House Committee: FBI Cut Side Deal To Limit Search Of Computers Of Key Clinton Aides And To Allow The Computers To Be Destroyed

The FBI investigation into the Clinton email scandal seems to grow more questionable by the day.  As I discussed earlier, the five immunity deals handed out by the Justice Department were, in my view, largely unnecessary and undermined the development of any criminal case.  Now, House investigators have learned  that Justice Department officials, in addition to their immunity deals, cut a “side agreement” with Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson for agents to destroy their laptops after searching their hard drives for evidence.  With Congress seeking the information, the side deal clearly would obstruct that investigation and the details of the side agreement make little sense if the FBI were pursuing any and all evidence of criminal conduct.

What is particularly bizarre is that the FBI agreed to limit their search to documents created before Jan. 2015.  That would exclude potential evidence of an ongoing conspiracy or efforts to obstruct the investigations.  The Mills computer, as I have already discussed, should have been handed over given Clinton’s assurance that her staff would cooperate fully. Instead, Clinton and her staff refused to cooperate with the State Department investigation and then Mills refused to turn over her computer until she was given immunity from criminal charges.  Once again, that computer contained government communications and, more importantly, classified information. The FBI could have seized the computer with a court order without immunity.  Moreover, the contents of the computer contained property of the United States in the form of classified communications.  The FBI did not have to agree to even give back the computer.  Yet, the FBI first immunized Mill and then agreed to limit its search and to destroy the evidence before congressional investigators reviewed the computer.

In my view, the immunity deals and this side agreement raise very serious questions for investigation.  In cutting this deal, the Obama Administration played an active role in the destruction of evidence being sought by Congress.  Since there was no need for the side agreement, the actions of the Administration are now legitimately matters for congressional concern and investigation.

What do you think?

Here is the letter from the House Committee: House Letter