Congress Announces ‘Unobstructed’ Criminal Probe Into Hillary Clinton
Jan 11, 2017 by MICHAEL DEPINTO
With all the reports coming out claiming that well funded far-left activist groups intend to incite the largest riots in U.S. history in the days leading up to and during Donald Trump’s inauguration, there is good reason for well-informed Americans to be feeling a bit on edge, or a bit anxious these days. We are living in uncertain times to say the least, and the country is heading into uncharted waters to be sure.
Until recently, there has been a lot of speculation about whether the investigations into Hillary Clinton would continue or not, but as you’re about to learn, House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, just announced that Congress is throttling forward with their investigation of Hillary & Co.
You may recall, shortly after his surprise victory, Donald Trump walked back his comments with regard to making an effort to “lock up Hillary,” but that is hardly the end of it. Anyone who watched the confirmation hearing of Senator Jeff Sessions for Attorney General today knows that: 1) Barring some bombshell revelation, Senator Jeff Sessions will be the next Attorney General, because Senate Democrats do not have the votes to block him; and 2) Sessions has every intention of following the law (aka passed legislation), whether he agrees with it personally or not. With that said, here is a list of the crimes Hillary Clinton and her team could be charged with right now:
- Money laundering
- Child exploitation
- Sex crimes with minors (children)
- Pay to play through Clinton Foundation
- Obstruction of justice
There’s absolutely no reason for Hillary Clinton to not be charged. One of the many mandates We the People elected Donald Trump on was the idea that he would hold Hillary Clinton accountable for her actions. Whether that happens or not, depends almost entirely on if President Obama decides to pardon Hillary Clinton. One thing is for sure, with only 10 days and counting, odds are that Hillary’s fingernails probably desperately need a manicure…
In the following video I discuss the recent announcement by Chaffetz, and then review some of the reasons why Obama might be inclined to pardon Hillary, and some of the reasons why he might not be. I also review whether Donald Trumphas any means of legal recourse if Obama does decide to pardon Hillary.
Republican investigators are vowing to pursue the criminal probe into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server and mishandling of classified information, with Jason Chaffetz warning that her election loss won’t grant her a get out of jail free card.
“This was never a political targeting in the beginning and just because there was a political election doesn’t mean it goes away,” House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, told reporters Monday. “There were a lot of other characters that were involved in this that we have to look at.”
Their review will encompass an array of figures, ranging from Clinton’s ousted team, including Huma Abedin, to incumbent leaders of the FBI.
“This was potentially one of the largest breaches of security in the history of the State Department,” he said. “It cannot and should never be repeated again. How is it that so much information was able to migrate out into the world? These are still open questions that we need to finish up so that they don’t happen again.“
Appetite for justice
Washington Examiner reports that Chaffetz wants to review the security clearances of Clinton aides who helped manage the “extremely careless” email process described by FBI Director James Comey. Chaffetz said he is inclined to hold Bryan Pagliano, a key Clinton IT aide, in contempt of Congress for flouting subpoenas last year. “You can’t just get a subpoena from Congress to testify and not show up,” he said.
The Utah Republican wants to target more senior officials, such as State Department Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy, in light of FBI suggestions that he tried to set up a “quid pro quo” with the FBIto suppress revelations that Clinton’s email server held classified information.
FBI leadership could also be a live target of the review, as Republicans are troubled that Va. Gov Terry McAuliffe, a longtime ally of the Clintons, made campaign donations to the wife of Andrew McCabe, the agency’s second-in-command. “I’m very concerned about the straight-up conflict of interest that Mr. McCabe had,” Chaffetz said. “That’s something we’ll continue to spend resources on.”
“Lock her up”
Trump regularly led “lock her up” chants on the campaign trail, but Chaffetz hinted that the collaboration might not be as automatic as the party registration of Trump and the lawmakers might suggest. “It depends how cooperative the administration is going to be. We’re going to work with [White House General Counsel Don] McGahn and [incoming] Attorney General Sessions and others to see what sort of documents and what sort of access we’re going to be allowed.“
Even if the White House does sign off, Chaffetz suggested that lower level State Department officials might hamper the probe. “We’re still dealing with the massive bureaucracy; changing the secretary of state doesn’t necessarily change the whole bureaucracy,” Chaffetz said. “I don’t want this to linger, but the reason we’re still talking about it now is because stuff that we’ve been asking for since 2010 still hasn’t arrived.”
Article posted with permission from The Last Great Stand
Andrew Napolitano: Why the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton is back to front and center
Jan 12, 2017 By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
The criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton is back front and center now that the FBI has released proof that her failure to safeguard state secrets caused the secrets to fall into the hands of foreign governments, some of which wish the United States ill.
Even though the case against her — which was closed and then reopened and then closed again — is old news and she obviously is no longer a candidate to become president of the United States and has been staying below the radar for the past two months, recent developments have regenerated the case.
Here is the back story.
On July 5, FBI Director James Comey announced publicly that the FBI would recommend against seeking an indictment of Clinton for espionage — the failure to safeguard state secrets that had been entrusted to her. He argued that though the case against her was strong — as secretary of state, she had been extremely careless with secrets; exposed hundreds of materials that were confidential, secret and top-secret; and used non-secure mobile devices while in the territory of hostile governments — no reasonable prosecutor would take the case.
Why was the decision of whether to prosecute Clinton left to Comey?
The FBI’s job is to gather evidence of federal crimes and to present that evidence to career prosecutors in the Department of Justice for evaluation. The FBI has numerous investigative tools available to it. One of those tools is presenting evidence to a grand jury and requesting subpoenas from it. Another is presenting evidence to a federal judge and requesting search warrants from the judge. A third is obtaining the indictment of someone who is in the inner circle of the person who is the true target of the investigation and then persuading that indicted person to become a government witness.
None of those tools was used in the Clinton case.
As well, a major interference with the case occurred when Attorney General Loretta Lynch agreed to meet privately with former President Bill Clinton. He was — and still is — also the subject of an FBI criminal investigation. Though both Lynch and Mr. Clinton denied talking about the investigations, the attorney general took herself and senior DOJ management off the Hillary Clinton case, leaving the FBI director with the authority to decide whether to prosecute. So based on Comey’s decision that no reasonable prosecutor would take the case against Mrs. Clinton, it was closed.
The case was briefly reopened 11 days before Election Day. The FBI announced it had stumbled upon a potential treasure-trove of emails contained in a laptop jointly owned and used by Hillary Clinton’s closest aide, Huma Abedin, and her husband, former Rep. Anthony Weiner. The FBI believed at the time that the laptop contained nearly every email Abedin had received from Clinton. Weiner was under investigation for various sexual crimes, and the FBI had obtained the laptop in its search for evidence against him.
Then, a week later, the FBI announced that it had found nothing among the 650,000 emails in the laptop that would cause it to reopen the Clinton case, and it closed the case a second time.
Donald Trump argued during the last weeks of the presidential election campaign that Clinton had exposed state secrets to hostile foreign governments. FBI agents who disagreed with their boss’s decision not to seek the indictment of Clinton made the same arguments. Clinton denied vehemently that she had caused any state secrets to pass into the hands of hostile foreign governments.
Then Trump was elected president of the United States.
Then Clinton left the public scene.
Then, last Sunday evening, during the NFL playoff game between the New York Giants and the Green Bay Packers, the FBI posted on its website more than 300 emails that Clinton had sent to an unnamed colleague not in the government — no doubt her adviser Sid Blumenthal — that had fallen into the hands of foreign powers. It turns out — and the Sunday night release proves this — that Blumenthal was hacked by intelligence agents from at least three foreign governments and that they obtained the emails Clinton had sent to him that contained state secrets. Sources believe that the hostile hackers were the Russians and the Chinese and the friendly hackers were the Israelis.
Last Sunday’s revelations make the case against Clinton far more serious than Comey presented it to be last summer. Indeed, Sen. Jeff Sessions, who has been nominated by Trump to be attorney general and who has been a harsh critic of Clinton’s, told the Senate Judiciary Committee this week that he would step aside from any further investigation of Clinton, thereby acknowledging that the investigation will probably be opened again.
One of the metrics that the DOJ examines in deciding whether to prosecute is an analysis of harm caused by the potential defendant. I have examined the newly released emails, and the state secrets have been whited out. Yet it is clear from the FBI analysis of them that real secrets were exposed by the nation’s chief diplomat — meaning she violated an agreement she signed right after she took office, in which she essentially promised that she would not do what she eventually did.
The essence of the American justice system is the rule of law. The rule of law means that no one is beneath the law’s protections or above its obligations.
Should Clinton skate free so the Trump administration can turn the page? Should the new DOJ be compassionate toward Clinton because of her humiliating election loss and likely retirement from public life? Of course not. She should be prosecuted as would anyone else who let loose secrets to our enemies and then lied about it.
Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel.