Will This Poll Convince Congress to Appoint a Special Prosecutor to Investigate Hillary?

13-9-artcile3Hopelessly politicized Justice Department leaves most Americans demanding an independent investigation of Hillary Clinton.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans say Congress should appoint a special prosecutor to investigate contributions to the Clinton Foundation and whether Hillary Clinton sold access to the State Department, a new Investors Business Daily poll finds.

Sixty-three percent of Americans polled say a special prosecutor should be appointed to look into the relationship between donations to the Clinton Foundation and official actions taken by Hillary Clinton’s State Department.

Among political independents, a shocking 68 percent want a special prosecutor.

Ironically, the naked effort by the hopelessly politicized Justice Department has driven Americans to demand a special prosecutor.

Angered by the FBI’s blatant partisan bias, the public have lost all faith in the Justice Department and want Clinton investigated by an actual law enforcement body.

“Yet, those investigating both the Clinton email scandal and the related questions about the Clinton Foundation have been met with hostility by Clinton partisans. FBI Director James Comey, who all but indicted Hillary with his words when he announced he would not prosecute her, this week even had to defend his decision to release more documents from his investigation,” IBD reports.


“For the record, his investigation — and subsequent testimony to Congress — found that Hillary lied repeatedly about her home-brew email server and about sending and receiving classified information on it. All of these are crimes,” IBD reports.

The fact the FBI admitted Clinton committed crimes, but would not be prosecuted because of her political position, was an admission of what the public knew since 2009 – the Justice Department is nothing more than the Obama administration’s dirty political enforcers.

The public have reason to suspect illegal activity by Clinton, and they realize it can only be proven or disproven by a special prosecutor.

“Though she promised an arms-length relationship to the foundation when she was first named secretary of state, at least 181 Clinton Foundation donors — companies, individuals, even countries — lobbied the State Department during her years there,” IBD reports.

“Indeed, more than half the non-government people who met with Hillary — 85 of 154 — while she was in office gave money to the Clinton Foundation. Those donors, together, gave as much as $156 million to the Clinton Foundation, according to an Associated Press analysis,” IBD reports.

One issue a special prosecutor would almost certainly investigate is the likely relationship between massive donations to the Clinton Foundation by Russian companies tied to the Kremlin, and Clinton’s approval of the sale of 20 percent of the United States’ uranium reserves to Russian companies.

The New York Times reports:

The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”

The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain…

…As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.
Shortly after donating $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation and $500,000 directly to Bill Clinton, Rosatom attempted to buy those massive uranium reserves.

But there was a catch.  The sale needed to be approved by a certain public official.

Hillary Clinton.

“Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies,” The Times reports.  “Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.”

The FBI does not appear to have ever investigated whether the cash from Russia was tied to an effort to influence Hillary Clinton.

A special prosecutor could also look into Clinton’s mishandling of classified information over an unsecured server – as well as the destruction of emails under subpoena – and determine whether the clearly obvious intent to evade the law really exists, in addition to Clinton’s false testimony to Congress and the FBI.

There is precedent.  When officials in the George W. Bush administration allegedly leaked the identity of a CIA operative, the Justice Department initially dismissed the allegations, but a special prosecutor looked into the case and won a conviction against White House adviser Scooter Libby for lying to the FBI.

Ironically, that special prosecutor was appointed by then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey.

Congress has a duty to appoint a special prosecutor.

Aside from the FBI’s email investigation, there has been no Justice Department review of donations to the Clinton Foundation, or the discrepancies between Clinton’s testimony to the House Select Committee on Benghazi and the evidence collected by the FBI.

“After the FBI and Department of Justice whitewashed Hillary Clinton’s email crimes, they certainly cannot be trusted to quickly or impartially investigate Hillary Clinton’s new crimes,” said Republican nominee Donald Trump at an Ohio rally in August.


“The Justice Department is required to appoint an independent Special Prosecutor because it has proven itself to be really, sadly a political arm of the White House,” said Trump.

Trump isn’t the only Republican calling for a special prosecutor.

Former Congressman Bob Barr, who also served as one of the impeachment managers against Bill Clinton, points out Congress has a legal duty to appoint one.

“Americans are slightly more than two months away from going to the polls to select a new president. They are entitled to have far more facts about Mrs. Clinton before making their choice than either the candidate or the current Administration has been willing to provide,” Barr recently wrote for Town Hall. “And, despite the fact that a Special Prosecutor appointed now would very likely not conclude his or her investigation into this matter by November 8th, simply appointing such a person would give the voters the assurance that an impartial investigation will take place and ultimately result in the truth coming out.”

Congress has two choices.  They can either allow the Justice Department to continue to operate as an arm of the Democratic National Committee, or they can appoint a special prosecutor to look into Clinton’s Benghazi testimony and Clinton Foundation donations.