9
   

Donald Trump's Justice Dept. winds down Clinton-related inquiry. It found nothing of consequence.

 
 
Reply Sat 11 Jan, 2020 09:24 pm
Justice Dept. winds down Clinton-related inquiry once championed by Trump. It found nothing of consequence.



Published January 9, 2020


Quote:
A Justice Department inquiry launched more than two years ago to mollify conservatives clamoring for more investigations of Hillary Clinton has effectively ended with no tangible results, and current and former law enforcement officials said they never expected the effort to produce much of anything.

John Huber, the U.S. attorney in Utah, was tapped in November 2017 by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to look into concerns raised by President Trump and his allies in Congress that the FBI had not fully pursued cases of possible corruption at the Clinton Foundation and during Clinton’s time as secretary of state, when the U.S. government decided not to block the sale of a company called Uranium One.

As a part of his review, Huber examined documents and conferred with federal law enforcement officials in Little Rock who were handling a meandering probe into the Clinton Foundation, people familiar with the matter said. Current and former officials said that Huber has largely finished and found nothing worth pursuing — though the assignment has not formally ended and no official notice has been sent to the Justice Department or to lawmakers, these people said.

The effective conclusion of his investigation, with no criminal charges or other known impacts, is likely to roil some in the GOP who had hoped the prosecutor would vindicate their long-held suspicions about a political rival. Trump, though, has largely shifted his focus to a different federal prosecutor tapped to do a separate, special investigation: U.S. attorney in Connecticut John Durham, who Attorney General William P. Barr assigned last year to explore the origins of the FBI’s 2016 probe into possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia.

That FBI investigation was being supervised by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III in late 2017, when Trump and his supporters were pressuring senior law enforcement officials to appoint a second special counsel to pursue Clinton.

“Everybody is asking why the Justice Department (and FBI) isn’t looking into all of the dishonesty going on with Crooked Hillary and the Dems,” the president tweeted at the time.

Sessions did not appoint a second special counsel, but weeks later sent a letter to Huber telling him to “review” a wide array of issues related to Clinton. They included the Clinton Foundation and Uranium One matters, along with the FBI’s handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state and alleged leaks by former FBI director James B. Comey. At the time, Sessions was facing persistent public and private criticism from Trump, who was upset over his recusal from the Russia probe.

“Your recommendations should include whether any matters not currently under investigation warrants the opening of an investigation, whether any matters currently under investigation require further resources or further investigation, and whether any matters would merit the appointment of a Special Counsel,” Sessions wrote.

A spokeswoman for Huber referred questions to Justice Department headquarters, where a spokeswoman declined to comment.

Conservative lawmakers, particularly then-Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), who was chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and members of the Freedom Caucus, were initially encouraged by Huber’s assignment, seeing it as a sign that Clinton faced new legal jeopardy. Huber was a prosecutor with bipartisan credentials — having been named the U.S. attorney first by President Barack Obama before he was retained in the Trump administration.

But from the start, senior officials inside the Justice Department viewed Huber’s task as unlikely to lead to anything of significance beyond appeasing those angry lawmakers and the president.

“We didn’t expect much of it, and neither did he,” said one person familiar with the matter, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity because of persistent political sensitivities connected to the 2016 election. “And as time went on, a lot of people just forgot about it.”

A spokesman for Sessions declined to comment.

Clinton and her family have been subjected to significant law enforcement and other scrutiny over the years — though the various probes have mostly delivered reputational blows, rather than legal ones. When she ran against Trump in 2016, the FBI investigated her use of a private email server to determine whether she had mishandled classified information when she was secretary of state. Officials ultimately determined the case should be closed without charges. The State Department more recently concluded a multiyear probe of its own into the matter, but concluded there was no systemic or deliberate mishandling of classified information by employees.

The Clinton family foundation has separately faced investigation over the years on vague corruption allegations, though so far those probes have not produced any charges.

Huber’s work has been distinct from a number of sensitive investigations into politically fraught cases, including Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s probes of the FBI’s handling of the Trump campaign investigation, and the FBI investigation into how Clinton used the private email server. Those two investigations resulted in lengthy reports documenting FBI missteps and failures.

Huber’s assignment was separate from the ongoing investigation overseen by Durham, and Justice Department officials believe the Connecticut U.S. attorney’s work will be far more consequential. Durham is weighing whether to charge a former FBI lawyer for altering an internal email that misled other officials on a key fact related to surveillance applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. He is also looking into other issues surrounding FBI and CIA activities during the Russia investigation, according to people familiar with the matter.

Huber’s tasking was nebulous from the start. Some people involved in the matters he was said to be reviewing expressed surprise that they were not contacted by the U.S. attorney, and wondered privately what he was doing.

Some in the Justice Department considered him more reviewer than investigator. He would get involved, people familiar with the matter said, only if other cases were not being handled properly.

By the time Mueller filed his lengthy report last spring, Huber’s work was largely done, these people said.

When Trump pushed Sessions out of the Justice Department in November 2018, Matthew G. Whitaker became acting attorney general. Whitaker, according to people familiar with the conversations, tried to push Huber to be more aggressive in his work, but Huber felt he had looked at everything he could and that there was not much more to do, these people said. Whitaker did not respond to messages seeking comment.

After Barr was confirmed as attorney general early last year, the department had still said nothing publicly about the result of Huber’s work, focusing instead on releasing Mueller’s findings.

Barr, who served as attorney general during the George H.W. Bush administration as well, was among the conservative voices in Washington who had previously suggested there was possible criminal wrongdoing in the Uranium One matter, though he tempered those comments during his confirmation.

Republicans questioned whether there was misconduct in the U.S. government’s decision to not block a 2010 acquisition in which Russia’s atomic energy agency, Rosatom, acquired a controlling stake in Uranium One, a Toronto-based company. The deal meant that Rosatom received rights to about 20 percent of the uranium extraction capacity in the United States.

That transaction had a tenuous connection to Clinton, who was running the State Department at the time.

Under obscure government rules, the deal required approval from a multiagency board because it involved giving a foreign government control of an American business commodity with national security implications. The board, called the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, is composed of representatives from nine agencies, including the State Department. Clinton herself was never on the CFIUS board.

In rare cases, CFIUS can decide to intervene and block a corporate merger or acquisition if the board feels the risk to U.S. national security is too great.

Conservatives questioned whether Clinton may have manipulated CFIUS to let the acquisition proceed, but current and former officials have denied that, saying such a decision was handled well below the level of the secretary of state.

Conservatives also demanded an aggressive investigation into whether wealthy individuals and governments may have made donations to the Clinton Foundation in the hopes of getting favors from the State Department. That investigation became the subject of escalating tensions within the FBI and Justice Department in 2016, and was restarted after the election, but has not gained traction, according to people familiar with the matter.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/justice-dept-winds-down-clinton-related-inquiry-once-championed-by-trump-it-found-nothing-of-consequence/2020/01/09/ca83932e-32f9-11ea-a053-dc6d944ba776_story.html
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 9 • Views: 990 • Replies: 28

 
Real Music
 
  2  
Reply Sat 11 Jan, 2020 09:26 pm
Rachel Maddow relays reporting from the Washington Post and CNN that a federal investigation into Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, Uranium One, and other pet right-wing narratives has found nothing worthy of criminal investigation, and reviews the other such investigations and suggestive media reports that have previously failed to incriminate Clinton.


Aired on 01/10/20.


farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sun 12 Jan, 2020 05:48 am
@Real Music,
no they will tak up the issue of Obama's phony naturalized citizen claims. Look out Barry here comes the judge.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  4  
Reply Sun 12 Jan, 2020 06:37 am
Do you think Trump will make an official apology on Fox and Friends?
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Sun 12 Jan, 2020 09:18 am
@hightor,
If he does it will be so long winded and convoluted it will hard to work out what he's apologising for.
revelette3
 
  2  
Reply Sun 12 Jan, 2020 09:31 am
People who keep harping on Hillary and Bill Clinton's corruption and criminality after so many (what does the last make?) investigations, must think both the Clintons are the sharpest criminals in the history of the world. The worst they can say is that both have taken advantage of their world wide known name and made money because of it in the form of speaking fees and books. Not the only ones, including to a lesser extent Bernie Sanders.
revelette3
 
  2  
Reply Sun 12 Jan, 2020 09:35 am
@izzythepush,
Well, he won't at all in any event. As far as I know, he has never apologized for accusing Obama of not being eligible to be president among his other accusations; not the least of which was spying on his campaign which they haven't found evidence for that either.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 12 Jan, 2020 10:33 am
It's more than a little amusing to note the rejoicing and validation by Hillary supporters here of a DOJ finding that there is no sufficient proof of criminal activity on her part to bring criminal charges , and then compare it to the reactions of the same people to precisely the same legal finding with respect to Trump in the Miller Report
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sun 12 Jan, 2020 10:48 am
@georgeob1,
Perhaps youve noticed that several of us have NOT provided concluionry statements about either Hillary of impeachment and Mr Mueller . I think these findings by Mueller or the House, are more like grand jury findings, NOT VERDICTS.
Sure Id like to see Mr Trump found guilty but I wait for the findings of a "trial process" That has already spoken its verdict by the Leader of the Senate.

Bit of hypocrisy in that??
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  4  
Reply Sun 12 Jan, 2020 10:50 am
@georgeob1,
The difference is that a sitting chief executive can't be indicted so the two legal findings aren't really comparable. Mueller could only go so far.

revelette3
 
  4  
Reply Sun 12 Jan, 2020 11:31 am
@georgeob1,
Have you even read a little bit of the Mueller report? I'll leave for you. It is a lot more damaging than you, Trump and the whole Trump defenders fan club have spin it since then. Like Rove said, tell a lie often enough, people believe it. Moreover, just the one line, something like, "if we found him innocent we would so state" is telling in itself. There were lot of communications and connections between Russia and various Trump campaign actors, it is only in the end, nothing panned out, but the interest and the desire for Russian help was there and was recorded in the Mueller report.

Read and search the full Mueller report

In Mueller’s Own Words: Read the Special Counsel’s Summary of the Mueller Report

Quote:
Robert Mueller's full 448-page legal document might be daunting to read, so here is an 18-page summary he expressly wanted the public to see.


https://www.snopes.com/uploads/2019/05/Mueller-Summary-Vol-1.pdf

https://www.snopes.com/uploads/2019/05/Mueller-Summary-Volume-II.pdf

Lastly Radio has a thread where there has been uncovered information from the Mueller probe from the Freedom of Information Act, which has since filled in a lot of evidence against Trump.

You may think the fact the Russian angle wasn't included in the impeachment was proof there was no proof, but that isn't the case. It is because it is so complex and complicated and Pelosi wanted something simple and to the point to prove to the Public. Which again they have done with all witnesses who defied the Trump administration and came forward to testify. Also since then more information has been revealed through various means, again through the same Freedom of Information act as well.

But ya'll keep telling yourselves Trump and his crooked allies are innocent and no evidence to contrary has been found to contradict that statement. It is a lie and ya'll are liars for saying it and you know it.
RABEL222
 
  3  
Reply Sun 12 Jan, 2020 12:10 pm
@revelette3,
How much proof does the country need of Trump colluding with the Russians than when he asked them to find Hillerys 40,000 emails in a speech that was public. The mafia don is crooked as a dogs hind leg and anyone who denies it is mentally challenge.
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Sun 12 Jan, 2020 01:27 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
You are entirely incorrect.

The Justice Department holds that a sitting president is not indictable.
georgeob1
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 12 Jan, 2020 01:58 pm
@hightor,
You are evading the central issue here. The Mueller report was clear and explicit in stating that the investigation behind it failed to yield sufficient evidence for an indictment.
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Sun 12 Jan, 2020 03:00 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President' s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 12 Jan, 2020 04:40 pm
@georgeob1,
Mueller's statement was specific in the arena of "Collusion with Russia". All other areas of tangential inquiries have left the door open that Trump is indictable (indictable just means "Bring charges against").
I think Trump ill have an interesting post presidency if he doesn't become an ex-pat
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sun 12 Jan, 2020 04:41 pm
@farmerman,
I like the reference that Trump is the GOP's O.J.
0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  2  
Reply Sun 12 Jan, 2020 05:37 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
You are evading the central issue here. The Mueller report was clear and explicit in stating that the investigation behind it failed to yield sufficient evidence for an indictment.

1. That is incorrect.

2. The Mueller report never stated that the investigation behind it failed to yield sufficient evidence for an indictment.

3. The Mueller report was adhering to the DOJ policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Jan, 2020 07:51 pm
@Real Music,
I have seen some people who met George say that he is a truthful man. From what I have seen on this site I can only conclude that he is just another lying ultra consertive republican.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Donald Trump's Justice Dept. winds down Clinton-related inquiry. It found nothing of consequence.
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/21/2020 at 12:19:09