Andrew C. McCarthy III, served as an Assistant US Attorney for the Southern District of New York. During that time, he headed the prosecution of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others for the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. All twelve were convicted, thanks to the efforts of McCarthy and his team. He was also part of the team that prosecuted the terrorists responsible for the bombing of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. In 2003, he resigned from the Justice Department and has since worked as a Senior Fellow at the National Review Institute along with being a contributor editor for the Nation Review.
In a recent post on the National Review, McCarthy asks a very convicting question:
“On the matter of the 2016 election, why is there an investigation into Russian meddling but no investigation of Justice Department meddling?”
He followed that up with the following:
“The latter effort was more extensive. And it sure looks like it would be a lot easier to prove.”
The Justice Department meddling McCarthy is referring to is their seemingly intentional mistreatment of the Hillary Clinton email scandal and all those involved with the case. From McCarthy’s post, there seems to be overwhelming evidence that Obama’s Justice Department intentionally protected Hillary Clinton from prosecution in hopes that she would win the 2016 election and be our current president. From McCarthy’s account of events, it would appear that Obama’s Justice Department was trying to not make a case against Clinton instead of following normal investigative procedures used to make a criminal case against someone.
To begin with, Obama’s Justice Department waited until the last minute during their half-hearted investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email scandal, to issue grand-jury subpoenas to two key witnesses. Note here that no real grand-jury was ever convened. The DOJ only served grand-jury subpoenas to Blackberry service providers to obtain emails sent to and from Hillary Clinton before she switched to her own private server.
Then, the Justice Department made deals to protect two individuals who used their private computers to review Clinton’s emails. Since it is unlawful for anyone using a private computer to access classified information during an investigation, both individuals were in violation of the law in doing so. Under normal circumstances, the DOJ would have subpoenaed the two individuals, Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, to obtain their private computers. However, the DOJ first cut a deal with them, promising not to use anything they found on the private computers against them.
This was followed with an intentional decision NOT to subpoena any of Hillary Clinton’s close friends or members of her campaign, which also went against normal criminal investigative procedures used by the Department of Justice. There was also an intentional decision NOT to convene a grand-jury to determine if any criminal charges needed to be filed.
The issue of a grand-jury and grand-jury subpoenas is explained by McCarthy:
“For present purposes, the salient point is that prosecutors are not required to meet with a grand jury, or ask its permission, before issuing subpoenas. And when a subpoena calls for the production of physical evidence, the witness is usually instructed to turn the item over to the FBI (or other investigative agency); there is usually no need to show up at the courthouse and hand the item to the grand jurors. Nevertheless, because the subpoena’s power to compel comes from the grand jury, it is expected that the prosecutor will eventually present the resulting evidence to the grand jury, and report to the grand jury regarding subpoenas issued on its authority.”
“Thus, there was no need to convene a grand jury in order to use a grand jury’s evidence-collection powers. Again, the Justice Department and the FBI could have issued and served subpoenas on Mrs. Clinton and her accomplices at any time. To refrain from doing so was a conscious choice.”
“So why avoid the grand jury?”
“The answer can be gleaned from a mammoth New York Times report on the Clinton e-mails probe, published last week. There is much more to this report than we will get to today. For now, suffice it to say that the Obama Justice Department, taking its cues from the Clinton campaign, tried to mislead the public into believing Mrs. Clinton was not the subject of a criminal investigation. The issuance of subpoenas would have put the lie to that diversion.”
McCarthy continued in his post to reveal more evidence that Obama Justice Department acted intentionally to protect Hillary Clinton and her campaign. They did not follow normal operating procedures and they made intentional decisions to pursue in such a manner as to protect Clinton.
If McCarthy’s accusations are true, and I believe they are, the intentional mishandling of Hillary Clinton’s email investigation is just one of many gross miscarriages of justice, abuse of power and dereliction of duty of the Justice Department under the direction of Barack Obama. All parties involved in making those decisions, including Obama, should be arrested and charged for their crimes.