There’s an old saying that goes, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck – well then, it’s a duck.
Now Enter Cheryl Mills, one of Hillary Clinton’s closest confidants, and consider the former secretary of State’s email server scandal.
And as the Wall Street Journal posed in its most recent opinion piece: “If there was no evidence of criminal activity, why all the immunity?”
Good question. And it came in reference to pondering the immunity just grant Mills – for the information contained on her laptop, not just her eventual testimony and statements.
“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,” the Wall Street Journal wrote.
Mills served as a top Clinton aide at the State Department and later became her personal attorney. The FBI targeted her during the investigation into Clinton’s email server. And of especial interest was her laptop.
“The way the laptop was handles was out of the ordinary,” the Wall Street Journal reported. “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.”
But Mills got immunity for her laptop’s content.
“The Mills deal carries a special stink,” the newspaper wrote. “The handling of the investigation has provoked questions about integrity of both the FBI and Justice. The big question for [FBI director] Comey remains this: You publicly said there was no case for criminal charges. So what did Cheryl Mills need immunity for?”
Source: Wall Street Journal