled to testify and is later prosecuted, the trial court will convene a hearing, a so-called Kastigar hearing, at which the prosecution must carry the heavy, albeit not insurmountable, burden that the evidence it will introduce was derived from legitimate independent sources. Typically, the prosecution meets this burden with canned testimony, that is, testimony the witness gave before he or she was tainted by exposure to the compelled testimony.

At the Kastigar hearing before the trial court in the Allen case, the exact opposite happened: Robson admitted that his testimony to the FCA was very different from the testimony he gave in the United States after reviewing the testimony of Allen and Conti. The Second Circuit held that the Kastigar hearing actually proved Robson had been tainted by the defendants compelled testimony to the FCA. The court concluded that the presentation of the tainted evidence to the grand and trial juries was not harmless, and it both vacated the conviction and dismissed the indictment against the defendants.

Implications

The Second Circuit explained that cross-border prosecutions are on the rise and observed that the DOJ is detailing its prosecutors to foreign investigators, including INTERPOL and the FCA. The court understood that, in the governments view, witness testimony is often the key to unraveling international financial crime. Although the court would not presume to know exactly what this brave new world of international criminal enforcement will entail, it was certain that these developments abroad need not affect the fairness of our trials at home.

Indeed, earlier this year, the DOJs Antitrust Division issued a Division Update, explaining that international cooperation on investigations of cartels was a top a priority and it was exploring bi-, tri- and multilateral agreements to foster greater international cooperation. Additionally, at a recent speech in Brazil, Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, Trevor N. McFadden stated that cooperation with our foreign partners has become a hallmark of our work and observed that reciprocity in information sharing is a vital tool in the modern prosecutors toolbox.

Indeed, recent settlements and investigations show that the DOJ is actively coordinating its efforts with the FCA and other foreign investigators. For example, earlier this year, State Street Corporation announced that it had reached a settlement with the DOJ concerning allegations it overcharged certain clients, an allegation first disclosed to the FCA in 2011. Also, in April, it was reported that the DOJ and the FCA are collaborating in an investigation into whether individuals at Barclays Bank engaged in civil or criminal misconduct in attempting to unmask a whistleblower. And the U.S. Attorneys Office for the Southern District of New York, the office that prosecuted Allen and Conti, announced late last year that it had charged several individuals with wire and securities fraud, identify theft and computer hacking following an investigation conducted in concert with Lahav 433, the cyber unit of the Israeli National Police, which, like the FCA, can legally compel witness testimony.

This international cooperation also is occurring among government regulators with civil remedies at their disposal. For example, when the SEC announced the filing of a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act complaint against executives at investment firm Och-Ziff Capital Management Group in January 2017, the SEC thanked the FCA and financial regulators in Guernsey, Jersey, Malta, Cyprus, Gibraltar and Switzerland for assisting in the investigation that led to the complaint.

Given the increase in cross-border investigations involving cooperation between U.S. and foreign law enforcement and regulatory authorities, practitioners representing defendants who have been interrogated abroad should investigate the possibility that compelled testimony was disseminated to witnesses the DOJ put before the grand jury or will call at trial. While the fact pattern in Allen is somewhat unique, there is a significant tactical advantage to identifying whether any witnesses were exposed to the compelled testimony and forcing the prosecution to carry its heavy burden under Kastigar of showing its evidence is untainted.

Excerpt from:
Fifth Amendment Prohibits Use of Compelled Foreign Testimony in US Criminal Trials - JD Supra (press release)

Since nothing improper happened between Donald Trumps campaign and the Russians, why is the president suddenly and loudly touting his power to pardon?

If theres really nothing there, wouldnt the whole world be better served if Trump vigorously got behind Special Counsel Robert Muellers investigation, invited Muellers staffers over to the West Wing for chats with anyone they chose, opened his tax files to them and declared not only does he not plan to have Mueller removed but also wishes him Godspeed toward completing the job?

But of course that cant happen because Trump does not have the capacity to see beyond his immediate impulses and has no fact-based sense of or regard for history.

If he did, surely he could figure out that an exoneration by Mueller or at least a closure without charges against anyone would have to be accepted by even Trumps severest critics.

Unless, of course, Trumps reflexive, transparent effort to cloud Muellers sparkling and bipartisan reputation succeeds even with those critics. In that case, the Russia thing would never go away.

Discouraging Muellers admirers is difficult, however. Last week, the spokesman for Trumps personal legal team, Mark Corallo, resigned partly because of his disgust with the Trump campaign to tarnish Mueller.

Like the anti-Mueller campaign, Trumps brandishing his power to pardon anyone even himself might reinforce his Superman self-image but also carries the seeds of his self-destruction.

Presidents can preemptively pardon anyone for any crime; thats what Gerald Ford did when he gave Richard Nixon a blanket pardon before any criminal charges were brought.

But a pardon can be a double-edged sword. If Trump were to preemptively pardon Donald Jr. or his daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner, for instance, Mueller then could not indict them but the pardons would not end the investigation. And, perhaps worse for all of the Trumps, Mueller could still subpoena the pardoned people and they could not invoke the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination because they would be unindictable. Neither could they refuse to answer questions from Congressional committees on Fifth Amendment grounds.

Thus Trumps distorted ethical construct and self-destructive impulses have reached another extreme place that most Americans could not have imagined and certainly do not need to be in.

Its become an ongoing civic horror story, a 24-hour cable television nightmare that tempts us to avert our eyes and turn off our consciences. But we must not do that.

Americas culture and spirit, and democracys future, are under siege by a man who thinks of the nation as a great big private company and believes that he owns it. As sole proprietor, he gets to establish the principles under which he operates and make up the rules governing others as he goes along.

The conventions and aspirations under which the country has operated for 250 years are irrelevant to him; the accumulated self-governing ethos that matured over those centuries dismissed; the inconvenient limits on abuse of power ignored.

This is not tolerable. Only Congress can do something about it. At the very least, it is time for a bipartisan group of leaders to tell him that it is not tolerable and make clear to him that he is not above the law by reminding him that they, not he, are the final judges of whether he remains on the throne he has imagined for himself.

Davis Merritt, Wichita journalist and writer, can be reached at dmerritt9@cox.net.

See the original post here:
Another Trump stride toward the cliff - The Garden City Telegram

The prosecution of two Rabobank traders from London, Anthony Allen and Anthony Conti, ran afoul of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Manhattan tossed out their convictions and, in a rare step, dismissed the indictment against them because the government used tainted testimony from its main witness.

The Financial Conduct Authority in England first started looking at Libor manipulation at Rabobank. Under British law, an individual working for a bank under investigation can be required to answer questions or face imprisonment for refusing to comply with the request. In exchange, the statements cannot be used directly against the person at a subsequent proceeding, although they can be used to develop new leads in a case

The British regulator dropped its investigation after Mr. Allen and Mr. Conti testified, and then prosecutors in the fraud section in the Justice Department took up the case, filing charges against the two men in 2014.

Mr. Allen and Mr. Conti were convicted after a trial on conspiracy and wire fraud charges involving their role in manipulating the submissions made by Rabobank that were used to set Libor. The governments theory was that they accommodated requests from the banks derivatives traders rather than making a good-faith estimate of the actual borrowing rate for that day. Evidence included a response to a traders request, I am fast turning into your Libor bitch!!! not a helpful comment.

Even with questionable messages, however, prosecutors needed a witness to explain what was taking place inside the bank and that the defendants knew they were acting improperly. That turned out to be Paul Robson, a co-worker subject of a Financial Conduct Authority enforcement action in Britain who also pleaded guilty in the United States for his role in the Libor manipulation.

Mr. Robson proved to be an effective witness, providing what the Second Circuit described as significant testimony against the two defendants, stating in court that the Libor submissions were nonsense and a charade.

The problem was that he carefully reviewed the defendants immunized statements to the Financial Conduct Authority and the appeals court found that the knowledge gained from them helped shape his testimony. It noted that Mr. Robsons own statement to the British authorities was toxic to the governments case because he later changed the description of the roles of Mr. Allen and Mr. Conti in setting Libor to reflect what they said.

The crucial legal issue was whether a grant of immunity by a foreign government in requiring testimony should be treated the same as if a witness received that protection from an American court. The Second Circuit was quite clear in its answer: The Fifth Amendments prohibition on the use of compelled testimony in American criminal proceedings applies even when a foreign sovereign has compelled the testimony.

The protection afforded under United States law is broader than in Britain, prohibiting any indirect use of an immunized statement to aid the prosecution. The Second Circuit concluded that Mr. Robsons testimony was tainted by what he read, even though prosecutors never introduced the statements in court.

Thus, any use of the statements against the defendants at their trial, like having a witness review it to assist in giving testimony, is a violation of their Fifth Amendment rights that can require reversal of a conviction. The cornerstone case for that proposition is United States v. North, a decision overturning the conviction of Oliver L. North because his immunized testimony before Congress in the Iran-contra hearings affected the recollection of a witness at his criminal trial.

The Second Circuit also dismissed the indictment because it found that the grand jury indirectly received Mr. Robsons views on the defendants involvement in manipulating Libor through the testimony of a F.B.I. agent, so the decision to indict the two men was also tainted by the immunized statements.

The appeals court had no sympathy for the governments complaint that applying the constitutional protection would make it more difficult to work with foreign governments to prosecute cases involving cross-border violations. The practical outcome of our holding today is that the risk of error in coordination falls on the U.S. government (should it seek to prosecute foreign individuals), rather than on the subjects and targets of cross-border investigations, the judges wrote.

Although prosecutors can seek a new indictment and a second trial, they may not use Mr. Robson or any other witness who might have reviewed the immunized statements made by Mr. Allen and Mr. Conti. That most likely means the case is over because there does not appear to be enough evidence, beyond some questionable messages, to show their intent to manipulate Libor submissions.

The decision will present a significant challenge to the Justice Department in pursuing fraud cases in which it works with foreign prosecutors and regulators to gather evidence. Many nations, especially in Europe, require those involved in the financial services sector to provide testimony during an investigation, and now any use of that power to gather evidence could make it more difficult to prove charges in the United States.

Prosecutors in this country are well aware of the potential pitfalls of prosecuting someone granted immunity because it requires showing that every piece of evidence to be used at trial is untainted by the immunized statements. Future investigations of international wrongdoing will have to avoid tripping the Fifth Amendment protection if a target is required to provide a statement.

The fallout from the Second Circuits decision is already being felt in the prosecution of two former Deutsche Bank traders accused of manipulating Libor. One of the defendants was compelled by the Financial Conduct Authority to testify and has asked that the court to scrutinize whether his statements have tainted the governments evidence.

Even if there are no Fifth Amendment issues, when the reliability of a crucial cooperating witness is open to question, the governments case can go straight down the drain.

The New York Times reported that the prosecution of two former JPMorgan Chase traders, Javier Martin-Artajo and Julien Grout, involved in transactions that culminated in 2012 in over $6 billion in losses for the bank, ended last Friday when the Justice Department announced it was dropping the case. Called a nolle prosequi motion, which means to be unwilling to pursue, prosecutors told the Federal District Court in Manhattan that Bruno Iksil, the major witness involved in the trades, who received the nickname London Whale for the outsize bets, was no longer a reliable witness.

Mr. Iksil created a website called London Whale Marionette to give his version of what happened, stating that this account looks quite different from the testimonies that I gave to the authorities. His admission that previous statements may not be accurate was certain to provide defense lawyers fodder for cross-examination to undermine his credibility if the case went to trial.

Whether that was ever going to happen was another question about the case. The Justice Department acknowledged in its motion that it was unable to extradite the two defendants from their home countries, Spain and France, so long as they stayed away from a nation that would send them to the United States.

Blaming Mr. Iksils commentary as the reason for dismissal could be a convenient face-saving means to drop a prosecution that was never going to reach the courtroom. The indictment of Mr. Martin-Artajo and Mr. Grout had languished since 2013, and the charges never reached anyone in JPMorgans senior management, despite Mr. Iksils claims that those well above him encouraged the risky trading. The bank paid out $920 million to settle multiple civil investigations of how it reported its losses.

The demise of the Libor and London Whale prosecutions shows how difficult it is for federal prosecutors to pursue charges in cases that reach across markets and involve defendants acting largely outside the United States.

One byproduct may be that the Justice Department will be more hesitant when it seeks to hold individuals responsible for misconduct by global financial companies, raising the prospect of even less accountability for corporate wrongdoing.

See the original post:
Libor and London Whale Cases Show Hurdles With Foreign Defendants - New York Times

O.J. Simpson will serve the remainder of his prison time in protected custody. Officials changed his status for safety reasons after a parole board voted unanimously last week to approve his release.

Simpson could walk out as soon as October 1, after serving nine years for armed robbery in Nevada.

65 Photos

From football fields to Hollywood to courtrooms, see O.J. through the years

In 1995, he was acquitted of the murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ron Goldman.

CBS News correspondent Jericka Duncan reports the case is still an open investigation for the Los Angeles Police Department.

A reported 13.5 million people tuned into Simpson's parole hearing last week. That's far fewer than the estimated 150 million people who watched his 1995 acquittal.

Still, it shows the O.J. obsession lives on, as well as the debate over who killed Nicole Brown and Goldman.

"I'd just like to get back to my family and friends and believe it or not, I do have some real friends," Simpson said in court last week.

It's unclear what life outside prison will look like for Simpson. But one thing is certain it'll be a world well acquainted with his past.

"People will always want to be a part of the O.J. case," Loyola Law School professor Laurie Levinson said. "They'll always be looking for evidence that the LAPD missed. That's because it's a mystery that to some has not been solved."

28 Photos

On October 3, 1995 "The Trial of the Century" ended with the acquittal of former football star O.J. Simpson for double-murder - Where are all the...

A string of TV films this past year reignited America's fascination with Simpson's acquittal.

"The word 'open' for an investigation can mean so many things," Levinson said. "It may simply mean that because O.J. was acquitted, and they've never found another murderer, there's no reason to shut it down."

Immediately following the 1995 verdict, Simpson vowed to find justice for his ex-wife in a statement read by his son, Jason: "I will pursue as my primary goal in life, the killer or killer who slaughtered Nicole and Mr. Goldman."

But no additional arrests were made. Simpson went on to release what was called a fictional account of the crime entitled, "If I did it." That book caused former Simpson trial juror Lionel Cryer to have a change of heart.

"The book was the turning point for me to go to the feeling that he probably did kill those people," Cryer said.

Simpson has repeatedly maintained his innocence. Last year, there appeared to be a possible break in the case when a knife was reportedly discovered on the property Simpson once owned. But the tip led nowhere, leaving the case largely where it was in the 1990s.

"O.J. cannot be tried again because of double jeopardy, but he certainly can be questioned," Levinson said. "In fact, he doesn't have Fifth Amendment protection anymore."

The LAPD wouldn't provide any additional details in the case. Legal experts say there are plenty of challenges that go with investigating a crime that is more than 20 years old. Among them, the fact that prosecutors are dealing with decades-old evidence and memories.

2017 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

View original post here:
Who killed Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman? - CBS News

In the dictionary, "hypocrisy" is defined as "the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform." It is also described as pretense or false virtue.

In the real world, it is defined as behaving like a Democrat.

That point is being proven this week as Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and other Republicans are dragged through the mud and paraded through "the swamp" while some Democrats are allowed to avoid testifying altogether.

Glenn Simpson, co-founder of Democratic opposition research firm Fusion GPS, refused to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week regarding what he knows about last summer's meeting involving the Trump family and a Russian lawyer. In fact, he now threatens that if called to testify he will invoke the Fifth Amendment.

In another example of justice delayed, Susan Rice, President Obama's national security adviser and ambassador to the United Nations, initially reportedly refused to testify, then delayed her testimony. It has now been revealed that she "quietly met behind closed doors Friday with Senate intelligence committee investigators." (Note that "quietly" was never an accommodation afforded to Kushner, nor Trump Jr.)

A woman thought to be at the center of the Democrats' "unmasking" scandal against Americans, Obama's United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power has also been wrangling with lawyers. She is expected to eventually testify, though no one can pinpoint if it will occur before the August recess or sometime later in the fall. (Hey, no rush.)

What's good for the GOP isn't always good for the gander. As Republicans have been willing to come forward and testify, Democrats continue to drag their feet.

Why the double standard?

It's how the Democratic playbook works in the "Russian collusion delusion."

Democrats are the party whose own consultant met with a Soviet-bloc government in an attempt to take down a political opponent, yet they're going after the president's family for a lesser offense (albeit a senseless one) that involved a 20-minute meeting after which no action was taken.

Democrats are the party that stood idly by as former President Bill Clinton gave a speech at the behest of a Russian bank for $500,000 while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sided with Russia on sanctions against the country on human rights abuses. Sure, no collusion or even a hint of impropriety there -- even though according to emails uncovered by Wikileaks, her own campaign was worried about the connection.

Democrats are the party that watched as Hillary Clinton also aided and abetted the Russian government to obtain one-fifth of the United States' uranium supply as Uranium One's chairman funneled a whopping $2.3 million to the Clinton Foundation.

And yes, it's the same party that still heralds the Clinton Foundation even though it was exposed numerous times for running a pay-for-play system out of the State Department to curry favor for donors including foreign donors who may have paid for Chelsea Clinton's wedding. But hey, we don't see members of the special counsel's office digging through Clinton's shoeboxes for wedding dress receipts.

Lastly, a new FBI document dump reveals that during last year's email investigation, after delaying as long as they could, Hillary Clinton's team handed over Blackberry phones that were missing SIM cards or Secure Digital (SD) cards. Not since Vince Foster's death have we been reminded so acutely that Washington is a dangerous town for hard drives.

Meanwhile, lawyers on a government-sponsored fishing expedition continue to comb through the emails, finances, and other information voluntarily provided by Trump Jr. and Kushner, while tens of thousands of Clinton's emails have already died and gone to BleachBit heaven.

Fair? Hardly.

Democrats' hypocrisy on the Hill exemplifies that they are the worst kind of swamp creatures ones who push others into the mud, then pretend they've never treaded in it themselves.

Jennifer Kerns (@JenKernsUSA) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. A GOP communications strategist, she served as spokeswoman for the California Republican Party, recalls in Colorado, and California's Prop. 8. Previously, she served as a writer for the 2016 U.S. presidential debates for Fox News.

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.

Read more here:
Hypocrisy on the Hill: Republicans testify while Democrats delay, deny - Washington Examiner