It’s disturbing to see the FBI – once considered a ramrod-straight agency above the corruption of politics – repeatedly doing late Friday “document dumps,” just like any other shady bureaucracy with something to hide. But digging through the 189 more pages of documents relating to the “investigation” of Hillary Clinton’s email server yields some things that the Administration would obviously rather have released while most Americans are out eating wings at TGI Friday’s.
We learned that a number of Hillary Clinton staffers were granted immunity to testify, even though they might reasonably have been considered targets of the investigation. It wasn’t necessary to give them immunity to compel them to talk to the FBI or to hand over records that could have been subpoenaed and seized. Two of the immunity recipients, top Clinton aides Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, were even allowed to continue to represent Clinton as attorneys in the very investigation they’d been potential targets of, which one legal expert described as unbelievable.
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz said he has lost confidence that the FBI made a serious effort to investigate this scandal, adding that it was “no wonder they couldn’t prosecute a case. They were handing out immunity deals like candy.” Why, it’s almost as if the entire “investigation” was just political theater, and it was decided from the get-go that no matter what was found, nobody would be indicted.
Another stunning revelation that the FBI tried to sneak by us was the fact that President Obama sent an email on June 28, 2012, to Clinton, under a fake name that the President uses on unsecured communications. Which is interesting, considering he told CBS News in 2015 that he had no idea Hillary was using an unsecured, private server until he saw it in the news.
And then there was the email that contained a reference from a tech worker about a request for an unprecedented 60-day email retention system that the writer referred to as “the Hilary cover-up operation.” Remember how FBI Director James Comey told us that Hillary couldn’t be indicted because she didn’t “intend” to expose national secrets, even though intent isn’t necessary under the law? Well, even intentionally planning ahead to cover it up wouldn’t have gotten her busted.
If this information had been leaked about a Republican President and a GOP nominee, the media would treat it as a bigger scandal than Watergate. But it involves Hillary and Obama, so it was barely covered at all outside of conservative websites. After all, the “paper of record” (these people are forcing me to wear out my quotation marks key), the New York Times, was too busy writing their editorial endorsing Hillary for President.
Here’s more from the National Review about the FBI handing out immunity deals as if they were Chinese takeout menus and the damage that does to trust in government and the rule of law: