Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Former FBI Official Red-Flags Troubling Lack of Activity at DOJ Regarding Hillary's Emails
PJ Media ^ | 2-2-16 | Debra Heine

Posted on 02/03/2016 3:42:25 AM PST by afraidfortherepublic

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:

1.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?

2.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?

3.Would the presidential campaign of an individual quality as an "extraordinary circumstance" in the context of special counsel regulations?

4.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?

5.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?


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; US: Arizona; US: New York
KEYWORDS: arizona; clinton; clintonemail; criminalconspiracy; crookedhillary; desantis; doj; emailscandal; fbi; hillary; hillaryclinton; jamescomey; lorettalynch; phoenix; thefixisin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 next last
To: Darksheare

If you were an FBI lifer, I think you would postpone referral to the DOJ
to a Republican President. Obama is not going to allow an indictment of Hillary Clinton

There will be no trial during an election year

One would hope there will be enough leaks to prevent a Hillary nomination.


21 posted on 02/03/2016 5:33:35 AM PST by bert ((K.E.; N.P.; GOPc;+12, 73, ....carson is the kinder gentler trump.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bert

“One would hope there will be enough leaks to prevent a Hillary nomination.”

Problem is, enough Americans are dumb enough to honestly and truly believe that there really IS a “vast right wing conspiracy” that somehow magically makes all these things happen.


22 posted on 02/03/2016 5:35:21 AM PST by Darksheare (Those who support liberal "Republicans" summarily support every action by same.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
You're right.

And when all is said and done, the media will play this as a Republucan "witch hunt" to Clinton's benefit, a la Ken Starr.

23 posted on 02/03/2016 5:36:02 AM PST by daler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: meatloaf

I would agree with your assessment, but for one overriding point: we’re dealing with the American electorate here.

While her “trial” in the court of public opinion will rage on for a couple more months, once the DOJ declination on indictment is announced, the public will view that as vindication and her approval levels will rise significantly as more voters come to regard her as a “survivor.”
Obama may be looking at a lose-lose, but his much greater loss would come if Hillary were indicted and began to implicate other members of the administration (and there are many) in an attempt to keep herself out of hot water. The current outrage, while heated at the moment, will dissipate as Americans resign themselves to the fact Hillary isn’t going away.

Obama — whose brain is wired to think of everything in political terms — has very likely weighed the pros and cons of whether to indict Hillary. As one whose primary objective is to keep his a** out of trouble in his final year, he will have AG Lynch delay any announcement of the non-indictment until the next manufactured crisis and quietly release the decision during a Friday night data dump.

The best evidence of all this is what I mentioned earlier... George Soros has poured $8 million into PACs supporting Hillary. There is no chance he would be parting with that kind of money on a candidate with even the slightest chance of dropping out due to criminal prosecution.

Much as we want her to fact justice, this simply isn’t going to happen. The most that will occur is some token criminal charge against a low-level underling. Our legal system is far too corrupt now for Hillary or her ilk to face the music.


24 posted on 02/03/2016 5:51:26 AM PST by ScottinVA (If you're not enraged...why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: vekzen
I don’t understand why the Republican presidential candidates are not making a bigger deal out of this.

Likely because they know it's all going to lead to a dead-end.

25 posted on 02/03/2016 5:53:20 AM PST by ScottinVA (If you're not enraged...why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA

fact=face


26 posted on 02/03/2016 5:54:34 AM PST by ScottinVA (If you're not enraged...why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
Former FBI Official Red-Flags Troubling Lack of Activity at DOJ Regarding Hillary's Emails

Delay and string it out past the election.

27 posted on 02/03/2016 5:55:09 AM PST by The Sons of Liberty (My Forefathers Would Be Shooting By Now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

DOJ is not acting because the whole top tier of our government is involved. The non secure server was offered up to foreign powers for money funneled to Clinton Fooundation and favors to the Obama administration. Obama is a treasonous SOB who may have directed the establishment of the open sertver, is directing no DOJ action and will pardon the whole cabal.


28 posted on 02/03/2016 6:01:34 AM PST by Lion Den Dan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lion Den Dan

If Sanders really wants to beat Hillary,he needs to attack the email issue.


29 posted on 02/03/2016 6:09:13 AM PST by Oldexpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

When does Bernie get his audience with the president?

Will be interesting to see if and how the leaks change following that meeting...

My guess is he gets told what he will get to step aside quietly when Biden breaks the white horse out of the corral.

What he may not be told is exactly when it all is going to happen.


30 posted on 02/03/2016 6:50:15 AM PST by BlueNgold (May I suggest a very nice 1788 Article V with your supper...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

Hillary is not the only one that should be looked at she was sending and receiving things from who knows how many people that should have known better. Did any other Obama appointees commit similar offenses? For all we know, Hillary could just be one of many. Is any of this type of behavior continuing in other Departments?


31 posted on 02/03/2016 7:03:13 AM PST by PghBaldy (12/14 - 930am -rampage begins... 12/15 - 1030am - Obama's advance team scouts photo-op locations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vekzen

If Hillary was a Republican the Democrats screaming would be endless. Seems to work for them.
Scooter Libby did jail time over nothing because of their constant drone.


32 posted on 02/03/2016 7:09:06 AM PST by sheana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Eddie01
Not to worry, Trey Gowdy’s got this. /s

Knowing 'ole dog Trey's on this gives me the warm fuzzes. /s

33 posted on 02/03/2016 7:21:30 AM PST by dearolddad (/i>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: sauropod

Read


34 posted on 02/03/2016 7:55:39 AM PST by sauropod (I am His and He is mine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sheana

The Valerie Plame business was the phoniest scandal that I can remember. Patrick Fitzgerald was out to bring down Dick Cheney and had to settle for Scooter Libby. But Libby didn’t have to go to prison—GWB spared him that (but he still had to pay a large fine...for the crime of remembering something differently than Tim Russert did).


35 posted on 02/03/2016 8:50:20 AM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ArtDodger

There is a body of legal opinion (certainly not unanimous) that she will be able to pardon herself after taking office in Jan 2017.

And of course there’s little likelihood the R Congress would impeach and convict her for it.


36 posted on 02/03/2016 8:53:05 AM PST by nascarnation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

Special Prosecutor needed!


37 posted on 02/03/2016 8:54:58 AM PST by TruthWillWin (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ryderann

Sounds plausible with this bunch.


38 posted on 02/03/2016 8:56:35 AM PST by b4its2late (A Liberal is a person who will give away everything he doesn't own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: teeman8r

Wow, I hadn’t thought of that.


39 posted on 02/03/2016 9:15:19 AM PST by AllAmericanGirl44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nascarnation

I thought those pardons were something that presidents only did on their last day in office.... If she isn’t indicted, if she is allowed to continue running for office, if she wins the presidency... she might as well pardon herself because The United States we grew up in will have totally ceased to exist..


40 posted on 02/03/2016 9:19:57 AM PST by ArtDodger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson