To Give Up On the Justice System is to be Complicit in Hillary’s ‘Exoneration’

In this Nov. 6, 2016, file photo, then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks at a campaign rally in Cleveland, Ohio.

By Mike Huckabee Published on March 18, 2019

“Trump was investigated despite evidence of his innocence. Hillary was not properly investigated despite evidence of her guilt.”

So concluded investigative reporter John Solomon, as paraphrased by Dan Bongino. But we already knew it was true. Our suspicions that “the fix was in” have been confirmed. After three years of FBI and special counsel investigations, even before the upcoming release of the Mueller report, there is a vast amount of evidence to support our conclusion — anyone who has half a brain and isn’t in total denial can see it, if not admit it.

Mueller’s report won’t say it, of course, because the special counsel is a team of partisan prosecutors. Their report will resemble a trial summation in that there is no requirement that it contain any exculpatory evidence whatsoever. (In contrast, a FISA warrant does require the inclusion of exculpatory evidence, though Obama’s FBI didn’t bother mentioning it even when seeking to spy on the Trump campaign.)

And this special counsel report won’t deal with Hillary at all, as Hillary is conveniently “beyond the scope.” At least, we have reason to assume she is. The document outlining said “scope” has never been shared with us little people.

Ironically, the report’s one-sidedness, in the face of what we already know, will serve to underscore our conclusion about the “two-tiered” justice system.

We Can’t Give Up on Justice

But now that the unredacted testimony from FBI officials is finally coming out, courtesy of Georgia Rep. Doug Collins, and the intelligence sources tapped by the likes of John Solomon and Sara A. Carter are turning out to be spot-on correct, the reaction seems oddly ho-hum. I don’t mean odd for Democrats, who want to keep this information as far under the rug as they can sweep it. I mean for Republicans, because the blatant protection of Hillary has gone on for so long that many have essentially given up on the justice system.

We absolutely cannot allow it to happen. If we do, we’re complicit in the exoneration of Hillary Clinton and the political weaponization of the Justice Department against Trump.

If the general tone of my reader comments is any indication, the thinking generally goes like this: “Hillary and her cronies will never be brought to justice, and this tale just gets more and more complicated every day. So why should I waste my time? Pardon my cynicism, but why should I even care at this point?”

This is the very attitude Democrats are counting on going into 2020. They love to drag out a story for as long as possible and then say, “That’s old news!” During the Obama administration, that narrative was Ben Rhodes’ specialty. He was quite confident of his ability to accomplish his goal of furthering it. At some point along the way, it was no longer possible to utter the word “Benghazi” without being greeted with eye-rolls. (And, yes, I realize that Benghazi is one reason you are as cynical as you are now.) Whenever you hear media pundits and Democratic politicians say some version of “That’s old news — we need to move forward,” you can be sure they’ve got their brooms out and the rug lifted high above the floor.

We absolutely cannot allow it to happen. If we do, we’re complicit in the exoneration of Hillary Clinton and the political weaponization of the Justice Department against Trump.

Thank You, Doug Collins

Doug Collins is doing what Congress should have done long ago — taking matters into his own hands after getting fed up with the Justice Department redacting information simply for its own convenience, rather than for national security. With Democrats now in charge, Congress as a whole will not take action on this. But what’s really exasperating is that it didn’t when Republicans were in charge, either. (Of course, Republican members of Congress who tried to get information from the DOJ were stonewalled every step of the way.)

Something lit a fire under Rep. Collins, thank God. And now that Lindsay Graham chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, he promises to use his subpoena power to fill in the details and make the full case.

Collins has defied the Justice Department by going to the floor of Congress and inserting unredacted congressional testimony transcripts into the Congressional Record. As long as the testimony doesn’t damage our national security or violate the privacy of innocents caught up in this mess, it’s a brilliant move and I say, “Go for it.”

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

Later on, if there’s anything classified that President Trump sees the need to declassify, he has the authority to do that and add it to our wealth of knowledge.

John Solomon, in an outstanding piece in The Hill, outlines the huge scandal that such information would expose, confirming our suspicions of the FBI’s intentional misleading of the FISA court by withholding exculpatory evidence on Trump campaign associates George Papadopoulos and Carter Page.

Strzok’s Story

As it stands, in just one week, Rep. Collins has given us the unredacted closed-door testimony from Bruce Ohr, Lisa Page and now Peter Strzok — who was (incredibly) the lead FBI official in both the Hillary and Trump/Russia investigations and, later, worked on Mueller’s team.

As busy as Strzok surely was, it’s hard to know when he found time for such voluminous texting. Yet he’s best known for his many brazen anti-Trump texts with then-paramour Lisa Page, which were uncovered by IG Michael Horowitz and ultimately led to Strzok’s dismissal.

So what do we currently know that Strzok shared with the House Judiciary Committee last year behind closed doors? Well, we’ve learned that his versions of events and interpretations of certain texts were quite different from those of Lisa Page, who was surprisingly forthcoming in her testimony. And he insisted, ludicrously, that even though he texted in 2016 that he thought Hillary should win “100 million to zero,” his confidence in that happening did not color his investigative efforts.

We’ve also learned from Strzok that he was never even asked by the special counsel about the possible effect his political opinion, as reflected in his texts, might have had on his objectivity.

‘Fixing’ Hillary’s Case

It’s Obama’s Department of Justice, headed by Lynch, that needs to be taken apart and thoroughly investigated for “fixing” Hillary’s case.

On the other hand, we know through key testimony from Lisa Page that Strzok’s opinion hardly would have mattered one way or the other. Then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch had directed the FBI not to prosecute Hillary for “gross negligence” in handling classified material, though such mishandling is a violation of the Espionage Act. (Lynch said they couldn’t prove “intent” — though under the statute it isn’t necessary to prove intent, at least when prosecuting any of us mere mortals and even though Hillary most assuredly did intend to go around the law.)

It’s Obama’s Department of Justice, headed by Lynch, that needs to be taken apart and thoroughly investigated for “fixing” Hillary’s case. That is William Barr’s task as new AG, and Rep. Collins has confidence in him regarding accountability.

Thanks to Strzok’s testimony, we even know that because of a deal struck between Hillary’s attorneys and the Obama DOJ, the FBI didn’t have access to Clinton Foundation emails that might have helped them with their investigation (sorry — “investigation”). Who gets a deal like that? The details in the story from Jerry Dunleavy at the Washington Examiner are stunning.

And if you didn’t see it over the weekend, here’s the link we offered to the more detailed story from FOX News.

Releasing the Mueller Report

So, if transparency is so important now (and it is), why did Lindsay Graham block the Senate vote on releasing the entire Mueller report after the House approved the resolution 420-0?

According to Rep. Collins, the House vote was “a political stunt” to see if they could get some members of Congress to vote “against transparency.” It wasn’t necessary because it was for something that Bill Bar has said will be happening anyway, so there was no reason to vote against it.

In the Senate, Graham had made his support contingent upon including an amendment calling for a second special counsel — which we need — to investigate the FBI and DOJ’s behavior in “investigating” the Clinton email case. These votes don’t matter; we’re going to see the Mueller report.


Originally published at Reprinted with permission.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
To God be the Glory
James Robison
More from The Stream
Connect with Us