Seriously, the FBI investigation that found Hillary and her immunity-protected State Deptartment staff and lawyers completely and virginally innocent of any wrongdoing in their investigation of her email scandal followed this whole thing by-the-book. Seriously…
(Washington Examiner) – House Republicans are demanding to know why Justice Department officials entered into a pair of “side agreement” with Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson — two of Hillary Clinton’s top former aides who went on to become her personal attorneys during the FBI’s email investigation — that allowed law enforcement agents to destroy their laptops after searching their hard drives for evidence.
In a letter from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte to Attorney General Loretta Lynch on Monday, Goodlatte questioned why the destruction of the laptops used to sort Clinton’s emails was included in immunity deals that already protected Mills and Samuelson from prosecution based on the records recovered from their computers.
“Like many things about this case, these new materials raise more questions than answers,” Goodlatte wrote of the “side agreements,” which lawmakers were allowed to read even though they have not yet been released in full to members of Congress.
The House Oversight Committee exposed publicly the immunity agreements provided to Mills and Samuelson last month. Critics quickly questioned why the two Clinton aides were permitted to accompany Clinton to her early July interview with the FBI if they had already become immunized witnesses in the case. The FBI said that because it was a voluntary interview, investigators had no control over who Clinton brought with her.
Destroying evidence is totally ok when done by the people investigating you then giving you immunity for destroying evidence. https://t.co/Lej8yZWUde
— Razor (@hale_razor) October 3, 2016
As part of the Judiciary Committee’s ongoing oversight of Secretary Clinton’s unauthorized use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State, the Justice Department (DOJ) provided in camera review’ of certain immunity agreements. After a specific request from the Committee, based on references made in the immunity agreements to certain “side agreements,” DOJ subsequently provided in camera review of those “side agreements” between DOJ, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and Beth Wilkinson, the lawyer representing both Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson. Like many things about this case, these new materials raise more questions than answers. Please provide a written response to the below questions and make DOJ staff available for a briefing on this matter no later than October 10, 2016.
1. Why did the FBI agree to destroy both Cheryl Mills’ and Heather Samuelson’s laptops after concluding its search?
2. Doesn’t the willingness of Ms. Mills and Ms. Samuelson to have their laptops destroyed by the FBI contradict their claim that the laptops could have been withheld because they contained non-relevant, privileged information? If so, doesn’t that undermine the claim that the side agreements were necessary?
7. Please explain why DOJ agreed to limit their search of the Mills and Samuelson laptops to a date no later than January 31, 2015 and therefore give up any opportunity to find evidence related to the destruction of evidence or obstruction of justice related to Secretary Clinton’s unauthorized use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State.
8. Why was this time limit necessary when Ms. Mills and Ms. Samuelson were granted immunity for any potential destruction of evidence charges?
9. Please confirm whether a grand jury was convened to investigate Secretary Clinton’s unauthorized use of a private email server. Disclosure is authorized under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(A)(i) and (e)(3)(D).
Of course, since this will be promptly spun as just more “plumes of smoke” we hope people will stop trying to “criminalize behavior that is normal.”
Hillary’s growing mountain of entangled scandals compared to Nixon’s Watergate scandal: