Hillary Clinton’s position on the email scandal has repeatedly changed from its first emergence in the presidential campaign from denial of bad judgment to the denial of the use of the private server for any classified information to the denial of any material “marked” as classified to the denial of seeing or understanding classified markings. However, one claim has remained unchanged. Clinton has maintained that she and her staff have “cooperated fully” with investigators. That claim was previously shown to be untrue when it was revealed that neither Clinton nor her staff would agree to speak with State Department investigators even though they said that such interviews were needed to determine the scope any damage to national security or security breaches. Now, however, the lack of cooperation has been put into sharper relief with the testimony of FBI Director James B. Comey this week. My column this week raised serious misgivings over the handling of the investigation with the disclosure of five immunity grants by the Justice Department, including one given to Cheryl Mills. Those misgivings were raised with Comey before the United States Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee where Comey revealed the extent to which Clinton aides refused to cooperate, including an assertion of the privilege against self-incrimination raised before answering questions about a key telephone conference conversation before the infamous “bleaching” over email records being sought by Congress. Comey testifies today before the House Oversight Committee. I am currently scheduled to discuss these issues tonight on the O’Reilly Factor.
Comey insisted that there was nothing “irregular” about the deal given Mills despite the countervailing concerns detailed in my column. His defense of the immunity deals was that the Clinton staff would not cooperate without being protected from criminal prosecution based on their answers or cooperation. The lack of cooperation was captured in the fact that Mills refused to turn over her laptop without such an immunity grant. This was government information needed in a criminal investigation and Mills refused until they gave her immunity. So here is a laptop with potential criminal information and classified information, but Mills withheld it as leverage for immunity under an “active production immunity” deal.
Comey’s defense of the deal was highly dubious: “The FBI judgment was we need to get to that laptop. We need to see what it is. This investigation’s been going on for a year. And this was, in the negotiation, a tool that her lawyer asked for, that the Department of Justice granted so we could get the laptop.” So the Justice Department gave immunity to one of the highest ranking individuals and the figure most often cited as at risk for criminal charges . . . to get a laptop that the FBI could have secured through a order of production. The assumption of a long drawn out fight also assumed that the public disclosure of the Clinton staff withholding key information would not have forced the hand of Mills. Comey also did not address the bizarre role of Mills who, despite being a key and immunized witness, was allowed to sit in on Clinton’s questioning.
As for Paul Combetta, an employee at Platte River Networks, who deleted information that he reportedly knew was being sought by Congress, Comey insisted that “The department granted immunity to the one fellow who erased the stuff so that we could figure out, did anybody tell you to do this, did anybody ask you do this, to see if we could make an obstruction case — we couldn’t.” So you gave immunity to a witness who was facing a real threat of criminal charge and would be likely eager for a plea bargain? Immunity was not needed to get that individual to cooperate but it is also a questionable defense when you also gave immunity to the very high-ranking officials who was involved in the key decisions over the deletion of the emails.
Magnifying these concerns further is a recent disclosure of FBI material from the investigation, including “302 forms” from FBI interviews. There is a telling passage included in one such report from the end of page 18. The paragraph is assumed to refer to the interview of Combetta or another Platte River employee. When the FBI turned to that key telephone conference with Kendall and Mills. The witness immediately stops cooperating and invokes his privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. It was a telling invocation over a conversation with Clinton’s lawyers. Yet, the Justice Department gave both Combetta and the key Clinton aide in the conversation, Mills, immunity.
Putting aside the questionable judgment behind such immunity grants, one thing is clear: as with the total refusal to cooperate with the State Department investigation, there was a refusal to cooperate with the FBI investigation by key Clinton figures until they received grants of immunity — even without public records.
137 thoughts on “Comey: Clinton Aides Refused To Cooperate Without Immunity”
Your tax dollars at work against the people. This is what is passing for the rule of law aka, the rule of large weapons against our people. This is NOT justice.
We have a very corrupt government and that won’t change anytime soon. The public is too lazy to learn about third party alternatives and ill-equipped to understand what’s needed to make things better. It’s too easy to fool people into agreeing that restricting immigration means racism, curtailing police violence means letting thugs run free, reducing corporate welfare is anti-free enterprise, and laws that lessen inherited great wealth are anti-American.
We have many miles to go. Progress comes very slowly, by degrees.
bakkhus, you have made a good point. That immunity thing is a big deal. Look what it did for Whitey Bulger. The FBI gave him immunity while they went after the Italian mafia. Whitey just keep acting like Whitey.
Talking to the FBI without immunity is setting yourself up.
Well, Professor, you are a scholar and a gentleman. I’ve always admired your breadth of knowledge, grasp of academic facts, and noble demeanor. But I’m not sure if terms like “perplexing”, “curious” (re: your column in USA Today), “concerns” etc. regarding the immunity deals do justice – pun intended – to the severity of the matter at hand.
What we have here is nothing short of corruption at the highest levels of government. I do not pretend to knowledge that this situation never happened before. But in light of the dozens of facts available to anyone with a keyboard and a TV, how can we still question the real motives here? They are to protect Hillary Clinton and, by extension, all Democrats – including Obama – at any cost, even if that cost represents the effective dissolution to the rule of law.
As I believe you said, there are now two systems of justice. This is fundamentally antithetical to our system of governance and to our most profound values.
I don’t see how trust in government can ever be restored.
Correction: “dissolution of the rule of law”..
Very good post Sandra. Only the willfully ignorant question the motives. The rest of us clearly see those motives and are divided into 2 camps: 1. Utilitarians (progressives) – of which Clinton or Trump are acceptable. 2. Constitutionalists – of which the only thing that matters is the rule of law.
It breaks my heart this behavior is allowed, and the possibility our future president is behind it is truly devistating to this country.
Ann Coulter did an excellent review of the debate. Nice and honest.
Morning Consult with the first post-debate poll and a 4 point swing to Hillary (3 point lead) Still close but appears she got a small bump.
Comments are closed.