Posted on 05/25/2018 5:42:01 PM PDT by Magnatron
Hawaii isn’t the only place bracing for a major eruption at any time. Washington awaits the explosive release of a highly anticipated report from the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) on its examination of the FBI’s highly questionable investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server to handle her State Department emails when she was secretary of state.
The new OIG report, expected to be released within days, could unleash serious consequences for senior-level Justice Department and FBI officials who served during the Obama presidency.
Given the tools available to the OIG and the credibility of Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, the latest report could also uncover new and seriously damaging information about Clinton’s email practices, including her handling of classified information.
FBI Director James Comey (later fired by President Trump) criticized Clinton’s handling of emails in July 2016, while she was running for president against Donald Trump.
Comey said in a news conference that no reasonable prosecutor would file charges against Clinton for acting illegally – a controversial finding. But he stated: “Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”
Unlike Congress, the OIG has the cooperation at the Department of Justice to do an in-depth, full-scale investigation. The infighting between branches of government that we see in congressional investigations does not exist with OIG investigations because the OIG is still a part of the executive branch.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Clinton never “INTENDED” to break any law.
Actually the 3 FBI agents scheduled to be interviewed by House repubicans...
Including Lead Investigator in Clinton Email Probe Who Quit in Protest Over Sham Investigation
There is a Prosecutor. His last name is Huber.
“The IG report is our best shot at the truth about Hillary’s emails (and it could be explosive”
It ain’t going to be shit.
This “report” is being Tom Sawyered as we speak.
PanSuit committed crime all right. I only care about consequences. I only believe it when I see it. This IG I don’t read too much into it. He will say this or that happened. He has no authority to have Hilary hand cuffed and driven away. Literally no different from me or you here saying Hillary did this or Hillary did that
you will never see an ex president in prison nor the wife of one. It will NEVER EVER happen, don’t even get your hopes up.
Best shot? We lose.
“The DOJ won’t even let the IG look at Strzok’s personal phone/devices”
That part is incorrect. IG Horowitz was the one from DoJ who provided the Page Strzok messages to Congress.
Also, their is not A Prosecutor - there are more than one.
Senator Grassley demanded a Special Prosecutor in writing. AG Sessions replied to that on 29 March (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4426668-AG-Letter-Re-IG-and-Huber-Reviews.html).
AG Sessions said that a Special Counsel was not required in this case, because Senior Federal Prosecutors (note the plural) were already assigned for the matters that Grassley had referred (and more). Additionally, he said that US Attorney John Huber had been assigned to lead the effort - that he had successfully led Task Forces before.
“Senior Federal Prosecutors” are Congressionally confirmed US Attorneys, like John Huber, who each have the power to convene Grand Juries, among other major prosecutorial powers (subpoenas, search warrants, etc.). There are 93 of them in the USA. Each has a large staff, perhaps a few hundred Assistant US Attorneys (prosecutors) and a larger number of investigators and support personnel.
There has been an army of prosecutors looking into some of these issues, since at least prior to 13 November 2017 (as of another letter referenced in the one linked), but other indications make it likely that prosecutor(s) were assigned by August 2017, or earlier.
The only person exempt from prosecution is the current serving president, I.e. , Trump. They may not get jail, but they will be procecuted
The letter that you linked does NOT state what you claim. I’ve read it numerous times.
Please quote the part where it states Huber has been assigned to investigate anyone.
It does not say that.
.
Common sense tells you that if there was a Prosecutor, he/she would get th the expanded Investigation (Spygate).
Instead, Rosenstein gave it to the Impotent and Toothless IG.
This is the Lois Lerner strategy. IG referrals were ignored. McCabe referral ignored.
.
“The letter that you linked does NOT state what you claim. I’ve read it numerous times.
Please quote the part where it states Huber has been assigned to investigate anyone.”
The thing that seems to set many people off, is wording. Specifically, the statements to the effect that the assigned prosecutors will “make recommendations” rather than “investigate” or “prosecute”.
Please note: That wording does not EXCLUDE investigating or prosecuting. It is unwise, and unprofessional - counterproductive in fact - to announce an ongoing investigation.
As Sessions says in the letter “as you know, the Department of Justice cannot provide continuous updates on ongoing investigations, or confirm or deny the existence thereof”.
So he must avoid the word “investigation” or “investigate”.
Nonetheless, to answer the mail (about why no Special Counsel), AG Sessions must assure Sen. Grassley that his referrals are being pursued - no need for a Special Prosecutor, regular prosecutors can handle it. He says on page three: “I already have directed senior federal prosecutors to evaluate (can’t use the word investigate) certain issues previously raised by the committee.”
“Senior Federal Prosecutors” are Congressionally confirmed US Attorneys, like John Huber, who each have the power to convene Grand Juries, among other major prosecutorial powers (subpoenas, search warrants, etc.). There are 93 of them in the USA. Each has a large staff, perhaps a few hundred Assistant US Attorneys (prosecutors) and a larger number of investigators and support personnel.
Please Note: He used the the plural, when he said “I already have directed senior federal prosecutors”. There has been an Army of Prosecutors made available. Huber is just the Lead - he has been commended for his past leadership of “Task Forces”.
AG Sessions also states that the additional new matters Sen. Grassley requested to be investigated, were already “within the scope of his existing mandate” - indicating that Huber’s mandate (which is not public) was very broad.
I believe that the wording about “evaluating” and “recommending”, with a list of three options (repeated in two places), has to do with the subject of the letter - whether or not a Special counsel is needed.
His point is that they will consider the need for a Special Prosecutor for every single crime they look at. As indications of criminality emerge, they will assess each one to determine the best way to handle (investigate/prosecute) it.
Either:
1. Open a new investigation
2. Add it to an existing investigation
3. Or, We need a Special Prosecutor for this one.
Overall though, Sessions assures that every issue raised by Grassley’s earlier referrals (and more) is already being handled by DoJ prosecutors, such that no Special Prosecutor is appropriate.
US Attorneys have the inherent power to investigate and prosecute when they see evidence of crime - which is why they are considered Principal Officers under the Constitution, and must be confirmed by Congress. For Sessions to revoke or restrain a Congressionally confirmed US Attorney’s normal discretion to pursue/prosecute crimes when there is a credible predicate, would be a major obstruction of justice. I think that is an unlikely extreme measure, for which he could be legally liable (and have his honor besmirched, which has always been a big thing with him).
Once a crime comes to the attention of a US Attorney, they have a duty to prosecute it, unless there is a lawful reason to refrain (like disrupting another investigation, or lack of resources). By assigning US Attorneys to evaluate something, it is placed in the hands of the prosecutors, who should automatically investigate/prosecute wrongdoing - Sessions is demonstrating that he is not sitting on the info.
As an additional assurance, AG Sessions highlights that the DoJ IG is working on the matters referred by Grassley, and also the FISA applications.
He cites the law, which allows the IG to refer evidence of criminal activity directly to a US Attorney (DoJ regulations require it, in a timely manner, specifically precluding waiting until a final report). Sessions goes on to say that the US Attorney can then convene a Grand Jury or take other appropriate action. So there is an additional strong mechanism to bring any crimes to the attention of inherently empowered prosecutors.
Bottom Line: Sessions assured Grassley that ALL the issues he raised (and more) had been assigned to well qualified and well resourced investigative and prosecutorial professionals. Essentially, he confirmed a whole task force of prosecutors, led by Huber.
Sure, Huber could recommend new investigations, or a Special Prosecutor, but he is duty bound to investigate evidence of criminal activity (and there are mountains of it) - he has explicitly been given a specific non-geographic mandate. The IG would be professionally liable if he had not referred newly uncovered evidence in a timely manner, as it was discovered.
When the IG issues his report, Huber and his team will be responsible for having investigated and having prepared to prosecute those criminal activities contained within.
It is quite possible that the AG oversees the investigation, and coordinates several offices in a big investigation (like this task force), but it would be crossing the line to forbid/restrain investigation/prosecution without a legally valid purpose (like preventing disruption of another investigation).
We will probably see, after the IG Report is released. If the IG publicly says that he made criminal referrals, it will likely become public - i.e. criminal charges will be made by the prosecutors.
It won’t be much longer for the investigation into Hillary’s email server, which is the topic of this coming IG Report.
If it is determined that the investigation was inappropriately closed (pretty obvious), then part of the natural remedy would be to re-open that investigation. If so, I would expect that they have already begun investigating Hillary and those related to her e-mail server, and the mis-handling of classified material.
End of May is here... either it comes out next week or it is delayed a 4th or is it 5th time now??
It was supposed to be out in February!
I'll believe it when I see it.
The IG is an Obama appointee.
In addition, the ever helpful Jeff Sessions selected U.S. Attorney John Huber to assist the IG on the investigation of FBI misconduct and on issues related to Hillary Clinton.
John Huber was also appointed by Obama, then re-appointed by Trump, and then re-confirmed by every Democrat in the Senate.
The Inspector General or a second Special Prosecutor will be completely useless.
No Democrat is going to jail. Prosecuted? Maybe. Convicted by a Washington, D.C. jury? Never.
If the GOP loses the House in November, this investigation is over.
Trump needs to declassify and publicly release EVERY document related to this investigation - Today!
Let American voters decide who is corrupt, and who is not.
The next IG report (on the Hillary email server investigation) has been distributed to Principals (AG, DAG, FBI Director and Deputy) as well as subjects, to give them the ability to comment before publishing the report. These comments may be added to the report, but they don’t change the report - the report is finished.
The normal time frame for this step is 10-14 days, so we would expect the report to be delivered next week (29 May - 1 June), or maybe the following week.
Congress held off on publicly interviewing witnesses, and the IG himself back in January/February, till the IG investigation was done, but they have now started scheduling them for June.
So the release of the report will likely kick off more of the media coverage we saw around the time of “Release the Memo”. This time, it should also trigger some criminal charges.
It’s sad that it takes an IG report to uncover massive abuses by the Hussein regime. For years Congress either allowed the abuses or had show investigations designed to make it look like oversight of the executive branch.
Nobody was held to account for Fast & Furious, IRS Targeting, wire taps on journalists, corporate shakedowns that transferred settlement funds to progressive groups, and God knows what other abuses by the Hussein regime.
Many say Congress was afraid to hold the first “black” president accountable. I think Congress was in on the trashing of the rule of law.
Spit.
Just keep in mind that IG Horowitz gave soetoro an Holder a pass on Fast & Furious.
Thanks, I just hope you are right... I did not know what normal time frames were and appreciate you saying it. I assumed it would finally come out at some point... I have more faith in this IG report than Mueller, I will say that.
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.