Hillary Clinton Email Investigation Closed by Attorney General

Wall Street Journal – by Peter Nicholas and Colleen McCain Nelson

WASHINGTON—Attorney General Loretta Lynch said Wednesday that she is closing the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information while she was secretary of state, officially ending the yearlong legal drama that had threatened the presumptive Democratic nominee’s bid for the presidency.

The nation’s top law-enforcement official said in a statement that she had met with Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey and the career prosecutors and agents who had investigated Mrs. Clinton’s use of a personal email server while she was the State Department’s top official. “I received and accepted their unanimous recommendation that the thorough, yearlong investigation be closed and that no charges be brought against any individuals within the scope of the investigation,” she said.  

FBI director James Comey on Tuesday announced in a press conference that the agency recommended against charging Mrs. Clinton over the email issue. While the FBI had found that Mrs. Clinton and her aides had been “extremely careless” in their handling of classified material, there was no clear evidence that anyone intentionally mishandled information, obstructed justice or appeared to be disloyal to the U.S. in the process, he said.

The Justice Department had the final say on whether to charge Mrs. Clinton. Ms. Lynch had earlier said she would follow the recommendations of the FBI and prosecutors.

Despite the closing of the investigation, the political drama over Mrs. Clinton’s emails looked set to continue. Mr. Comey is expected to face sharp questioning Thursday at a House Oversight Committee hearing regarding the FBI’s recommendation, which incensed Republicans who believed Mrs. Clinton should have been charged.

Ms. Lynch will testify on the email investigation next week before the House Judiciary Committee. She has faced heavy scrutiny over a recent meeting with Mrs. Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton, days before Mr. Comey made his recommendation not to press charges,

Members of both political parties said the meeting was inappropriate because Ms. Lynch oversees the FBI, and the encounter could suggest Mr. Clinton was seeking to influence the investigation’s outcome. Both participants said they engaged only in small talk and Ms. Lynch later said she regretted the meeting.

Mr. Comey on Tuesday stressed that the FBI investigation had been apolitical and that his recommendation was made without outside influence.

The Clinton campaign said in a Tuesday statement following Mr. Comey’s recommendation that it was pleased the matter had been resolved, adding: “As the secretary has long said, it was a mistake to use her personal email and she would not do it again.”


5 thoughts on “Hillary Clinton Email Investigation Closed by Attorney General

  1. Treating this matter as having to do or not with secrecy or national security is a red herring. Isn’t the extreme edifice of secrecy and national security a pack of lies anyway–the source of much mischief and abuse? Why would any of us go to bat for that? Does anyone feel sorry for the poor old government, whose secrets didn’t get preserved? Its not as if we can just file a FOIA request and get the information we wish.

    Some have made the point that here was a mixture of personal and business communication. Its as plain as the nose on your face that there is no difference between the Queen’s personal and business lives–BECAUSE HER BUSINESS IS THE ENHANCEMENT OF HER PERSONAL FINANCES AND POWER. Her entire life is an ongoing criminal, conspiratorial enterprise. THAT, and not what the CIA was really doing in Libya, is what the rogue server was designed to conceal and, indeed, further. In her world, everyone has to pay to play, with a nice contribution to the Clinton Foundation or some such other bogus shell. The revelation/discovery of this arrangement is positive evidence of this woman’s corruption because it is the precise point where the day and the night meet, the one turning into the other and the quid pro quo proceeding to its smarmy conclusion.

    The offense here is having to have and actually having the entire system in the first place, NOT whether some alleged secret, rendered such by a rubber stamp, got out.

    1. Your analogy is concise and complete and I do agree. But I will hound this issue for the reality at law that cannot be denied even by the most stupid person who thinks that they can vote someone into this foreign insurgency and save the Republic. In short, it absolutely separates them from us.

  2. Well ain’t that just quaint.

    Almost like a pass the case to a patsy (Comey) and then after he ok’s it, pass it right back to me to give it an official closed stamp of approval. You can’t get more of a “quick cover-up” than that. That’s textbook right there.

Join the Conversation

Your email address will not be published.