Det er lidt af en sump, der trænger til at blive drænet i det amerikanske forbundspoliti FBI. I sidste uge blev en New York baseret sagfører nægtet aktindsigt i dokumenter vedrørende FBIs efterforskning af Hillary Clinton og hendes email-vaner, skriver Fox News. Sagføreren henviste til The Freedom of Information Act, men FBI gav afslag med begrundelsen, at Hillarys sag ikke havde nok interesse for offentligheden. Jep, Præsident Donald Trumps valgkampssejrende ‘Lock her up!’ er ikke udtryk for offentlighedens interesse i Hillary Clintons forhold til straffeloven. En underskriftindsamling blev hurtigt startet for at dokumentere en form for folkelig interesse.

FBIs afsindige begrundelse for afslag er selvfølgelig et sygdomstegn. Forleden kom det frem, at den tidligere direktør Richard Comey, som Trump fyrede under stort drama, allerede inden efterforskningen af Hillary Clinton var færdiggjort, havde konkluderet at der ikke skulle rejses tiltale imod hende. Og som Daniel John Sobieski skriver i American Thinker

Now we know why the FBI made the absurd claim that it would not release its files on the Hillary Clinton email investigation for alleged lack of public interest. The FBI was covering up its obstruction of justice in the, er, “matter” knowing full well that former Director James Comey had already exonerated Hillary Clinton before the alleged investigation was complete and all witnesses had been interviewed and months before Comey falsely claimed in his announcement that no competent prosecutor would take Hillary’s case.

In withholding the files sought under Freedom of Information Act requests, the FBI forgot that it and former Secretary of State Clinton are and were employees of the American taxpayer, taxpayers who have a right to know whether justice is being served or denied.

(…)

As even Comey admitted, Hillary lied about sending and receiving classified material, about having only one device, and about turning over all her emails. If intent is needed, what is accidental about smashing devices with hammers or using Bleach Bit to render emails unrecoverable?  If you need a motive for having a private server, which speaks to intent, the obvious purpose is to cover up the “pay to play” trail that leads from the State Department to the Clinton Foundation.

Hillary Clinton should be prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned for her crimes. And if anyone is guilty of obstruction of justice, it is not President Trump, but the finger-pointing leaker and liar, James Comey.

Men, som Andrew C McCarthy fortæller i National Review, så er Comeys præmature beslutning om at anbefale daværende justitsminister Loretta Lynch ikke at rejse tiltale mod Hillary Clinton, ikke nogen nyhed. To måneder inden Comey offentligt argumenterede for, at Hillary Clinton ikke burde retsforfølges for sin kriminelt skødesløse omgang med fortroligt materiale, da hun ikke gjorde det med vilje, havde daværende “President Obama publicly stated that Hillary Clinton had shown “carelessness” in using a private e-mail server to handle classified information, but he insisted that she had not intended to endanger national security (which is not an element of the [criminal statutes relevant to her e-mail scandal]).”

As we also now know – but as Obama knew at the time – the president himself had communicated with Clinton over her non-secure, private communications system, using an alias. The Obama administration refused to disclose these several e-mail exchanges because they undoubtedly involve classified conversations between the president and his secretary of state. It would not have been possible to prosecute Mrs. Clinton for mishandling classified information without its being clear that President Obama had engaged in the same conduct. The administration was never, ever going to allow that to happen.

What else was going on in May 2016, while Comey was drafting his findings (even though several of the things he would purportedly “base” them on hadn’t actually happened yet)? Well, as I explained in real time (in a column entitled “Clinton E-mails: Is the Fix In?”), the Obama Justice Department was leaking to the Washington Post that Clinton probably would not be charged – and that her top aide, Cheryl Mills, was considered a cooperating witness rather than a coconspirator.

Why? Well, I know you’ll be shocked to hear this, but it turns out the Obama Justice Department had fully adopted the theory of the case announced by President Obama in April. The Post explained that, according to its sources inside the investigation, there was “scant evidence tying Clinton to criminal wrongdoing” because there was “scant evidence that Clinton had malicious intent in [the] handling of e-mails” (emphasis added). Like Obama, the Post and its sources neglected to mention that Mrs. Clinton’s felonies did not require proof of “malicious intent” or any purpose to harm the United States – just that she willfully transmitted classified information, was grossly negligent in handling it, and withheld or destroyed government records.

(…)

This was the start of a series of Justice Department shenanigans we would come to learn about: Cutting off key areas of inquiry; cutting inexplicable immunity deals; declining to use the grand jury to compel evidence; agreeing to limit searches of computers (in order to miss key time-frames when obstruction occurred); agreeing to destroy physical evidence (laptop computers); failing to charge and squeeze witnesses who made patently false statements; allowing subjects of the investigation to act as lawyers for other subjects of the investigation (in order to promote the charade that some evidence was off-limits due to the attorney-client privilege); and so on. There is a way – a notoriously aggressive way – that the Justice Department and FBI go about their business when they are trying to make a case. Here, they were trying to unmake a case.

Mark Levin raser herunder:

Drokles blogger på www.monokultur.dk