Skip to content
Breaking News Alert Hawley Blasts DHS Secretary Mayorkas Over Americans Killed By Illegals

6 Criminal Referrals The DOJ Is Ignoring Because The Perpetrators Are Anti-Trump


The term “justice” is defined as “the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustments of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments.” Our Department of Justice (DOJ), the institution that boldly claims this term in its title, will soon receive eight fresh criminal referrals from Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), who still clings to the notion that the DOJ might enforce the law impartially.

It’s not hard to predict what the DOJ will do with these referrals: It will add them to the pile of phony investigations and refuse to answer any questions with an, “I’m sorry, but the DOJ doesn’t discuss cases under investigation.” As noted by Paul Sperry, the DOJ is slow-walking or no-walking its investigations of many lawless acts to undermine the Trump administration and interfere with the 2016 election.

It’s a scandal how the DOJ so clearly operates without a blindfold to check the politics of a wrongdoer before deciding to do something about misconduct. Let’s review recent history of criminal referrals to grade the Department of Justice’s impartiality.

1. Andrew McCabe

Congress referred McCabe for criminal prosecution on April 18, 2018. As noted by the DOJ’s own inspector general, “On August 31, 2017, the OIG opened an investigation of McCabe following [the FBI’s inspection division]’s referral … after [it] became concerned that McCabe may have lacked candor when questioned by … agents about his role in the disclosure to the [Wall Street Journal].”

The inspector general documented several instances of potentially criminal false statements by McCabe to FBI investigators. In spite of a completed DOJ inspector general’s report, however, McCabe remains, “under investigation” for two years since the original misconduct. McCabe is currently promoting a book critical of Trump.

2. Glenn Simpson

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) did not formally refer Glenn Simpson for criminal prosecution but has made a compelling case that a perjury investigation is warranted. Simpson testified to Congress that Fusion GPS had no client after the election for which his company continued anti-Trump research. This is a lie and a particularly obvious one.

Fusion GPS operations against Trump continued after the election and appear to be presently ongoing. As noted by Sperry, Fusion GPS now works for “The Democracy Integrity Project, or TDIP and ‘pumps out daily ‘research briefings’ to prominent Washington journalists, as well as congressional staffers, to keep the Russia ‘collusion’ narrative alive.” He also notes, “Simpson also appears to have been the source behind another discredited McClatchy story about Trump attorney Michael Cohen traveling to Prague during the campaign to hatch a plot with Kremlin officials to hack Clinton campaign emails.”

3. Christopher Steele

On February 5, 2018, senators Grassley and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) referred Christopher Steele for criminal prosecution for lying about his contacts with numerous media organization prior to the election. This is extremely relevant to Americans and Congress, as Steele worked for Hillary Clinton as he passed off his dummy intelligence report to media in an effort to influence public opinion against Trump.

Steele, of course, is the author and compiler of the infamous opposition research dossier that formed a pretext for U.S. intelligence agencies surveiling an opposition party presidential campaign.

4. Rod Rosenstein

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who oversaw the Robert Mueller investigation, is suspected of being a party to an abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) process leading to a court-issued warrant based upon suspect information.

Former U.S. Attorney Jo DiGenova claimed to have inside information that Rosenstein is being investigated for his role in the questionable FISA surveillance. We should be skeptical of this claim, as Rosenstein has functionally run all things related to Trump-Russia since he took over in 2017, and he’s unlikely to authorize an investigation into his own behavior.

5. James Comey

On April 18, 2018, members of Congress referred former FBI director James Comey for prosecution for leaking classified information and for lying about the decision to exonerate Hillary Clinton. Comey claimed the decision was made without DOJ input and not until after Clinton’s interview. Both of those claims do not appear to be true.

6. Hillary Clinton

In the same April 18, 2018, letter, the members of Congress referred Hillary Clinton for using campaign money to hire Fusion GPS to smear Donald Trump (without disclosing this use of campaign funds).

Sperry made this observation, “While some witnesses and their attorneys complain [the U.S. attorney assigned to investigate the Deep State misconduct] is not doing his job, some critics who once had high hopes for Huber now suspect he was never expected to. They say Huber’s appointment was always political, that the Justice Department had no interest in exposing its own corruption and named this longtime department official to mollify Republicans who clamored for the appointment of a second special counsel to investigate FBI and Justice activities under the Obama administration.”

Rosenstein recently spoke on the principle of the “rule of law,” telling us “we should defend, cherish, and champion neutral legal principles and processes—in practice and not just on paper.” He added, “John MacArthur Maguire described law as a system of ‘wise restraints that make men free.’ The restraints preserve liberty because they are prescribed in advance, and they apply to everyone, without regard to rank or status” (emphasis mine).

Coming from Rosenstein, the architect of so much unfairness, these high ideas sound like taunts to the public not within the velvet rope of the upper tier of our two-tiered justice system.