FBI Made ‘Side Deals’ to Ruin Top Clinton Aides’ Notebooks

1 год ago
314 Views

This is just your typical FBI investigation, you see, where the same girl was: (1) a matter of the probe, (2) a crucial witness in the probe, (3) a suspicious resistance receiver, and (4) an attorney to the main issue — who was permitted to sit in on her quasi-customer’s interview with investigators. And if that was not enough, after reviewing them the FBI apparently consented to forever ruin two bits of evidence. To a layperson, although I will defer to law enforcement specialists as to whether this kind of matter is remotely normal practice, it appears like another peculiarity surrounding this case.

Republican lawmakers are already asking questions:

What did she want resistance for if this’s the case? And why would she need her notebook nuked? Maybe it is because she kept stuff that is classified in breach of regulations, on her personal computer. Seemingly the egregious mishandling of US secrets isn’t all that good. Read the entire thing.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Justice Department permitted Hillary Clinton’s aide Cheryl Mills — the subject of a criminal investigation, who had been given immunity from prosecution despite strong evidence that she had lied to investigators — to participate as a lawyer for Clinton, the principal subject of the same criminal investigation. This unheard-of accommodation was made in violation not only of rudimentary investigative protocols and attorney-ethics rules, but also of the federal criminal law. Yet, the FBI and the Justice Department, the nation’s chief enforcers of the federal criminal law, tell us they were powerless to object. Seriously?… Just as Director Comey rightly objects to being regarded as a weasel, I don’t much like being regarded as an idiot — which is what I’d have to be to swallow some of this stuff. The FBI absolutely has control over who may be present at an interview with a subject of an investigation. There are a variety of reasons for this, but the most basic one is that an interview never has to happen unless the FBI consents to it. In his testimony, Comey kept stressing that Mrs. Clinton’s interview was “voluntary” — contending that since she was not required to submit to it, she could impose any conditions on her agreement to do so. That is nonsense. The interview was voluntary on both sides. The FBI is never required to indulge conditions that make a mockery of its serious business. In this regard, Comey is like a guy who ties his own hands behind his back and then says he was powerless to defend himself…Regarding this highly irregular dereliction, there appears to have been no FBI pushback. In fact, Director Comey told the committee that it is often easier in a complex case to acquire evidence by striking informal agreements with defense lawyers. That is certainly true . . . but there is nothing inconsistent about impaneling a grand jury while concurrently negotiating such deals. Indeed, this is how it is generally done, precisely because it makes defense lawyers a whole lot more agreeable.

Was the apparent the unwillingness of DOJ to impanel a grand jury a verdict rooted in politics? Who made that decision, which tied the hands of the FBI? Click through to read McCarthy’s three reasons why Mills’ inexplicable existence during Mrs. Clinton’s FBI interview is «a really big deal.» Team Clinton has now «misplaced,» dishonestly withheld and actively destroyed important evidence in this case. Against that backdrop, it is remarkable the feds gave the store away into a girl who ordered e-mail deletions and who was anything but combined with the creation of her own computer. Not just that, they consented to give a hand in the ruining. I will leave this to you: Comey finished another round of Congressional testimony where he again asserted that he could not show any purpose — which, although not required under the statute, was a prerequisite by precedent. The Trey Gowdy, a former US attorney himself of South Carolina, dismantled that declaration in a July exchange that was well-known. Jump forward to (3:30) if you are pressed for time:

Comey answers that law enforcement has in order to demonstrate the man understood they were doing something incorrect. Gowdy’s response: «The method to show that’s whether or not someone took steps to hide or destroy what they have done. That’s the best evidence you’ve that they understood it was incorrect. That they lied about it» Comey somewhat grants the point, saying, «it is great evidence.»

Source: Townhall

Terra-Air

Video Menu