Former FBI Top Lawyer Thought Charges Should Have Been Brought Against Hillary Clinton

In 2016, Americans were appalled to learn former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her team mishandled “highly classified” information, namely, sensitive emails sent through her private server.

This week, through a released transcript of his closed-door testimony, we learned that the FBI’s top lawyer felt Clinton should have been prosecuted “pretty late” in the investigation.

James Baker, former FBI general counsel, revealed that high-level bureau officials were “arguing about” whether to bring charges against Clinton.

Fox News reports:

“Well, I know there’s been a lot of public discussion about that,” Baker said, referring to Comey’s memos. “I believe if I had been persuaded that she had the intent, I would have argued that vociferously with him [Comey] and maybe changed his view. And I think he would have been receptive to changing his view even after he wrote that thing.”

He added: “My original belief — well, after having conducted the investigation and towards the end of it, then sitting down and reading a binder of her materials, I thought that it was alarming, appalling, whatever words I said, and argued with others about why they thought she shouldn’t be charged.”

Baker acknowledged, “I was struggling with the facts about even just ascertaining what literally did she know and what was reasonable to infer about what she knew.”

So Baker is suggesting that high-level officials convinced him that Clinton did not have the necessary “knowledge or criminal intent” to be charged. What a tragedy.

It’s impossible to imagine the statute of limitations has not expired regarding these matters. There is a long list of people who need to answer serious charges, many of them potentially connected to collusion with Russians including the receipt of millions of dollars in donations for a “charity” and other high crimes and misdemeanors.

From what we know, it appears Hillary’s mishandling of classified information was willing and intentional. She should have been held accountable, but apparently the corrupt protect the corrupt.

Think about it: The U.S. Government had spent 25 million and two years to investigate trumped up charges against President Trump, who to anyone’s knowledge never destroyed evidence on his hard drives or communications.

Hillary had a motive. She had intent. She had quid pro quo. There are over 30,000 missing pieces of evidence. It started at the top.

Not only should Hillary Clinton be brought up on charges, but Barack Obama should also have to testify under oath.

What did he know and when did he know it?

Wayne is a freelance writer who was named the 2015 American Conservative Union Blogger of the Year and awarded... More about Wayne Dupree

Mentioned in this article::