A former assistant director of the FBI is voicing concern about the Justice Department’s lack of movement on the ongoing FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email arrangement which, according to sources, will be wrapping up soon. If Bureau leaks are to be believed, the results will show that Mrs. Clinton and her underlings flagrantly violated some of our most important laws — laws that are designed to protect national security. Anyone else would have been arrested by now.
Ron Hosko, who is today president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund (LELDF), said on Fox News over the weekend that the DOJ hasn’t shown any interest at all in the FBI probe, which is odd, because the investigation has reached the point where main Justice should be showing some definite signs of activity in the case.
The lack of DOJ activity and the Obama administration’s continued tendency to publicly prejudge the outcome of the ongoing investigation have some Republicans questioning whether the investigation is being handled in a fair and impartial manner. “My concern is we’re not hearing about the prosecutors’ support that the FBI would need to pursue this investigation vigorously,” Hosko said.
He explained that by now, there should be a prosecutor or prosecutors from a U.S. attorney’s office assigned to the case. A prosecutor would have the authority to issue federal grand jury subpoenas and compel witnesses to the grand jury to testify and would also be “having immunity discussions with people around Hillary who might have been complicit in the same scheme — offering immunity in exchange for their testimony. ” Hosko noted, “We’re not hearing enough of that.”
Asked by host Steve Doocy if the FBI is “stonewalling,” or perhaps “slow-rolling” possible prosecution, Hosko answered that he hadn’t heard the word “stonewalling” in regards to this case, but he was concerned about the “lack of activity” at the DOJ. He said that there is “a lack of comments from defense attorneys saying I’m representing staffer so-and-so, and we are seeking immunity for that staffer.”
Hosko concluded, “it suggests that the FBI is doing everything it can, without that legal authority that a grand jury subpoena gives you.”
Doocy wondered what would happen if [the FBI] were able to prove that a certain number of our agents out in the field were killed because they were exposed.
Hosko answered that he thought that information would change things dramatically, “because then you would see what the back end of a serious security lapse like this poses. I think that would change things in the White House. Now we’re hearing this kind of creeping admission coming out of the State Department, which has in the past completely defended Clinton. Now that’s starting to change,” Hosko said. “How complicit is the White House in this? How many emails did the White House — including the president himself — see? How vulnerable to they feel in this investigation? I think we’re going to see that change over time.”
Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) sent out a press release Monday asking the president to appoint a special prosecutor.
As evidence pointing to the mishandling of classified information mounts, it is critically important that the Department of Justice investigation into Secretary Clinton’s unsecured e-mail is conducted in a fair and impartial manner,” DeSantis said. “Yet, the Obama Administration’s continued public remarks prejudging the outcome of this ongoing investigation have called any pretense of impartiality into question. “
DeSantis continued, “Secretary Clinton should receive absolutely no special treatment from the Department of Justice and the decision to prosecute must not hinge on political considerations. It is beyond my understanding why the Department of Justice will not appoint a special counsel in order to resolve any potential impropriety that could taint this investigation.”
DeSantis asked the following questions:
- Attorney General Loretta Lynch was appointed United States Attorney in New York by President Bill Clinton in 1999. Does the Department of Justice consider this a conflict of interest in the context of a federal investigation involving President Clinton’s spouse?
- President Obama’s political appointees, including yourself, are being asked to impartially execute their respective duties as Department of Justice officials that may involve an investigation into the activities of the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. Does the Department of Justice consider this a conflict of interest?
- Would the presidential campaign of an individual quality as an “extraordinary circumstance” in the context of special counsel regulations?
- The letter stated that the authority to appoint a special counsel has “rarely been exercised.” Aren’t the current extraordinary circumstances involving the investigation of former Secretary of State Clinton’s private email server the precise reason the special counsel option exists?
- The letter stated that “any investigations related to this referral will be handled by law enforcement professionals and career attorneys.” That being said, will President Obama’s political appointees be privy to the decision to convene a grand jury, prosecute, or seek a federal indictment in this case?
I would make a couple more points that are probably apropos of nothing:
Does the name Kate Duval ring a bell? She was transferred to the State Department from the IRS — where she was in charge of Lois Lerner’s email productions. Last June it was confirmed that the IRS destroyed the tapes with Lois Lerner’s emails. Duval has been in charge of Hillary Clinton’s email productions at the State Department since last summer.
Obama didn’t nominate an official, Senate-confirmed inspector general to oversee the State Department until five months after Clinton had left office. Until then, the spot was held by a temporary “acting” inspector general who was more lap-dog than watch-dog.
Is the fix in?