William McGurn:
Why did Cheryl Mills require criminal immunity?
This is the irksome question hanging over the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s home-brew server in the wake of news that Ms. Mills was granted immunity for her laptop’s contents.
Ms. Mills was a top Clinton aide at the State Department who became Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer when she left. She was also a witness, as well as a potential target, in the same FBI investigation into her boss’s emails. The laptop the bureau wanted was one Ms. Mills used in 2014 to sort Clinton emails before deciding which would be turned over to State.
Here’s the problem. There are two ways a witness can get immunity: Either she invokes the Fifth Amendment on the grounds she might incriminate herself, or, worried something on the laptop might expose her to criminal liability, her lawyers reveal what this might be before prosecutors agree to an immunity deal.
As with so much else in this investigation, the way the laptop was handled was out of the ordinary. Normally, immunity is granted for testimony and interviews. The laptop was evidence. Standard practice would have been for the FBI to get a grand-jury subpoena to compel Ms. Mills to produce it.
Andrew McCarthy, a former U.S. attorney, puts it this way: “It’s like telling a bank robbery suspect, ‘If you turn over that bag, I’ll give you immunity as to the contents’—which means if the money you robbed is in there, I can’t use it against you.”
The Mills immunity, which we learned of on Friday, has unfortunately been overwhelmed by the first Trump-Clinton debate. But the week is still young. On Wednesday, Congress will have an opportunity to put the Mills questions to FBI director James Comey when he appears before the House Judiciary Committee.
Back in July, Mr. Comey must have thought he’d settled the issue of Mrs. Clinton’s emails with a grandstanding press conference in which he asserted “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a case against her based on what the FBI had found. In so doing, he effectively wrested the indictment decision (and any hope for political accountability) from the Justice Department. Plainly even his own agents weren’t buying, given that Mr. Comey later felt the need to issue an internal memo whining that he wasn’t being political.
Now we learn about the multiple immunity deals. Immunity in exchange for information that will help make the case against higher-ups is not unusual. Even so, the Mills deal carries a special stink.
To begin with, Ms. Mills was pretty high up herself. As Mrs. Clinton’s chief of staff, she was in the thick of operations. In 2012, while working at State, she traveled to New York to interview candidates for a top job at the Clinton Foundation.
More disturbing still, not only was Ms. Mills granted immunity for the content on her laptop, she was permitted to act as Mrs. Clinton’s attorney even though she herself was also a witness in the investigation.
This was allowed in part because she told the FBI she knew nothing of Mrs. Clinton’s private server until after she’d left the State Department. But this claim is suspect and contradicted by emails that have since emerged. These include one to Huma Abedin asking, “hrc email coming back—is server ok?”
The special treatment accorded Ms. Mills also reeks on a more fundamental level. As a rule, the Justice Department is aggressive about going after lawyers for any perceived conflict of interest. This would include, for example, a lawyer who wanted to represent different parties in a trial.
Even more amazing, why do these people who have received immunity refuse to testify?
They testified when questioned by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
At least one, Bryan Pagliano, has declined to participate in the The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s pre-election kangaroo court. They have responded by holding him in contempt of Congress. How very observant of them. To be clear, his contempt is for their own abuse of their investigative powers in an effort to achieve political advantage. It’s become an obvious pattern, and it’s about time somebody stood up to these posturing jackasses.
@Greg: Ah. So we citizens get to decide what laws we respect and what hearings are worthy of our participation. Somehow I think that only applies to those who possess the liberal pass from criminal responsibility.
Immunity is, usually, so the facts can be extracted from those involved with the illicit activity. In the Obama regime, it is used to protect the members of Crime, Inc. from those pestering representatives of The People from nosing in and impeding their personal use of the Untied States Federal Government.
They should make a movie of this but DIRTY ROTTEN SCOUNDRELS and DISPICIBLE ME has already been used
@Bill- Deplorable Me, #3:
FBI Director James B. Comey is not a tool of the Obama administration. He was a Bush administration appointee as United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and later as United States Deputy Attorney General. He’s a highly competent professional, who is as well-versed in the applicable laws and prosecutorial procedures as anyone could be.
The right’s problem with this guy isn’t that he has let a partisan agenda influence his investigation and determination. The right’s problem with him is that he has refused to do so.
Immunity was granted to obtain witness cooperation and sworn testimony from witnesses closest to the circumstances under investigation. It had the effect of assuring such testimony would be obtained and would be accurate—by removing the cover of the Fifth Amendment, and by replacing it with the threat of perjury charges and a 5-year prison term if the testimony were later found to be false.
FBI director rejects idea of reopening Clinton probe
@Greg: It doesn’t matter who appointed him; he has participated in a vast miscarriage of justice.
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/09/28/fbi-documents-huma-abedin-denied-knowledge-of-clinton-email-server-she-picked-hillarys-username/
It is against the law to lie to the FBI. Why isn’t Huma charged? Why won’t people granted immunity not made to testify?
One big farce, Greg. No more rule of law; a 3rd world dictatorship.
@Greg:
@Greg:
The Clintons’ supposed misbehavior in connection with Whitewater was based entirely on allegations made by David Hale, a crooked municipal judge who set up a phony business front as part of a number of fraud schemes. Subsequent to his indictment, he made politically useful allegations against the Clintons to use as bargaining chips. There was a prolonged investigation, but no evidence was ever found that the Clintons had done anything that warranted charges.
Republicans have been trying to destroy the Clintons by any means possible for decades. It’s just been one damn thing after another, often two or three at a time. If they’re actually guilty of all the things they’ve been accused of, those trying to prove it is so must be among the most stupid and incompetent investigators on the planet.
Director James B Comey, of course, is neither stupid nor incompetent, nor is he likely to be biased in favor of Hillary Clinton. There are those who wouldn’t hesitate to call his honesty into question or to destroy his reputation and career to further their political ends.
@Greg: Director James B Comey, of course, is neither stupid nor incompetent, nor is he likely to be biased in favor of Hillary Clinton. There are those who wouldn’t hesitate to call his honesty into question or to destroy his reputation and career to further their political ends.
REALLY really?
http://usapoliticsnow.com/fbi-director-received-millions-clinton-foundation-brothers-law-firm-clintons-taxes/
tentacles creepy creepy tentacles
@kitt, #10:
Because USA Politics Now says so? Maybe you should try thinking outside of the right-wing propaganda bubble.
Ah, but that isn’t allowed, is it? One of their earliest and longest-running propaganda messages was designed to shut down receptivity to any non-approved information sources. That message has been distilled down to a meme concerning “the mainstream media.” It is reinforced constantly. For example, from USA Politics Now, August 17, 2016: Mainstream media has become a propaganda machine for Hillary
Objective thinking no longer exists on the right. Group-think is the name of the game. You all plug in to some part of the right-wing echo chamber for your daily download. That James Comey would become a target was as predictable as the sun rising each morning.
@Greg: Do as Hillary says Fact check the article coward.
Maybe you should fact check Donald Trump.
@Greg:
Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah……..
The Clintons were players in Whitewater, no dispute there….
If so many involved in Whitewater were convicted of malfeasance, a reasonable critical thinking person would conclude they were guilty too.
Greg demonstrates with his democrat talking points and pablum., he does not engage in critical thinking nor does he give reason to facts presented when he is told to put party first.
@Greg: If you liberals had bothered to fact check Obama and Hillary, they would BE no Donald Trump. Instead, you are satisfied with failure, being lied to about it and having all the liberal failure blamed on Republicans.