Hillary Clinton email sacandal
- See also: Hillary Clinton email scandal
The announcement by the Justice Department’s inspector general that his office will look into FBI Director James B. Comey's handling of Hillary Clinton’s emails reopens painful questions about the 2016 election, but it is also welcome news. The country needs this — an objective, independent and thorough investigation of issues that have roiled the country for months and continue to stir heated debate.
The investigation will address allegations that Comey violated established Justice Department and FBI policies and procedures in his July 5, 2016, public announcement concerning the Hillary Clinton email investigation. And it will explore allegations that Comey’s Oct. 28 and Nov. 6 letters to Congress, which jolted the presidential election — and may have changed its outcome — were improper. The impact of Comey’s actions can never be definitively known. But it is important, for the Justice Department and for the country, to obtain a detailed accounting of what happened and why; to assign blame where it is warranted; and to understand how similar situations can be prevented.
In addition to looking into the actions of the FBI director regarding the email investigation, the probe will look into whether the FBI’s deputy director [McCabe] should have recused himself from the investigation because of his wife’s political involvement; whether a high-ranking Justice Department official or others improperly disclosed non-public information to both the Clinton and Trump campaigns; and whether the timing of the FBI’s election eve Freedom of Information Act disclosures relating to Bill Clinton’s 2001 pardon of Marc Rich was based on inappropriate considerations.
Bromwich later was hired to defend McCabe.
On the same day Andrew McCabe assumed the position as Acting Director of the FBI, McCabe was interviewed by FBI internal Inspection Division (INSD) agents about leaks to the Wall Street Journal two weeks prior to the 2016 election. McCabe denied authorizing his special counsel Lisa Page to leak the existence of the FBI's investigation into the Clinton Foundation, and denials of his own conflict of interest in that investigation. McCabe further told FBI investigators he did not know who authorized leak.On April 13, 2018 the DOJ Inspector General released its report on McCabe's firing. The OIG report
concluded that McCabe’s decision to confirm the existence of the Clinton Foundation Investigation through an anonymously sourced quote, recounting the content of a phone call with a senior Department official in a manner designed to advance his personal interests at the expense of Department leadership, was clearly not within the public interest exception. We therefore concluded that McCabe’s disclosure of the existence of an ongoing investigation in this manner violated the FBI’s and the Department’s media policy and constituted misconduct.
McCabe also is implicated in the FBI's offer to pay Christopher Steele for more fabricated information in Hillary Clinton's opposition research Steele dossier. Neither did McCabe recuse himself from the Russia investigation, despite failing to act on a FARA (Foreign Agents Registration Act) complaint against FusionGPS, Christopher Steele's employer, as an unregistered foreign agent of the Russian government.
In addition to the Inspector General's referral of the McCabe evidence to John Huber for lying to investigators, Congress has made a criminal referral for violations of 18 USC 1001, 18 USC 1621, 18 USC 1505, and for signing the Carter Page FISA application that contained unverified and false information, violations of 18 USC 242, 18 USC 1505 and 18 USC 1515b.
Christine Blasey Ford
- Main article: Kavanaugh smear
During testimony, the Committee learned Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's attorneys had withheld from her the fact that Committee staff investigators were willing to travel to California to obtain sworn testimony and maintain confidential information. By not informing their client, the attorneys forced a public hearing of her allegations against her wishes.
Her lawyers also claimed to have the results of a polygraph examination in the form of audio, video and charts attesting to the veracity of her allegations which they refused to share with the Committee. Chairman Chuck Grassley demanded material evidence relevant to allegations the attorneys claimed to have had against Judge Brett Kavanaugh.
The Judiciary Committee issued a statement suggesting that Blasey Ford's legal team may have violated the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct by apparently withholding key information from their client. Blasey Ford's attorneys may face sanctions by the DC Bar Association.
On October 30, 2018 Judicial Watch filed a complaint to the Board of Professional Responsibility of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals of Debra S. Katz, Lisa J. Banks, and Michael R. Bromwich for violating the rules of professional responsibility in their representation of Dr. Blasey Ford before the Senate Judiciary Committee during the Kavanaugh nomination hearings.