- The Washington Times - Thursday, August 3, 2017

Say Benghazi and everybody in America sees Hillary Clinton, at a congressional hearing, asking plaintively, desperately, angrily, in reference to the truth: “What difference at this point does it make?”

Good question. Let’s have a look.

That matter, that Benghazi matter, has since been settled — at least, in the minds of the left. A House report didn’t reveal any bombshells, a wrongful death suit filed in federal court against Clinton was just dismissed this May.

And even though questions still linger — this, “Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi Debacle: Arming Jihadists in Libya … and Syria,” from a National Review headline in August 2016 — fact is, Clinton seems to have skated on the responsibility factor of Benghazi.

But the former first lady-turned-secretary-of-state didn’t become the face of Scandals Filed, But Not Forgotten for nothing. She’s got more curious connections than Baby Swiss does holes.

Twenty Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee recently asked the Justice Department via letter to appoint a second special counsel to look into actions taken by Clinton, former FBI chief James Comey and ex-Attorney General Loretta Lynch during the 2016 campaign season. Their concerns?

They say special counsel Robert Mueller’s look at Russian election interference is too narrow and that the investigation ought to expand to cover the time frame of Barack Obama’s administration, focusing particularly on Comey’s handling of Clinton’s email server scandal and the hush-hush impromptu meeting and chat between Lynch and Bill Clinton at a Phoenix airport.

“[W]e are not confident that other matters related to the 2016 election and aftermath are similarly under investigation by Special Counsel Mueller,” the letter states. “The unbalanced, uncertain and seemingly unlimited focus of the special counsel’s investigation has led many of our constituents to see a dual standard of justice that benefits only the powerful and politically well-connected.”

In layman’s? Watchdogging and bulldogging President Donald Trump while lap-dogging Clinton and her around-the-clock team of supporters strikes as biased.

Then came this, from Sen. Chuck Grassley, on behalf of the Senate Judiciary Committee: Dear Justice Department — can we get an investigation into Clinton?

In a late July letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, Grassley wrote: “Are you investigating the Ukrainian government’s intervention in the 2016 presidential election on behalf of the Clinton campaign? If not, why not?”

That was after Trump himself publicly pondered why his supposed friends in high political places — the GOP, the ones in his own Cabinet — were standing silently by as the left donned one tin foil hat after another to find a Russia collusion connection.

“Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump campaign — ‘quietly working to boost Clinton,’ ” Trump tweeted, alongside a handle to Sean Hannity of Fox News. “So where is the investigation A.G.”

Let’s not forget the Clinton Foundation, and its role in taking in dollars and doling them out for perceived political purposes, all at the same time Clinton was serving in the Obama administration. Books could be written about the possible improprieties and illegalities there. Books have been written about just that, in fact.

And now this, from Judicial Watch, just this week — a headline on a press release that reads: “Huma Abedin Emails Reveal Transmission of Classified Information and Clinton Foundation Donors Receiving Special Treatment from Clinton State Department.”

Ruh-roh, Scooby.

Roughly 1,606 pages of just-released documents to the watchdog group from the State Department reveal emails “from the unsecure, non-government account of Huma Abedin, Clinton’s then-deputy chief of staff” that indicate Clinton and her staffers “expressing interest in visiting Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez and North Korean dictator Kim Jung Il,” Judicial Watch reported in the statement.

The watchdog went on to write: “A number of emails show the free flow of information and requests for favors between Clinton’s State Department and the Clinton Foundation and major Clinton donors. … Other emails show a lax attitude toward the security of communications.”

That aside, what’s also clear is that Clinton never did turn over all her emails to the State Department, despite a court order compelling her to and despite her statements to the contrary — that “as far as she knew,” she had taken all the emails from her private, home-based server and given then to her former government employer.

The weeds are deep. Scandal is Clinton’s middle name.

So here’s the takeaway, for the average American watching the ongoing media-fueled frenzy to find collusion between Russia and Team Trump on the election trail: That investigation’s gone nowhere.

No facts, no evidence, nothing concrete to show.

But there sits Clinton, red flags piled high. How about some critical eyes being thrown her way? And not just from the conservative media — from mainstream news outlets, from Congress, even courts if necessary.

‘Lest we forget: Hillary’s past haunts. The Republicans in Congress, in the majority in both houses, are in position to do something about it. The Justice Department, led by a conservative, backed by a Republican, has the standing, and the ability. And the American people are willing for the investigations to commence. So let’s kick it into high gear and let’s get as watchdoggy on Clinton as Democrats are getting with the White House. Guaranteed, an investigation or two into Clinton won’t turn up the same nothing-burgers as they do for Trump.

Copyright © 2021 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide