In a thought-provoking piece penned by Andrew C. McCarthy, the former prosecutor explains why Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe sums up the moral decay suffered by the Justice Department and FBI under former President Obama.
— Roger Kimball (@rogerkimball) November 11, 2017
Editor of the New Criterion, Roger Kimball, calls McCarthy’s piece a “brilliant evisceration.”
Former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York and National Review fellow Andrew C. McCarthy writes:
Mueller succeeded in convincing a federal judge to force an attorney for Manafort and Gates to provide grand-jury testimony against them. As Politico’s Josh Gerstein reports, just as the charges against these defendants were announced with great fanfare, the U.S. district court in Washington, D.C., quietly unsealed a ruling compelling the testimony of the lawyer — who, though not referred to by name in the decision, has been identified by CNN as Melissa Laurenza, a partner at the Akin Gump law firm.
Why do I think that, in choosing to set up shop in Washington, Mueller and his team noted the district court’s local rule that vests the chief judge with responsibility to “hear and determine all matters relating to proceedings before the grand jury”? (See here, Rule 57.14 at p. 168.) And why do I think that the Trump collusion case is not getting the kid-glove Clinton emails treatment?
Obama prejudiced the emails investigation. Long before it was formally ended, he publicly pronounced Clinton innocent. He theorized that she had not intended to harm the United States. Even if true, that fact would be irrelevant — it is not an element of the statutory offenses at issue, under which several military officials, who also had no intent to harm our country, have nevertheless been prosecuted. (It also had nothing to do with her quite intentional destruction of thousands of emails, many relating to government business — also a serious crime.)
As night follows day, the FBI and the Justice Department relied on Obama’s errant and self-interested rationale in dropping the case against Clinton and her accomplices. What did Obama’s subordinates do after he patently interfered in the investigation? Well, then-FBI director James Comey began drafting a statement exonerating Clinton months before the investigation ended — i.e., before over a dozen key witnesses, including Clinton herself, had been interviewed.
Click here to read the entire article.
Documents released in August show former FBI head James Comey exonerated Hillary Clinton before the investigation into her email conduct had concluded. Even more concerning is “Mr. Comey even circulated an early draft statement to select members of senior FBI leadership,” reports Townhall.
“According to the unredacted portions of the transcripts, it appears that in April or early May of 2016, Mr. Comey had already decided he would issue a statement exonerating Secretary Clinton. That was long before FBI agents finished their work. Mr. Comey even circulated an early draft statement to select members of senior FBI leadership. The outcome of an investigation should not be prejudged while FBI agents are still hard at work trying to gather the facts,” the letter, signed by Chairman Chuck Grassley and Committee member Lindsey Graham states. “Conclusion first, fact-gathering second—that’s no way to run an investigation. The FBI should be held to a higher standard than that, especially in a matter of such great public interest and controversy.”
As pointed out by Judicial Watch this week, the Justice Department is effectively challenging Comey’s testimony, where under oath, the former FBI director claimed he did not leak any classified information (or “government documents”) to the media.
The report contradicts Comey’s testimony to Congress back in June, when the embattled swamp creature told Senator Blunt that his memos about President Trump weren’t ‘government documents.
As The Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft previously reported, former FBI Assistant Director James Kallstrom believes Comey set out to protect the Clintons from the very begining of the email investigation.
James Kallstrom: This whole thing was a joke to begin with, this so-called investigation of Hillary Clinton… The fact that a grand jury was never empaneled would tell any investigator, I don’t care if you’ve only been on the job for a day, that this whole thing was not going to be legitimate. And it wasn’t. It was an absolute joke… It makes no sense and he makes no sense. He makes no sense. He was just a total embarrassment. He let the American people down by not looking at these crimes… The crimes would land a normal person in Leavenworth federal prison.
Via FOX Business Network: