Why There Will Not Be Any Investigations of Hillary Clinton by Congress or the FBI
By Robert Steven Ingebo
Now that the president and his 2016 campaign team will be tied up in a non-stop investigation about Russian collusion and anything else Mr. Mueller wants to pursue, why aren’t there any major investigations into Hillary Clinton?
Uranium One is a mining company that was founded in South Africa. In 2007, it merged with UrAsia Energy, a Canadian-based company. In 2010, Russia’s nuclear agency, Rosatom, bought a 51% stake in the company. The purchase gave the Russians control of 20% of all uranium production capacity in the United States.
Since uranium is the major component used in manufacturing nuclear weapons, the deal had to be approved by representatives from a number of U.S. government agencies, including the State Department, then headed by Hillary Rodham Clinton.
When the Russians assumed control of Uranium One, the Clinton Foundation received a total of $145 million from nine investors in the company.
Soon after the Russians announced they would acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.
Clinton Foundation officials revealed on 02/18/2015 that the foundation accepted millions of dollars from seven foreign governments during Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, including one donation that violated its ethics agreement with the Obama administration.
The Clinton Foundation appears to be a pay-to-play scheme that benefitted the Clintons and the various foreign banks, owners of big companies and government officials who donated to it in order to obtain political favors from Hillary when she was head of the State Department. Why isn’t Congress or the FBI investigating this?
James Comey, the former FBI director, said that more than 2,000 of the 30,490 emails Clinton turned over to the State Department in December 2014 from her private email account contained classified information.
This is in violation of section 1924 of Title 18, which has to do with deletion and retention of classified documents. “Knowingly” removing or housing classified information at an “unauthorized location” is subject to a fine or a year in prison.
On 09/02/2016, the FBI released a report that stated Hillary Clinton had deleted 31,830 private emails between 03/25/2015 and 03/31/2015.
That was about three weeks after the House Select Committee on Benghazi served Clinton with a subpoena to produce any emails related to its investigation into the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi in 2012. According to the Republican-led Benghazi committee, her private email server was wiped clean.
Her unlawful deletions violated both Section 1924 of Title 18 and the Federal Records Act, which requires agencies to keep official communications, including all work-related emails, and government employees cannot destroy or remove relevant records.
She violated the NARA regulations, which dictate how records should be created and maintained. They clearly state that materials must be maintained “by the agency,” that they should be “readily found” and that the records must “make possible a proper scrutiny by the Congress.”
She is also in violation of obstruction of justice, which is “the crime or act of willfully interfering with the process of justice and law especially by influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, juror, or judicial or legal officer or by furnishing false information in or otherwise impeding an investigation or legal process.” The penalty can range from a simple fine to jail time of up to ten years, depending upon how the judge determines the severity of the offense.
Additionally, it is a felony when any holder of official government documents “willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same.”
The penalty for this crime is up to three years in prison. Also, Congress felt strongly enough about the crime to include the penalty that the perpetrator shall “forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.”
Hillary clearly violated all of these laws and regulations when she destroyed the 30,000 emails after they were subpoenaed by Congress.
Why didn’t James Comey ask Loretta Lynch, the Attorney General, to open an investigation? Why did he go over her head and say there would be no investigation and why did she agree to his findings instead of pursuing her own investigations into the Clinton emails and the Clinton Foundation, since there is tangible evidence of crimes committed? Why aren’t there bipartisan investigations into these illegal acts?
The answer is that many U.S. government politicians are corrupted by crony capitalism.
Multinational companies and other special interest groups make substantial donations to the political campaigns of politicians who will do favors for them when they are elected, or will continue to do favors for them when they are re-elected.
The total contributions from super PACs to both the Republican and Democratic Parties from 2015-2016 was $488 million. Total campaign donations to both parties during the same time period was $10.2 billion. This makes the elections or re-elections of the politicians that have done favors for these huge companies almost certain.
The payback doesn’t end there. In an article by Shamus Cook in 09/2010, posted on globalresearch.ca, he wrote, “Congressmen who have recently retired make the perfect lobbyists: they still have good friends in Congress, with many of these friends owing them political favors; they have connections to foreign presidents and kings; and they also have celebrity status that gives good PR to the corporations.
"Often, these congressmen have done favors for the corporations that are now hiring them, meaning that the corporations are rewarding the congressmen for services rendered while in office, offering them million-dollar lobbyist jobs (or seats on the corporate board of directors) that requires little to no work.”
President Trump wants to put an end to crony capitalism. If the pre-budget rumors are true, the president is making good on his promise to drain the swamp by putting a few corporate welfare programs on the chopping block, such as the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corp.
Unfortunately, getting rid of cronyism in the federal government won’t be easy, given the mutually beneficial relationship between politicians and commercial enterprises. Still, the new administration and Congress could take action against them in the coming year.
The corrupt politicians see the president as an existential threat to their rigged system of getting re-elected every year and their million-dollar lobbyist jobs they receive from their cronies when they retire from Congress.
If Jeff Sessions, head of the Justice Department, and a few uncorrupted Republicans decide to probe into Hillary Clinton’s crimes, their investigations will quickly be quashed by the corrupt politicians and the intelligence community, which has been trying to sabotage the Trump presidency by leaking classified material to news media outlets. None of these government insider groups want any changes to the culture in Washington.
This leads to the logical conclusion that, because of the bipartisan and widespread nature of the corruption, all of these Washington insider groups want to see the Trump presidency destroyed. In order to accomplish their goal, these groups must use all their resources to try and find something that they can use against the president to have him impeached or that will cause him to lose his re-election campaign in 2020.
Any investigations not linked to Trump, including those involving Hillary Clinton, who is no threat to them, would be counterproductive, therefore they either will not occur, or will be stopped by the power of the corrupt Washington insiders.
On the week of 08/27/2017, the FBI refused to release their files on Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified emails. It maintains the case isn’t interesting enough to the public to justify their release, the bureau said this week in rejecting an open-records request by a lawyer, Ty Clevenger, seeking to have the former secretary of state punished for perjury.
In a letter on 08/28/2017, FBI records management section chief David M. Hardy told Mr. Clevenger, “You have not sufficiently demonstrated that the public’s interest in disclosure outweighs personal privacy interests of the subject.”
This recent development completely validates the premise of this article.
This article was written by Robert Steven Ingebo, president of FRI Corporation.