Once again, Hillary Clinton’s home-based email server while secretary of State has reared its head on her presidential campaign trail.
This time, it’s via a legal professor at George Washington University, who penned a scathing column for USA Today about the FBI investigation.
Here’s a summary:
“[The] FBI appears to have undermined its own investigation will ill-considered witness agreements,” Turley wrote.
Comey, in announcing his investigative findings about Clinton’s email server, and concluding that while she did mishandle classified information but that no criminal charges would be recommended, caused an outcry among conservatives especially, who saw a curious contradiction of conclusions. But the media cycle moved on, and the matter was largely dropped.
Now, immunity grants are being passed out very nearly like candy at a Halloween party, leaving some wondering: What’s going on?
“However, the news this week of a previously undisclosed immunity deal with a top Clinton aide raises serious questions over the handling of the FBI investigation,” Turley wrote.
He’s speaking about Cheryl Mills, one of Clinton’s closes aides, and of former State Department staffer Bryan Pagliano and technician Paul Combetta.
“The easiest way,” Turley wrote, “for prosecutors to scuttle a criminal case is to immunize those people who are at the greatest risk of criminal indictment. … Before the disclosure of the Mills immunity deal, the two prior deals were curious given the evidence against both Pagliano and Combetta.”
Turley then raised the point of Combetta’s Twitter account, in which it’s been alleged he’s actually used an alias to solicit advice on scrubbing email records. And since he didn’t previously disclose this effort, that puts him in violation of his immunity deal, Turley said.
Meanwhile, Mills, whose name was implicated in most of the talk about the email scandal, was likewise handed immunity, and not just for her eventual statements, but also for her laptop.
“Comey removed the greatest threat that could have been used to get two underlings to implicate senior officials, and then gave immunity to the senior official most at risk of a charge,” Turley wrote. “In the land of the immunized, the degree of cooperation can sometimes be as difficult to establish as the truth.”
Source: USA Today