Recent revelations regarding the closure of the 2016 FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation, particularly Jack Smith’s role, have sparked controversy and raised significant questions about the decision-making process within the Department of Justice.
Special Counsel John Durham’s report, released recently, sheds light on a complex narrative surrounding this closure, highlighting potential political influences that may have impacted the course of the investigation.
Central to the controversy is Ray Hulser, a prosecutor on Smith’s team, whose pivotal role in halting the investigations has drawn attention. A report by American Greatness on Friday, January 5, 2024, highlighted Hulser’s involvement and decision-making during this crucial period.
More Read
Despite indications of suspicious foreign transactions and investigations by three separate FBI field offices into potential criminal activities linked to the Clinton Foundation, Hulser, who was then the chief of the Department of Justice’s Public Integrity Section, opted against pursuing prosecution, citing insufficient grounds.
Durham’s report underscores that the investigations in New York and Little Rock were founded on source reporting, indicating potential contributions offered by foreign governments to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for favorable treatment. The decision to halt these investigations sharply contrasted with this evidence, leading to increased scrutiny of Hulser’s rationale.
Crucial meetings in February 2016 revealed Hulser downplaying critical information, dismissing financial reporting issues as “de minimis.” However, Durham’s team unearthed transactions involving substantial amounts, raising concerns about potential violations related to bribery or gratuity that had been previously dismissed.
The report delves into the intricacies of Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) associated with the Clinton Foundation. It highlights the responsibility of banks to file such reports while leaving the determination of criminality to the Justice Department. Additionally, the suggestion that the Clinton name likely warranted the foundation a “politically exposed person” designation within financial institutions adds complexity to the investigation.
Former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy expressed concerns about the Biden Justice Department’s appointment of a special counsel, hinting at potential political motivations. This sentiment aligns with the article’s emphasis on perceived disparities between the handling of Clinton investigations and the Trump-Russia probe.
Aside from the Clinton Foundation investigation, scrutiny intensifies over Hulser’s involvement in other cases, casting doubts on the impartiality of the decision-making process within the Department of Justice.
The article also touches upon Trump’s attempt to hold Smith in contempt for violating a stay order in the 2020 election investigation. This further adds to the narrative of potential political influences affecting various legal proceedings.
