Employees of the U.S. Department of Justice have given so much money to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign this time around that critics justifiably doubt the agency can handle her private email server case fairly and impartially.

In what appears to be a super-sized potential conflict of interest, Clinton, a pathological, self-serving liar who doesn’t mind if Americans die to further her political ambitions, has accepted almost $75,000 in campaign contributions in the current election cycle from employees at the Justice Department, the cabinet bureau that will eventually decide whether to prosecute the Benghazi bungler for her use of a hacker-friendly home-brew email server while top U.S. diplomat.

The server is at the heart of the scandal over Clinton’s mishandling of an Islamic terrorist attack in militant-infested Benghazi, Libya on the 11th anniversary of 9/11 that left four Americans, including U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens, dead. Even now, almost four years after the assault, the Obama administration has failed to provide an autopsy report about Stevens who was initially reported to have been ritualistically sodomized before being murdered by Muslim terrorists.

The fact that Mrs. Clinton destroyed email evidence — evidence subject to a congressional subpoena, no less — is already evidence in itself that she obstructed justice through spoliation of evidence. Spoliation means you can take as evidence the fact that evidence has been destroyed. Courts are entitled to draw spoliation inferences and convict an accused person on that basis alone.

This heavy team support for Hillary Clinton within the Justice Department adds to the growing expectation that she will never face justice for her willful national security breaches while serving at the State Department. After all, these DoJ employees are making it clear through their donations that they in effect want to hire Clinton as their boss. Presumably they wouldn’t want to hire her and then send her to prison.

A new Washington Free Beacon review of 2016 presidential campaign contributions reveals just how popular Mrs. Clinton is with Justice Department employees.

Clinton received $73,437 from individuals who listed “Department of Justice” as their employer. Among the 228 contributions, 12 hit the $2,700 level, the maximum amount individuals are legally allowed to give. The $73,437 is a huge improvement over Clinton’s 2008 White House run when she received 23 donations adding up to just $15,930 from DoJ employees, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

In the current election cycle, Clinton rival Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has received 51 donations from DoJ employees adding up to $8,900. Businessman Donald Trump, now the presumptive GOP nominee, took in only two contributions from DoJ employees adding up to a meager $381.

Citizens United president David Bossie told the Washington Free Beacon he wants Attorney General Loretta Lynch, a hyper-partisan radical left-winger like her predecessor Eric Holder, to step back and appoint a special counsel to handle Clinton’s case.

“I’m not surprised in the least to see more evidence that shows the politicization of the Justice Department,” Bossie said. “How can Democrat political appointees fairly investigate someone who is about to become their nominee for president? That’s why last July I called on Attorney General Lynch to appoint an impartial special counsel to investigate the private Clinton email server.”

“Today, I renew my call that Attorney General Lynch must appoint a special counsel to determine if Hillary Clinton or her agents broke the law and compromised our national security,” he said. “This investigation needs to be conducted free of political influence once and for all.”

It’s not like the DoJ has had a sterling reputation in the Obama era. From the Fast and Furious gun-running scandal to the gangsterish Operation Choke Point, the current DoJ is an extraordinarily politicized joke of an agency that goes after Obama’s enemies while letting the administration’s friends get away with crimes on a regular basis. The previous attorney general, the openly racist Eric Holder, barely escaped prosecution after Congress found him in contempt.

This is the same DoJ that helped to cover up ex-IRS official Lois Lerner’s unlawful targeting of conservative and Tea Party nonprofits.The agency refuses to investigate civil rights violations involving white victims and turns a blind eye to vote fraud. It sent radical taxpayer-funded community organizers to Sanford, Fla., and Ferguson, Mo., to foment civil unrest after Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown were killed by white men in self-defense. It works with dangerous Islamist front groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to smear Americans as “Islamophobic.”

Under Obama, the Justice Department is skittish about treating criminals like criminals. The agency calls juvenile delinquents “justice-involved youth” to avoid hurting their feelings. Assistant Attorney General Karol Mason said last week that the bleeding hearts at the agency no longer refer to individuals as “felons” or “convicts” after they are released from prison because doing so makes it needlessly difficult for them to reestablish themselves in society.

Meanwhile, the FBI’s investigation, including an upcoming interview with Clinton about the emails, is reportedly ongoing. Adding to the high-stakes political drama, the Russian government is considering releasing a trove of Clinton’s emails that have come into its possession.

“There’s a debate going on in the Kremlin right now between the Foreign Ministry and the Intelligence Services about whether they should release the 20,000 of Mrs. Clinton’s emails that they have hacked into,” Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano told Megyn Kelly on Monday.

And just days ago after it was discovered that the emails of Bryan Pagliano, the State Department tech staffer who ran Clinton server’s, had gone missing, WND reports that U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan raised the prospect in a Freedom of Information Act case brought by Judicial Watch that it may be necessary for Clinton to be put through the deposition process.

The news prompted WND to cheekily refer to Clinton as “Deleter of the Free World” in a headline.

Of course, Obama administration officials at the highest levels were long aware of Clinton’s cloak-and-dagger email infrastructure. The irretrievably corrupt Clintons created the system to frustrate Freedom of Information Act requesters, shield Hillary’s correspondence from congressional scrutiny, and funnel oceans of money to the international cash-for-favors clearinghouse known as the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

But getting Hillary in the prisoner’s dock won’t be easy. It may even be politically impossible.

Howard Krongard, who served as inspector general for the State Department from 2005 to 2008, predicted earlier this year that Clinton’s case would “never get to an indictment” even if the FBI referred her case to the DoJ for prosecution. He said the case would have to go through “four loyal Democratic women,” including Lynch, senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, and Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell, who runs DoJ’s criminal division.

None of this ought to suggest the case against Mrs. Clinton is weak. Actually, it would be difficult for it be stronger or more clear-cut.

Around the time of the attack Clinton lied about the facts and blamed U.S.-based Mark Basseley Youssef (formerly known as Nakoula Basseley Nakoula), the director of “Innocence of Muslims,” an anti-Islam movie trailer on YouTube that almost nobody had seen. She claimed back then that the video inspired the sophisticated military-style operation that she claimed materialized spontaneously outside the facility which was in Islamist-held territory.

At the military ceremony that accompanied the repatriation of the body of Tyrone Woods, a retired Navy SEAL who perished fighting off Islamists in the 2012 attack, Clinton blamed all the death and mayhem of that awful day on Youssef, who ended up going to jail as a real-life political prisoner.

She promised the dead hero’s grieving father, Charles Woods, that Youssef who was thousands of miles away from Benghazi at the time, would pay for whatever it was he had done.

“She came over … she talked with me. I gave her a hug and shook her hand and she did not appear to be one bit sincere at all and she mentioned about, ‘We’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video,’” Woods recounted to talk radio host Lars Larson. “That was the first time I even heard about anything like that.”

If there is any justice, Americans will hear about Hillary Clinton’s outrageous scapegoating of an innocent man over and over again before Election Day. (For more from the author of “HILARIOUS: DOJ That Donated Tens of Thousands to Hillary Certain to Treat Her Crimes With the Utmost of Objectivity” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

New details continue to emerge from Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act fight with the National Archives over the release of draft indictments of Hillary Clinton in the Whitewater case. According to the Archives, release of the indictments—drafted by an independent counsel examining the Clintons’ relationship to a corrupt Arkansas S&L and an alleged cover-up—would violate grand jury secrecy and Mrs. Clinton’s personal privacy. FOIA request denied.

Judicial Watch declined to take “no” for an answer, and so off to court we went. The case is now in the hands of a federal judge.

In the course of litigation, new facts have come to light. Under FOIA, the Archives must produce a “Vaughn Index”—a tantalizing and at times maddening document. A Vaughn Index is the government saying: we are not giving you the documents, but here is an “index” of what we are not giving you, and why we are not giving it to you. Your tax dollars at work.

In the National Archives Vaughn Index for the case, we learn that the government is sitting on at least twelve versions of the the draft indictment of Mrs. Clinton, including one “listing overt acts.” From the public record, we know that the Whitewater case centered around whether Mrs. Clinton, while First Lady, lied to federal investigators about her role in the corrupt Arkansas S&L, concealed documents (including material under federal subpoena), and took other steps to cover-up her involvment. Prosecutors ultimately decided not to indict Mrs. Clinton, concluding that they could not win the complicated, largely circumstantial case against such a high-profile figure.

The draft indictments range from three to forty pages—the former likely excerpts or “scraps” from longer documents, the Vaughn Index indicates. Some of the drafts doubtless are copies but many clearly are not. A total of 451 pages of draft indictments are being withheld by the Archives.

In its final brief in the case, Judicial Watch took a wrecking ball to the Archives’ grand jury secrecy and personal privacy claims. Judicial Watch noted “the truly enormous quantities of grand jury material already made public” in the independent counsel’s final report. Judicial Watch provided the court with a detailed list of grand jury and non-grand jury material that had already been made public. If there ever was a valid claim to grand jury secrecy in this closely scrutinized case, it is long gone.

The Judicial Watch brief noted that the Archives “fails to identify a single, specific privacy interest Mrs. Clinton still has in the draft indictments” following publication of the independent counsel’s report and “hundreds of pages of grand jury materials, non-grand jury materials, and independent counsel legal theories and analysis that are already in the public domain.”

A typical FOIA privacy claim centers on unwarranted invasions of personal privacy. But in Mrs. Clinton’s case, the brief noted, the Archives “makes no claims that disclosure of the draft indictments will reveal any particular personal, medical or financial information about Mrs. Clinton, much less anything intimate or potentially embarrassing.”

Mrs. Clinton of course is one of the most famous women in the world, a former First Lady, senator and secretary of state, and the Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee for president of the United States. The findings of an investigation into whether Mrs. Clinton told the truth to federal investigators and withheld evidence under subpoena while she was First Lady is clearly matter of public interest as voters weigh her suitability for the highest office in the land. (For more from the author of “BOOM: 12 Versions of Hillary Clinton’s Whitewater Indictments Emerge” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Evan Halper at The Los Angeles Times describes the ongoing trainwreck that is the Hillary Clinton campaign. Vast right wing conspiracy, indeed.

At least #BernieBros are committed enough to troll for free. @HillaryClinton needs to buy hers #barrierbreakers2016

— Katie Halper (@kthalps) April 22, 2016

Hillary Clinton’s well-heeled backers have opened a new frontier in digital campaigning, one that seems to have been inspired by some of the Internet’s worst instincts. Correct the Record, a super PAC coordinating with Clinton’s campaign, is spending some $1 million to find and confront social media users who post unflattering messages about the Democratic front-runner.

In effect, the effort aims to spend a large sum of money to increase the amount of trolling that already exists online.

The plan comes as Clinton operatives grapple with the reality that her supporters just aren’t as engaged and aggressive online as are her detractors inside and outside the Democratic Party.

The lack of engagement is one of Clinton’s bigger tactical vulnerabilities, particularly when compared with rivals like Donald Trump, whose viral social media attacks are legion, and Sen. Bernie Sanders, who is backed by a passionate army of media-savvy millennials…

…using a super PAC to create a counterweight to movements that have sprung up organically is another reflection of the campaign’s awkwardness with engaging online, digital pros said.

“It is meant to appear to be coming organically from people and their social media networks in a groundswell of activism, when in fact it is highly paid and highly tactical,” said Brian Donahue, chief executive of the consulting firm Craft Media/Digital.

“That is what the Clinton campaign has always been about,” he said. “It runs the risk of being exactly what their opponents accuse them of being: a campaign that appears to be populist but is a smokescreen that is paid and brought to you by lifetime political operatives and high-level consultants.”

With Granny Catlady’s favorability rating trending to that of the Zika virus, one would assume that times are getting desperate in the Clinton campaign. (For more from the author of “GRASSROOTS: Clinton Super PAC Attacking Hillary Online Critics” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.