Comey: Clinton Aides Refused To Cooperate Without Immunity

Hillary_Clinton_Testimony_to_House_Select_Committee_on_BenghaziHillary 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.

cheryl_d-_millsComey’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”

  1. Whether you like or hate him, imagine Ted Cruz debating Hillary. She would have stroked out on stage.

    1. Open to debate though I couldn’t agree more if you mean going outside the unspoken rules. One of those rules is never – ever – suggest, even under your breath in a dark closet in a stone fortress high on a mountain that is five miles under the ocean on a planet 200 million light years from Earth, in the lowest tones humanly possible, that any war we’ve started in the past or might want to start in the future is anything but magnificent God sanctioned patriotism and absolutely worth killing every man woman and child in the country for, many times over, on the merest whiff of irritation of our holy, sacrosanct Commander-ISSIMO-In-Chief. Unspoken rule; not allowed. Stay away! But if it were, Hillary is incredibly vulnerable to such, but most of the time her opponents couldn’t agree more with her insatiable lust for power though death and destruction so they have to manufacture disagreements – and those, always always comes across as fake and everyone from both sides of the fantastical tribal to the nth reincarnation cave dwelling duopoly know it immediately.

  2. This thread has become a good slugfest. I think JT is prepared to be interrupted by the paternalistic O’Reilly. But, I know JT will get in some of the important facts. This was a sham investigation and Comey knew it, that’s why he had his quick news conference in July, trying to get ahead of the feces. A competent debater would eviscerate Hillary on this, and other stuff.

  3. Professor, One question please? You had posted anything and everything, you could get your hands on about Benghazi. And when it all blew away you went to Alaska and NEVER posted a word yet. My question sir, where are you going to hide this time when e-mails go away?

  4. Chelsea Manning is doing very hard time for leaking secure information in the public’s interest. Hillary Clinton and Obama were exchanging classified e-mails over deliberately unsecure channels for the purpose of hiding their crimes. What is wrong with this picture?

    BTW-Both Bush, Obama have tortured Chelsea Manning. Clinton is not adverse to torture in any way. There is no justice.

    1. Bradley was a chronic attention whore irritant to everyone who ever had to deal with him (his father and stepmother especially). It’s doubtful the self-centered freak ever had an altruistic impulse in his life.

      1. T-Spaz

        Your invective against Bradley, now Chelsey, Manning really doesn’t alter any facts. The information released by Manning served the public interest.

        The information hidden by Clinton and Obama were and are war crimes. Even weirder is the fact that the CIA said the information on Clinton’s unsecure server was damaging to them. Look it up, they said that directly. Therefore, according to people like Clinton and Obama, they should be doing some hard time! Why how interesting that when they do, it’s no problem at all.

        Justice would require them to be in prosecuted.

  5. “The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots” H.L.Mencken.

    1. Donald Trump and Bill Clinton are two peas in a pod when it comes to females. Only difference is that Clinton never dumped the old wife. it is no coincidence that they partied together

      1. No, the difference is that Trump has had a discrete # of affairs and engages in coitus. Clinton prefers sodomy and takes trips to pedo island.

          1. Trump is the one with the child rape charges.

            Not outside your imagination, Mary Anne.

              1. Some grifter, who does not reveal her name, claims he raped her in 1994. You take this seriously because there’s nothing resembling a mind between your ears.

                1. Since you know nothing at all about the person who filed the suit, you have no basis for labeling her a grifter, other than your own prejudices. I don’t assume he is guilty nor innocent. This is for a jury to determine. Perhaps it is you who has “nothing resembling a mind between your ears.”

          2. Bill is the one who fled from Great Briton without finishing his courses as a Rhodes scholar – after he allegedly raped a young woman.

        1. What’s wrong with sodomy? And what makes you so certain that Trump has never engaged in sodomy? What is your basis for the “trips to pedo island” accusation?

        1. Nothing if you don’t mind others thinking you a shitbag for doing so. What would be the purpose for doing so other than simply enjoying being mean toward the target of the shaming remark?

  6. Oxmoron of the century:
    The Department of Justice

    We should redo the pledge of aligence
    One nation under Trump
    Quite divisible
    Without Liberty
    And justice for some.

      1. I’m curious, why would Obama’s extra judicial killings (drones/weddings) which will certainly be carried on by Killary be more palatable than Trump’s?

        1. Some find them harder to handle on US soil .Of course some of the Trump voters want to bring back public hangings.

          1. Ah yes, sweep it 6000 miles under the rug, by remote killing, and that makes it perfectly all right. Got it.

            Frankly, I prefer Teaching Spastics to Dance‘s lack of hypocrisy if not exactly his solution (assuming, of course, I didn’t forget to adjust my snark-O-meter).

            1. Yes, lets conduct war by having every operation vetted by a federal judge.

              1. What war? Oh yes, the war against the entire Muslim world where no individual anywhere has any human rights.

                You gotta be one terrified dude to love that kind of killing.

                1. I meant to say, “to love killing like that.”

                  There is no “kind of killing” that is lovable.

                2. What war? Oh yes, the war against the entire Muslim world where no individual anywhere has any human rights.

                  We conduct military operations in four countries, all of which have had paramilitaries operating in them.

                  You never stop lying, do you?

                  1. You use the word, war, not I, and you use it the way hate filled vigilantes with a hanging rope might use the word justice; loosely. It actually has meaning and that meaning is not, a reverence of ignorance and half truths.

                    Spoiler alert in case you ever decide to kick anything out of your own bed other than venom, simply to conduct military operations does not qualify.

                    Example to assist your fear challenged understanding of the concept: We are not at war now, nor were we at the time of the extra-judicial killing by drone of a sixteen year old American citizen, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, in the country of Yemen. The president had not asked for, nor had the congress granted, any declaration of war that included that nation state. There was furthermore no official and public definition of, war, that included any geographical area in which a drone is used (the sort of definition you would savor). A highly dubious and secret fig leaf document from 2010 apparently did exist that justified the killing of his father, but 1) it would never have stood up to any legal constitutional challenge in our history other than the recent hysteria and paranoia since 9/11 where secret documents have been used to justify virtually any behavior including the most pathological and 2), it was not a definition of war, but a self serving excuse for the US to kill anywhere -regardless of whether or not at war – if it deemed there was a military purpose.

                    BTW, I’m not lying. But if I were to tell an untruth, unlike you, there is at least a good chance I’d be aware of it.

  7. One has to wonder how the underlings are given immunity from prosecution of alleged criminal acts but the ringleader who essentially admits involvement (though denies any damage since she “made a mistake”) faces no charges because “no reasonable prosecutor” would seek an indictment against her. I cannot believe the FBI would bungle a case such as this to cause such a lack of interest in prosecuting.

    Moreover, what is wrong with sending the information before the grand jury and letting them decide if there is sufficient evidence to return a true bill or not. Oh, yes, this is the Clintons and not the average person.

    On another matter from a politician’s, or a politician’s sycophant’s perspective ’tis better to fabricate or inflame divisions between the masses so as to distract away from their own misdeeds and corruption.

    1. Darren,

      You said: ” I cannot believe the FBI would bungle a case such as this to cause such a lack of interest in prosecuting.”

      you must be unfamiliar with the history of the FBI. They even used the (factually innocent) Patsy Oswald as a paid informant. J. Edna denied there’s Organized crime (Mafia) in the U.S. Many of his happiest times were spent betting on horse racing and carousing with thugs. The Boston FBI office itself should have been charged as a RICO enterprise. They allowed a known murderer to operate freely. Know who Whitey Bulgar is? Remember how they smeared MLK and tried to get him to commit suicide?

  8. “The government is granting immunity to try to get at higher level officials.

    No, it clearly is not.
    The Obama administration is doing a fake investigation with fake results because most voters are too dumb to know the difference.

    However, the knock-on effects are the total loss of trust in government and its legitimacy.
    I wonder how the average taxpayer will look at compliance with the myriad rules we must follow.

    Are there enough cops/agents in the US to investigate a nation of scofflaws?

  9. Mr. Turley, thank you for your commitment to the rule of law and for your insistence that it prevail irregardless of the now pervasive (almost totalitarian) influence of political power in America. You give me hope that our judges and courts will once again uphold just laws.

  10. Should Trump manage to pull this off, quite a lot of heads will have to roll to cleanse the Department of Justice.

  11. Had Trump been prepped properly and thoroughly for the debate the other night, he would’ve ripped Clinton a new one over these outrageous and egregious facts. It’s not enough to simply be informed about these irregularities in anticipation of these debates, which, I assume, he was. By all accounts, Clinton spent a great deal of time participating in mock debates, having someone stand in as Trump. On the other hand, Trump’s camp openly and proudly reports that he eschewed such preparation methods and did not participate in any mock debates. It showed. What a massive mistake. That, coupled with the fact that he is forced to walk a fine line–where his restraint is viewed as a lack of knowledge, and aggressive, hard-hitting retorts are viewed as mean-spirited and a lack of respect with regard to women–it’s a no-win situation.

    1. He is forced? Who’s forcing him? He wasn’t forced during the primaries though it clearly drove the GOP nuts. Otherwise, I agree with your points. Trump could have either dispatched Hillary altogether, or at least done very serious damage just as he did to his supposed fellow Republicans one after the other.

      1) Trump is doing this as a favor to Hillary (with free publicity being his take)
      2) Trump has been made an offer he can’t refuse (free cement shoes)

      1. Note: Number two would clearly be force, but not the force of social restraint where he is avoiding looking mean spirited. That never bothered him before and given his facial expressions, didn’t bother him the other night with Hillary.

      2. FORCED in the sense that he is being pulled between two conflicting and contradictory strategies in this campaign. On the one hand, in an effort to fend off critics, who relentlessly classify Trump as an out-of-control hothead, who is not ready for prime time, he is being groomed and guided to remain cool, collected and respectful during these exchanges, lest he be painted as one without control of his emotions and passions. In doing so–following the strategy of employing the utmost respect and restraint–Trump is, predictably, falling into the hands of those claiming that he is a lightweight. Should he, on the other hand, let loose with a barrage of facts, such as the damning ones contained in this article, the MSM would spin it as an assault on women–the world over–and a testament to his instability. Proof that he is ill-equipped for the position of President.

        Yes, that is what I mean by FORCED to walk a thin line. As if that is not difficult enough, toss in the odd concept that Trump, for whatever reason, didn’t–allegedly–participate in any mock debates in preparation for this showdown, and, yes, my friend, you have a recipe for disaster.

        1. Alright, but it is still up to Trump whether or not to walk this absurd line. They are not, I presume, forcing this tightrope on him at the point of a gun. Let’s see, no one imposed a tight walk on him during the nomination process and he won hands down. Now he is being forced to walk the line and he looks like a complete buffoon. Is he an adult with his own drivers license? Can he kick anything out of his own bed? If so, he can ask Hillary, not to mention the pathetic moderator, some pretty damn embarrassing questions which will put a real dent in her coronation (and possibly get a better moderator with something other than a stenographer’s brain). It’s up to him and no one else. If the guy or gal who lost his or her job and can’t find another one because they have all be shipped off shore thanks to NAFTA; if that guy or gal is still responsible for payments on his or her house, then why can’t Trump be responsible for running his own campaign? So again who is forcing him other than himself?

          1. The oddity here is I am agreeing with you! Had Trump been prepped properly and thoroughly for the debate the other night, he would’ve ripped Clinton a new one. Absolutely, but he’s not going to “rip her a new one” with polite chit chat no matter how well prepped. So either he has bought into this don’t make waves posture, or he is throwing the race voluntarily for what ever reason.

          2. Brooklin Bridge – there are commentators who think the same as you about Trump’s performance. However, under the constraints, he is probably picking up votes and she is losing them. So, which one should he choose. Besides, the next is a townhall. He is very good off the cuff, she is not. He has held a lot of speaking engagements with Q&A, she gives a speech and then leaves. A lot will depend on the makeup of the audience.

            1. Paul, if Trump is serious about becoming president, and I seriously question that, he has one and only once chance to do so – and that is in the debates.

              First, and again, this is not an election, this is a coronation, or the modern equivalent, by giant international corporate and military interests. They scoff at elections the way they scoff at the rule of law the way they scoff at email scandals and the way they fix them though puppets like Comey with barely a thought to covering it up. BTW, they are made up of Republicans and Democrats and every other international entity that has financial, corporate and military power at the heart of their agenda..

              Second, given this environment, there is no possibility to achieve the presidency by normal rules which is why Trump has gotten as far as he has – the ONLY reason he has gotten as far as he has, because up until his nomination, he did not follow the rules.

              Finally, that means he has to pull back the curtain on Hillary the same way he did with the Bushes. It’s the only way he might possibly make the election so lopsided (revealing Hillary as an actual criminal and traitor) as to be impossible or near impossible to fix even by the interests I mention above who could care less about appearances. And since the main stream media will never e-v-e-r give him a chance to do that, we come back to the debates. That’s it. That’s all he’s got.

              If he is being led around by the nose, it’s his own damned fault unless as I state above, he has been threatened with life and limb or he is doing this on behalf of Hillary and the free publicity or some other motive that doesn’t involve winning.

    2. Trump is a narcissistic, lying, buffoon. You can’t prep a narcissistic, lying, buffoon. And, no way in any level mind should he be made President. Now, on with the mud slinging.

      1. Hillary is a narcissistic liar as well only instead of being a buffoon, she is a lethal vindictive and effective war monger who would very conceivably put us at great risk of all out war with Russia by a combination of insanely contradictory policy in Syria and amazingly irresponsible efforts to corner Russia on it’s own boarders. As if that weren’t enough, Hillary never saw a trade deal she wouldn’t pimp for no matter how horrible it was for the environment or the democracies of the nation states involved. You’re suggesting she is a better choice?

        1. Nicely said BB. I note that the only responses to your argument are off-the-cuff emotional one-liners. I haven’t seen anything to refute that she is an exceptionally greedy megalomaniac. Haven’t seen someone say, “no, she in fact has opposed wars. No, she opposes new trade deals that could further erode the middle (and tax-paying) class. She is a protector of the environment (except for when it puts WV coal miners out of a job–fracking–good to go!).” These were traditional lefty causes, and it is strange how the representative of the left has active worked to destroy all of these things.

          1. Thanks, slohrss29. I noticed that too, what possible good can one say about her except, “He’s a buffoon”?

      2. Trump is a fat shaming misogynistic old perv. Geez, he called a latina woman a “housekeeper”. You can’t prep him as he has the attention span of a flea.

        1. I’ve read numerous articles regarding Clinton–you know, that bastion of stability and grace–where the old broad, over the decades, has gone off–literally–to those surrounding her, letting loose with a string of vulgarities. The N-word, etc. You name it. Mind you, those recalling these frequent outbursts were those in her inner circle. Instead of interviewing them, we are inundated with interviews of some tired, washed-up beauty queen, who was incensed–INCENSED, I TELL YA–that she had to drop the pounds. Clinton, by all accounts, has the reputation as having a vulgar and dirty mouth, along with a hair-trigger temper. If only the MSM would interview some of the people, over the decades, who have been present when Clinton exploded with a litany of disparaging names and insults against various races and religions. I suspect those in the know value their lives and don’t want to end up, gunshot to the back of the head, and ruled as a suicide. Clinton’s antics would make Trump look like a boy scout. Instead, we are misdirected to some comments about a former Miss Universe–a pageant in which Trump had a personal, financial stake–where the winner gained a substantial amount of weight. Yes, I know–tsk, tsk, tsk. How dare he! Aren’t beauty pageants just about inner beauty and intelligence? The nerve of him to tell the winner to represent the title in a more appropriate manner! We all know that when it comes to beauty contests that physical appearances mean nothing. Right. This has-been, former Ms. Universe, sees this as another chance at her fifteen minutes of fame, and we’re supposed to be incensed that Trump told this ingrate to lose the weight. Oh, how terrible.

          1. Doubt anything could make Trump look like a boy scout. He has an unsavory history both with women and business dealings. I enjoyed watching Trump’s eyes pop when Clinton mentioned Ms. Machado. He knows there are many more Machado’s out there.

            1. If you are going to reference unsavory histories, you should not ignore that belonging to Clinton. It’s only fair, now isn’t it? She shouldn’t be getting a pass. I’d love to put her unsavory history, riddled with any array of misdeeds and downright crimes, spanning decades, up against anything with which Trump has been accused. Want to reference remarks made to a former beauty pageant winner, who had every opportunity to renounce her title and crown, had she so wished, due to the remarks made to and about her ever-increasing weight? Let’s put those up the litany of nasty and rude remarks made by Hillary, over the years, to her associates. Ya see, we’ll never be able to do that cause the Clinton people are trembling in their boots. They don’t want to be found dead, in some ditch, after speaking to the media. Just because you don’t see Clinton’s victims, exposed to and familiar with her perpetual verbal abuse, on the television, giving interviews, doesn’t mean that they don’t exist. They are just too terrified to speak out about the horror that is Clinton. On the other hand, we’re thrown a red herring, Ms. Former Cucaracha, and baited into falling for her sob story. Such a tragedy. She was compelled, through the threat of harm, to remain Ms. Universe. She was forced to remain, against her will, and actually maintain certain standards. As if she didn’t understand the constraints that such a pageant and a title entailed. Oh, boo hoo, cry me a river. In the meantime, Clinton, an undisputed criminal, who has threatened the women who were sexually attacked by her husband, is treated as if she is innocent. What a load!

              1. That is your narrative. Jennifer Flowers is sure out there. Why the need to peddle the Clinton conspiracy theories when Trump and his fans claim he did just fine and won the debate.

        2. Because no one with excess appetites should ever be embarrassed by it!

      3. If what you say is true, how do you think he is able to run his empire as successfully as he has?

    3. Maybe, just maybe, he will do some preparation the next time around.
      It doesn’t take much, Clinton has pretty much handed Trump all the material he needs to make her look like Nixon.

        1. Lazy? He’s been manically active in real estate development, resort development, and entertainment for over 40 years.

          Hilligula hasn’t practiced law in 25 years. She was fired from her first law job for misconduct. She landed her second after her husband was elected attorney-general of Arkansas. She’s passably good at leveraging connections.

        2. A damn good attorney? She failed the DC bar exam, but kept that little nugget, hidden, for decades. Passing the bar exam is no indicator of brilliance, but neither is failing the bar. It wasn’t until after Hillary failed the DC bar that she decided to pack her bags and follow Bill to Arkansas, where she could, at least, pass the bar in a state in which first cousins marrying and teeth are both optional.

        3. Define “damn good attorney”.

          ATTORNEY, n. A person legally appointed to mismanage one’s affairs which one has not himself the skill to rightly mismanage.


          LAWYER, n. One skilled in circumvention of the law.

      1. You are spot on and it actually wouldn’t even be that difficult though it would require the flare Trump used during the primaries. But the act itself would need but a line or two that confronts a large segment of the American public with a Hillary naked of cover ups. Let that truth: Hillary the traitor and Hillary the criminal, steep for a while in the public consciousness and no amount of vote rigging by the people who count the votes and the people who own the polling will be able to fix Hillary’s coronation.

  12. Is there ever any end to the slime and sleaze of this administration including Obama, himself, and his minions including Hillary. They are like old world monarchs that controlled everything. I often think Hillary and the democrats are the embodiment of many of today’s youth. Not taught the principles of manners, courtesy, trust, responsibility and tolerance or the values of hard work and the ability let things roll over their backs, these kids grow up feeling entitled, without direction, wanting respect without earning it. Many of our youth wander aimlessly, homeless and very, very angry. This is what we see on our televisions almost nightly. Parents need to start teaching values again and good citizenship. I don’t see that happening with Hillary Clinton as president, the epitome of entitled, selfindulgance. Our great America will continue to decline until we do not recognize her or unless a HUGE change is made in November.

    1. First of all, although I sort of agree with you that kids today are largely a bunch of shiftless morons, I don’t see what any of them have to do with Hillary Clinton. If you have an axe to grind with today’s youth, take it up with the local constabulary and keep it out of serious debate.

      Secondly, are you seriously saying that Clinton is an example of “entitled selfindulgence”? Trump is the poster child of entitled selfindulgence, are you insane?

    2. Not all of us have 14 million dollars to give our sons so that they can become predatory playboys like Trump and that is a good thing.

      1. Donald Trump has spent over 40 years building and operating diversified business interests, and has done quite well at it. There are people who hate personal accomplishment because capable people have no need of den mother wannabes collecting government salaries.

    3. Amen, Beakie. However; I hope your belief that the election of someone other than Clinton doesn’t turn out to have been naive.

  13. It is not the emails that bother me. It is the unprotected national security related data that was contained therein. When certain low-information voters hear that Hillary has an e-mail scandal, they shrug. So she wanted her own email address; what’s the problem? Let’s use the right term: *Hillary’s MIshandling of National Secrets Scandal.”* Or *”Hillary’s Treason Scandal* if this is considered to be a time of war.

    She has, through the privilege (private law) available to the wealthy and politically connected, evaded clear violation of the law. Release of information to the enemy is a high crime whether that release was deliberate or simply by failure to secure.

    1. It might be interesting to hear what a well-connected insider (JT) has to say tonight. Hard to imagine that he will be foolish enough to risk arousing the resentment of anyone that might one day wish to retain his high-quality law firm – by being harsh on his fellow 1%ers and insider connections.

    2. “So she wanted her own email address; what’s the problem?”

      FOIA Evasion is another good moniker.

  14. The DoJ was not going to convict them, so handing out immunity deals like candy made sense. Who cared? I do not think Comey read Hillary’s 302 before he wrote up his judgment.

  15. Hehe, if public officials were to be prosecuted for their war crimes and violations of international law, etc, etc,, pray tell just who would run the world? You might not, but Americans do care about HRC’s email crap.

    In this instance of the granting immunity, in order to try to get at higher level officials, why didn’t they just grant HRC the Immunity, and be done? Instead, the appearance of granting most of the crooks immunity simply falls into the category of no punishment for anyone. Is that what this country has come to? America is not a lawless country. Penalties are even written into law for crimes. But really, the erosion of law enforcement is the most I have seen in 50 years.

  16. Who can blame them from seeking immunity? The government is granting immunity to try to get at higher level officials. That is a judgment call for them to make. Having said that, it will likely turn our that the only potential criminal conduct was committed by those who received immunity.

  17. Most people couldn’t care less about Hillary’s emails. The billions of bits of government communications kept secret are mostly to protect government incompetence and corruption.

    If we are going to address crimes committed by public officials, we need to start with war crimes and violations of international law.

    1. “Most people couldn’t care less about Hillary’s emails.”

      Perhaps in your circle but not mine. Most rational people want accountability; they want security in their life, liberty and property. They want confidence that their government will be a just government with laws enforced equally, regardless of one’s station in society. If we cannot prosecute ALL violations of the law, then we are not a nation of laws.

    2. Doglover,

      If you are truly interested in the prosecution of war crimes you absolutely need to pay attention to these e-mails. Why? Here are two reasons: 1. Benghazi was a war crime and information about that war crime is in these e-mails. 2. govt. officials are clearly hiding their plans and aims from the public by using private e-mail servers. This is made clear by the content of the e-mails. Obama used a pseudonym to hide his correspondence with Hillary on her private network even though he claimed to have no knowledge of her private server. In other words, the govt. has moved things to private devices/networks in order to avoid having the public gain access to what is lawfully ours to know. They do it to hide many of their crimes.

      War and other crimes are being plotted and carried out on these private networks. Citizens should be wholly on board with getting to the bottom of the use of private servers to hide information that WE have a right to know.

      It’s all laid bare in these e-mails–intent to hide crimes and discuss/plan the crimes themselves. Now, with citizens willing to ignore such things, at least when it’s “their” side engaging in the illegal acts, there is no stopping the crime, even crimes you think matter!

      What we see is the oligarachy protecting its own. The FBI and DOJ are shielding war criminals. If you really want those crimes exposed, speak up about these e-mails and their cover up!

      1. So what if the emails might expose war crimes. The invasions of Iraq, Libya, and Syria are out in the open and nobody does anything about these unprovoked invasions of sovereign countries.

        1. Syria’s never been invaded, Iraq had been in a state of belligerency with the United States for 12 years, and military action in Libya consisted of some air strikes, not an invasion.

Comments are closed.