Last week’s reprieve from a recommendation that Hillary be indicted for her “extremely careless” handling of classified and sensitive information isn’t the first time she barely escaped that fate.
Please scroll down for video, “Millennials Guide to Clinton Scandals of the 1990’s.”
From the Washington Post:
Nearly 20 years before FBI Director James B. Comey declared that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a criminal case against Clinton over her use of a private email server while secretary of state, Clinton narrowly escaped a similar legal peril amid the Whitewater investigation that engulfed much of her husband’s time as president.
While history remembers the 1990s probe led by independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr for its pursuit of President Bill Clinton over the possibility he had lied under oath about his relationship with intern Monica Lewinsky, internal documents from the inquiry show how close prosecutors came to filing charges at that time against Hillary Clinton. They even drew up a draft indictment for Clinton, which has never been made public.
As in the email controversy of today, Clinton’s honesty was a central question facing investigators in 1998 as they weighed whether what they saw as shifting stories from Clinton amounted to an attempt to cover up misconduct. Like the events of today, Clinton was interviewed for hours by authorities. Unlike the email inquiry, in which Comey said Clinton’s status as a presidential candidate had no effect on the decision not to charge her, documents from the 1990s show how prosecutors weighed whether Clinton’s political popularity would make her more difficult to convict.
At issue then was legal work Clinton had performed in the 1980s while an attorney at Little Rock’s Rose Law Firm on behalf of Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan, which was owned by a business partner of the Clintons who was later convicted of fraud in connection with bad loans made by the thrift. Clinton said that her legal work was minimal and that she was unaware of the wrongdoing at Madison Guaranty.
Sounds familiar doesn’t it? The WaPo got these prosecutorial records from a FOIA request, but the National Archives has not released the draft indictment. Judicial Watch is suing to get this document.
Even you remember the 1990’s, this video will probably remind you of some things that you have forgotten.
Just as James Comey told us during his press conference last week, and later during his testimony before the House Oversight Committee, the reason that Hillary didn’t face legal justice, is NOT because she didn’t do anything wrong–Comey made that clear, didn’t he? No, it’s because he didn’t think she could be convicted because of her membership in the elite.
The released records include a memo, written by Starr’s team, summarizing the evidence against Clinton. The prosecutors noted that she made numerous sworn statements between January 1994 and February 1996 that they thought “reflected and embodied materially inaccurate stories.”
“The question, generally, is not whether the statements are inaccurate, but whether they are willfully so,” the prosecutors continued.
The records show the prosecutors had doubts about whether potential jurors would be swayed by a largely circumstantial case, particularly given Clinton’s stature as first lady.
Prosecutor Paul Rosenzweig laid out the odds for various outcomes in a memo to colleagues. He predicted a 2 percent chance that a judge would toss the case, then continued: “18 percent = Acquittal; 70 percent = Hung Jury; 10 percent = Conviction.”
Oh and speaking of Comey, how about this little nugget, from Time:
Comey’s first brush with them came when Bill Clinton was president. Looking to get back into government after a stint in private practice, Comey signed on as deputy special counsel to the Senate Whitewater Committee. In 1996, after months of work, Comey came to some damning conclusions: Hillary Clinton was personally involved in mishandling documents and had ordered others to block investigators as they pursued their case. Worse, her behavior fit into a pattern of concealment: she and her husband had tried to hide their roles in two other matters under investigation by law enforcement. Taken together, the interference by White House officials, which included destruction of documents, amounted to “far more than just aggressive lawyering or political naiveté,” Comey and his fellow investigators concluded. It constituted “a highly improper pattern of deliberate misconduct.”
Whoa! Are we condemned to relive the 1990’s? Do we really want to enable these two reprobates, the Clintons, who are largely responsible for the decline of personal morality in politics, again?