Editor's note: The authors of the following column are all supporting Donald Trump for president.



We are concerned about the egregious damage that has been inflicted on two revered government agencies: the Department of Justice and Department of State. The primary missions of both have been derailed for political purposes.

The Department of Justice has been thwarted by its top officials’ refusal to conduct a proper investigation of former Secretary Clinton’s unsecured email server and the Pay for Play accusations based on millions of dollars paid to President Clinton personally and the Clinton Foundation by entities having issues before the State Department, all while she was Secretary.

Attorney General Lynch and former President Clinton met on the Phoenix, Arizona tarmac days before Secretary Clinton was to be interviewed by the FBI for possible criminal activity. It has been reported that her staff ordered witnesses not to take pictures and no one was present during their 39-minute conversation. General Lynch never recused herself from decisions on the Clinton investigation after her self-admitted “mistake,” as it has also been reported that she continues to deny the FBI the authority to convene a Grand Jury, which is necessary for any meaningful investigation.

Secretary Clinton’s conduct at the Department of State corrupted our foreign policy.

It has also been reported that General Lynch opposed Director Comey from fulfilling his obligation to Congress by informing members of the discovery of 650,000 emails on Anthony Weiner’s and Huma Abedin’s computer, the existence of which had been concealed from government authorities.

Recusal is a formal process. It is a written document specifically describing the scope of the recusal and designating the official in charge of the recused matter. If General Lynch went through the proper procedure for recusal, she has not publicly shared it.

Secretary Clinton’s conduct at the Department of State corrupted our foreign policy. She and President Clinton turned the agency into a Pay for Play adjunct of the Clinton Foundation and their personal bank account, the latter via his personal “speaking” fees. UBS, Switzerland’s largest bank, contributed over $600,000 to the Foundation and loaned it over $30,000,000. UBS was grateful that Secretary Clinton had intervened in the IRS’ demand to UBS to provide identities of 52,000 depositors. Secretary Clinton announced the settlement of only 4,450 identities in an “unusual intervention by a top U.S. diplomat,” according to the Wall Street Journal. UBS additionally paid President Clinton personally $1,500,000 for a series of questions and answers with top management.

President Clinton reaped $6,200,000 personally from foreign governments and businesses for speeches while she was Secretary of State. For example, Ericsson, a Swedish corporation, had sanction issues pending before the State Department regarding telecom sales in certain countries. Ericsson paid President Clinton $750,000 for one speech. Days later the State Department announced the sanction list and Ericsson was not affected.

Why should any spouse of a Secretary of State be permitted ever to receive one cent from a foreign entity?



Because of our grave concern for integrity in government we ask for a Special Counsel. When a high public official is accused of serious wrongdoing and there is a sufficient factual predicate to investigate, it is imperative the investigation be thorough, with dispatch and without partisanship.

Secretary Clinton is the subject of two spheres of criminal conduct: her deliberate, systematic mishandling of official and classified emails and her abuse of a family-controlled, tax-exempt Foundation, and corporate and foreign donations for her own economic and political benefit.

These allegations arose well before this election year.

Clinton’s mishandling of emails became public in March 2015, and allegations over abuse of the Foundation arose well before that. There has long been sufficient factual predicate to require these matters be fully investigated.

The appropriate response when the subject matter is public and it arises in a highly-charged political atmosphere is for the Attorney General to appoint a Special Counsel of great public stature and indisputable independence to assure the public the matter will be handled without partisanship.



In 1991-1992, a Special Counsel was appointed for three separate matters: House Bank, Iraqgate, and Inslaw. It was also done in 2003 in the Valerie Plame matter.

Instead of moving with dispatch to ensure a vigorous investigation of Secretary Clinton, it appears that the Justice Department, along with State, have enabled the Clinton campaign to “slow roll” the inquiry.

General Lynch continues to exert control of a matter that she should have assigned to another official.

We are distressed by widespread and credible reports that FBI agents have been hindered by the Justice Department’s withholding of basic investigative tools, such as grand jury subpoenas, which are fundamental in a complex investigation.

It is time to do what should have been done long ago – appoint a Special Counsel.

Rudolph W. Giuliani -- Former Associate Attorney General and U.S. Attorney in Southern District of New York

Senator Jeff Sessions -- former U. S. Attorney for Alabama's Southern District

Frank Keating -- Former Associate Attorney General, U.S. in District of Kansas and Special Agent FBI



Victoria Toensing -- former Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Criminal Division of the U.S. Justice Department

Henry McMaster -- former U.S. Attorney, District of South Carolina