WASHINGTON, September 16, 2016 — House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz had to read it in the New York Times. The FBI admitted in a pre-Labor Day document dump that a person unknown to Congress was given an immunity deal as part of their investigation.
According to the Times, computer specialist Paul Combetta, who helped set up Hillary Clinton’s home email server, was “one of at least two people who were given immunity by the Justice Department as part of the [Clinton email] investigation.”
The FBI’s response to requests by the House Oversight Committee for written summaries (known as 302s) of witness testimony was to black-out (redact) “the specialist’s name, but the law enforcement officials and others familiar with the case identified the employee as Mr. Combetta,” said the Times.
It thus appears that the FBI knowingly withheld information from an investigative committee of Congress in order to cover the tracks of the target of their investigation: Hillary Clinton.
When the FBI’s Acting Assistant Congressional Affairs Director Jason Herring appeared before Congress, Chaffetz asked, “What is it that I as a member of Congress, or any member of this Congress—of either side of the aisle—what is it that you believe we don’t have the right to see?”
Herring looked up as though seeking divine guidance.
“You see,” said Chaffetz, “this is the way our government works. We [Congress] get to do oversight. That’s why since 1814 this committee has been doing that.”
Chaffetz asked, “Has the president invoked executive privilege in this case?”
“No,” whispered Herring.
Chaffetz then asked the $65 million question, “Where in the Constitution does it say that I can’t see that [information]?”
A sheepish Herring parsed his answer in the manner of, well, a Clinton, “It doesn’t address it specifically in the Constitution.”
“The reality is, you should give us all the 302s,” demanded Chaffetz.
And this is when a rare moment of clarity radiated from under the Capitol Dome.
“Let me say this,” began Herring, “I think the [FBI] director made principled decisions about what to say to Congress when he was here and also what to provide Congress.”
And that is when Chaffetz blew a gasket.
“You don’t get to decide what I get to see. I get to see it all. I was elected by some 800,000 people to come to Congress and see classified information. I was elected by my colleagues here to be the chairman of this committee. That’s the way our Constitution works.”
With that, Chaffetz got back to the issue at hand, “Will the FBI provide to Congress the full [Clinton investigation] file with no redactions of personal, identifiable information?”
Without missing a beat the FBI’s congressional liaison looked Chaffetz in the eye and said, “I cannot make that commitment sitting here today.”
It was clear Chaffetz expected the Justice Department to kick its Clinton cover-up into high gear.
He grabbed a nearby document, held it up and said, “I’m going to issue a subpoena. And I’m going to do it right now … You are hereby served.”
The 2016 election is not about building a wall on our border with Mexico. It’s not about government providing a free college education for our nation’s youth or granting extra-constitutional privileges for transgenders in search of bathroom facilities.
It is about weaponized government.
The Executive Branch departments running interference for Clinton are the same government agencies that stonewalled congressional subpoenas concerning Operation Fast and Furious, in which hundreds of innocent people died after the Justice Department sold thousands of weapons to a Mexican drug cartel.
The Obama Administration official who coordinated with the Justice Department and the Federal Election Commission in targeting Americans concerned with government threats to their freedom, IRS Exempt Organizations Unit Director Lois Lerner, defied congressional subpoenas and later pled the Fifth when compelled to testify before the nation’s lawmakers.
Lerner never faced trial. Today, she is retired and living off a fat federal pension paid in part by the very taxpayers she targeted.
The Justice Department quietly dropped the Lerner matter, saying in a written statement to the press, “We found no evidence that any IRS official acted based on political, discriminatory, corrupt, or other inappropriate motives that would support a criminal prosecution.”
If that statement has the ring of familiarity, what follows is a portion of FBI Director James Comey’s statement on his agency’s recommendation to the Justice Department regarding possible legal action in the Hillary Clinton email matter:
We cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved … intentional and willful mishandling of classified information … or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
Our government clearly protects its own, whether the person in question is Lois Lerner or Hillary Clinton.
But in the case of Mrs. Clinton, she is much more than the presidential nominee for the party of big, intrusive government. She is the avatar of its weaponized manifestation.