Like we said earlier this month, the Hillary Clinton email scandal is far from over.
A few weeks ago, a former FBI agent who now acts as a law enforcement analyst for CNN wrote an article titled “It’s time to appoint a special prosecutor in Clinton email investigation.”
“But with all due haste, a special prosecutor needs to be appointed to the “closed” Hillary Rodham email investigation. I can hear the cacophony of howling now — Here we go again, yet another undeserved attack on the Clintons. Or, maybe this — Republicans just can’t leave it alone. She was exonerated by no less an authority than the former FBI Director!” writes James Gagliano for The Hill. “But in recent days, following the revelation that then FBI Director James B. Comey had already drafted an “exoneration speech” some two months before his infamous July 5 public statement, there has been a steadily building hue and cry from many corners that a special prosecutor needs to look into the case.”
Recently the bombshell was dropped that FBI Director James Comey had already drafted his “exoneration speech” for the Clinton investigation about two months prior to making his official public statement on July 5th. The fact that this is rather suspicious isn’t going unnoticed.
“Wow, looks like James Comey exonerated Hillary Clinton long before the investigation was ov3r and so much more. A rigged system,” tweeted Trump on September 1.
Gagliano also asks the same questions we have for over a year.
“On the heels of the inexplicable and unprecedented granting of head-scratching conditions to the Clinton team, came Comey’s decision not to charge, well before key witnesses were interviewed. Why?
Also, why were certain devices laden with evidence allowed to be destroyed?
And why were strict limiting parameters emplaced on the review period of the computer hard drives?” writes Gagliano for The Hill.
Then last week, the Judicial Watch, a group who has been on a mission to find out the truth about the Clinton email scandal, unearthed more incriminating emails.
“Judicial Watch today released 1,617 new pages of documents from the U.S. Department of State revealing numerous additional examples of classified information being transmitted through the unsecure, non-state.gov account of Huma Abedin, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, as well as many instances of Hillary Clinton donors receiving special favors from the State Department” wrote the Judicial Watch in a press release from September 14. “The documents included 97 email exchanges with Clinton not previously turned over to the State Department, bringing the known total to date to at least 627 emails that were not part of the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over, and further contradicting a statement by Clinton that, “as far as she knew,” all of her government emails had been turned over to department.”
Besides proving that Clinton mishandles classified information, the new documents prove that Clinton donors had received favors from the State Department while she was the Secretary of State.
“On July 14, 2009, Gordon Griffin, a XL Keystone lobbyist, sent an email to Clinton Foundation executive Doug Band, asking if Band could get him into a Council on Foreign Relations dinner at which Clinton was speaking. Band forwarded the email to Abedin, saying, “Can u get him in?” Abedin replied: “Yes will get him in.” Band was a top aide to President Bill Clinton and co-founder of Teneo. Griffin was a major donor to Hillary Clinton’s Senate and presidential campaigns….” cited the Judicial Watch as an example in the press release. “On September 11, 2009, Terrence Duffy, chairman of futures brokerage firm CME Group, a donor to the Clinton Foundation, asked Clinton to arrange “government appointments” for him in Singapore and Hong Kong. Clinton, using her HDR22@clintonmail.com address, forwarded the request to Abedin, “fyi.” Abedin responded to Duffy’s email, saying she would “follow up” with Duffy’s secretary, Joyce. Duffy gave $4,600 to Hillary’s 2008 presidential campaign; CME Group paid Hillary $225,000 for a speaking fee and has donated between $5,001 and 10,000 to the Clinton Foundation.”
But for some reason, the documents keep getting swept under the rug.
Some lawmakers are trying to make sure this doesn’t get overlooked. Back in July, two dozen House Republicans demanded a special counsel.
Then the revelation that Comey exonerated Clinton two months before she was interviewed for the probe has caused outrage among lawmakers.
“Conclusion first, fact-gathering second — that’s no way to run an investigation,” said Republican Senators Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham.
Gagliano points out what we know as facts– all of which make the case for special prosecutor.
“We know that President Obama put his finger on the scale which ultimately led to the issuance of “marching orders” to his FBI Director.
We know that Attorney General Lynch attempted to help cast the Democratic presidential candidate in a better light by the deft manipulation of semantics
And we know that Comey testified back in September 2016 that he made the ill-fated decision to go forward with the FBI position not to prosecute Clinton after her interview by the investigative team.
This, however, proved not to be the case, as we learned this past week, when it was disclosed that Comey had drafted a statement that cleared Clinton some two months before the investigation had reached its conclusion.
As any investigator or prosecutor worth their salt could tell you: We don’t reach conclusions until all the facts are in and have been fairly weighed and considered,” writes Gagliano for The Hill.
He ends the piece by asking why Clinton was “presumably treated differently than you or I would.”
Author’s note: Leaked documents proving how corrupt the Clinton camp is aside, Gagliano points out how Clinton was treated during this probe. She was given too many passes. It’s time to start a new investigation with fresh unbiased eyes.