• Home
  • Mission of This Site
  • Contact

Impeachable Offenses?

~ The Use & Abuse of Impeachment in the 21st Century

Impeachable Offenses?

Tag Archives: Clinton e-mail investigation

The DOJ Inspector General’s Report on the Clinton E-mail Investigation

15 Friday Jun 2018

Posted by impeachableoffenses in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Anthony Weiner, Clinton e-mail investigation, DOJ Inspector General, IG Report, James Comey, Michael Horowitz

By Frank Bowman

Yesterday Michael Horowitz, Inspector General of the Department of Justice, released his report on the conduct of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s handling of her email accounts while she was Secretary of State.  The notable take-aways from the report include:

  • The affirmation by the IG that the decision to decline prosecution of Secretary Clinton was legally sound.
  • The judgment that none of the conclusions reached by the FBI or the Department of Justice more broadly were influenced by partisan political considerations.
  • The observation that imprudent messages between several FBI employees created the appearance of bias on their part against Mr. Trump, even though no evidence exists to show that the private opinions of these persons affected the course of the Clinton investigation.
  • The conclusion that former FBI Director James Comey made significant errors of judgment and was “insubordinate” in his decisions about the resolution of the Clinton email investigation, particularly his July 2016 press conference in which he preempted the authority of the Attorney General to decide whether the case should or should not be prosecuted, and his decision in October 2016 to announce the reopening of the investigation upon discovery of (ultimately inconsequential) new emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop.
  • The implicit judgment that both Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates failed to use their undoubted authority to rein in Comey’s tendency to go it alone.

Frankly, none of these conclusions will surprise anyone who has been following this story and has a basic knowledge of how the Justice Department works.  Insofar as the entire cavalcade of misjudgments may well have elected Donald Trump to the presidency, it is deeply tragic. But in itself it is nothing more than a tale of basically well-meaning people operating in a complex institutional and political environment … and screwing up.

A notable coda to the publication of the report was the virtually simultaneous publication in the New York Times of a responsive op-ed by Comey in which he persists in claiming that his judgments were correct.  I can’t help but find it a sad display.  It reaffirms my judgment of Comey laid out in detail in this post from several months ago.

Comey is an honest man, but fatally intoxicated by his own sense of unique personal rectitude.  The country and the world are in the grip of a rolling crisis because in 2016 Jim Comey thought his judgment so superior to everyone else’s that the rules and norms of the U.S. Department of Justice just didn’t apply to him.  The Times op-ed demonstrates either that his egotism is impenetrable or that he has built a wall of denial to protect himself from the personal devastation of admitting his mistakes.

Unfortunately, the rest of us have to live with them.

 

Share this:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
Like Loading...

A reality check for impeachment enthusiasts: House Judiciary Committee Republicans

03 Thursday Aug 2017

Posted by impeachableoffenses in Uncategorized

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

Clinton e-mail investigation, Goodlatte, House Judiciary Committee, James Comey, Loretta Lynch, politics of impeachment

Last week, Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and nineteen of the other twenty-three Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions requesting that he appoint a second special counsel (in addition to Robert Mueller).  The list of things the Republicans want investigated is long, running to fourteen items, including Hillary Clinton’s e-mails and the investigation thereof, former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, former FBI Director James Comey, Mr. Trump’s post-election claims “that he was wiretapped by the previous administration,” and – this one is particularly rich – “inappropriate collusion between the DNC and the Clinton campaign to undermine Senator Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign.”

This is, of course, not a serious document written by or for serious people.  It is instead a grab-bag compilation of pre- and post-election conspiracy theories and Trump Administration talking points aimed at deflecting attention from the Mueller investigation.  The letter is unaccompanied by any evidence that the events listed actually happened, or any legal argument that, if they did, the alleged misconduct amounted to criminal offenses.

For example, the first two items on the list — that former AG Lynch encouraged then-FBI Director Comey to “mislead the American people” by insisting that he refer to the Clinton investigation as a “matter,” and the “shadow cast over our system of justice concerning Secretary Clinton and her involvement in mishandling classified information” — are ludicrous as action items in a letter seeking a criminal investigation.  If Ms. Lynch did make this request to Mr. Comey, it would indicate that she was trying to minimize the political damage of the FBI probe to Secretary Clinton, but that is not a crime.  And federal prosecutors, whether regular or special, do not investigate non-crimes.  Nor does the Department of Justice investigate “shadows” over justice systems.

The letter is doubly frivolous in that few, if any, of the matters listed — even if they happened and were colorably criminal — would require a “special counsel.”

If Mr. Trump suspects he was “wiretapped” by the FBI, the NSA, the CIA, or any other federal agency, all he has to do is order the appointed heads of those agencies to inquire of their own subordinates.  If former Department of Justice officials are alleged to have behaved improperly, that would be a matter for the Department’s own Inspector General.  The need for a “special counsel” would arise only if politically appointed senior DOJ officials would have conflicts of interest in overseeing an investigation that could not be dealt with by individual recusal.  The only items on the list that might arguably fall into this category are the two or three proposing investigation into the foreign connections of the Clinton Foundation.  Such an investigation, though not presenting a conflict of interest under DOJ regulations, might call for a special counsel if the Attorney General concluded that investigating his boss’s former political adversary would present an appearance of impropriety.

But that, of course, is the most troublesome part of the Goodlatte letter.  Because — absent the most compelling evidence of criminality — such an investigation would be improper.  In the United States, successful candidates for political office do not use their newly-acquired powers to prosecute their defeated opponents.  That is a key marker of incipient authoritarianism.  The fact that twenty Republican lawmakers – virtually all of whom are lawyers – do not understand this most elemental of democratic political norms is profoundly disheartening.

It should also be a reality check for those hopeful that, given compelling evidence of impeachable conduct, Congress will act to remove Mr. Trump.  The sad fact is that, at least on the House side, Congress is not performing the role assigned it by the Framers of providing an institutional check on presidential misbehavior.  Indeed, particularly on the House side,  congressmen are actively enabling Mr. Trump’s misbehavior and thus actively abetting the steady degradation of the constitutional norms that have made the country work.  The Goodlatte letter represents a new low in this calamitous political degeneracy.

No president can be impeached unless a majority of the House of Representatives endorses that result.  Sadly, I think it fair to conclude that no kind or degree of deviancy or outrageousness will move a Republican House to impeach him, at least so long as Mr. Trump retains the loyalty of his Republican base.  And Mr. Trump continues to be supported by more than 80% of Republican voters.

Share this:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
Like Loading...

Blog Owner

Frank O. Bowman, III


Curators' Distinguished Professor Emeritus
Floyd R. Gibson Missouri Endowed Prof of Law Emeritus
Univ of Missouri School of Law

Web Profile

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Professor Bowman on Impeachment »

Bibliographies

Explore bibliographies categorized by author and subject, and find other resources.

Posts by Topic

  • The Case for Impeachment
  • Defining Impeachable Conduct
  • Impeachment on Foreign Policy Grounds
  • Impeachment for Unfitness
  • Obstruction of Justice
  • Abuse of Criminal Investigative Authority
  • Election Law Violations
  • Foreign Emoluments
  • Conspiracy to Defraud the   United States
  • Politics of Impeachment
  • Lying as an Impeachable Offense
  • Abuse of Pardon Power
  • Electoral College
  • House Impeachment Resolutions
  • The Logan Act
  • The Mueller Investigation
  • Impeachment of Missouri Governor Greitens
  • Historical Precedent for Impeachment
  • Messages from Professor Bowman

Student Contributors »

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Impeachable Offenses?
    • Join 199 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Impeachable Offenses?
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
%d