The more & more that continues to come out about the govy's "non-political" investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server, the more I'm shocked Comey said anything negative about her at all - & not because of any semblance of innocence on her part. The troubling immunity deals, side-deals, absence of any real prosecution hanging over those engaged in the investigation, agreements to destroy evidence, etc... should trouble anybody who isn't a mindless shill tied to a political ideology. Especially the treatment Cheryl Mills received.
We already knew that Justice offered immunity to at least five central figures in the private email probe, including Cheryl Mills andHeather Samuelson, the aides in charge of deciding which of the former Secretary of State’s emails on her private server would be turned over to the State Department. FBI Director James Comeystruggled to explain to Congress last week why immunity was necessary to obtain the laptops the two had used for sorting the emails.
Now we learn that Ms. Mills and Ms. Samuelson also obtained guarantees that investigators would not search these laptops after Jan. 31, 2015. More amazing, Justice agreed to destroy both laptops after examining them. Think about that: Before the authorities knew what was on the laptops, they agreed to destroy potential evidence in their investigation. The evidence was also under a congressional subpoena and preservation order.
The “no-look” date beyond Jan. 31, 2015 means the FBI couldn’t see what the two aides said or did after the news of Mrs. Clinton’s private server became public in March 2015. Investigators would be unable to determine if Ms. Mills or Ms. Samuelson had engaged, as Mr. Goodlatte put it in his letter, in “destruction of evidence or obstruction of justice related to Secretary Clinton’s unauthorized use of a private email server.” Why else would time limits be necessary given that the two women already had immunity?
We’re told by prosecutors that this kind of special treatment is all but unheard of. Justice would typically empanel a grand jury, which would issue subpoenas to obtain physical evidence like the laptops. No grant of immunity would have been necessary.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/cheryl-millss-legal-privileges-1475708726
We already knew that Justice offered immunity to at least five central figures in the private email probe, including Cheryl Mills andHeather Samuelson, the aides in charge of deciding which of the former Secretary of State’s emails on her private server would be turned over to the State Department. FBI Director James Comeystruggled to explain to Congress last week why immunity was necessary to obtain the laptops the two had used for sorting the emails.
Now we learn that Ms. Mills and Ms. Samuelson also obtained guarantees that investigators would not search these laptops after Jan. 31, 2015. More amazing, Justice agreed to destroy both laptops after examining them. Think about that: Before the authorities knew what was on the laptops, they agreed to destroy potential evidence in their investigation. The evidence was also under a congressional subpoena and preservation order.
The “no-look” date beyond Jan. 31, 2015 means the FBI couldn’t see what the two aides said or did after the news of Mrs. Clinton’s private server became public in March 2015. Investigators would be unable to determine if Ms. Mills or Ms. Samuelson had engaged, as Mr. Goodlatte put it in his letter, in “destruction of evidence or obstruction of justice related to Secretary Clinton’s unauthorized use of a private email server.” Why else would time limits be necessary given that the two women already had immunity?
We’re told by prosecutors that this kind of special treatment is all but unheard of. Justice would typically empanel a grand jury, which would issue subpoenas to obtain physical evidence like the laptops. No grant of immunity would have been necessary.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/cheryl-millss-legal-privileges-1475708726
