The Hillary Clinton email investigation was a sham — here’s the proof
The FBI’s own document release proves it.
The Obama administration’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s handling of emails has been proven to be a sham and a joke.
To be clear, it is laudable that the FBI made notes from its investigation into Hillary’s emails public. That release of information is very helpful for the American people to assess Hillary’s honesty and competence in dealing with this controversy. The FBI notes have provided some interesting revelations about former secretary of state. This is what we learned about her:
(1) Hillary is an excellent liar.
She made believe during her questioning that she didn’t know or understand the markingson email that designate them as classified. She was the highest authority at the State Department and the one person in the whole institution who should have been the most militant in protecting classified information. As a former first lady, U.S. senator, and member of the president’s cabinet, it does not pass the laugh test that she did not know what a “classified” marking looked like.
(2) Hillary is setting somebody else up to take the fall.
Hillary claimed that she relied on staff to know what was classified. This puts one of her sycophantic staffers on the hook for prosecution.
(3) Hillary’s contractors deleted archived emails after Congress asked for them
Of course Hillary didn’t delete the emails herself; a hired contractor did. Some poor tech staffer is going under the Clinton for President campaign bus and we can all get ready for some career level State Department computer staffer to take the fall for Hillary’s incompetence and skirting of the law.
The smoking gun that proves that the fix was in from the start comes from one of Hillary’s hangers-on who has been provided a “Get out of Jail Free” card.
Cheryl Mills, Hillary Clinton’s “longtime confidant and chief-of-staff at the State Department,” according to National Review, should have been a witness, if not a subject of, the email investigation. Yet the DOJ allowed her to serve as one of Clinton’s personal lawyers for the case.
Andrew McCarthy at NRO also thought this jaw dropping:
Finally, something else about those lawyers. I nearly fell out of my chair upon reading the very first paragraph of the notes of Clinton’s interview, which identifies the lawyers for Clinton who were permitted to be present for the interview. Among them is Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s longtime confidant and chief-of-staff at the State Department.
Readers may recall that I suggested back in May that “the fix” was in in the investigation of the Clinton emails. The reason was that the Justice Department was allowing Cheryl Mills — a witness, if not a subject, of the investigation — to invoke attorney-client privilege on behalf of Mrs. Clinton in order to thwart the FBI’s attempt to inquire into the procedure used to produce Clinton’s emails to the State Department. Mills was a participant in that procedure — and it is the procedure in which, we now know, well over 30,000 emails were attempted to be destroyed, including several thousand that contained government-related business.
Just like the FBI, the DOJ has two sets of laws — one for the Clintons and one for everyone else. The agency knew that the attorney-client privilege that would be gained as a result of Mills’ position would prove instrumental in judicially forging Clinton’s innocence while protecting the staffer from investigation.
In public corruption cases, DOJ procedures are clear: pressure the lowest staffers in the office and work your way up to the highest. As we have seen in investigations of congressional offices, when a member of Congress is a target, the staff is pressured to testify against the member through different tactics including threats of indictment, promises of reduce sentences if they cooperate, and indictment.
In the Hillary email case, if the DOJ had used standard operating procedure, Huma Abedin would have been indicted or forced to plea in return for cooperating with the government in testifying against Mills and Hillary. In turn, Mills would have been a target for the government. Both would have then been a vice to force Hillary to accept responsibility for her actions. Instead, they effectively granted immunity to Mills by allowing her to serve as counsel to Hillary. There is also no evidence that Abedin was never a real target of the investigation.
Look at the prosecution of lobbyist Jack Abramoff as a case study in how the government can leverage a prosecution even when they don’t have a great case. Kevin Ring, a former Hill staffer and lobbyist who was close to then Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA), was pressed to testify against the California member of Congress. Ring refused, denying that Doolittle did anything wrong. In return the DOJ tried to sentence Ring to 20 years in jail for providing basketball tickets and other trinkets to congressional staff. That offense against the populace pales in comparison to the allegation that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her staff repeatedly put national security at risk. Instead of dismissing the Ring case as proof that the DOJ had a vendetta against those who refuse to play their game, the judge sentenced Ring to 18 months in prison.
There are different ways government attorneys can apply pressure on defendants. Those tactics range from running the clock on expensive lawyers (essentially bleeding defendants and witnesses to financial ruin) and even threatening family members with prosecution. Statistics show that defendants on the federal level plead guilty in more than 97 percent of cases — not necessarily because of guilt (particularly in white collar crime cases), but because of a simple risk versus reward analysis. None of these tactics were used in the Clinton case, yet further evidence that the fix was in.
Typically, the DOJ always finds a way to make its case. If they want you, they typically get you. Like in all of the other high-profile political cases that proceeded it, the Justice Department could have easily prosecuted Hillary if it wished to do so. However, it’s painfully clear that this wasn’t even a topic of discussion at the DOJ — the email investigation was a case-in-name-only.
If the Hillary Clinton email investigation had any of the hallmarks of a real criminal investigation, we would have seen Huma Abedin’s indictment or plea early in the process. She in turn would have been used to pressure Hillary Clinton’s Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills to plead guilty. Both would have been used to testify against Clinton if she failed to accept responsibility for her actions.
Instead, Abedin never appeared to be under any legal jeopardy and the government allowed Cheryl Mills, Hillary Clinton’s consigliere and government employee, to serve as one of Clinton’s personal lawyers in the email investigation. That simple decision went unreported and unnoticed, yet it is perhaps the most significant evidence that DOJ would refuse to prosecute Clinton for the email scandal.
Allowing Mills to serve as counsel was extraordinary and outrageous. Instead of being a witness against Clinton — a textbook move for most DOJ prosecutors — she was provided inside information by the government which she probably passed on to her client, all while discussing the case between lawyers serving as Bryan Pagliano’s counsel as well as other key players. Pagliano was the person who was hired, perhaps by Mills herself, to set up the homebrew Internet server. Instead of Mills being a sword for the prosecution, the DOJ forged Mills into a shield for the defense.
All told, the fix was in and the release of Clinton’s interview with the FBI proves it.
Source: The Hillary Clinton email investigation was a sham — here’s the proof
