For well over a year, various investigators have searched for the evidence that would prove the Russian collusion allegations. Unlike most cases, which eventually end when no evidence turns up, the Trump/Russia narrative managed to survive – and grow. While proof of Trump’s collusion with Russia has been elusive, there is some evidence that has been pushed to the back burner for far too long. It’s time some Democrats feel the heat.
The Trump/Russia Collusion Story Won’t Go Away
Let’s be clear about one thing: The Trump/Russia collusion story won’t go away. It not only survived a total lack of evidence for more than a year, but grew. Even while the only evidence found seemed to show corruption on the parts of Hillary Clinton, Loretta Lynch, and even Barack Obama, President Trump remained the focus of the investigation. How could this be? Apparently, those who push this case have no interest in any truth other than Trump’s guilt – whether it’s actually true or not.
Resistance politicians and the liberal media clamped down on this story like a rabid pit bull from the very beginning. Now that suspected plans for a Russian Trump Tower and Don Jr.’s meeting with a Russian lawyer – a meeting that seems likely to have been set up solely to incriminate him – have come to light, there’s no reason for them to let go. And if it turns out after all this time that President Trump and/or someone connected to him did collude with the Russians, then it will be those rabid anti-Trumpers who uncover it.
However, even if it turns out Donald Trump had everyone else fooled, that doesn’t excuse the lackluster pursuit of the evidence of Democrat corruption. As previously reported on Liberty Nation, even in the absence of anything pointing to Trump’s guilt, the Russia investigation uncovered Loretta Lynch’s alleged attempt to gloss over the Clinton email investigation and the fact that Barack Obama knew about the Russian hacking attempts and chose to do nothing. More recently, an “exoneration speech” regarding Hillary Clinton was uncovered – a speech former FBI Director James Comey drafted before he even interviewed her.
It’s Time to Prosecute Some Democrats
In an opinion piece for The Hill, retired FBI Supervisory Special Agent James Gagliano called for a special prosecutor for the Clinton e-mail case. He lays out the evidence and then explains that, despite the inevitable complaints and accusations of misdirection to come from the left, this is the right thing to do:
And if we deem the Russian collusion investigation appropriate and necessary, should we not also appeal to the Attorney General to appoint a special prosecutor in the email matter as well?
This isn’t a case of whataboutism. It’s a clear-cut case about doing what’s right.
Here’s what we now know about this “matter.”
- Loretta Lynch attempted to downplay the significance of the e-mail investigation by ordering Comey to call it a “matter” rather than an investigation – language which perfectly matched what the Clinton presidential campaign called it.
- Hillary Clinton did technically break the law, but James Comey didn’t feel that she intended
to. The “I didn’t mean to break the law” argument doesn’t typically save other, less politically powerful defendants.
- Comey drafted an “exoneration speech” clearing Mrs. Clinton before he even interviewed her – then lied and said he only made the decision afterward.
- Devices containing evidence were allowed to be destroyed.
This list of facts led Mr. Gagliano to the following two statements:
As a retired FBI agent with some two and half decades of investigative
experience, I struggle to comprehend why these types of allowances were conceded to a person under investigation…
As any investigator or prosecutor worth their salt could tell you: We don’t reach conclusions until all the facts are in and have been fairly weighed and considered.
He’s right; it is time for a special prosecutor to reopen the e-mail case. But Hillary Clinton isn’t the only one who needs to be scrutinized more carefully. It seems Loretta Lynch did everything in her power to ensure Hillary Clinton was spared – as did, apparently, James Comey. All three of them have thus far eluded prosecution.
Beyond the e-mail case, Barack Obama was informed of the Russian interference well before the election and didn’t do anything stop it or to inform anyone else. In short, he allowed it. Lynch has been called to testify in front of the Senate but has yet to do so. Why have Obama, Lynch, Clinton, and Comey been spared prosecution for what sure looks like criminal activity? It’s time to stop ignoring the evidence; it’s time to prosecute some Democrats.