<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;" align="center">Like we said earlier this month, the Hillary Clinton email scandal is far from over.  ;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A few weeks ago, a former FBI agent who now acts as a law enforcement analyst for <em style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">CNN</em> wrote an article titled &#8220;It&#8217;s time to appoint a special prosecutor in Clinton email investigation.&#8221; ; ;</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">&ldquo;But with all due haste, a special prosecutor needs to be appointed to the &ldquo;closed&rdquo; ;Hillary Rodham email investigation. I can hear the cacophony of howling now &mdash; Here we go again, yet another undeserved attack on the Clintons. Or, maybe this &mdash; Republicans just can&rsquo;t leave it alone. She was exonerated by no less an authority than the former FBI Director!&rdquo; writes James Gagliano for <em style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Hill.</em> &ldquo;But in recent days, following the revelation that then FBI Director James B. Comey had already drafted an &ldquo;exoneration speech&rdquo; 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.&rdquo; ;</p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">Recently the bombshell was dropped that FBI Director James Comey had already drafted his &ldquo;exoneration speech&rdquo; 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&rsquo;t going unnoticed.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">&ldquo;Wow, looks like James Comey exonerated Hillary Clinton ;long before the investigation was ov3r and so much more. A rigged system,&rdquo; tweeted Trump on September 1.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Gagliano also asks the same questions we have for over a year.</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">&ldquo;On the heels of the inexplicable and unprecedented granting of head-scratching conditions to the Clinton team, came Comey&rsquo;s decision not to charge, well before key witnesses were interviewed. Why?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Also, why were certain devices laden with evidence allowed to be destroyed? ;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And why were strict limiting parameters emplaced on the review period of the computer hard drives?&rdquo; writes Gagliano for <em style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Hill. </em> ;</p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">&ldquo;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&rsquo;s deputy chief of staff, as well as many instances of Hillary Clinton donors receiving special favors from the State Department&rdquo; wrote the Judicial Watch in a <a href="http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-clinton-emails-uncovered-reveal-additional-mishandling-classified-information/?utm_source=t.co&;utm_medium=social&;utm_campaign=press%20release"><span style="color: windowtext; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">press release</span></a> from September 14. &ldquo;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, &ldquo;as far as she knew,&rdquo; all of her government emails had been turned over to department.&rdquo;</p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">&ldquo;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, &ldquo;Can u get him in?&rdquo; Abedin replied: &ldquo;Yes will get him in.&rdquo; Band was a top aide to President Bill Clinton and co-founder of ;Teneo. Griffin was a major donor to Hillary Clinton&rsquo;s Senate and presidential campaigns&hellip;.&rdquo; cited the Judicial Watch as an example in the press release. &ldquo;On September 11, 2009, Terrence Duffy, chairman of futures brokerage firm ;CME Group, a donor to the Clinton Foundation, asked Clinton to arrange &ldquo;government appointments&rdquo; for him in Singapore and Hong Kong. Clinton, using her ;HDR22@clintonmail.com ;address, forwarded the request to Abedin, &ldquo;fyi.&rdquo; Abedin responded to Duffy&rsquo;s email, saying she would &ldquo;follow up&rdquo; with Duffy&rsquo;s secretary, Joyce. Duffy gave ;$4,600 ;to Hillary&rsquo;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.&rdquo;</p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">But for some reason, the documents keep getting swept under the rug.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Some lawmakers are trying to make sure this doesn&rsquo;t get overlooked. Back in July, two dozen House Republicans demanded a special counsel.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Then the revelation that Comey exonerated Clinton two months before she was interviewed for the probe has caused outrage among lawmakers.  ;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">&ldquo;Conclusion first, fact-gathering second &mdash; that&rsquo;s no way to run an investigation,&rdquo; said Republican Senators Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham. <br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" /> <!--[endif]--></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Gagliano points out what we know as facts&ndash; all of which make the case for special prosecutor. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> ;</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> ;</span></p>
<blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">&ldquo;We know that President Obama put his finger on the scale which ultimately led to the issuance of &ldquo;marching orders&rdquo; to his FBI Director.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We know that Attorney General Lynch attempted to help cast the Democratic presidential candidate in a better light by the deft manipulation of semantics ;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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. ;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As any investigator or prosecutor worth their salt could tell you: We don&rsquo;t reach conclusions until all the facts are in and have been fairly weighed and considered,&rdquo; writes Gagliano for <em style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Hill.</em> ;</p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">He ends the piece by asking why Clinton was &ldquo;presumably treated differently than you or I would.&rdquo;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong>Author&rsquo;s note: </strong>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&rsquo;s time to start a new investigation with fresh unbiased eyes.</p>
<p> ;</p>