Earlier this month, Republican leaders from both houses of Congress gave the FBI a grilling they will never forget over failures to deliver full transparency in their investigation of former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton for leaking classified material from her private bathroom server.
In the House session, it became necessary for an FBI agent to be served with a subpoena in order to be compelled to turn over the relevant documents. In the Senate, the presiding chairman over the Judiciary Comity directly accused the FBI of breaking the law.
How did it come to this?
On July 5th, FBI director, James Comey announced that he was recommending that the DOJ refrain from seeking to press charges against presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, for her inability to prevent state secrets from being compromised during her tenure as Secretary of State.
Many people in Congress- and indeed people of all kinds all over the world- have had an abiding suspicion that there were motivations behind the decision not to prosecute that had less to do with the dictates of the law and more to do with a secret meeting between Bill Clinton and Attorney General, Loretta Lynch.
The evidence, which is compendious, that is known to the public concerning Hillary Clinton’s willful and careless treatment of classified documents would be enough to prosecute any citizen- except, apparently, Mrs. Clinton herself. The evidence that she lied under oath, saying she returned all of the emails that she took from the State Department was irrefutable and profound.
Then later, we learn that people who had worked under Clinton had been clearly and directly instructed to shred files, destroy computers and communications devices, and bleachbit, (a powerful digital doc shredding Linux based program) the emails stored on the servers. What’s worse, these cover-up maneuvers were done AFTER these same materials had been subpoenaed by two separate committees of the House of Representatives.
Nevertheless- the FBI, which has full knowledge of the existence and illegal destruction of all these documents and materials- and acknowledged that Clinton willfully fell short of her responsibility to deliver these documents and materials- has chosen not to prosecute Hillary Clinton.
Apparently, orders by federal judges, congressional subpoenas, and all the many very sticky provisions intended to secure state secrets when weighed altogether- carry less weight than a few nonchalant shrugs from the former first lady.
Nevertheless, the FBI- which had full knowledge of the destruction of materials after the issuance of the subpoena, and acknowledged that Clinton had willfully failed to return thousands on thousands of emails as directed by a federal judge- made the clear and public choice to ignore the masses of damning evidence against Clinton; which includes obstruction of justice, espionage, perjury, tampering with evidence, and misleading Congress.
In an apparent attempt to defend itself, the FBI subsequently released select portions of its work to the public. These glimpses into the jerkily halted investigation against Hillary Clinton, even in the tiny bits in which they come, seem to support the case against her.
Ordinarily, the FBI collects evidence and cooperates with federal prosecutors and grand juries to construct cases against suspects- and its recommendations to the prosecutors remain confidential.
Clinton’s case, as anyone can see, is different. The DOJ excused itself from the chain of command as directed by Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton, who infamously held a private meeting in her plane at a point in time when both Bill and Hillary were subject to an FBI investigation.
This left the FBI with the final authority on the case- and the freedom to drop the case, which is exactly what it did. This happened almost immediately after the blatantly illegal meeting between Mr. Clinton and Lynch.
It is difficult to believe the FBI was free to perform its investigatory function, and it seems obvious that the organization was somehow restrained by pressure from the White House at an early stage.
There were many abnormalities in the investigation. No grand jury convened; the FBI issued no subpoenas; nor did they serve any search warrants. Two witnesses claimed to have immunity, yet the prerequisite for immunity- testifying before a jury- never took place.
As so many members of Congress suspect that the FBI acted under duress, they have demanded to see the complete FBI files, not just the select, redacted parts that the FBI released. In the House oversight committee meeting, the FBI refused to surrender their complete files, and the agent sent to testify about them claimed ignorance and incompetence- just like Hillary did.
This led to a spectacular episode where a subpoena was issued to that FBI agent during his testimony. All this was captured live on CSPAN.
Now the FBI, which ordinarily does the subpoena serving, has been left with the choice of complying with the subpoena by producing its complete file or making an appeal to a federal judge that it should not be made to do so.
In the Senate, things became even more dramatic. In response to a petition from the Senate Judiciary, the FBI sent classified and unclassified material to the Senate’s safe room- (a secure location available only to senators and senior staff, who must surrender mobile devices and any writing materials and make a written oath not to reveal what they will see before they can be permitted to enter).
Sen. Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made a statement that the FBI is in violation of federal law by mixing classified and unclassified material inside the safe room- and by doing so- made it unlawful for senators to talk about the otherwise unclassified material they saw there.
Imposing such a burden of silence on senators over unclassified materials is unlawful and unconstitutional. What does the FBI have to hide? From where does the authority of the FBI to bar senators from commenting on unclassified materials come?
Anyone who believes that the government should take a keen interest in this little subterfuge does so from a conviction that the American people have a right to know what is being concealed by this legalistic trick on the part of the FBI.
This is an instance where the FBI has committed a crime under the auspices of the letter of the law. Sen. Grassley has expressed his opinion that if he had the authority to reveal what he saw in the safe room, he would do so immediately and that it would be of great and profound interest to the American voter.
So what, exactly is happening? How can the law be used so blatantly to subvert justice? The FBI’s investigation of Mrs. Clinton has not served the interest of the rule of law- a pillar of American freedom under the Constitution since the Civil War- mandates that all laws must be enforced equally. No single person is unworthy their protection, and no individual is above them.
This is a case where the FBI has willfully stood in the way of justice and it has done so in a way that very keenly emulates the very dishonest methods of the former first lady that they are scrambling to protect.
