NEW YORK – Former U.S. attorney Joseph diGenova believes there’s a “50-50 chance” that Attorney General Loretta Lynch will appoint a special prosecutor to handle Hillary Clinton’s classified-information case.
He has no doubt, he told WND in an interview, that “the FBI is building a case, and it’s going to be referred to Attorney General Loretta Lynch for indictment and prosecution.”
DiGenova, a former federal prosecutor appointed by President Reagan, said appointing a special prosecutor is a way for Lynch “to avoid being accused of being a political hack if she should decline to prosecute as soon as she got a referral from the FBI.”
“I’m 100 percent certain the Obama Department of Justice is going to have to make a decision within the next 60 to 90 days, and the best decision would be to appoint a special counsel so the Obama DOJ cannot be accused of interfering politically in the criminal process,” he said.
“It’s such an easy answer that it’s a no-brainer,” said diGenova. “It’s the course I would recommend Attorney General Lynch should and will take.”
‘Sufficient and credible evidence to indict’
DiGenova previously disclosed that the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of a home-based private email has expanded from a concern that she and her top aides violated federal laws governing the handling of classified intelligence into an investigation of political corruption.
The corruption angle centers on allegations that Clinton freely mixed Clinton Foundation matters with State Department work in a clear conflict of interest.
DiGenova told WND that in both facets of the expanded FBI investigation investigators have compiled overwhelming evidence of Clinton’s guilt.
“Based on all the available evidence, including what is publicly known and what is known in the law enforcement community, there is sufficient, credible evidence needed to meet the predicate to begin a grand jury – sufficient evidence for probable cause to believe various crimes have been committed,” diGenova said.
“First of all, the key to this is the private server,” he said. “The existence of that server and its use by Hillary and her aides in an unencrypted mode, along with all their unencrypted personal devices, is a per se violation of the Espionage Act. It is the failure to properly store, maintain and protect classified information.”
He believes the home-based private email system was designed to prevent disclosure.
“That establishes the intent necessary for criminal activity, in the area of negligent handling of classified information,” he said.
DiGenova told WND that his law enforcement sources have confirmed to him the FBI already has established a criminal case against a number of people on that score.
“The FBI, by virtue of seizing not only Hillary Clinton’s server but also numerous servers at the State Department, has begun to unravel the various communication levels and levels of classification beyond what the State Department is slowly releasing to the public,” diGenova said.
“They are acting on the basis that the server was set up purposefully to avoid disclosure to the public, the press, the Congress and the courts, in response to legitimate legal requests and in response to subpoena.”
The Clinton Foundation angle is the result of information that the FBI has obtained from analyzing all of the material from the State Department, he said.
“What the FBI has established is that there is a nexus, there is a symmetry between the official acts of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her office and the speech and fundraising activities of the Clinton Foundation.”
‘Hillary case dwarfs Petraeus crime’
DiGenova said his information comes from sources in touch with the investigation.
“I have been speaking with former FBI agents, former Secret Service people, former people from the intelligence community, and based on the information they have secured from their brothers and sisters in the law enforcement community, there is unanimity on the fact that charges are going to be recommended by the FBI. It is impossible for them not to, under the circumstances,” diGenova disclosed.
He said that if he were a U.S. attorney today and this investigation was in his office, he would empanel a grand jury and seek charges.
“There are people who have lost their jobs, lost their security clearances, have been convicted of crimes, for leaving a single document out on their desks overnight,” he argued.
“This case dwarfs, and I underscore dwarfs, the Petraeus case by multiples in the thousands.”
On April 23, 2015, Gen. David Petraeus, the former CIA director, was sentenced in federal court to two years probation and a $100,000 fine for sharing classified information with his biographer and lover, Paula Broadwell.
‘FBI has proof’
DiGenova affirmed to WND that the FBI has now examined a sufficient quantity of Clinton emails to establish the bribery allegations that investigative journalist Peter Schweizer made in writing his controversial 2015 bestseller, “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.”
“Sufficient evidence exists for a predicate investigation of criminal activity by virtue of all those people involved in that activity between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation people” diGenova said. “There is no doubt that predicates now exist for investigations in all these areas, and there is simply no doubt that the FBI is going to recommend a series of charges to the Attorney General Lynch.”
On the April 26, 2015, broadcast of “Fox News Sunday,” anchor Chris Wallace interviewed attorney Lanny Davis, a longtime Clinton family defender, about the Schweizer book.
Wallace asked Davis about an accusation Schweizer made in “Cold Cash” that Canadian mining executive Frank Giustra arranged millions of dollars in donations to the Clinton Foundation and a $500,000 speaking fee for Bill Clinton in Moscow after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton voted not to block a transaction by Rosatom, an energy company owned by the Russian government. Rosatom wanted to buy from Giustra a company called “Uranium One” that had contracts Schweizer argued controlled about half of U.S. domestic uranium output.
Wallace asked Davis:
Do you think it was a coincidence all these Canadian mining executives are giving millions to the foundation, that a company with close ties to Vladimir Putin’s government in Russia is giving half-a-million dollar speech? Do you think that’s a coincidence that’s happening while the Russian company that wants to buy Uranium One has business before the State Department? Do you think that’s a coincidence?
The background to Davis’ answer is that CIFUS is the acronym for the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, the inter-agency committee of the U.S. government, operating out of the U.S. Treasury that is responsible to review and authorize transactions of a U.S. business that could result in a foreign person or entity undermining U.S. national security interests.
As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton was a member of CIFUS. On Page 54 of his book, “Clinton Cash,” Schweizer charged Clinton was the only presidential candidate in 2008 to make an issue of the importance of strengthening CIFUS to protect U.S. economic sovereignty and national security.
Yet, in October 2010, CIFUS reviewed and approved the Rosatom acquisition of majority control in Uranium One before the deal was done. In 2013, Rosatom acquired all remaining shares of Uranium One.
On Fox News Sunday, Davis answered Wallace’s question:
I don’t use the word “coincidence.” Of course, it’s a coincidence, but it’s a false inference. It sounds like if two incidents occur side by side, like the rooster crows and then the sun rises, it’s a coincidence that the sun rises after the rooster crows. The rooster doesn’t cause the sun to rise. In this case, the man on CFIUS from State has been publicly quoted, not by Mr. Schweizer, not by The New York Times, that nobody from the State Department, Hillary Clinton, never one intervened on that decision or any other decision. That’s a fact omitted by Mr. Schweizer.
The point Davis was making is that even though the sequence of events look suspicious, the email or other written evidence of a quid pro quo deal proving the Clintons were paid to allow Guistra’s uranium bonanza to proceed to fruition was lacking.
DiGenova’s point is that the FBI, by examining Clinton emails when she was secretary of state, has now established the evidence to substantiate a bribery criminal case, despite denials from experienced Clinton defenders such as Davis.