Scandal Questions Never Asked, Much Less Answered

Sometimes the hysteria of crowds causes them to overlook the obvious. Here is a series of 12 questions that do not seem to trouble anyone, but the answers to these should expose why so many of the people today alleging scandals should themselves be considered scandalous.

1) Had Hillary Clinton won the election, would we now even know of a Fusion GPS dossier? Would assorted miscreants such as Andrew McCabe, Bruce Ohr, Lisa Page, Glenn Simpson, Christopher Steele, or Peter Strzok now be under a cloud of suspicion? Or would they instead have been quietly lionized by a President Clinton grateful for noble services in the shadows rendered during the campaign?

2) If Clinton had won, would we now know of any Russian-supplied smears against Donald Trump? Would a FISA judge now be complaining that he was misled in a warrant request? Would likely Attorney General Loretta Lynch be reassigning Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr for his consultations with Fusion GPS operatives? Or would Russian operatives alone be likely, at an opportune moment, to threaten to leak to the media that they had given salacious material to Clinton operatives to ensure her election, and thus they were to be owed for their supposed help in ensuring a Clinton victory? Would anyone be now listening to a losing candidate Donald Trump making wild charges that he had been smeared in the closing days of his campaign by leaks of a Clinton cabal that drew on Russian help?

3) Are any Russian related interests currently still donating millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation? Why is Bill Clinton not being asked to speak by various groups—including those with Russian-ties—for $500,000 and above per talk? Is he now less persuasive than he was between 2009 and 2015?

4) Why did Andrew McCabe believe that two Democratic political action funds, one controlled by Clinton “best friend” Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe, donated a total of $675,288 to his wife’s campaign for a rather obscure state senate post? What percentage of Jill McCabe’s actual campaign budget did the $675,288 comprise? And why after her defeat would Andrew McCabe still not recuse himself from directing FBI inquiries into allegations of (likely next president and past generous benefactor) Hillary Clinton’s prior improper use of an email server while Secretary of State? Does quid pro quo refer really more often to simultaneous benefactions or rather sequential ones?

5) What is the qualification for lying or giving false information to FBI investigators, and did the information supplied to the FBI by Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin concerning their knowledge of the use of Hillary Clinton’s private server qualify? Did Christopher’s Steele’s false pledges not to leak any information shared with the FBI to news sources qualify—at least at the level by which the FBI charged Michael Flynn for allegedly lying to their own investigators? Did Andrew McCabe qualify when he told his FBI superiors that he had not been a background source for news stories? What is the FBI’s own internal criminal bar of lying to or providing false information to Congress or government agencies or courts or leaking classified information? Did James Comey qualify when he testified that he had himself never given background interviews (a.k.a., anonymous leaks) to news organizations nor known other FBI agents to do so, or when he testified to Congress that he certainly did not draw up a memorandum exonerating Hillary Clinton from criminal indictment before he interviewed her or when he deliberately leaked several memoranda, possibly classified, taken from confidential conversations with the president?

6) What would have happened had the FISA court justices been apprised by the FBI and the Justice Department that the submitted Steele dossier was a) paid for by Hillary Clinton, b) impossible to verify by the FBI, and 3) the sole source for news stories that were being used in circular fashion to corroborate the dossier’s veracity?

7) Why did Bruce Ohr not disclose to his superiors that he had met with the compiler of the anti-Trump dossier, Christopher Steele, as well as Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS, who had hired Steele? Why did not Ohr disclose on government-mandated ethics forms that his spouse, Nellie, had worked for Fusion GPS on the anti-Trump dossier during the election? What are the criminal and civil penalties for deliberately misleading auditors, if any? Why has Ohr not been put on notice by authorities that he violated such statutes and could face charges?

8) Why is Christopher Steele not under indictment and facing extradition as a foreign agent for a) interfering in a U.S. election, b) colluding with Russian interests to obtain information deemed damaging to a U.S. presidential candidate, c) lying to the FBI about his own disclosures of FBI sensitive material related to the dossier to news organizations? Did Steele’s collusion efforts and interference in a U.S. campaign differ much from, or exceed, the attempts of Russians currently indicted by Robert Mueller?

9) Why did Mueller, at the beginning of his special counsel investigation—to ensure against even the appearance of partisanship or conflicts of interests—not insist of potential hires: a) that they had not donated to either 2016 political campaign, b) that they had not represented past clients who were involved either with the Clinton or Trump organizations or were even tangentially involved with ongoing scandals concerning either Clinton or Trump, c) that were not from his own law firm WilmerHale, which was currently representing, or had in the past, individuals who may well be caught up in future special counsel investigations?

10) Why did Samantha Power, in a non-intelligence affiliated job as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, request classified surveillance of American citizens and others to be sent to her office with the names unmasked, eventually at a rate, on average, of one request per day in 2016? And why and how could she testify that some of those daily requests for unmaskings made in her name were not in fact made by her? If not, then by whom and for what purpose and why with such frequency? And why did the requests continue after the 2016 election and during the transition?

11) Why were the major figures—James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Robert Mueller, Rod Rosenstein, and Peter Strzok—who have in the past investigated, or are currently investigating or overseeing investigations of collusion charges against Donald Trump, all previously involved with investigations of Hillary Clinton? Have they exercised the same methods in the Trump collusion investigation that they used in the past in which Clinton was exonerated?

12) Which members of the Obama administration were aware of, or gave orders to, members of the Obama Justice Department and the FBI to use the Steele dossier to obtain FISA court orders to surveille American citizens? And who had access to transcripts of such surveillance, and why were the names of particular American surveilled then unmasked and how were they later disclosed to the media?

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact

Photo credit: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images; Win McNamee/Getty Images

About Victor Davis Hanson

Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness and the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He is an American military historian, columnist, a former classics professor, and scholar of ancient warfare. He has been a visiting professor at Hillsdale College since 2004. Hanson was awarded the National Humanities Medal in 2007 by President George W. Bush. Hanson is also a farmer (growing raisin grapes on a family farm in Selma, California) and a critic of social trends related to farming and agrarianism. He is the author most recently of The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won, The Case for Trump and the recently released The Dying Citizen.

Photo: President Trump and special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. (Photo by Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images; Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Support Free & Independent Journalism Your support helps protect our independence so that American Greatness can keep delivering top-quality, independent journalism that's free to everyone. Every contribution, however big or small, helps secure our future. If you can, please consider a recurring monthly donation.

Want news updates?

Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.

94 responses to “Scandal Questions Never Asked, Much Less Answered”

  1. The biggest scandal in the history of US politics, and the media is nowhere to be found. Surely Russia Russia and porn stars will eventually lose their appeal when the indictments start. Fun as it is watching lefties and Trump-haters turn themselves into pretzels, the party must end at some point. A sugar-rush can’t go on forever, can it?

    Anyone here who still thinks journalism is alive, at least inside the previously “reputable” MSM?

    In essence, we now have anti-Trumpism as a money-spinner for all the networks and cable outlets. Forget “reality shows”, it’s now “unreality shows” in a never-ending Roman “bread and circuses” atmosphere to keep the brain-dead amused, and the coffers stuffed.

    • WE ask these questions all the time.
      The alt-Left media refuses to.

      • They ask them as much if not more, just from a different a different angle.

    • It isn’t about news quality or quantity. It’s ratings and the fluff that much of cable (all of tv) promotes is about burying truth for fantasy. Plus, their DC wine & croissant crowd can’t be tarnished or those classy dinner invites may diminish or turn into subpoenas.

      • While I agree with your point, I contend that the MSM put political goals ahead of ratings. I think the story of the past adminstration using the intelligence agencies and all levers of government for political goals is far more explosive and would draw the attention of the news watching public.

      • That seems true. And what amazing stories there’d be judging from the question VDH raises in the article.
        Media is so shallow, and one note with all reporting the exact same thing. I always question aloud when hearing the same two stories headlined across multiple media outlets… is there truly no other news happening out there?
        The media has gone from over focus on crime and tragedy to a hyper focus on politics. To the detriment of social cohesion.
        It is baffling and troubling that the news media put politics before profits. I simply do not get it. Are the rewards of virtue signaling truly greater than the rewards of winning in the rough and tumble marketplace?

      • They were, for a while. In six months not one of those TV talking heads will go outdoors without private security. They overplayed their hands. They always do.

      • I would suggest you search online for “news values.” What you find might give you an idea why similar stories are covered by different or competing news outlets. By shallow media, do you mean daily reporting in newspapers and on cable and network news? Because much in-depth reporting is appearing in online publications like the Economist. Read something from POGO. VOX.COM is some days thin but other days rich in news content. I recently read a journalists account of spending a few months avoiding online news and social media, instead reading the NYTimes, the WaPost and the WSJ in paper editions. He found himself much more informed, at some depth, than he had been.

      • Having worked in journalism 35 years, I would argue you do not understand what really happens in newsgathering. Political goals? Not like you think. The most craven news outlet with political goals is Fox News. Fox makes a mockery of news coverage with Fox and Friends in the morning and it’s evening entertainment of pundits. If Fox News, not it’s pundit gallery, we’re competent, why hasn’t the network uncovered previous administrations’ alleged manipulation of intelligence services?

      • Right Bill, and with that duly approved MSM response you will get a gold star for effort. Not so much for truth.

      • Ah, what is truth? I pray the gold star comes with a stipend. Be well.

      • Ratings is assuredly part of their motivation. The greater part is their desire to destroy DJT by any means possible. Unfortunately for them, the malfeasance of the BHO administration is now on record for all to see.

    • Whenever I tune in to msm, the thought comes to me that the companies could save so much on salaries to these on air people by simply running an audio loop, “we hate Trump…Trump is terrible … see us hate Trump …. “. [insert de rigueur daily outrage then loop again]
      Because, if I go soft audio focus, that is how it sounds to me….

    • In Watergate the press worked to uncover the crime. In Obamagate they work to cover it up.

      • Using Federal agencies to surveil the opposition campaign.

        What did the President know and when did he know it?
        –Sen. Howard Baker

      • If any of my comments to you sounded snarky, I apologize. Displaying an “attitude” when replying to posters is, in my opinion, a mistake. I was wrong.

      • Bill, I find it astonishing that you could have read this article and then ask Fester to summarize it for you, since Hanson answers your question at length and in detail. Do you really read American Greatness or are you just here to annoy people?

      • Again, thanks for the note. I think my question of Fester was legitimate. I prefer to be clear on what people are talking about. I did not infer from Fester’s comment that his definition of Obamagate included everything Mr. Hanson had described. Had I been a regular reader of this site, perhaps I would understand better. I did not see Hanson use that label in his piece. Perhaps on this site the definition is implied. And no, I am not here to annoy, even though that may be the result of someone’s reaction to what I post. I will apologize to Fester for my snarky attitude. My only intent n responding to Mr. Hanson was to question the “What if?” nature of his questions. I still think falls short of adding to present knowledge but furthers the theology of conspiracy. Would I like to know the answers to the factual questions he poses? Yes. Do I think a conspiracy is in place? I don’t see enough evidence. Implication? Inference? Suspicion? Yes. Factual connections? Or coincidences? I don’t know. I’ve read and reread much of the Whitewater matter. A lead reporter who moved to Little Rock to cover the “story” is a friend and former colleague. He’s read it all, seen it all and he is not convinced the Clinton’s knowingly engaged in a criminal conspiracy. Did they string together a bunch of mistakes and bad choices and associate with flaky people? Yes. Should they have been prosecuted? No. In my opinion, I think their ignorance of and arrogance about their foolish behavior condemned them to toting a black cloud they could not and cannot recognize. Could Hanson compose 12 unanswered “scandal” questions about Watergate? Sure, if he hasn’t already. But that doesn’t relieve him of the burden of asking questions that won’t be answered.

      • VDH’s point is that no one is even asking the questions, much less providing answers. The media prefers to ask porn stars about their previous relationship with President Trump and continue to connect the Trump campaign with illegal collusion with Russia.
        Don’t care about WHitewater, Secretary Clinton and her staff should have been charged with gross negligence of classified material at a minimum.

      • Thanks for the reply. I spent 35 years working for a major daily newspaper. I think I understand how the daily news cycle works for print and some of how it works on cable news. TV news is almost always going to skew toward scandal, or the sensational, largely because the TV audience enjoys them. The kinds of questions to which Mr. Hanson seeks answers are not answerable on daily TV news. But TV could produce compelling inquiries into much of Hanson’s questions in special programming. Newspapers and magazines, on the other hand, have worked at answering these questions and continue to do so. Perhaps not enough to your liking but I think the reason you know about these questions is because of news you’ve watched or read. The issue at the base of much reporting is Russian meddling with the election. The sideshow, however, is what’s been uncovered about the Trump campaign and how it dealt with the Russians The stories about Trump and other women is another sideshow that is not the fault of the media. Trump is the most uncommon president in my lifetime. Every time he breaks a norm or misleads the public, he’s news. How he’s handled the women’s claims is not like Clinton. Trump is special.

      • Your conclusion is not entirely valid. What else that’s being uncovered is a systemic and far-reaching corruption in multiple agencies. Either a special prosecutor, or a new ‘Woodward and Bernstein’ is needed to doggedly pursue everything enumerated in the above article to the point of exhaustion. There’s too much there to simply dismiss it as a minor issue, or a ‘matter’ or something else hinting at insignificance. Heads need to roll, leakers need to be outed, and if they were taking orders from others either within or outside of the government, that information needs to be found and publicized.

      • But how can it be “uncovered” (much less litigated) if the perpetrators of the former and now in charge of the latter? And the MSM are much more interested in supporting the former perpetrators in favor of destroying our duly elected President and still covering for those very same people.

      • I think the record shows that our duly elected President brought much, if not all of this scrutiny on himself. Personally, I think he went one step too far in his quest to be all-important: He ran for office. Once he decided to run, his past became subject to investigation. His character became part of the discussion about his worthiness to be president. His lack of experience has become a factor in how he has assembled and worked with his staff and how he’s dealt with Congress. His fake faith has bought him cover from some evangelicals. His preference for management by chaos had deeply affected his policies. By signing the Omnibus Bill he rejected much of his base. If anything, the MSM is so busy trying to track Mr. Trump’s scattershot way of governing they hardly have time to revisit the “perpetrators” you see. Time will tell.

      • Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz! Wake me when something happens.

  2. AG Jeff Sessions – Come Out! Come Out! Come Out! Wherever you are!!!!! End this charade and hire a Special Prosecutor that will honestly get to the bottom of Victor Davis Hanson’s questions and mine! And we may as well add Uranium One to this corruption mess! And….cash on pallets to Iran!

  3. I certainly hope the OIG’s report will answer a bunch of these questions. Heads need to roll.

    • The IG’s report is always due out next month. This all looks pretty much like a show investigation. Mueller’s purpose is to run out the clock on statute of limitations and the public’s interest. Our rulers are above the law but they want to preserve the myth such rule still exists.

      Mueller’s staff is a place holder for future Dem appointees for when they regain power, and his leaks help keep their faction excited enough to vote and keep up the facade of a 2 party system. The various points in the article all show that no true opposition party exists.

  4. Michael Doran suggests in his piece at NR (March 13th) that Mr Comey did not cooperate fully with the effort to use the dossier to defeat Trump just before the election. He seems to have wanted to appear impartial by reopening the E-Mail investigation – and refusing to confirm the last minute dirt being circulated by Fusion GPS, which by then he understood to be
    opposition research given credibility via an FBI investigation pushed by Brennan and Reid. Maybe he felt used by these partisans and pushed back. If so,
    Question 13. Why did Comey go along with the decision to keep up the attack ( Russia investigation) on Trump AFTER the election? Was he playing to the Democrats who blamed him for their defeat ?
    Did he think the OIG or Congressional investigations would eventually implicate him ?
    Did he know he had a problem with the FISC Ct warrant application that could only be cleared up if an ongoing Trump investigation turned up evidence of collusion ?
    Guess he will clear all of this up in his book.

    • The rumor during October of 2016, was that rank and file FBI agents in New York threatened to leak news of the (hundreds of thousands?) State Department emails discovered on Anthony Weiner’s laptop, if Comey did not disclose the existence of the emails. Afterwards, the rumor was that Comey effectively cut the investigation off at the knees, by only allowing the agency to do a cursory computer search of the subject lines of the emails.

    • Impossible to believe Comey could be unaware of the corruption that was the Clinton email investigation. Impossible and ludicrous.

  5. Brilliant and incisive as always. Thank you Professor Hanson.

  6. That was more like 40 questions, but we all know the answers. At this point, the media would be lauding Hillary on her “Falling Around the World” tour had she won.

  7. If Clinton were elected, would Russians or Chinese be extorting her with information in emails pinched from her bathroom server? Would Clinton face impeachment if evidence of corruption started appearing on Wikileaks, or would she find a way to dispatch Julian Assange?

    I am so incredibly fed up with *words* about this affair…

  8. Where is Little Jeffy Sessions? Time to start serving some paper.

  9. More questions: Robert Mueller, as director of the FBI, the FBI knew in 2009 that Russia was engaged in a bribery and kickback relationship with an American trucking company that shipped uranium. The FBI also knew that Russian nuclear officials had directed millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation. This was at least a year before the Uranium One deal was consummated. Mr. Mueller, did you know of these issues? When did you learn of these issues? Did you know of CFIUS plans to consummate the Uranium One deal? If you had knowledge of both the money transfer to the Clinton Foundation and the CFIUS plans with Uranium One, would that not appear to be a money laundering scheme enabling the Secretary of State to benefit materially by transferring a vital asset to the Russians? Why did you not intervene in this transfer? Does this indicate a conflict of interest on your part – that you have operated in the past for Hillary Clinton’s benefit?

    Mr. Rosenstein, you signed at least one FISA warrant application extending the spying on Carter Page. When did you sign that warrant? Did you examine the warrant application before you signed it? If so, then you were vouching for the accuracy of the information in the warrant application, true? Was the Steele dossier part of the warrant application that you signed? If so, do you believe that you would have gone forward with the warrant application without the Steele dossier? Did you believe that the Steele dossier was verified intelligence that belonged in the warrant application? Are you aware that James Comey referred to the dossier as “salacious and unverified”? When and how did you learn that the Steele dossier had material that was unverified by the FBI? Does a document that is salacious and unverified belong in a FISA warrant application? Are you aware of any other instances in which material which has not been verified has been used in a FISA warrant application? Did you promote the FISA warrant application knowing that it was based on possibly false intelligence? Were you aware when you signed the FISA warrant application that the Steele dossier was Trump opposition research paid for by the Clinton campaign and the DNC? Does your signing the warrant application indicate a conflict of interest on your part that should negate your oversight of the Special Counsel?

    Were there as many questions about Jeff Sessions and contacts with Russian officials as there are about Mueller and Rosenstein? And yet, Jeff Sessions is recused from oversight of the Russia investigation while Mueller and Rosenstein continue merrily along. D.C. is a cesspool. Will it EVER get cleaned up?

    • More questions:
      Origins of the scandal:
      1) Who were the individuals surveilled through NSA 702 requests illegally by the FBI and contractors? Who were the contractors and what companies did they work for? Who authorized access to this information by nongovernment personnel?
      2) How long had the abuses of the 702s been occuring? Was anyone in the Romney 2012 campaign investigated with similar techniques? How about other branches of government (Congress & the Supreme Court)?
      3) Who recommended that Mike Rogers be fired for exposing these leaks?
      4) Was any information gathered by these unauthorized 702 leaks used as a basis for some of the allegations in the Steele dossier? How did Steele learn that a Gary Cohen (just not Trump’s Gary Cohen) had travelled to Prague? Did this come from 702 or the State Dept? How would a Russian have knowledge of this to sell to Steele?

  10. Excellent questions Inspector Hanson, and like all great investigators, your interogatives infer what we all suspect, but in an indirect way that frames the narrative in a detached manner that makes us step back and truly understand the profundity of the corruption we are witnessing unfold.
    It’s mind-boggling to realize that virtually all of the highest level people in the Obama administration were supportive of the culture of corrupt inter-agency cooperation for partisan political advantage being encouraged by Obama himself, and that this scandal is just the tip of the iceberg of what that culture was producing.

    • Read an investigation onto Eric Holder’s top civil service hires in the DOJ through 2011: Every Single One was a hardcore leftist, not one conservative or moderate. Later follow-up showed leftwing hiring practices continued after 2011 as well.

      They were at the forefront of every Obama initiative including lawsuits against states for voter ID laws and abortion restrictions, billions in reparations to Holder’s “people” in the Pigford fraud, a slush fund that funneled many millions of dollars directly from litigants to leftwing orgs “off the books”, the creation of the college rape hoax, and much more.

      And with all this corruption and scandal in the DOJ/FBI, not one of these hires’ names has surfaced and they’re all still there, acting as poison pills to obstruct any and all Trump policies.

      There is no reason to suspect the hiring practices in every dept, agency and commission were any different. They’re all still there too and can’t be fired except at millions of dollars in man-hours and legal costs each.

      Without total reform and restructuring of the civil service system, the assault on our liberties will continue unabated.

  11. Excellent questions. I am going off topic slightly because of something I read tonight about Mueller when he was in Boston. I read he was involved in sending four innocent men to jail, three of them to death row, for a murder he knew they did not commit. He and others in the FBI were protecting an informant who they obviously valued more than the lives of four innocent men, or the law of the US. While they were in jail the article said Mueller wrote a number of times to oppose the parole or pardon of the men. In the end they were pardoned, and because of the actions of Mueller and the FBI they were awarded $100 million dollars. Two of the men had already died in jail, and one of the men released said the money could not make up for the over 30 years he had lost in prison. This is Mueller. Why isn’t his reputation dirt? I have also read that when he and Comey “investigated” an anthrox case that Mueller harassed an innocent man for years when he could not convict. Destroying innocent men seems to be the only qualification Mueller has for his present job. I am appalled with what I now know about the FBI.

  12. When all else fails (and it has) bring up Hillary Clinton.

    LOL…you guys…

    • Can’t refute the 12 questions can you.
      LOL, you’re so scared, running in circles.
      Enjoy Inspector General Horowitz destroying your Leftist criminal mafia, it is EPIC.

      • Oh, so cute.

        19 indictments/guilty pleas and counting…

    • When this is done, there won’t be another Dem president for 20 years. You’re getting crushed on all fronts. How can you not see that?

      • I don’t think “crushed” means what you think it means…step out of the echo chamber…

      • Name one thing the Left has achieved in the last two years.

  13. Who dare question the sterling character, cabbage-patch credentials, of our esteemed Bobbletwot, Wunderschlumpf– MzBill? Who pokes the Red Queen’s anthill will soon enough be buried neck-deep in swarming Solenopsis, while capering gnomes clash gongs and belt out “Stormy Weather”.

  14. Victor D. Hanson has written the article of the year. Everyone who is sick of the investigation into Trump and Russia, Russia, Russia, has to read this article. The Democrat Media Complex is a powerful, anti-American cabal that needs to be dismantled.

    • Do you even realize what you are advocating?


      • Yes, all of them. Have no mercy and destroy their families in the process. Leave no doubt framing people for your crimes is death.

  15. I’ll add: We still do not know who among the Obama cabal first said, “Hey, let’s collude with the mainstream media to blame this disaster at the Benghazi consulate on a Christian video maker.” Not only do we get to dodge that we left our people open to a getting slaughtered, we get to blame it on those horrible Christians who we hate so much. The lie must have been approved by Clinton and Obama.

  16. Can one ever expect ANY member of the House and Senate elected from the FURP (F—ing Useless Republican Party) WANT to ask these questions?

    Can one also remember HilLIARy’s 500 or so FBI files, mysteriously secreted in her White House?

    Can one possibly believe that 0bama did not do the same or more so?

    Can one escape the conclusion that the primary reason for taking possession of such files was to provide evidence by which the FURPs in Congress could be subjected to extortion?

  17. It is a cold slap in the face to realize that none of these details would be known if we lived presently in the era of President Hillary. We would be completely oblivious to this monstrous corruption nestled complacently in the bosom of our federal government and everyone involved would be rewarded and protected by a grateful Hillary.

  18. As always VDH is enlightening while laying things out in a basic and readable form. But it is all Kabuki Theater until and unless there are indiciments, convictions, and meaningful sentences.

  19. And the biggest question:
    Prosecutor: “Mr. Obama, why did you email classified information to illary Clinton to an unsecure server?”

  20. Inspector General of the Department of Justice has this and he will punish these people
    But who can punish Comey and Mueller in a specific way that this never happens again

    • Take solace in the fact that one of the worst punishments a Progressive can receive is expulsion from the “cool kids” table. Failing to advance the cause can result in ostracization which is the worst pain imaginable to a collectivist.
      Mark Zukerburg is getting a lesson in that as we speak.

  21. To ask the questions is to answer them. Everyone knows why.

  22. As a former FBI Agent, I’d add two questions to Mr. Hanson’s excellent list: First, how much of the political donation to McCabe’s wife was actually spent on the campaign? Anything left over could be interpreted as a bribe. Second, was the counterintel agent who ran Carter Page back in 2013 involved in the 2016 surveillance of Carter Page? If not, that would demonstrate that the 2016 actions against Page were political in nature and not a continuation of the earlier counterintelligence operation…

    • As a former FBI Agent do you think it’s plausible that the Russians hacked the HRC campaign and DNC computers yet we’re unawa of their involvement with Steele (and therefore didn’t feed him bogus “intel” leading to FISA warrant?
      Also, do you think it’s plausible that the US government t and Hillary in particular, were thetargets of years-long sophisticated email hacking operations from Russia that just happened to ignore the unsecured private server they observed her using on her phone? A claim which, purely by coincidence means her recklessness didn’t cause a prosecutable security breach.

      • Your question about the unsecured server answers itself. We haven’t heard of any forensic analysis of the server that would identify every entity accessing the server. Of course, with the criminal probe being closed last year by Comey, the server is now immune from seizure by warrant…

      • Exactly. The Russians were reading the SecState’s emails. And they fed Steele his dossier info.

      • Good point, but difficult to prove — that’s why the question about the left-over cash is key in demonstrating the intent to offer and accept a bribe.

      • I think that VA has some quirks in their campaign finance laws that allow the candidate to keep any left over funds or something like that.
        I am curious about what is the average amount spent on a VA State senate campaign?

  23. Item 2 implies that a FISA judge now is complaining that he was misled in a warrant request. What is the basis for this assertion?

  24. It’s simple. Privileged progressives get immunity from prosecution and even from investigation and questioning. They’re celebrated for their brave defiance of mere law. That’s because they do it all for the children (the ones they don’t abort), never for money or power. Vicious hacks like Mueller get gold stars for integrity when they never showed any. Their patrons in high places let them beat on honest citizens as they wish.

    Everybody else is ranked on a scale, alien thugs being the best (10) and productive citizens supporting the rule of law being the worst (1 or 0 or maybe negative). A good rank gets one some or all the perks of the privileged progressives.

  25. Was Rosentein aware of Mueller’s involvement in the Uranium One deal? If so, why was Mueller appointed special prosecutor?

    • He should have been, he was US Attorney for Baltimore. His office involved in not charging one of the main suspects until after the sale was approved. They guy was then charged as leniently as possible.

  26. According to Ballotopedia, McCabes total fundraising was $693,000. Friend of Bill MacAuliff provided $675,000 of that per Hanson’s column above. Basically one leader of the Clinton machine provided all her funding.
    She lost by five points. It was a race of interest to Dems, it could have swung the VA senate.

  27. Gee whiz! This makes it sound like Leftist Democrats Got away with murder, thanks to their collusions!

    That can’t be true, can it??? Dems are such paragons of goodness and justice!!

  28. Hanson asks: “What percentage of Jill McCabe’s actual campaign budget did the $675,288 comprise?”

    According to the Virginia Public Access Project (, McCabe raised $1,668,000. Therefore, donations from Common Good VA and the Democratic Party of Virginia accounted for 40% of her total donations.

  29. I think Mr. Davis’ premise is fallacious. “What if” questions are unanswerable. Hanson implies nefarious motive in some of his questions. Largely, such questions are irrelevant or at best inferential but hardly evidentiary. These are the kinds of questions a historian might ask (one who would then provide his own meaning) but are irrelevant and easily contested and not evidentiary in nature. Also, his bias is blatant. I wouldn’t trust his interpretations of answers to these “fake” questions. I would welcome a full and open inquiry into the Clinton e-mail server investigation. I would welcome a full and open inquiry of decision-making at the top of the FBI and Justice. I wish a commission of some sort could be impaneled and turned loose. A downside of that is that academically credentialed historians like Hanson and his counterparts on the Left will always find fault. Finally, I think Davis’ piece is a waste of his intellectual talent; this ought to be beneath him.

    • I can see you are new around here. The author’s last name is “Hanson”, not “Davis”. Thanks for stopping by.

      • Thank you for the correction. My error, absolutely. Yes, I’m new to the site. Hanson’s writing, however, is not new. A friend is an unabashed Hanson fan and occasionally sends me pieces he think will enlighten me.

  30. Wow, haven’t seen Hanson’s nonsense in print for a while. But some things never change, still can’t seem to get a grasp on reality. Remind me, was he gung ho to invade Iraq?

  31. Our government is entirely corrupt.

    How many people here think we restore our liberty and properly functioning government without a civil war?

  32. Want to bet that Agents Strzok and Page have already made a deal to keep their prison sentences low and “ratted everybody out” which is why they are still working for the FBI until the FBI Inspector General Report comes out and then they all are gone with possible jail time!! Anybody check them for a “wire in the FBI”?? A massive indictment will follow for a secret grand jury has already been empaneled and AG Session will clean house himself and make the Justice Department and our national election system honest and trustworthy again with those indictments!!! Watch what happens!!!!….