We Need A Special Prosecutor — For Hillary Clinton
Nearly a year has passed since Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation launched, and “Russian collusion” remains more fantasy than fact.
As Democrats and their media allies fear-monger for political reasons, they face an inconvenient truth: There is still no smoking gun. While Russian actors appear to have interfered with the 2016 election, the Mueller team — stacked with Clinton and Obama donors — has presented no evidence that President Donald Trump helped orchestrate any of the interference. In Tucker Carlson’s words: “Almost no information has come out to justify the [Russia] obsession. None has come out to justify the claim that there was collusion.”
Desperate for the evidence to justify its existence, the Mueller investigation has now seemingly transitioned to President Trump’s personal life — yet another distraction for ratings-obsessed media elites.
A special prosecutor would be more wisely deployed against the president’s 2016 opponent: Hillary Clinton. The failed presidential candidate is currently embroiled in an $84 million campaign finance scandal that, while largely ignored by the pro-Clinton mainstream media, could result in criminal changes and destroy what’s left of her ruined reputation.
Based on former Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairwoman Donna Brazile’s public comments, a memo by former Clinton campaign manager Robbie Mook, and months of reviewing Federal Election Commission (FEC) reports, the Committee to Defend the President determined the Democratic establishment used state chapters as straw men to circumvent campaign donation limits and launder money to Clinton’s campaign. The Hillary Victory Fund (HVF) — Clinton’s $500 million joint fundraising committee — solicited six-figure donations from high-dollar donors, including Calvin Klein and “Family Guy” creator Seth MacFarlane, and “papered” them through state parties en route to DNC and then the Clinton campaign.
The HVF either never transferred $84 million to state parties, sending the funds straight to the DNC, or it made the transfers without state parties having actual control of the money. In either case, Clinton’s fund violated campaign finance laws in precisely the way the Supreme Court deemed illegal in its 2014 McCutcheon v. FEC ruling. The $84 million money laundering scheme amounts to the single largest campaign finance scandal in U.S. history.
Last December, the Committee filed an FEC complaint targeting the Clinton machine, accusing those involved of “an unprecedented, massive, nationwide multi-million dollar conspiracy.” After the FEC refused to act on the complaint within a statutory 120-day timeframe, the Committee recently sued the FEC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to force action, claiming the FEC’s failure to act is “arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law, and an abuse of discretion.”
But a failure to act transcends legal ineptitude. Our system of democratic governance—in which checks and balances hold political elites accountable to the American people—falls apart when our most embattled political figures escape accountability time and time again. From Whitewater to Benghazi and Uranium One, Hillary Clinton is no stranger to scandal. The scandals that have followed Clinton’s family shape her legacy as much as any of her political accomplishments. Yet she continues to embrace the spotlight, denigrating Trump voters and making excuses for her 2016 failure.
What does it say about our democracy if Clinton is allowed to bask in the spotlight after her campaign broke multiple campaign finance laws? What does it say about federal investigators if an $84 million campaign finance scandal flies under the radar? Are the Clintons above reproach, or will we hold the most corrupt among us accountable for their transgressions?
An $84 million money laundering scheme is a far greater threat to our electoral system than any old wives’ tale of Russian collusion. Let’s support the special prosecutor—to finally hold Hillary Clinton accountable.
Ted Harvey is chairman of the Committee to Defend the President.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of The Daily Caller.