Connect with us

The Swamp

DOCUMENTS: Investigators Were Told DOJ ‘Not Willing to Charge’ Clinton in Email Probe

Justice was never going to be served in the Clinton email scandal.

Published

on

Fox News obtained documents late Wednesday showing that the Department of Justice told investigators in the Clinton email scandal that they were “not willing to charge” the twice-failed presidential candidate, despite obvious violations of the law.

“An internal chart prepared by federal investigators working on the so-called “Midyear Exam” probe into Hillary Clinton’s emails, exclusively reviewed by Fox News, contained the words ‘NOTE: DOJ not willing to charge this’ next to a key statute on the mishandling of classified information,” the Fox report said. “The notation appeared to contradict former FBI Director James Comey’s repeated claims that his team made its decision that Clinton should not face criminal charges independently.”

What exactly was the DOJ “not willing to charge” Clinton with?

Trending: Democrats Move to Ban Trump Supporters From Joining the Military and Holding Federal Jobs

Three particular statutes were mentioned in the Fox report – crimes related to willfully retaining national defense information that could harm the United States, crimes related to gross negligence in handling classified material, and crimes related to “retaining classified materials at an ‘unauthorized location.'”

take our poll - story continues below

POLL: Will Republican Senators vote to impeach Trump and ban him from running in 2024?

  • POLL: Will Republican Senators vote to impeach Trump and ban him from running in 2024? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

The document was called “Espionage Act Charges – Retention/Mishandling,” according to the report.

Wednesday, it was widely reported that disgraced former FBI lawyer Lisa Page revealed to the House Judiciary Committee that the Obama DOJ told the FBI not to charge Clinton in the email scandal in 2018 closed-door testimony.

BLP reported:

Disgraced former FBI agent Lisa Page sang like a canary when questioned under oath last summer, according to the the social media account of one of the members of the House Judiciary Committee who took part in her hearing before Congress.

“Lisa Page confirmed to me under oath that the FBI was ordered by the Obama DOJ not to consider charging Hillary Clinton for gross negligence in the handling of classified information,” said Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) on Twitter, attaching a transcript of the hearing.

“So let me if I can, I know I’m testing your memory,” the transcript said. “But when you say advice you got from the Department, you’re making it sound like it was the Department that told you: You’re not going to charge gross negligence because we’re the prosecutors and we’re telling you we’re not going to —”

Page interrupted him and said “That is correct.”

Selective justice is a hallmark of any authoritarian state.


Follow Peter D’Abrosca on Twitter: @pdabrosca

Like Peter D’Abrosca on Facebook: facebook.com/peterdabrosca

Preorder Peter D’Abrosca’s Book: Enemies: The Press vs. The American People”

The Swamp

What Happens If John Roberts Decides Not to Preside Over Trump’s Post-Presidency Impeachment Trial?

Trying to make sense of a messy situation.

Published

on

Several Republicans and Democrats familiar with the negotiations over Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial have said that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts does not want to preside.

A Politico report that broke the news reads as follows: “We’re hearing that Roberts, who for years has sought to keep the courts apolitical, was not happy he became a top target of the left during Trump’s first impeachment trial. ‘He wants no further part of this,’ one of our Hill sources says. A spokesperson for the chief justice declined to comment.”

As if it weren’t unprecedented enough for a president to have been impeached twice, Democratic lawmakers are hell-bent on holding an impeachment trial for a man who is no longer president. And it sounds like they’re going to get their wish: Senate leaders agreed Friday that the trial would begin Tuesday, February 9. It does not appear that Roberts’ decision is a factor either way.

This clown show needs some unpacking. First off, Roberts has very good reason to reject presiding over Trump’s impeachment trial. The Constitution states that the chief justice will preside when the president is tried. Not the ex-president, the current president. That alone should be sufficient.

take our poll - story continues below

POLL: Will Republican Senators vote to impeach Trump and ban him from running in 2024?

  • POLL: Will Republican Senators vote to impeach Trump and ban him from running in 2024? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Despite this, there may not be anything that expressly forbids Congress from impeaching and convicting former officials. Some legal experts have pointed out that “nothing in the text of the Constitution bars Congress from impeaching, convicting, and disqualifying former officials from holding future office.”

In light of all this, the radio silence of the Founders on this matter allows both sides to justify their support or opposition. Those in opposition say that because there’s nothing in the Constitution about trying a former president, there are no grounds to hold the trial. Those in support say that because there’s nothing in the Constitution about trying a former president, there is no legal reason to oppose the trial.

Furthermore, law professor Frank Bowman, speaking to the Washington Examiner, argued that if a trial is going to be held, it might be prudent for Roberts to preside.

“The vice president does have a personal interest in the outcome, insofar as conviction would eliminate Trump as a future political rival, either to President Biden or to Harris herself,” Bowman said. “I think the constitutionally safer call is that he should preside. That way, there can never be a later objection on the ground that the tribunal was not properly constituted.”

If Chief Justice Roberts decides to extricate himself from this mess, Democrats are said to be discussing the possibility of having Vice President Kamala Harris, who is also the president of the Senate, preside. Also being floated is president pro tempore and longest-serving senator Patrick Leahy.

Harris has a conflict of interest if she were to preside, however. And indeed that is why the Founders wanted the chief justice of a (theoretically) non-political entity of government to do so. Harris is not only of the opposite party and was on the ticket that defeated the Trump/Pence ticket, she might very well have aspirations for the presidency if Biden decides not to seek reelection. Trump himself may have his eye on the presidency once again as well, meaning that Harris would be presiding over the impeachment trial of a potential political opponent.

So if the legality of convicting an ex-president is gray, then it becomes a question of prudence. And prudence dictates that the impeachment trial should not proceed. The side that’s calling for “unity” is engaging in something fundamentally disunifying. Any attempt to convict a former president with no clear legal grounds is most definitely not a recipe for “unity” and “healing.” Our senators should just move on and worry about governing. Enough with the political shams and shenanigans.

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


Trending