DeSantis: Where is the special counsel for Hillary’s e-mail scandal?

posted at 6:01 pm on February 1, 2016 by Ed Morrissey

If the Department of Justice won’t prosecute Hillary Clinton and her team for the spillage of top secret information through her unauthorized and unsecured home-brew e-mail system, will she get off scot-free? Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) wonders why the Obama administration hasn’t acted yet, either through the DoJ or by appointing a special counsel to run the probe. DeSantis sent out a press release earlier today demanding one or the other, and asking some questions about the potential conflicts of interest developing around the case.

Normally a press release wouldn’t be of much interest, but DeSantis hits on a fundamental question about the rule of law — and whether Barack Obama has prejudged the case for political reasons. “[T]he Obama Administration’s continued public remarks prejudging the outcome of this ongoing investigation have called any pretense of impartiality into question.“ This refers to remarks made by Josh Earnest last week to reporters, suggesting that the White House hasn’t seen this investigation heading toward any indictments at all.

With that in mind, let’s cover the questions raised by DeSantis:

1. Attorney General Loretta Lynch was appointed United States Attorney in New York by President Bill Clinton in 1999. Does the Department of Justice consider this a conflict of interest in the context of a federal investigation involving President Clinton’s spouse?

Normally the question of appointments relates to political parties, but having a former First Lady run for the presidency makes for an even more complicated set of connections and priorities. That’s not enough by itself for a recusal, though any public statements of support would add to the issue. Lynch has not been known as a political player, certainly not to the extent of her predecessor Eric Holder, who has endorsed Hillary and was AG when this issue first arose.

2. President Obama’s political appointees, including yourself, are being asked to impartially execute their respective duties as Department of Justice officials that may involve an investigation into the activities of the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. Does the Department of Justice consider this a conflict of interest?

3. Would the presidential campaign of an individual quality as an “extraordinary circumstance” in the context of special counsel regulations?

Shouldn’t it? After all, the DoJ considered an investigation of a sitting president an extraordinary circumstance in the 1990s, and an investigation into the leak of the identity of a CIA operative from an administration an “extraordinary circumstance” in the next administration. This not only involves a major-party candidate for the presidency, but a former Obama administration official. So why would those cases be extraordinary, but this one not?

That brings us to question 4:

4. The letter stated that the authority to appoint a special counsel has “rarely been exercised.” Aren’t the current extraordinary circumstances involving the investigation of former Secretary of State Clinton’s private email server the precise reason the special counsel option exists?

“Rarely” isn’t “never,” and there is enough precedent for the appointment. Just ask Scooter Libby. The question is whether the political will exists to relinquish control over this decision to someone outside the administration. George W. Bush faced a firestorm of public outrage over the Plame leak, which pushed him to appoint Patrick Fitzgerald, who went on a fishing expedition and nailed Libby on a tangential issue when the initial leaker was Richard Armitage. The fishing-expedition issue may be a powerful incentive for Obama and his team to avoid the appointment — and frankly for the use of special counsels to be “rare”  in any case — but this set of extraordinary circumstances should make it a must in order for people to have some level of confidence in the handling of the investigation.

5. The letter stated that “any investigations related to this referral will be handled by law enforcement professionals and career attorneys.” That being said, will President Obama’s political appointees be privy to the decision to convene a grand jury, prosecute, or seek a federal indictment in this case?

“Be privy” is a pretty ambiguous term. Knowing of the decision isn’t so much of an issue as influencing the decision. If a career attorney convenes a grand jury, the DoJ will know about it, as will they know about decisions to prosecute. But the same is true for a special counsel; her or she would necessarily need the FBI for any of those actions, and the FBI answers to the Attorney General.

Under normal circumstances, a special counsel (or more commonly known as a special prosecutor) is a bad idea. There is almost no check on their actions except a judicial panel, which usually gives great leeway to the counsel. When dealing with sitting members of the administration, they tend to usurp the checks and balances provided to Congress. Hillary isn’t a member of the administration, though, but a private citizen out of Congress’ reach. That only leaves the Attorney General of an administration that has started to invest itself in a Hillary Clinton win, or a special counsel — and the latter right now looks like the lesser of two evils.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Democrat POTUS, Democrat AGUS, Democrat Front-runner for POTUS=NO Special Counsel nor Prosecution. It really is that simple folks.

oscarwilde on February 1, 2016 at 6:04 PM

The Democrats will drag this out as long as possible. Their only problem is a possible “revolt” from the FBI but that’s assuming even the FBI hasn’t already become corrupt. This administration is like a disease; it poisons those it comes into contact with.

Aizen on February 1, 2016 at 6:05 PM

Congress has the authority to appoint a special prosecutor.

talkingpoints on February 1, 2016 at 6:06 PM

Where is the special counsel for Hillary’s e-mail scandal?

This is a serious question?

Really?

Bruno Strozek on February 1, 2016 at 6:08 PM

Where is the special counsel for Hillary’s e-mail scandal?

He’s languishing naked, hungry, and stinking in a dank isolation cell at an offshore black-ops site, where all who would dare trouble the Clintons end up.

FlameWarrior on February 1, 2016 at 6:09 PM

Here’s your choice:
#Comrade Clinton is either corrupt or incompetent.

Clinton didn’t know how to access email by computer, State Dept claimed http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/267727-clinton-didnt-know-how-to-access-email-by-computer-state-dept

But she does want to be held accountable:

Clinton: ‘I’m asking people to hold me accountable’ http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/267696-clinton-im-asking-people-to-hold-me-accountable

Torcert on February 1, 2016 at 6:10 PM

In August 1994 pursuant to the newly reauthorized Ethics in Government Act (28 U.S.C. § 593(b)), Starr was appointed by a special three-judge division of the D.C. Circuit to continue the Whitewater investigation.[11] He replaced Robert B. Fiske, a moderate Republican who had been appointed by Attorney General Janet Reno.[12] Although Starr and other independent counsels were later criticized as unaccountable and unstoppable, the statute gave the attorney general and the Special Division the authority to remove an independent counsel.

Starr took the position part-time and remained active with his law firm, Kirkland & Ellis, as this was permitted by statute and was also the norm with previous independent counsel investigations.[13] As time went on, however, Starr was increasingly criticized for alleged conflicts of interest stemming from his continuing association with Kirkland & Ellis. Kirkland, like several other major law firms, was representing clients in litigation with the government, including tobacco companies and auto manufacturers. The firm itself was being sued by the Resolution Trust Company, a government agency involved in the Whitewater matter. Additionally, Starr’s own actions were challenged because Starr had, on one occasion, talked with lawyers for Paula Jones, who was suing President Clinton over an alleged sexual assault. Starr had explained to them why he believed that sitting U.S. presidents are not immune to civil suit.[14]

from wiki.

Apparently the DC circuit court can also name a special prosecutor.

talkingpoints on February 1, 2016 at 6:11 PM

Congress has the authority to appoint a special prosecutor.

talkingpoints on February 1, 2016 at 6:06 PM

But not the testicular fortitude to even consider thinking about it.

oscarwilde on February 1, 2016 at 6:11 PM

If they didn’t indict lowly Lois Learner, there is no way that the great HRC gets charged.

We live in a banana republic and I don’t know where I’m a gonna go when the volcano blows!

Deafdog on February 1, 2016 at 6:13 PM

Congress has the authority to appoint a special prosecutor.

talkingpoints on February 1, 2016 at 6:06 PM

The RINO’s will shy away for fear of appearing political, whereas the Dems would support a special prosecutor because it is political.

antipc on February 1, 2016 at 6:14 PM

The Democrats will drag this out as long as possible. Their only problem is a possible “revolt” from the FBI but that’s assuming even the FBI hasn’t already become corrupt. This administration is like a disease; it poisons those it comes into contact with.

Aizen on February 1, 2016 at 6:05 PM

Not only a revolt within the FBI, but also “professionals” within the DOJ, and the entire Intelligence Community, which have been grievously harmed by HRC’s cavalier attitude towards security of our nation’s closest held secrets.

GAlpha10 on February 1, 2016 at 6:15 PM

That only leaves the Attorney General of an administration that has started to invest itself in a Hillary Clinton win, or a special counsel — and the latter right now looks like the lesser of two evils.

The Obama Administration will never, under any circumstance, appoint a special prosecutor to bypass the Department of Justice.

As Ed notes, the powers of a special prosecutor – as evidenced by that of Patrick Fitzgerald – allow him quite a bit of freedom to investigate. While the deliberate and callous mishandling of classified information by then SecState Clinton and her closest cabal of aides represents massive violations of federal law (with the potential to rival the damage done to the US to that of Ames, Hanssen, and Walker Jr), that is something that doesn’t have the ability to severely damage the Obama Administration.

What does is related to SecState Clinton’s decision to only operate on her private email because of her intent to keep control of the correspondence and interactions outside of any possible oversight. That involves the strong likelihood of outright corruption, malfeasance, and bribery between SecState Clinton, decisions made by the State Department, the Clinton Foundation (specifically Bill’s speaking fees and other donations to the Foundations), and the businesses and nations that needed State Department approvals for their interests.

It seems unlikely any truly independent special prosecutor would decline to investigate evidence, even circumstantial evidence, that looks like quid pro quo services. And that investigation would reach beyond State into the heart of the Obama Administration – starting with ‘What did Obama know and when’. Were any quid pro quo actions known at the WH level? Was this part of a pattern of the Administration’s blatant politicization’s of the federal government?

Athos on February 1, 2016 at 6:18 PM

Not only a revolt within the FBI, but also “professionals” within the DOJ, and the entire Intelligence Community, which have been grievously harmed by HRC’s cavalier attitude towards security of our nation’s closest held secrets.

GAlpha10 on February 1, 2016 at 6:15 PM

Well, this is where we are now. It’s sad that we have to rely on there being genuinely good people left in government; people who may not even be able to do anything because of the pompous scumbags in this administration.

Aizen on February 1, 2016 at 6:19 PM

Not only a revolt within the FBI, but also “professionals” within the DOJ, and the entire Intelligence Community, which have been grievously harmed by HRC’s cavalier attitude towards security of our nation’s closest held secrets.

GAlpha10 on February 1, 2016 at 6:15 PM

Ask yourself if Barack Obama is really that concerned about that revolt? Or that it would have the legs to really damage and derail his last months in office?

Perhaps he thinks he can preempt any revolt just by emulating Gerry Ford and pardoning Hillary Clinton. Sure there will be some outrage, but compared to the alternative (from his perspective)?

Athos on February 1, 2016 at 6:21 PM

Congress should appoint Chris Christy as special prosecuter. Then we can complete the conflict of interest circle.

Deadeye on February 1, 2016 at 6:21 PM

A special prosecutor means all leaks will stop and if Valerie Jarret has a hand in selection, you can bet the investigation can draw out past November.

butch on February 1, 2016 at 6:22 PM

Standard Federal statute of limitations for crimes is 5 years. A GOP administration would have time to prosecute.

rbj on February 1, 2016 at 6:22 PM

Hillary isn’t a member of the administration, though, but a private citizen out of Congress’ reach.

And here’s the rub, Hillary was a member of the Administration when she set up her private off the grid server for all of her email and the President knew it, contrary to what he has publicly stated.

Johnnyreb on February 1, 2016 at 6:28 PM

Apparently the DC circuit court can also name a special prosecutor.

talkingpoints on February 1, 2016 at 6:11 PM

Which is why the DC Circuit Court was one of Obama’s primary targets in trying to stack the court.

Of course, the same GOPe Majority controlled Congress that refuses to appoint a special prosecutor also rubber stamped Obama’s judicial nominees to the DC Circuit.

Athos on February 1, 2016 at 6:30 PM

Of course, the same GOPe Majority controlled Congress that refuses to appoint a special prosecutor also rubber stamped Obama’s judicial nominees to the DC Circuit.

Athos on February 1, 2016 at 6:30 PM

I think they were mostly appointed after Reid nuked the filibuster.

Johnnyreb on February 1, 2016 at 6:35 PM

If someone running for Prez, including Bernie, had made clear by now that their first act in office would be to prosecute Killary to the fullest extent of the law up to and including treason and execution … I believe they’d win in a landslide.

Of course, that’s assuming they’d survive the inevitable numerous assassination attempts against them by the Clinton Crime Family.

ShainS on February 1, 2016 at 6:37 PM

Congress should appoint Chris Christy as special prosecuter. Then we can complete the conflict of interest circle.

Deadeye on February 1, 2016 at 6:21 PM

He’ll give Missus Clinton a hug and call it a day.

Aizen on February 1, 2016 at 6:39 PM

I think losing in a landslide to a “Free Sh*t Bernie” candidate will seal her fate. She’s never going to be POTUS and she knows it.

The best she can hope for at this point in her miserable life is to avoid indictment under the current administration. However, perhaps she fails to realize that there WILL be an Administration that WILL indict her. Based on her catty attacks against Sanders and her team’s efforts to thwart the will of the Dem base, Sanders would indict her in a New York Minute.

Goodbye, Hillary. Goodbye.

Key West Reader on February 1, 2016 at 6:41 PM

It.Wont.Happen.

Democrat POTUS, Democrat AGUS, Democrat Front-runner for POTUS=NO Special Counsel nor Prosecution. It really is that simple folks.

oscarwilde on February 1, 2016 at 6:04 PM

GOPe Majority controlled Congress that refuses to appoint a special prosecutor also rubber stamped Obama’s judicial nominees to the DC Circuit.

Athos on February 1, 2016 at 6:30 PM

And that is the end of the story.
Sure, we can continue to discover all sort of new lies and obfuscations… but nothing will change because those responsible for carrying out the law will now.

Voodoo Chile on February 1, 2016 at 6:41 PM

now=not

Voodoo Chile on February 1, 2016 at 6:42 PM

Anybody remember Valerie Plame? A minor apparatchik mentioned off-hand to his reporter friend that Plame had worked undercover for the CIA at some time in the distant past, which everybody on the DC cocktail circuit already knew anyway, and it was spun by the LeftMedia as some huge breach of national security as damaging as if the nuclear launch codes had been printed on milk cartons.

A special prosecutor fished around for a year and a half, eventually finding some hapless schmuck he could charge and send to jail for a completely immaterial perjury rap. And, finally, a major Hollywood motion picture was rolled out lock in the Orwellian false narrative.

Compare the banality of the Plame thing with the actual damage HRC unapologetically inflicted on the country for the sole purpose of trying to cover her own political ass.

The shameless corruption of ObamaClinton is mind-boggling.

LagunaDave on February 1, 2016 at 6:43 PM

Lynch will decline to go forward based on the promise from Obama that he will pardon Hillary if a Republican wins in Nov. Lynch will not want to be embarrassed by a successful prosecution after the election. Plus, I don’t trust Comey.

rik on February 1, 2016 at 6:47 PM

Only if Hillary loses the first two primaries will any thought be given to going after Hillary.

albill on February 1, 2016 at 6:48 PM

Consider the irony, Shrillery began her career, such as it is, as a staffer on the Watergate committee. She deserves prosecution as much as Nixon ever did.

MJBrutus on February 1, 2016 at 6:49 PM

MJBrutus on February 1, 2016 at 6:49 PM

much, much more

rik on February 1, 2016 at 6:54 PM

…they won’t appoint one because it would be an admission that there was likely some sort of illegal activity…that goes against the narrative that this was widely accepted, well-known, and not unusual…

…Team Skank and Odoooshbag have given the appearance from Day 1 that there’s nothing to see here, it’s another “phony” scandal and of course the vast right-wing conspiracy… and will continue to do so until after the election is over…a special prosecutor, whether they find anything or not, would make those two pure-as-the-driven-snow crooks look guilty of a cover-up…

Pelosi Schmelosi on February 1, 2016 at 6:55 PM

Consider the irony, Shrillery began her career, such as it is, as a staffer on the Watergate committee. She deserves prosecution as much as Nixon ever did.

MJBrutus on February 1, 2016 at 6:49 PM

And, she was fired from that post for unethical behavior. There is a pertinant quote from her boss at that time regarding her character and integrity.

butch on February 1, 2016 at 6:55 PM

LagunaDave on February 1, 2016 at 6:43 PM

Take a guess who is one of Pat Fitzgerald’s close friends. Begins with a James and ends with a Comey

rik on February 1, 2016 at 7:02 PM

Maybe it’s time for Paul Ryan to put in someone’s ear the possibility of impeachment proceedings against the President if he doesn’t pursue with DOJ or a Special Procecutor. He has admitted receiving Top Secret emails from her private server and not reporting it. That kind of backroom pressure might move him to move her under a greyhound.

PleaseFlyOver on February 1, 2016 at 7:02 PM

BREAKING:

Ruth Buzzy retires from SCOTUS; picked as Special Counsel in the Clinton email investigation; McTurtle says Senate will delay any hearings to appoint replacement until after Hillary is elected POTUS Nov 17.

BobMbx on February 1, 2016 at 7:03 PM

Finally.

Now, will Paul Ryan follow the lead of his caucus, or will he continue to cower in front of Obama?

Atlantian on February 1, 2016 at 7:05 PM

This administration has been lawless from the beginning. By allowing Hillary to have her own private server they already broke the law and they knew it. Now, knowing you broke the law from the beginning, do you really want to go into a court of law with the person you broke the law with?

Let’s make a list of who knows about all these lies. First of all the President, Vice-President, and DOJ have to know because the first 2 sent e-mails to Secretary Clinton and the DOJ would have been consulted, just incase someone found out and they had to defend the decision.

Now, we have to add to the list, Democrats have to know because they have to provide a firewall for any possible impeachment that could have arisen from this (if of course there was ever a Republican majority willing to do it in the first place) so you can add all leadership Democrats. Now there are also those Democrats who assume she’s guilty and just flat don’t care. Then you get into the political appointees at the State Department who are responsible for hiding this in FOIA requests. Their responsibility is to put out the most non-incriminating e-mails first so the public keeps getting something and then has to say, “Is that all there is?” Enough of that and the public will not pay attention.

We can, under these circumstances. actually elect a President of the United States who would be eligible, under the present laws of this country, to be indicted and prosecuted for criminal violations of our laws that protect classified information. We then would be giving that same person the ability to be just as careless with all classified information, since there is no classified message the president can’t have access to. If no one finds that ironic, I guess you’re just not paying attention.

bflat879 on February 1, 2016 at 7:09 PM

Maybe it’s time for Paul Ryan to put in someone’s ear the possibility of impeachment proceedings against the President if he doesn’t pursue with DOJ or a Special Procecutor. He has admitted receiving Top Secret emails from her private server and not reporting it. That kind of backroom pressure might move him to move her under a greyhound.

PleaseFlyOver on February 1, 2016 at 7:02 PM

No way is Ryan going to do that. He’ll be happy to let the thing play out on its own. Obama finally has agreed to meet with him. Think he’s going to give all that up?:)

butch on February 1, 2016 at 7:18 PM

As I recall, Clinton had the server containing top secret information placed in an unsecure location in northern New Jersey.

I think this would give the New Jersey federal prosecutor jurisdiction to indict Hillary for those crimes.

He was appointed by Obama, but at least wasn’t appointed by Bill Clinton.

There is an on-line citizen complaint form for New Jersey

http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-nj/legacy/2013/11/29/CitizensComplaintForm.pdf

talkingpoints on February 1, 2016 at 7:23 PM

Maybe it’s time for Paul Ryan to put in someone’s ear the possibility of impeachment proceedings against the President if he doesn’t pursue with DOJ or a Special Procecutor. He has admitted receiving Top Secret emails from her private server and not reporting it. That kind of backroom pressure might move him to move her under a greyhound.

PleaseFlyOver on February 1, 2016 at 7:02 PM

No way is Ryan going to do that. He’ll be happy to let the thing play out on its own. Obama finally has agreed to meet with him. Think he’s going to give all that up?:)

butch on February 1, 2016 at 7:18 PM

Maybe he’ll get a ride on Air Force 1

talkingpoints on February 1, 2016 at 7:24 PM

you need a valid reason to have a Special Counsel.

everdiso on February 1, 2016 at 7:46 PM

Perhaps he thinks he can preempt any revolt just by emulating Gerry Ford and pardoning Hillary Clinton. Sure there will be some outrage, but compared to the alternative (from his perspective)?

Athos on February 1, 2016 at 6:21 PM

To most, a pardon would be an admission that HRC was guilty of massive violations of the Espionage Act, the Federal Records Act, and other federal laws.

I can live with that if at the same time she is barred from running for any elective office, anywhere, forever. The woman is a walking, talking, emailing security threat of monumental proportions.

GAlpha10 on February 1, 2016 at 8:24 PM

Attorney General Hustler Loretta Lynch threatens to sic IRS psycho Koskinen on any Special Prosecutors.

The Chicago Way.

viking01 on February 1, 2016 at 9:17 PM

you need a valid reason to have a Special Counsel.

everdiso on February 1, 2016 at 7:46 PM

Violations of 18 USC § 793, 798 and 1924 coupled with the conflict of interest with the current Attorney General.

F X Muldoon on February 1, 2016 at 9:31 PM

you need a valid reason to have a Special Counsel.

everdiso on February 1, 2016 at 7:46 PM

Just like you need a valid reason to set up an illegal, unsecure, private email service and conduct all of your official government on said illegal, unsecure private email service in violation of Executive Order, State Department regulations, and the Federal Records Act. The only reason, although not valid, that I can think of is to keep your activities out of the prying eyes of Congress, FOIA requests, and the American people. That’s why no government employee in the history of the United States has been allowed to set up a separate email service for their private, exclusive use (and the illegal use by their minions).

But that’s exactly what Hillary Clinton has done. She is truly unique. She has exhibited a disregard of laws, rules, and regulations never before seen within our system of government. All because she thinks that she is the anointed one, destined to the Oval Office. That is truly an accomplishment, perhaps her only one of note, although highly illegal and deadly dangerous to our nation’s security and system of government.

GAlpha10 on February 1, 2016 at 9:39 PM

“George W. Bush faced a firestorm of public outrage over the Plame leak, which pushed him to appoint Patrick Fitzgerald, who went on a fishing expedition and nailed Libby on a tangential issue when the initial leaker was Richard Armitage.”

And the ‘Media’ was OK with it…

… Did you see that campaign flyer of Ted Cruz! OH, BOY!!!

Seven Percent Solution on February 1, 2016 at 9:48 PM

Another Hillary PS

justltl on February 1, 2016 at 9:54 PM

Looks like Cheryl Mills decided to stop answering questions.

butch on February 1, 2016 at 6:47 PM

This administration truly is run like a Mafia family.

justltl on February 1, 2016 at 9:59 PM

Wow it can get pretty complicated darn fast. The best solution to this was posted on Hot Air. “Another” way to get a Special Prosecutor for cases like this. If voted for by “3/5ths of the States”. Clean simple and a good idea. Lets do it.

jpcpt03 on February 1, 2016 at 10:25 PM

Not a very strong performance in Iowa, huh, Hillary.

So, Democrats, working on your plan b?

talkingpoints on February 1, 2016 at 11:36 PM

Downside of a “special counsel” is it would guarantee nothing would be done prior to the election – after which it would be buried. Which is where it’s most likely headed regardless.

The most recent disclosures – that pretty much everyone charged with preserving “secure system information” knew or should have known SecState was using and receiving “secure system” information via an insecure system, yet said nothing about it – gives the Administration & everyone associated with handling secure system information a strong incentive to cover this up / explain it away.

After all – the alternative is for all of them to admit they knowingly compromised national security, putting the lives of Americans and foreign nationals friendly to America at risk, for no purpose other than the convenience and political expediency of SecState.

Anyone think all those people are going to voluntarily face that music? Not bloody likely.

BD57 on February 1, 2016 at 11:43 PM

The word “rare” means “if it’s a republican”.

MikeinPRCA on February 2, 2016 at 12:20 AM

Meanwhile…Jean Francois Kerry sends Secret e-mail from his iPad to H>illary!™’s bathroom server, and, contrary to H>illary!™’s bleatings, it is even marked as Secret. Oops.

So now Apple has secret (or worse) documents on their data vacuum servers, and we have two felons as SoS.

F X Muldoon on February 2, 2016 at 7:06 AM

Dear Mr. Desantis,

You must be new here so let me explain how this works. First off, Hillary Clinton is running for president as a democrat there fore the MSM will not report negative things about her. Second, there is a democrat in the White House which means keeping the presidency in the democrat party trumps the rule of law. Power will always come before justice. Third, there is an ongoing investigation so there is no need for a prosecutor until such an investigation is complete. This will probably happen sometime around 2153. Should the investigation conclude before that then maybe a special prosecutor will be appointed who will then have to re-investigate to get all of the facts. This investigation should wrap up around 3345.

Best regards,
A reality based citizen.

tkc882 on February 2, 2016 at 9:52 AM

There will be no special counsel or grand jury in this case. THE. FIX. IS. IN. A member of the Democrat monarchy? Are you serious? Laws are for chumps.

supersport667 on February 2, 2016 at 9:59 AM

Is there any rational person who seriously pretends that 0bama & Hillary & most of their party leadership aren’t vile and lawless, evil and fascist criminals who’ve declared themselves above the law like Monica’s suckee did?
Dims are lawless evil, the RINOs spineless incompetence; what could o wrong?!

russedav on February 2, 2016 at 10:20 AM

Only if Hillary loses the first two primaries will any thought be given to going after Hillary.

albill on February 1, 2016 at 6:48 PM

I still think the flip side of this is the reality. 0bama really doesn’t want her as the next Democratic candidate.

GWB on February 2, 2016 at 11:41 AM

you need a valid reason to have a Special Counsel.

everdiso on February 1, 2016 at 7:46 PM

…and an report from an IG appointed by a political crony that says there is strong evidence of crimes committed is an irrelevant rightwing conspiracy, right?

GrumpyOldFart on February 2, 2016 at 11:57 AM

The question is whether the political will exists to relinquish control over this decision to someone outside the administration.

Would that be “the most honest, most open, most transparent administration, evah!”?

The one involved in Fast and Furious? IRS? EPA? ………….

GarandFan on February 2, 2016 at 11:59 AM