A Changing Investigative Landscape

Written by Micah Morrison, Chief Investigative Reporter at Judicial Watch, 11-9-16:


Once all the liberals stop foaming at the mouth and having meltdowns, they may start to ponder if Trump will continue the investigations into Hillary’s corruption or if he’ll leave it be. Here are a couple of investigations that could be pursued and possibly come to an end during his presidency.

~ ~ ~

The Emailiad. Homeric in scope, the saga of HRC’s emails is one for the history books, with a major impact on the presidential race. Seemingly every important player in Clinton World appeared in the emails. They are the thread connecting many controversies—the Clinton Foundation and it satellites, Teneo Holdings, cybersecurity and penetration of servers, relations with foreign governments, payments to various Clintons and Clinton entities, suspicions of quid pro quos, big money players, Wikileaks mischief, the Russians.

The Republican Congress is likely not finished with email investigations, though the media will soon lose interest, dazzled by all the bright shiny objects of the new Trump Administration. The courts will continue to play an important role in the fight for transparency in the emails case. Lawsuits from Judicial Watch and others will continue to produce documents.

Thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of emails may yet emerge—recall that the FBI recovered about 15,000 pages of records related to Mrs. Clinton’s “deleted, personal” emails and turned them over to the State Department, which has yet to release them. (Read about Judicial Watch’s latest legal moves in the case here.) Recall, too, that Mrs. Clinton said there were about 30,000 of those deleted, personal emails. Plus thousands of possibly relevant emails from the Anthony Weiner computer. Plus a flow of illicitly obtained emails from Wikileaks.

How will the nascent Trump White House handle the email caper? Its actions will say a lot about whether the administration will continue the smash mouth tactics of the campaign or adopt a new approach.


Comey Agonistes. The emails case will continue to give FBI Director James Comey a rough ride as well. Comey, of course, famously blew up the presidential contest with a vaguely worded letter announcing the discovery of new emails related to Mrs. Clinton and then cleared her nine days later, on the eve of the election. Critics on both sides of the aisle are calling for his head. Hearings will ensue. Comey will be called to the inquisition and Congress will seek testimony from FBI field agents and supervisors.

Comey has been battered by news reports of turmoil within the FBI over investigations of the Clintons. Rumors flew earlier this year that an indictment of Mrs. Clinton was imminent. The story du jour is that elements within the FBI are closing in on the Clinton Foundation, or the Clinton finances, or generalized Clinton corruption—were it not for the perfidy of Comey and Attorney General Loretta Lynch. FBI field agents and supervisors—particularly in the powerful New York field office—are said to be up in arms, handing in their resignations. The independence of the FBI has collapsed.

Don’t believe it. FBI agents are by nature an aggressive bunch—chasing leads, questioning suspects, pushing for warrants and wire taps—and butting heads with cautious superiors. The tensions between agents who make the criminal case and prosecutors who make the legal call are as old as the FBI itself. Into the mix this election year went the natural conservatism of many in law enforcement, who trended Trump. In fact, the source for many of the breathless FBI stories of the past year appears to be one Rudolph Giuliani, Trump adviser and longtime counsel to the influential FBI Agents Association. But Giuliani seems to have not spoken to a single agent active on the Clinton case, only retired agents—a cohort rarely shy about forcefully advancing an argument, whether in possession of the facts or not.

In other words, much of the media chatter about the FBI was election year nonsense. But now, a real challenge looms. Will Trump & Co.—possibly with Giuliani as attorney general—move to put their own person at the helm of the FBI? The political costs of firing the head of the FBI are often said to be colossal, but Trump has repeatedly defied the conventional wisdom.


Let’s assume for a moment that the Trump administration chooses to pursue these investigations, hopefully with Trey Gowdy as AG instead of Giuliani. How will it be perceived?

Conservatives will see him as pursuing justice and approve of the continuance of both investigations. She did illegal things that profited her, her husband and their foundation. She jeopardized our nation’s security when she by-passed the government email system in favor of her own home-brew system, not to mention the billions of dollars and the weapons she ‘misplaced’ as Secretary of State. Numerous pre-election polls show that was very concerning for many voters, including democrats, and as we’ve seen from the elections results, that made a big difference to voters. They will want to see justice done, but considering her age, will go soft on the punishment phase.

On the other hand, the liberal democrats, particularly the ones in the press, will fry him for going after an old grandma with failing health that’s already lost the biggest prize she ever sought. They will say that Trump and those radical right-wingers aren’t satisfied with her defeat and they’re out for blood.

In the last debate Trump said if he were in charge of things she’d be in jail, but after his kind words for her in his speech last night, it’s anybody’s guess. My guess is he drops it in pursuit of other business. What do you think he’ll do?


Categories: Political

Tags: , ,

2 replies

  1. The principle that “No One Is Above the Law” must be cemented.

    I would suggest a Special Prosecutor for Hillary to get a quick admission and plea bargain deal, which Trump would then magnanimously commute.

    Not so for the Lois Lerner, John Podesta, Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin types (an abbreviated list). They should be made to be a prime example, and serve real jail time, loss of pension, etc. Such violation of public trust for partisan purposes is beyond anything Nixon ever contemplated. (I despised Nixon!)

    I understand that “politics ain’t bean bag”. But public service is just that, not the looting of the Treasury, and abuse of authority for venal purposes!


    • Ditto your thoughts on Lerner and company. They all need to be in jail, but then ‘what’s good for the goose…’ because Hillary knew she was breaking the law. The problem with that is if they take down Hillary, do they take O down with her?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: