Searching For Answers In The Land Of The Immunized: FBI Discloses Five Separate Immunity Deals In Email Scandal

Jcomey-100cheryl_d-_millsLast week, the disclosure of a total of five immunity agreements handed out by the Justice Department as part of its investigation of the Clinton email scandal. The extent of the deals and the recipients were surprising, particularly in the failure to previously disclose those deals. As a criminal defense lawyer, I was surprised to see the deals include Cheryl Mills, one of the highest officials accused in the deletion of tens of thousands of emails and the failure to heed warnings over the risk to national security from the use of the Clinton private server. Below is the column.

When FBI Director James B. Comey announced that there would be no criminal charges in the Clinton email scandal, there was an outcry by many who saw glaring contradictions, attempts to destroy evidence, and knowing failures to protect classified or sensitive information. At the time, I acknowledged that Comey’s decision was understandable and, while criminal charges might have been possible, this was not out of bounds of prosecutorial discretion. However, the news this week of a previously undisclosed immunity deal with a top Clinton aide raises serious questions over the handling of the FBI investigation.

The latest recipient of an immunity deal from the Justice Department is one of Clinton’s closest aides and a figure at the heart of the email scandal, Cheryl Mills. She joins two other central figures in benefiting from such deals: former State Department staffer, Bryan Pagliano and tech specialist Paul Combetta. In addition to at least two other immunized witnesses according to the Associated Press, they represent the big three of officials involved in the underlying allegations of Clinton’s potential criminal conduct. Their collective immunization is baffling.

For the Obama Administration, the criminal investigation into the Democratic presidential nominee and its prior secretary of State came with a heightened level of public scrutiny and skepticism. Many doubted that the administration would seriously pursue the Clintons, a family of political royalty in both Democratic and establishment circles. The easiest way for prosecutors to scuttle a criminal case is to immunize those people who are at the greatest risk of criminal indictment. Often prosecutors will avoid immunity deals in favor of offering plea bargains to key players, tying their cooperation against others to reduced sentences. Although a witness can lose an immunity deal by withholding evidence or lying, a witness can undermine cases against superiors by tailoring their accounts or memories to avoid statements showing intent or knowledge.

Before the disclosure of the Mills immunity deal, the two prior deals were curious given the evidence against both Pagliano and Combetta. Pagliano set up the notorious private server and later joined Clinton at the State Department, where various people raised objections to her use of unsecured communications. If Pagliano was problematic, Combetta’s immunity deal was perplexing. Combetta used a product called BleachBit to eradicate evidence of Clinton emails after a telephone conference with Clinton staffers. When he used the product, he admitted that he knew that Congress had issued a subpoena ordering the preservation of the evidence. Then, this month, it was alleged by a “Twitter sleuth” that Combetta, acting under the alias “stonetear,” solicited advice on how to change email records to remove a “VIP’s (VERY VIP) email address.” Either Combetta did not disclose this effort in violation of his immunity deal or the Justice Department effectively removed a serious threat of indictment though the agreement. Despite immunity deals pledging cooperation with all parts of the government, both Pagliano and Combetta have refused to answer questions from Congress, and Pagliano is facing a contempt sanction.

Mills is a participant in key emails and features prominently in allegations of destroyed emails. She was alleged to have been informed repeatedly of the dangers to national security, particularly regarding Clinton’s use of a personal BlackBerry. She was also central in the deletion of tens of thousands of emails that Clinton claimed were purely personal and not work related.

Many of those emails are now known to have discussed official issues and potentially embarrassing disclosures. Mills’ role in the later investigations has also been controversial. Surprisingly, defense attorney Beth Wilkinson agreed to jointly represent various former aides, including not just Mills but Deputy Chief Jake Sullivan, Mills’ deputy Heather Samuelson, and Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines. Wilkinson is a very accomplished lawyer and there is no evidence of unethical acts. However, attorneys rarely represent parties with potential conflicts of interest and the agreement allowed for a single attorney to monitor the consistency of aides in their accounts.

The joint representation of the Clinton aides increased the chance for a uniform account in the controversy. Making this even more concerning is that Mills was allowed by the FBI to sit in on the interviews with Clinton, despite that fact that she was a key witness herself in the investigation. Mills, who is a lawyer, did not hold a legal position at the State Department and should have been excluded from the interviews. Finally, Mills has continuing interests in the election of Hillary Clinton, a development that would place her at the very top of the government.

Of all of the individuals who would warrant immunity, most would view Mills as the very last on any list. If one assumes that there may have been criminal conduct, it is equivalent to immunizing H.R. Haldeman and John D. Ehrlichman in the investigation of Watergate. Mills appears repeatedly at critical moments as one of the most senior figures making decisions or monitoring events, including being informed as Clinton chief of staff of the search for emails by the State Department in response to a Freedom of Information demand in 2012 (three years before the disclosure of Clinton’s use of a private email server). In such circumstances, immunity can amount to impunity. Immunity does not remove the threat of prosecution, but it certainly reduces that threat, while the value of defending prior benefactors or loyalties can remain. Given the overlapping immunity deals, many will now find it unsurprising that Comey did not find evidence of “intentional misconduct or indications of disloyalty . . . or efforts to obstruct justice.”

Comey removed the greatest threat that could have been used to get two underlings to implicate senior officials, and then gave immunity to the senior official most at risk of a charge. In the land of the immunized, the degree of cooperation can sometimes be as difficult to establish as the truth.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s board of contributors.

162 thoughts on “Searching For Answers In The Land Of The Immunized: FBI Discloses Five Separate Immunity Deals In Email Scandal”

  1. Ah, the ‘Immunized 5’. They will go down in history, no doubt. But from where I sit, there is a crack in their dam. Combetta’s not disclosing HIS effort to change email records to remove a “VIP’s email address” may well be the crack. At the congressional hearing, you can read a lot about someone’s body language. His arrogant body language yelled F**** Y**, you can’t touch me! But arrogance is often self defeating. Time will tell.

  2. There are 2 legal systems, 1 for the elite and 1 for everybody else
    FBI Director James Comey is a Traitor. His reputation has been destroyed
    James Comey has NO INTEGRITY!
    Comey sold out the FBI on Clinton Email Case
    Benedict Arnold: (James Comey – shamed, disgraced coward)
    Why does a man betray his country? Why does a man betray himself and his family?
    Ask James Comey, he’ll know. He has become a famous traitor in world history
    Many of the Crimes in this case are Obvious. Comey is Corrupt and should be Fired!
    ‘Intent’ is not needed to prove espionage and her gross negligence has been well established
    Hillary Clinton and staff espionage, multiple other crimes have been proven
    The Justice Department, FBI & Court System are corrupt
    Gerald Celente:
    “Obama is greatest liar and traitor that America has ever known. George Bush was a war criminal for lying us into wars.”

  3. The Department of Justice is utterly corrupt. The Democratic Party and the Justice Department are both collecting pools of shysters. None of this is a surprise. What’s depressing is that rank and file Democrats are perfectly at home with this sort of conduct.

  4. Figuratively, this is the middle finger of the elite.

    As the American public begins to wake up to the degree and extent of corruption in our elected officials and our government, they in turn shed layers of dissimulation. We see the contours of raw corruption and elite privileged increasingly naked of illusions such as a nation of laws or a bastion of representative government and so on.

    I suspect the powers that be want it this way. Like any Mafia, they are tired of pretending to be the land of milk and honey, fairness and opportunity. But more importantly, they want to encourage the American public to know it’s place and it’s limits.

    These revelations that the FBI and the DOJ are complicit in protecting Hillary Clinton from blatantly illegal national security violations (not to mention illegally deleting information that might compromise her), are anything but random. This is no hastily made up response to protect the next president from the vagaries of the occasional run-away electoral processes that can’t be controlled by a little digital tweaking here, or a little voter suppression there, and so on. This is a carefully measured response to the remaining vestiges of social and legal controls that still automatically come into play when there is foul play at the highest levels.

    And the not so subtle meaning is pretty much akin to a middle finger with a tag that says, “Get used to it!”

    Trump seems to be playing into this reality nicely and I say this because it was obvious in the Republican primary that he has the wherewithal to dispatch his opponents, even major ones, readily with a few well chosen – utterly non conventional – statements that take your breath away and make you ask yourself, “Why hasn’t anyone said that before?”. That acumen was totally lacking last night. He might as well have signed a statement that he would do nothing to upset Hillary other than goofy facial expressions.

    1. So you think Trump intentionally threw the debate and let down his supporters? I am not sure about that. Maybe he just had a very off night and she was on her A game.

      1. I would not be at all surprised if he and the Clintons are in cahoots. He dispatched her Republican opponents and the DNC took care of Bernie Sanders. She is so unpopular that she is running neck and neck with Trump.

        1. Yes, I agree. It isn’t required to explain things, but it does seem very plausible.

      2. Trump’s “supporters” are those who think Trump is ever in need of more free publicity and he never, ever, lets them down.

        I am now almost convinced that those who think he offers an alternative to the powers that be are not his supporters, but rather at best unintended casualties and at worst his dupes. He made that clear last night, but also from the point where he was nominated onward. He out foxed even Fox and the rest of the press before the nomination, but then immediately let them savage him as they pleased once he got the nomination. It was difficult to know then whether he was keeping his powder dry for a surprise knockout at the debates, but in all likelyhood he answered that question last night.

        There is one more debate and If I’m right it will be much the same. One bad night for a presidential debate when there are only two of them is already a big big stretch. But two in a row?

        He could well be a closet Democrat not that it matters since he has no chance and probably no intention of being elected (hell, this isn’t an election in the first place and that may have been explained to him if he hadn’t already figured it out). But anyway, It is common knowledge that he was friends with the Clintons and I suspect his party affiliation is much like the skin of the chameleon; what ever suits him in the moment.

          1. Thanks, I thought there were only two total. We will still see whether or not Trump has any intention of dethroning our new queen before the coronation can even take place.

            1. I think he needs to prepare and quit making strange faces and interrupting. One on one with a split scree was a new ballgame for him. Trump could often count on an assist from the more knowledgeable and highly skilled Christie in the primary debates.

              1. Yeah, Trump reminded me of classmates in college who would party until 4 am, and then remember that they had to write a term paper by 8.

                1. The one classmate he had who would go on the record said he was, ca. 1967, businesslike and self-effacing.

  5. @JayS: Interesting that so many protest the lack of evidence regarding Clinton’s server having been hacked, yet none of the same cite the lack of evidence that Russia hacked the DNC server, they just claim that Russia did it. So evidence is required when accusing Clinton, but not when accusing Russia?

    1. Well said. There are so many thin knee-jerk responses from the Clinton supporters. Of interest to me is how people seem to accept the feeling that anything she does is in their best interest, and that she is looking out for them. Too much Hollywood–who has made millions about people who do whatever they want, and are always proven they are right. It’s ingrained in consciousness. Life does imitate art.

      Clinton must be the left’s Dirty Harry is all I can figure. It’s amazing we are still talking about it.

      Remember, the response will always be, “because, because, because…”

    2. The evidence for Russian hacking was probably uncovered by the CIA, who don’t want their sources revealed, and then leaked so as to bring some pressure on Russia. Are you saying that claims that Russians hacked the DNC were just made up, out of thin air?

      1. Jay S.
        Since there has been no PROOF provided that the Russians did it, then anyone so inclined can defend them by saying “NO PROOF”.
        Sort of like those who defend Hillary by citing a lack of PROOF that she was hacked.

        1. Not quite the same. There is indeed no proof that the Russians hacked the DNC (any more than the US hacks Russian systems) with the intent of manipulating the US election process, but that is also totally, utterly, beside the point which is that the DNC was illegally suppressing votes against Sanders to the point that he probably had the nomination stolen from him. THAT was the point, not who hacked the information. Now it is true, and typical, that the first person who said anything about the Russian involvement was from Hillary’s staff. It is also true that the press took up this fabrication and ran with it to a positively stunning degree of coordination, and it is finally true that not a single one of their allegations has any link, not a s-i-n-g-l-e one, to a real source what so ever. Pure vapor.

          But the similarity with Hillary being hacked ends there. First while the Russion hack is highly unlikely when other explanations are so much simpler and more compelling, such as a bald but highly effective ploy by the Clinton team to focus attention elsewhere than their corrupt DNC, it is highly likely by the law of averages , as any security IT network expert will tell you, that Hillary’s amateur system, set up purely to protect her from lawful scrutiny was indeed hacked after such a lengthy exposure (several years for crying out loud). So while the Russians are coming theory boarders -at best- on tin foil hats, Hillary exposing national secrets of importance to foreign interests is a near certainty.

    1. For what, specifically, and provable in a court of law? I don’t think you can send her to prison because you don’t like her.

  6. It is a constant theme in this controversy that Clinton’s email server “may have been hacked.” But no evidence that it **has** been hacked. And no evidence that the official Government server (for non-classified communications) hasn’t been hacked, for that matter. Hillary’s server was used for routine correspondence, largely within DOS and other related government officials. And used for materials which Hillary believed to not be classified.

    The claim about “failures to protect classified or sensitive information” is based on SOMEONE’S subjective assessment as to what is classified or sensitive. But whose assessment? The FBI’s? Does the FBI have the authority to decide that some communication or information within DOS (or any other non-FBI Government department) is classified? Who is the ultimate classification authority within DOS? Is it not the Secretary of State? I have yet to hear any definitive proof (though lots of innuendo) that the FBI has classification authority over any and all Government agencies….. I wonder – could the FBI claim that (for example) some CIA communication was classified, if the CIA didn’t think so?

    In my opinion, Hillary could have defused this early on, by just asserting that as Secretary of State, it was her authority and responsibility to decide what communications within DOS were classified, and that second-guessing by outside agencies was misplaced and erroneous.

    What has not been pointed out in this ongoing brouhaha, is that there is an entire separate system for classified communications. The SIPRNET for electronic communications, and STU phones for classified voice communications. Presumably, Hillary used these means for messages believed to be classified. Has anyone on the right asserted that she never used these? Do the critics on the right even know about these classified systems?

    1. That’s not much of an argument when you kill your own horse to show it was no better than the one you don’t like. That is the problem today, situational ethic rules. I am no legal scholar, but it is clear that laws were broken, and there is an attempt of a huge cover-up, and not even a very careful one at that. It is so poor, it just proves Clinton’s contempt for us all as citizens.

        1. “What laws broken, specifically?”

          Former CIA Director John Deutch was prepared to take a plea for mishandling government secrets by taking them home and storing them on his unsecured personal computer.

          He was pardoned by President Clinton before the plea was entered.

          We should remember that classified materials are classified from birth – their time of creation – not when someone puts a stamp on the front cover.

          We know from Clinton’s sysadmin that her server was under hack attack. We know that commercial security does not compare with best of the USG.

          Clinton mishandled classified material – pure and simple. It is only Comey’s careful phrasing ‘careless’ rather than ‘negligent’ that gave the slightest cover to the Clinton whitewash.

          If Clinton was anyone other than a high administration official it is certainty she would be enjoying the facilities at BOP Philadelphia or some other fine establishment in Club FED.

          1. “We should remember that classified materials are classified from birth – their time of creation – not when someone puts a stamp on the front cover.”
            But who gets to decide what’s classified within the State Department? The Secretary of State? Some clerk at the bottom of the organization? Someone in the Department of Agriculture? The FBI? You?

            1. Jay S.
              Executive Order 13526 explains in some detail those who who have authorization to classify material.
              As I said on a previous post, I’ve never seen the names of those at State (or at any Departemt) who do the classification.
              But Exec. Order 13526 does spell out how “classifiers” are selected.

              1. Per that Executive Order, classification authority flows downward, from the President through agency and department heads, to designated classifiers within those departments. I believe that this implies that classification determinations by department heads trumps (pun intended) the judgment of those under them. Note that it says elsewhere in the EO, that information should not be classified any more than absolutely necessary. It has been an ongoing problem since “the dawn of time” that some people would classify anything and everything they could, as CYA.

                1. Of the 2,000+ Hillary emails marked classified, there may be room for debate that some of those need not have been marked classified.
                  There is far less debate about those emails carrying information considered “secret” or “top secret”.
                  As far as the President, Vice President, and Department heads having the greatest authority in classification decisions, I suppose they could, as suggested above, take it upon themselves to make all classification decision, rather than selecting and authorizing any others to be involved in those decisions.
                  I don’t think it’s likely that they would exclude others, unless they were willing to spend 24/7 as the sole person making all classification decisions.

    2. Jay S – we know the DoS offered her a secure computer but she would not take it. They offered her the same deal that Powell had, a secure computer and an unsecure computer for yoga stuff, but she would not take it. There was some problem about getting a secure Blackberry for her. They continued to warn her not to use her Blackberry overseas, but she refused to listen. Basically, she was a security nightmare. She could never remember her password and relied on her aides for the password to her accounts.

      1. Paul –
        Are you confusing a “secure computer” with a “classified computer”? The Government classified computer system was certainly used by Hillary and her colleagues, when they felt they had genuinely classified information to share.

        1. ” Somehow, highly classified information from SIPRNet, as well as even the super-secure JWICS, jumped from those closed systems to the open system and turned up in at least 1,340 of Clinton’s home emails — including several the CIA earlier this month flagged as containing ultra-secret Sensitive Compartmented Information and Special Access Programs, a subset of SCI.”

        2. Jay – a secure computer was offered to Clinton, but she does not know how to use one.

    3. Jay S.
      I haven’t seen the names of those in the State Department who were responsible for classification.
      My understanding is that original classification authority is held by the President, the Vice President, Department Secretaries, and THOSE WITHIN THE DEPARTMENTS who have been authorized ny the above to exercise classification authority.
      Again, none of the many articles I’ve read have named the individuals within the State Dept. who held that classification authority.
      As far as I know, the FBI does not do classification outside of the agency itself, or perhaps the Justice Dept.
      I’d welcome more specific information on this issue from other readers who have a better “grasp” of the “nuts and bolts” of the classification system and process.
      On the “proof” or lack of proof on what might have been hacked, the private server that Clinton used did not appear to have the same level of encryption and firewall systems that existed on official State Dept. systems.
      An additional concern is the lack of verifiable monitoring/ maintainance of the home brew system.
      The State Dept. has in-house tech professionals responsible for State Dept. systems.
      The preservation of records regulations are an aspect of this controversy less often addressed.
      Control of a private server/ email system, in favor of official channels, obviously makes it easier to BleachBit 33,000 emails, and otherwise circumvent rules regarding preservation of records.
      Even with the little knowledge I have of cybertech, I wouldn’t advise that people use WiFi systems to conduct banking, brokerage, etc. transactions.
      If a person does use WiFi fir those purposes, I can’t prove that they have or will be hacked.
      But I think the advice that WiFi not be used is solid.
      So I don’t think the lack of proof to date that Hillary’s emails were hacked let’s her off the hook on the “extreme carelessness” charge, any more than the absence of proof that a user of WiFi has been hacked somehow makes the use of WiFi safe.

      1. tnash – I think that Hillary was hacked both inside and outside the country. Her Blackberry was very unsecure.

    4. Comey stated that Hillary admitted to telling staff to strip classification headers in order to push through data to her private server. This is because the data in question did not pass the automated checks to prevent classified material being passed to a lower level. She has no authority even in her former position to tell someone to strip headers and pass to a non government server.

    5. Jay S,
      SIPRNET was circumvented:

      ” Somehow, highly classified information from SIPRNet, as well as even the super-secure JWICS, jumped from those closed systems to the open system and turned up in at least 1,340 of Clinton’s home emails — including several the CIA earlier this month flagged as containing ultra-secret Sensitive Compartmented Information and Special Access Programs, a subset of SCI.”

      And, she asked aides to remove classified markings on emails and then send her the email via her non-authorized email server.

      “A year before Hillary Clinton apparently asked one of her top aides to remove the classification markings from a sensitive document and send it to her over an unsecured network, she pushed the same aide to remove a different document from the State Department’s classified system and email it to her without markings.”

      1. Prairie Rose
        -You may have seen what Rep. Jason Chaffetz said about some of the mishandled Hillary emails:
        ” It’s so sensitive and so classified that even I as Chairman of the Oversight Committee don’t have the high level of clearance to see what’s in those marerials.”

        1. Yep, saw that, tnash. Why didn’t President Obama just declare them unclassified? Problem solved! 😉

    6. Jay,
      Are you defending Clinton’s handling of classified information on principle or on politics? That by the way was rhetorical because your entire argument completely ignores the facts. If you’re not hearing “definitive proof” then at best you are not listening very well, at worst you are being willfully ignorant. Here’s a tip: if you are concerned with how our government performs it’s national security function, then you would NEVER defend ANY action that has the potential to put that security at risk. That’s called having a principled position.

    7. Read the FBI notes and the IG report. Clinton never had a government email account, on either the classified or unclassified systems. Also, as Secretary of State she did not have unfettered authority to change the classification of documents originating within her agency (, and she had no authority to change the classification of documents from other agencies.

      Many of Clintons’ critics have spent their lives working with classified information. That is why they are so critical. If you’re going to be smug at least be informed.

  7. Glenn Greenwald ‏@ggreenwald 6m6 minutes ago

    I wonder how a certain segment of Trump’s supporters – for whom Strength is central – will react to seeing him wilt like that.

  8. Sorry People, if you want to vote for the corruption, slime, lying sleaze of the Clintons you get what you asked for. Remember the saying “be careful what you wish for”? It also goes for voting. If you think our country will be prosperous under Clinton, think again. Clinton will be prosperous under Clinton. Her minions will be prosperous. Other than that, nobody will be better off. They don’t care about poor people, veterans, the military, seniors. They care about George Soros and Hollywood. They care about the powerful because they want more power, and more and more. It will be business as usual and responsible gun owners, be prepared to dig in. I despise Hilary and people like her who sit in their ivory towers looking down their noses at the rest of us. We don’t matter to them, only the process of “looking like you care, sounding like you care, being politically correct” matters to them. Sorry People, if you vote for Hillary, you’ve been hoodwinked.

    1. You know those George Soros and Hollywood memes are getting very very old. You can do better.

  9. “Many of those emails are now known to have discussed official issues and potentially embarrassing disclosures.”

    Like that President Obama used a pseudonym when conversing with Clinton using that email address he didn’t know about til he read about it in the papers.

    1. Saying alt reich makes you just as bad as those you hold in such contempt. It displays your own lack of class. Just sayin.

            1. I am a bigot when it comes to the KKK and some of the other white nationalist groups. I seriously have no tolerance for them.

          1. When Trump has the explicit support of the KKK, the White Aryan groups and the American Nazi Groups, then yeah, the shoe fits as does the name.

            1. philat – the KKK has donate 20k to Hillary. Hillary’s buddy was a former klansman. Until Trump ran for President no one has ever accused him of being racist.

  10. People see how the duopoly elite protect each other. That’s why Trump looks like our next prez. He’s no great shakes, but he’s not part of the duopoly/MSM cabal and that’s all regular folks need to know. That smugness of Hillary exhibited on the split screen is why she is a loser.

      1. Plus why does he feel that he is entitled to constantly interrupt? He is a spoiled undisciplined brat.

        1. No, he treated it as a debate, not the artificial construct these fake “debates” have been up to now. “Brat”? Undisciplined? He was the epitome if the disciplined debater. Should he have remained silent when false things were said?

    1. You suggest a faith in the election process that is likely unwarranted. Hillary is indeed an abysmal looser; she almost certainly lost to Sanders, but she is also American royalty, She got the nomination by the same means she will get the presidency, and the same means she has avoided going to the slammer: corrupting the democratic process and the rule of law (she was hardly single handed in this feat – but a comment can only cover so much).

      But more important even than her place in a royal American dynasty, she is the establishment horse. She is the goto person that will take policy written directly by Goldman Sachs, or the oil cartel, or Monsanto, or Google and the Sillicon tech cabal, and do everything within the power of the US Presidency to make it happen. She is also a neocon (may shallow pedants shudder). She will get us involved in any war the MIC wants. She will allow no limits on military spending – and will blame it on the Republicans (alas, largely with their eager permission). The financiers, the Rentiers, the Military Industrial Complex, all want her far more than they want Trump wild cards and they are the true center of power in this country. So it will happen.

      Hillary is going to break the glass ceiling and just about everything else -on a global scale- that her vindictive, ruthless, corrupt presidency touches.

    2. So if you need brain surgery, rather than hiring a skilled brain surgeon, you should hire a loudmouth millionaire guy who owns a band-aid factory?

  11. All these emails disclosed. No one is asking why they are disclosed if there is in fact security information in there. Sleeping dogs are supposed to lay. Not lie. Private server was better than the public one owned by the government. All the experts will say that. The government needs to go back to the diplomatic pouch.
    I watched the debate last night. I now have to vote against Trump. His face expressions alone are not presidential. The world is laughing at him and at us for considering him.

    1. What is it with these goofy unprepared men? Gary Johnson has been goofy lately too. They feel no need to prepare. Some republican said he had never seen anyone make faces like Trump did ever in the history of the debates.

      1. Can you imagine if Clinton had made bizzaro faces like Trump did? It would be a national scandal. God knows what disease they would claim she had.

        1. I do not think that Trump has gonnorea but the facial expressions are caused by something like that. Maybe it is just a New York factor. Those people are odd ducks and this is a Donald Duck.

        2. Thankfully she didn’t. Unfortunately we are now left only with wondering how trump supporters would be sexist, instead of actual proof.

  12. The FBI today almost makes the FBI under Hoover look comparatively good. The United States is no longer a republic. We have a government of men, not laws.

  13. I have to say, pirfessor, when you said his failure to prosecute was understandable I was concerned. It was not understandable in the least. These deals only confirm my feeling that there was never any interest in investigating Mrs. Clinton. It’s seems typical of the Obama administration.

    1. It was understandable at the time, but the evidence of serially immunizing potential witnesses and defendants now show that the immunization was not being used as a sword against Clinton, but rather a shield.
      JT has obviously revised that preliminary legal opinion.

  14. The FBI clearly did not want to prosecute Hillary. They did everything possible to make sure that happened.

  15. the fix is in – sort of like a presidential pardon – but done lower down – but clinton is royalty and above the law – what justice?? steal a pack of cigarettes and you will spend more time in jail than this crowd

    everyone knows if they keep their mouth shut that clinton will take care of them – open your mouth and clinton will take you out – she is a vindictive thug – if you are lucky you will never work again – if not so lucky – end up as a failed mugging or in a dumpster

Comments are closed.