There is little question that the courts tend to favor defendants with money and power. These individuals can hire the best attorneys that more often plea bargain to a lesser sentence, raise doubts as to their client’s guilt and even cherry pick jurors that are more likely to rule in their clients favor.  A prime example is the outcome of OJ Simpson’s trial even in the face of overwhelming evidence against him.

That is not to say that those with lesser funds or power can’t get a fair trial, just not as fair. Public defenders often have more cases to bring to court, and usually are not directly compensated by their client. Subsequently, the more rapidly a particular case can be resolved is to their attorney’s benefit.

The common talk around Washington, since the first allegations were brought up about Hillary Clinton having a non-secured server, when she was Secretary of State, was that she would never be convicted. The consensus was that ‘she was just too high-up to fall’. Although the Director of the FBI, James Comey, found that Clinton violated U. S. Codes 18 USC §793, 18 USC §1924, 18 USC §798, and 18 USC §2071, he felt no court would convict her of these apparent crimes because “the investigation did not reveal intentional misconduct or indications of disloyalty to the United States or efforts to obstruct justice.”

The flaw in Comey’s conclusion is that the FBI is an investigative body. The findings should then have been turned over to the Justice Department to determine what actions should be taken. Comey essentially stonewalled any further action, during Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s tenure, by stating that since Clinton’s violations of several U.S. codes were not ‘intended’ to harm the United States, she should not be held accountable. The reason for Comey’s decision will be debated long into the future.

There are still concerns of collusion by Loretta Lynch. “At one point the Attorney General (Lynch) had directed me not to call it an investigation, but instead to call it a matter, which concerned and confused me,” Comey said during his recent Senate hearing. Comey claims that Lynch’s meeting on the tarmac with former president Bill Clinton  (in June 2016), during the campaign, was the ultimate reason why he decided to make a public statement when the department decided not to prosecute Hillary Clinton. “… that was the thing that capped it for me, that I had to do something separately to protect the credibility of the investigation, which meant both the FBI and the Justice Department.”

The often quoted saying to have one’s ‘day in court’ implies for an opportunity that affords an individual or group to have their ‘claim’ litigated in a judicial setting. With his pronouncement, James Comey denied the 63 million voters, who cast their ballots for Donald Trump in this last election, their ‘day in court’.

Since Hillary Clinton has not even been charged for her alleged violations of at least four U. S. Codes that carry significant fines and up to ten years in prison, the public deserves its ‘day in court’ to litigate the alleged charges against her. Not a one-man court by the ex-FBI Director or even Obama’s Attorney General, who has testified that she would follow the decision of the FBI. A trial that represents those people, who are not as wealthy or as high up as Clinton, and given the same charges would be sitting behind bars instead of strolling in the woods near her home in Chappaqua, New York.

Attorney General Sessions should start by convening a Grand Jury to evaluate the validity, not of Comey’s decision, but his allegations. That would be the only way the people, and not the politicians, will have their ‘day in court’.

Depending on the outcome, there are several others in Obama’s administration, such as Lois Lerner and Susan Rice, that also deserve a closer look.