I don’t know about you, but I had to reread the recent report by Michael Horowitz, Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Justice, at least three times until I understood the meaning of what had happened. Moreover, I had to (reluctantly) recognize the justification of the main conclusion of the Inspector General: that the apparent political preferences of the Clinton investigators played no part in the decision of the Clinton prosecutors.
Why? Because the FBI, as it turned out, did not even investigate Hillary Clinton. The FBI had no such intention. Instead, an investigation was conducted into her email server.
Trending: Chris Wallace’s anti-Trump Bias
The circumstances appear to resemble this. Crucial evidence was found at the scene of a crime. All the investigators’ efforts were directed to discerning this and only this evidence of where it was made, where it was bought, how it fell into the hands of the criminal, etc. Everyone was so busy investigating the evidence that the search for a criminal was first postponed and then completely abandoned.
According to the Inspector General’s report, FBI investigators moved mountains as they pried into the private server of Hillary Clinton. They examined not only the server itself but all other devices this server contacted and where the emails of Hillary Clinton were found. They also reviewed all the servers where backup copies of emails were stored. FBI investigators worked so well that they continued the investigation even after it was closed. They enthusiastically began to study another device: the laptop of Anthony Weiner, husband of Hillary Clinton’s assistant Huma Abedin, eleven days before the 2016 elections.
During all these investigative steps, according to the Inspector General, no violations were identified. In fact, more than 700,000 of Hillary Clinton’s emails (from 2006 to 2016) located on Weiner’s personal laptop, many of which were classified “Top Secret,” were deemed not related to the investigation of the server. The FBI and DOJ prosecutors showed no (political) bias in their scrutiny of these computer devices at a high professional level. They strictly followed all instructions and applicable laws, except for the unauthorized press conference of the director of the FBI, James Comey, on July 5, 2016.
However, the “insubordination” by Comey is also related to the fact that Hillary Clinton’s investigation was not actually conducted.
In fact, the name of Hillary Clinton does not even exist – she was never the object of or a suspect in the investigation. By the way, this investigation does not contain names of anyone at all. Why should the FBI investigators have any names? After all, the “matter” (coined by Attorney General Loretta Lynch) was conducted about the nameless computer hardware and not about the criminal negligence of Hillary Clinton in respect to secret government documents.
From this point of view, the ill-fated Comey press conference was indeed a violation of the law. If the investigation of Hillary Clinton herself was not conducted, then on what grounds did the FBI director have made the statement that she was not guilty of anything?
So the overall conclusion of Inspector General Horowitz is correct. Neither the political preferences of the investigative team (which consisted of only Hillary Clinton-supporters) nor the thousands of anti-Trump SMS by the Strzok-Page pair, nor the anti-Trump texts of another couple of Clintonistas – Clinesmith-Moyer – affected the scrupulous investigation of the server.
The fact is that Hillary Clinton’s private server did not contain serious protection against hacking, and information about numerous documents on this server with various levels of secrecy – from “confidential” to “top secret” – is mentioned in the report of the inspector general, but somehow pretty casually. It is also mentioned in passing that not only Hillary Clinton, but also Comey and the head of the investigation, agent Peter Strzok, and even President Obama used private email addresses for government business. Also mentioned in passing is a revelation about numerous bribes to FBI agents. However, how many times can it be repeated: no mortal (and even more so, the uncrowned queen) was the object of this investigation.
The server – that’s what the FBI was investigating. So Comey and the prosecutors of the Department of Justice made the only right conclusion – “no sensible prosecutor” will indict the server. This is an unambiguous conclusion on the legal front. However, on the political front, the situation for the supporters of Hillary Clinton is unfortunate.
Instead of finally closing Hillary’s case for good, the report of the inspector general only added fuel to the fire. Let me remind you that the investigation of the inspector general was carried out at the request of the Democrats who lost the elections of 2016. However, the information in the inspector’s report proves only that the dismissal of Comey by Trump was absolutely justified. The inspector general’s report also demonstrates that, under Obama’s leadership, the FBI’s corruption and arrogance have reached such proportions that taxpayers are no longer willing to tolerate it.
The consolidation of the pro-Trump coalition and the growth of Trump’s popularity are largely based on the Americans’ reaction to the deftly accomplished focus with the “castling” of the object of the investigation carried out by the Democrats.
The castling of meanings is one of the most popular methods of the Washington swamp. For example, special prosecutor Mueller was appointed under the guise of investigating “Russian collusion.” In reality, he is investigating the circumstances of Trump’s dismissal of Comey (that is, “obstruction of justice”). That’s not all. The real purpose of Muller’s investigation is not the Comey case, but the smokescreen to cover the violations of law by even higher-ranking figures: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
Perhaps the fiasco of the “Hillary case,” which was not really there, is the latest stunt of Obama’s Deep State. For the next time, the castling of meanings is unlikely to succeed.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author and are not not necessarily either shared or endorsed by iPatriot.com.