Will We Ever See Justice?

Townhall is reporting the following today:

U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled on Thursday that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has 30 days to answer additional questions about her email scandal. The decision comes after Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit to obtain additional information from Clinton and Director of Information Resource Management of the Executive Secretariat John Bentel. The watchdog group also wanted top Clinton aides and State Department officials, including Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills’, deposition videos made public.

These are the two questions Mrs. Clinton will be required to answer:

1. Describe the creation of the clintonemail.com system, including who decided to create the system, the date it was decided to create the system, why it was created, who set it up, and when it became operational.

2. During your October 22, 2015 appearance before the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Benghazi, you testified that 90 to 95 percent of your emails “were in the State’s system” and “if they wanted to see them, they would certainly have been able to do so.” Identify the basis for this statement, including all facts on which you relied in support of the statement, how and when you became aware of these facts, and, if you were made aware of these facts by or through another person, identify the person who made you aware of these facts.

The treatment of Mrs. Clinton flies in the face of equal justice under the law. As anyone who has ever held a security clearance knows, you have to sign a paper saying that you understand the rules for handling classified material and that you will follow them. I don’t know if Mrs. Clinton signed that paper. I do know that she chose not to follow the rules about handling classified material. There should be some penalty for that behavior.

The Last To Know

It totally amazes me that the left-wing media believes that it has the right to classified information but does not believe that the American people have that right. One recent example is the FISA application to spy on Carter Page.

The Conservative Treehouse reported yesterday:

In preparation for explosive developments soon to reach critical mass CTH strongly urges everyone to think carefully about these recently discovered empirical truths:

#1) The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence had the full, unredacted, FISA application on Carter Page since March 17th, 2017.  Think carefully about that. Think about what every member of that committee has said since March 17, 2017.

#2) With the leak of the Top Secret FISA application, by James Wolfe to Ali Watkins, Buzzfeed, The Washington Post and New York Times have had the full, unredacted, FISA application in their possession since March 17th, 2017.  Again, think carefully about that.  Think about all of their reporting since March 17, 2017.

#3) As a direct consequence of #1 and #2 – The media have deliberately, and with specific intent, falsified their reporting and kept the truth hidden which would undermine their false reporting.  Again, think very carefully about the ramifications.

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has the reputation of being the most ‘deep state’ and leakiest committee in Congress. Their actions in this matter prove that reputation to be true.

The article further notes:

Lest we forget, the IG report on how the FBI handled the Clinton investigation revealed that dozens of FBI officials were actually taking bribes from the media for information:

IG REPORT – We identified numerous FBI employees, at all levels of the organization and with no official reason to be in contact with the media, who were nevertheless in frequent contact with reporters. Attached to this report as Attachments E and F are two link charts that reflect the volume of communications that we identified between FBI employees and media representatives in April/May and October 2016. We have profound concerns about the volume and extent of unauthorized media contacts by FBI personnel that we have uncovered during our review.

[…] We do not believe the problem is with the FBI’s policy, which we found to be clear and unambiguous. Rather, we concluded that these leaks highlight the need to change what appears to be a cultural attitude among many in the organization. (link to pdf – page Xii of executive summary

I strongly suggest that Peter Strzok is probably not the only person in the FBI who deserves to be fired.

Based On What?

Yesterday Mollie Hemingway posted an article at The Federalist about some recent statements by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.).

The article reports:

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) recently suggested the FBI did nothing wrong when it used at least one government informant to secretly collect information on Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. Public reports indicate, however, that Gowdy never even reviewed the relevant documents on the matter subpoenaed by Congress. In fact, a spokeswoman for Gowdy told The Federalist that the congressman doesn’t even know what documents and records were subpoenaed by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI).

So why did he make the statement he made? If he didn’t know what documents were subpoenaed and hadn’t seen them, what was he talking about?

The article continues:

According to government sources who leaked information to The New York Times and Washington Post, the subpoena dealt with an individual who was secretly gathering information on the Trump campaign on behalf of the federal government. Media outlets had reported government officials’ claims they couldn’t comply with the subpoena because revealing any details about the individual would cause loss of life and grave threats to national security. The same media outlets then used leaks from government officials to report the individual’s personally identifying information — up to and including his name.

Along with Gowdy, HPSCI Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) received a classified briefing on the subpoenaed information. Seven other members of Congress did as well. However, multiple press reports indicate the classified briefings reportedly did not satisfy the subpoena.

The story about the spy in the Trump campaign gets stranger by the day. If the FBI was not investigating the campaign, but was investigating attempts to infiltrate the campaign, why didn’t they tell Donald Trump what they were doing? What did they do with any information they gathered? It is particularly odd that they were the ones infiltrating the campaign. Were they also watching Hillary Clinton’s campaign for attempts to infiltrate the campaign?

The article concludes:

During the CBS News interview, co-host Gayle King asked Gowdy if he had received any blowback from GOP lawmakers for his comments about the FBI’s behavior regarding the informant. Gowdy responded oddly, invoking Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), neither of whom were invited to last week’s DOJ briefing.

“The folks who have seen the information I think have the same perspective I have,” Gowdy said, referring to Rubio and Cotton. “Those who have not seen the information, I don’t know what informs their perspective.”

Just as with Gowdy, there is no evidence either Rubio or Cotton has seen all the records HPSCI subpoenaed or even the subpoena HPSCI issued.

We don’t yet know the full story, but this looks like a giant cover-up of seriously illegal political activity by law enforcement agencies that are supposed to be politically neutral.

The Next Step

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal posted an editorial reporting that Congressman Frank Wolf of Virginia has written a letter to House Speaker John Boehner requesting the creation of a bipartisan committee to investigate what actually happened in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. CNS News reported yesterday that 143 House Republicans are now co-sponsoring a bill that would authorize a special committee to investigate Benghazi. So why don’t we have the committee?

The article at CNS News quotes the letter from Congressman Wolf to Speaker Boehner:

“Chairman Issa’s hearing yesterday was a positive step forward in the effort to investigate the administration for its apparent cover up of key information about the nature of the attack and its response,” Wolf told Boehner.  “I appreciate your leadership and that of the committees to advance the investigation to this point.

“However, the hearing also made clear that a thorough inquiry will require witnesses from across government–including the Defense Department, State Department, Intelligence Community, Justice Department and even the White House,” said Wolf. “Only a Select Committee would be able to bring the cross-jurisdictional expertise and subpoena authority to compel answers from these agencies.”

The hearings on Wednesday featured three whistleblowers who were willing to testify before the House committee. Ambassador Thomas Pickering and retired Admiral Mike Mullen, who chaired the State Department Accountability Review Board that conducted the administration’s internal investigation of the Benghazi attack, have refused to testify before the committee or even talk with the committee staff informally.  Unless a Select Committee is formed, the American public will never hear their side of the story.

The article in the Wall Street Journal concludes:

Mr. Boehner said on Thursday that the Administration should release its email communications on Benghazi, but it won’t do so unless they are subpoenaed. Frank Wolf, one of the House’s most senior Members, has it right. Benghazi’s explanation deserves the best effort elected officials can give it, and the right vehicle is a Select Committee with subpoena power and deposition authority.

It would be nice to live in a world where witnesses would come forward voluntarily, but right now we don’t live there. We need to take action to encourage witnesses to give their testimony publicly.

Enhanced by Zemanta