Donald Trump's Promises of Investigating Hillary Clinton: What Happened?
In the 2016 presidential race, Donald Trump made a significant promise during the debates: if elected, he would investigate Hillary Clinton. However, many questions arise as to whether these promises were ever fulfilled. This article delves into what actually happened and explores why, if at all, such investigations were conducted.
Did Trump Actually Go Through With the Investigation Promise?
Many people understood Trump’s statement as a coded threat, promising steps to discredit Clinton through legal channels. Yet, upon closer examination, it becomes evident that little, if anything, was done beyond giving tax breaks to the wealthy and engaging in other unconventional methods. As stated by various news sources, Trump didn’t do much else, except for playing golf. This leads to the question, was anything really done to investigate Clinton?
What Trump Actually Did and What Didn't Happen
Talking points from Trump’s supporters often dismiss these promises as tactical, suggesting his true intentions were always benign. However, data and events seem to contradict this view. The most notable action taken by the Trump administration in this context was the appointment of a Special Counsel to investigate Clinton. This move, however, was officially declined by the Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to justify such an investigation. This refusal is seen as a significant part of Sessions' decision to resign from his position.
Clinton's Innocence and the Investigation
Jeff Sessions' refusal indicates that there was a belief that Clinton had nothing to hide. This position is further corroborated by Bill Barr, who was appointed as the Attorney General and later the Special Counsel. Both Barr's actions and his published book, “One Damn Thing After Another,” reiterate that his investigation found no compelling grounds for legal action against Clinton.
Why Did This Happen?
Considering the promises made during the campaign, one might wonder why there was no substantive action taken. Several possibilities are explored:
The limited actions taken, like tax breaks, were more related to policy than a specific intent to investigate Clinton.
The broader political context meant that investigators had no viable evidence to work with, leading to a dead end in the investigation of Clinton's emails.
Tactically, the administration may have been avoiding creating a public scandal that could backfire on Trump.
Additionally, it is worth noting that Trump himself could have tapped anyone in the Republican party to launch an investigation as promised. However, the lack of action raises questions about the actual intent behind the promise.
Conclusion
The failure to investigate Hillary Clinton, as promised during the 2016 election debates, highlights the complexities of political campaigning and the translation of campaign promises into governmental action. While Trump’s administration did order an investigation, Bill Barr officially confirmed the lack of substantial evidence to proceed, ultimately leading to no legally justified action. This episode remains a topic of interest and debate, reflecting the interplay of political rhetoric and reality.