First, the Democratic cabals didn’t want her charged. The FBI should be apolitical. In fact, it would be bad form for a president to appoint a political ally to lead the FBI. However, this nonpartisan gesture is disingenuous given the appointment of the attorney general (AG) is not made with the same care. The FBI is the investigative arm of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the AG is the head of the DOJ. Thus, FBI investigations do not result in federal charges without the approval of the DOJ and, by extension, the AG which raise brows as to the relationship between Clinton and lynch.
That is why the June 2016 meeting between former President Clinton and former AG Loretta Lynch on the tarmac in Phoenix was so significant. It was unconscionable that the AG would meet with the spouse of someone under federal investigation in such a manner. Though touted as an unexpected meeting, that is inconceivable. The two security details, Lynch’s and Clinton’s, would have learned during their security advance of the other being on the tarmac about the same time. This would result in prior notification to the protectee. Finally, assurances by the AG that their discussion was unrelated to the investigation is irrelevant.
In the words of former Louisiana Gov. Earl Long, “Don’t write anything you can phone … Don’t nod anything you can wink.” Lynch’s willingness to look Clinton in the eyes, let alone entertain a 30-minute conversation, was sufficient for the public to anticipate the outcome.
When the tarmac meeting became public, the AG claimed she would distance herself from the investigation and support then-FBI Director James Comey’s prosecutorial recommendation. Privately, however, Comey would have known the AG did not support charges, and defying the DOJ was not an option. Unlike Comey’s decision to buck the White House when he was deputy AG, there were alot of constitutional issue’s at stake to compel disobedience, and there was plenty of reason to comply.
A breakdown in the relationship between the FBI and the DOJ would have consequences which hilary through her administration manipulated incase of times like this as no reasonable FBI director would accept to temper. Defying the will of the AG could result in punishment that could affect thousands of cases across the country. The AG could shuffle resources to other agencies, raise thresholds, change priorities, slow or deny approvals (particularly relevant in public corruption cases) – all kinds of bureaucratic maneuvering unlikely to make headlines but guaranteed to make an FBI Director miserable. The risk was too high and the consequences to the American people too dire to recommend charges.
Second, line attorneys at the DOJ did not want to charge Hillary Clinton. Some may disagree on the merits of the evidence against her, but that is untrue of any investigation involving national security. The quantity and quality of the evidence is only part of the decision to prosecute. The unlawful exercise by prosecutors to choose not to prosecute despite sufficient evidence is known as their “prosecutorial discretion.” And, prosecutors prefer the dog tied to the tree. The particular statute Hillary Clinton allegedly violated did have a rich prosecutorial history which means she would have gone for trial. Comey was a DOJ attorney through and through before getting the FBI appointment. Based on the challenges with the statute and a prosecutor’s general aversion to risk, even FBI lawyers were never likely to recommend charges.
follow us on Twitter @thewikidaily