by Matthew Vadum
Will a Justice Department -- whose employees think she's a rock star -- take Hillary's possible prosecution seriously?
Employees of the U.S. Department of Justice have given so much money to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign this time around that critics justifiably doubt the agency can handle her private email server case fairly and impartially.
In what appears to be a super-sized potential conflict of interest, Clinton, a pathological, self-serving liar who doesn't mind if Americans die to further her political ambitions, has accepted almost $75,000 in campaign contributions in the current election cycle from employees at the Justice Department, the cabinet bureau that will eventually decide whether to prosecute the Benghazi bungler for her use of a hacker-friendly home-brew email server while top U.S. diplomat.
The server is at the heart of the scandal over Clinton's mishandling of an Islamic terrorist attack in militant-infested Benghazi, Libya on the 11th anniversary of 9/11 that left four Americans, including U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens, dead. Even now, almost four years after the assault, the Obama administration has failed to provide an autopsy report about Stevens who was initially reported to have been ritualistically sodomized before being murdered by Muslim terrorists.
The fact that Mrs. Clinton destroyed email evidence -- evidence subject to a congressional subpoena, no less -- is already evidence in itself that she obstructed justice through spoliation of evidence. Spoliation means you can take as evidence the fact that evidence has been destroyed. Courts are entitled to draw spoliation inferences and convict an accused person on that basis alone.
This heavy team support for Hillary Clinton within the Justice Department adds to the growing expectation that she will never face justice for her willful national security breaches while serving at the State Department. After all, these DoJ employees are making it clear through their donations that they in effect want to hire Clinton as their boss. Presumably they wouldn’t want to hire her and then send her to prison.
A new Washington Free Beacon review of 2016 presidential campaign contributions reveals just how popular Mrs. Clinton is with Justice Department employees.
Clinton received $73,437 from individuals who listed “Department of Justice” as their employer. Among the 228 contributions, 12 hit the $2,700 level, the maximum amount individuals are legally allowed to give. The $73,437 is a huge improvement over Clinton’s 2008 White House run when she received 23 donations adding up to just $15,930 from DoJ employees, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
In the current election cycle, Clinton rival Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has received 51 donations from DoJ employees adding up to $8,900. Businessman Donald Trump, now the presumptive GOP nominee, took in only two contributions from DoJ employees adding up to a meager $381.
Citizens United president David Bossie told the Washington Free Beacon he wants Attorney General Loretta Lynch, a hyper-partisan radical left-winger like her predecessor Eric Holder, to step back and appoint a special counsel to handle Clinton’s case.
“I’m not surprised in the least to see more evidence that shows the politicization of the Justice Department,” Bossie said. “How can Democrat political appointees fairly investigate someone who is about to become their nominee for president? That’s why last July I called on Attorney General Lynch to appoint an impartial special counsel to investigate the private Clinton email server.”
“Today, I renew my call that Attorney General Lynch must appoint a special counsel to determine if Hillary Clinton or her agents broke the law and compromised our national security,” he said. “This investigation needs to be conducted free of political influence once and for all.”
It's not like the DoJ has had a sterling reputation in the Obama era. From the Fast and Furious gun-running scandal to the gangsterish Operation Choke Point, the current DoJ is an extraordinarily politicized joke of an agency that goes after Obama's enemies while letting the administration's friends get away with crimes on a regular basis. The previous attorney general, the openly racist Eric Holder, barely escaped prosecution after Congress found him in contempt.
This is the same DoJ that helped to cover up ex-IRS official Lois Lerner’s unlawful targeting of conservative and Tea Party nonprofits.The agency refuses to investigate civil rights violations involving white victims and turns a blind eye to vote fraud. It sent radical taxpayer-funded community organizers to Sanford, Fla., and Ferguson, Mo., to foment civil unrest after Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown were killed by white men in self-defense. It works with dangerous Islamist front groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to smear Americans as "Islamophobic."
Under Obama, the Justice Department is skittish about treating criminals like criminals. The agency calls juvenile delinquents “justice-involved youth” to avoid hurting their feelings. Assistant Attorney General Karol Mason said last week that the bleeding hearts at the agency no longer refer to individuals as “felons” or “convicts” after they are released from prison because doing so makes it needlessly difficult for them to reestablish themselves in society.
Meanwhile, the FBI’s investigation, including an upcoming interview with Clinton about the emails, is reportedly ongoing. Adding to the high-stakes political drama, the Russian government is considering releasing a trove of Clinton’s emails that have come into its possession.
"There's a debate going on in the Kremlin right now between the Foreign Ministry and the Intelligence Services about whether they should release the 20,000 of Mrs. Clinton's emails that they have hacked into," Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano told Megyn Kelly on Monday.
And just days ago after it was discovered that the emails of Bryan Pagliano, the State Department tech staffer who ran Clinton server's, had gone missing, WND reports that U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan raised the prospect in a Freedom of Information Act case brought by Judicial Watch that it may be necessary for Clinton to be put through the deposition process.
The news prompted WND to cheekily refer to Clinton as "Deleter of the Free World" in a headline.
Of course, Obama administration officials at the highest levels were long aware of Clinton's cloak-and-dagger email infrastructure. The irretrievably corrupt Clintons created the system to frustrate Freedom of Information Act requesters, shield Hillary's correspondence from congressional scrutiny, and funnel oceans of money to the international cash-for-favors clearinghouse known as the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.
But getting Hillary in the prisoner's dock won't be easy. It may even be politically impossible.
Howard Krongard, who served as inspector general for the State Department from 2005 to 2008, predicted earlier this year that Clinton’s case would “never get to an indictment” even if the FBI referred her case to the DoJ for prosecution. He said the case would have to go through “four loyal Democratic women,” including Lynch, senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, and Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell, who runs DoJ’s criminal division.
None of this ought to suggest the case against Mrs. Clinton is weak. Actually, it would be difficult for it be stronger or more clear-cut.
Around the time of the attack Clinton lied about the facts and blamed U.S.-based Mark Basseley Youssef (formerly known as Nakoula Basseley Nakoula), the director of "Innocence of Muslims," an anti-Islam movie trailer on YouTube that almost nobody had seen. She claimed back then that the video inspired the sophisticated military-style operation that she claimed materialized spontaneously outside the facility which was in Islamist-held territory.
At the military ceremony that accompanied the repatriation of the body of Tyrone Woods, a retired Navy SEAL who perished fighting off Islamists in the 2012 attack, Clinton blamed all the death and mayhem of that awful day on Youssef, who ended up going to jail as a real-life political prisoner.
She promised the dead hero's grieving father, Charles Woods, that Youssef who was thousands of miles away from Benghazi at the time, would pay for whatever it was he had done.
“She came over … she talked with me. I gave her a hug and shook her hand and she did not appear to be one bit sincere at all and she mentioned about, ‘We’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video,’” Woods recounted to talk radio host Lars Larson. “That was the first time I even heard about anything like that.”
If there is any justice, Americans will hear about Hillary Clinton's outrageous scapegoating of an innocent man over and over again before Election Day.
Matthew Vadum, senior vice president at the investigative think tank Capital Research Center, is an award-winning investigative reporter and author of the book, "Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts Are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers."
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.