We are a nation of laws, not men. When there are legitimate suspicions regarding illegality or impropriety at the highest levels of government, we have mechanisms in place to ensure at least an appearance of objectivity during an investigation. One of these would be the Attorney General referring matters to the the Office of Special Counsel. Appointment of a Special Counsel to investigate Executive Branch officials shields the Administration from accusations of a cover-up. Why hasn’t this occurred in the investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her use of a private email system and server during her tenure at the State Department?
We all remember the fury over the leak of Valerie Plame’s name and CIA status to columnist Robert Novak. Rumors and suspicions that the leak came from Vice President Dick Cheney were rampant. President Bush declared that “If there’s a leak out of my Administration, I want to know who it is.” Attorney General John Ashcroft handed the matter over to Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald’s investigation eventually determined that Richard Armitage was the source of the leak. While no one was charged with the leak itself, Lewis “Scooter” Libby (Cheney’s Chief of Staff) was convicted of obstruction of justice, perjury, and making false statements to investigators.
Earlier this month, the Department of Justice had the FBI seize Hillary’s server from the private firm that was tasked with its storage (in a bathroom, as it turns out). They claim to be intent on recovering any information that has survived deletion. We’ve been told that the server has been wiped clean, but the FBI forensic investigators say that they will be able to recover data. So it would seem that the Justice Department has this well in hand and will find out if Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information by routing it through her private system. But is it really safe to assume that?
Why has no Special Counsel been appointed? If what we think we know so far is even partially accurate, the presumptive presidential nominee of the Democratic party may be (at a minimum) guilty of mishandling classified information. Mrs. Clinton could wind up being indicted and convicted (like General Petraeus) for mishandling classified material. How is it that this matter hasn’t been handed over to a Special Counsel? Could it be that an independent investigation might uncover more potentially criminal activity on Hillary’s part? Is this a case of the Justice Department circling the wagons around Mrs. Clinton, or could it be even more complicated than that?
What if there’s evidence of bribery regarding Bill Clinton’s high-priced speaking fees paid by countries and companies who dealt with Mrs. Clinton while she was Secretary of State? What about the theory (that I’ve mentioned) that the Obama Administration might be trying to take Hillary down as payback for old scores? I still think it’s very likely, but why no appointment of a Special Counsel? Why would Attorney General Loretta Lynch be so intent on maintaining control over this investigation? What if there’s information on that server that could harm people other than Hillary? What if the White House believes that the server may have information damaging to the President himself? That could be reason enough to not want to hand this matter over to a Special Counsel.
If the White House didn’t want these types of pesky and troublesome questions asked, they would have appointed a Special Counsel. They seem to think it’s better not to. I wonder why?