WATCH: Rep. Steve King ‘Don’t Know How Anyone Can Vote For Hillary Clinton’

U.S. Rep. Steve King speaks during a hearing to criticize a proposal from the Environmental Protection Agency to reduce the amount of ethanol that must be blended with gasoline in 2014, Thursday, Jan. 23, 2014, in Des Moines, Iowa. The EPA in November proposed reducing by nearly 3 billion gallons …
AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall

Iowa Congressman Steve King tells Breitbart News exclusively about the Department of Jusitice’s handling of the Clinton email case and Donald Trump’s chances in Iowa.

The interview came after thousands came out for a Donald Trump rally in Sioux City, Iowa and just an hour before FBI Director James Comey’s “November Surpise.”

STRANAHAN: So we’re talking to the great Congressman Steve King here in Sioux City, Iowa. Steve, in your opening remarks for Trump you talked about the Justice Department. What do people need to know about the politicalization of the Justice Department?

KING: Well I think they need to understand that Loretta Lynch has not done her job and in fact it looks like there’s been obstruction of the investigation that needed to be brought forth against Hillary Clinton and her subordinates. And with the hamstringing that she has done with the FBI time after time on this, you can anticipate that here we are with James Comey — the director of the FBI — being handed over the charge of the responsibility to decide whether a nominated candidate from a major party for President of the United States — or about to be nominated, I should say, should be brought under indictment. And for her meeting on the tarmac in Phoenix that day with former President Bill Clinton, who is subject of an investigation at the DOJ because of the Clinton Foundation, who is the spouse of the very subject of the investigation of the violation of the espionage laws — which now includes nearly 750,000 emails altogether.
Loretta Lynch knew better, or at least should have known better, but her roots go back to being appointed by Bill Clinton to be US Attorney in the eastern district of New York, and then again getting bounced up to Attorney General by Barack Obama. So she’s tied in to the last 2 Democrat presidents and she’s postured herself as if there’s gonna be an independent, nonpartisan investigation. Well, the rule of law is the rule of law, and it’s clear it’s been violated multiple times. There’s been a barrier put in place, and Loretta Lynch has been a big part of that.
Here’s how this unfolds to me, and that is if that Hillary Clinton is elected President of the United States, then it may well be that Barack Obama would pardon her for her violation of espionage law, of which there are many, and the irresponsibility that she has utilized, and the cavalier attitude towards espionage laws. If Barack Obama pardons Hillary Clinton, then that would tell the Justice Department — and the FBI — stop investigating because whatever she might be charged with, she’s now been absolved of by the President.
But it does not then absolve the Congress of the United States, the Judiciary committee and the House of Representatives from the obligation, the Constitutional obligation to drill down into all of these 750,000 or so emails and then bring the witnesses forward, the witnesses have been granted immunity by the Justice Department, but not by the United States Congress. We would have an obligation to drill into it if this all unfolds in the way that one would think.
She would be facing impeachment charges from the House of Representatives if the facts are upheld and it would be brought forward in that kind of an investigation that Congress would do. I don’t think the House of Representatives would have any choice but to do the Constitutional equivalent of an indictment, which is an impeachment. That would then send an impeachment trial over to the United States Senate, where the United States Senate has a Constitutional obligation to hold a trial. And that trial, I believe, should result in a verdict one way or the other. Did she commit perjury? Did she commit obstruction of justice? Did she violate these espionage laws? Is she trustworthy enough that she could be President of the United States?
All of this would drag a President elect Hillary down, and by the way it would drag an inaugurated Hillary down as well. I cannot imagine how Hillary Clinton can function as a President of the United States with this great huge shadow hanging her. And if you go the other way, and it’s Trump that’s elected President, then it’s the cleanness we can have, and that would be a new Attorney General that would actually conduct their office according to the law and that would mean clean investigations and see where those investigations lead us, if those investigations lead to an indictment and ultimately a conviction, that would be the cleanest way to deal with this.
And there are other alternatives as well, but those are the two biggest things that hang in front of us and at this point, I don’t know how anyone can go to the polls and vote for Hillary Clinton, knowing what we now know and what the implications are of the Wikileaks, the Wiener leaks, the things we know that were part of the public indictment that was delivered by James Comey that just came short of asking for a formal indictment from the Department of Justice.
STRANAHAN: And do you agree with Donald Trump’s call for a special prosecutor, as he called for in one of the debates?
KING: You know, I’m hesitant about supporting or encouraging a special prosecutor until I know who appoints that special prosecutor. If it would be Barack Obama, no, The trail leads to Barack Obama without a doubt. He was sending classified information on an unsecured email, that he knew was insecure to Hillary Clinton, under a pseudonym. And so, why was Barack Obama that Hillary would never intend to violate our espionage laws, or intend to weaken our national security? And he plugged that word ‘intent’ twice into the dialogue. Once last October, and again, April of this year.
And you know as James Comey picked that up and said “Well the case turns on intent, we can’t prove intent”. Well the intent is there on his face, but it’s not a legal requirement, she’s guilty either way by the evidence we’re looking at. And of course, innocent ’til proven guilty.
And so, I don’t wanna let Loretta Lynch name a special prosecutor, I don’t wanna let Barack Obama name a special prosecutor. If there’s gonna be a special prosecutor, then let’s see who the next Attorney General of the United States is. If it’s Donald Trump that appoints that Attorney General then I suspect we don’t really need to have a special prosecutor. That would all happen within a Department of Justice that becomes once again, the Department of Justice rather than the Department of Political Injustice.
STRANAHAN: And one last softball for you, who’s gonna win here in Iowa on Tuesday?
KING: Trump’s gonna win Iowa! I know that, I’m confident that he’ll win Iowa. The last time Iowa went for a Republican President was George W. Bush in 2004. We worked this state hard and we pulled people out ot the polls, and he won by only 10,000 votes. Trump was in better condition to win Iowa five weeks ago than George W. Bush was at that time, or any time. So Trump wins Iowa, and Trump wins America. This is a movement that we have not seen and there’s a tremendous amount of momentum for Donald Trump, and Hillary Clinton’s boat is sinking.
STRANAHAN: And big crowd here today, you did a great job warming him up. Steve King, thanks very much.

Follow Breitbart News investigative reporter and Citizen Journalism School founder Lee Stranahan on Twitter at @Stranahan.


Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.