Another Clinton Aide Gets Immunity

The longer the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email server drags on, the more it looks like the events thus far have all been a giant set-up designed to fool the public into thinking a thorough examination has been done and Clinton has been proven careless but relatively innocent.

In reality, just the opposite looks to be true, and the more and more we get a good look at the supposed “investigators” who are on the case, the more they’re starting to look like Clinton shills who’ve been playing us for fools all along.

Take Attorney General Loretta Lynch, a President Obama appointee. The attorney general is supposed to be totally impartial, being the head of the Justice Department, and, in effect, America’s top prosecutor. If he or she doesn’t know the law, who would?

However, attorneys general since the nation’s founding have always been either covertly or overtly political, and ever since the 1970s, appointees to this role have all been under fire at one point or another for acting politically on the job or being ordered to undertake politicized actions by their boss, the President of the United States.

Under former President Richard Nixon, for instance, Attorney General Elliott Richardson was famously ordered to fire Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox, only to refuse the order and resign; his acting replacement Robert Bork was more compliant.

If one looks back at more recent attorneys general, one can see that under President Ronald Reagan, Attorney General Ed Meese quit over the embarrassing Wedtech defense contracting scandal that he was caught up in.

Under President George W. Bush, Attorney General John Ashcroft resigned after refusing to sanction domestic spying by the National Security Agency. Bush’s second attorney general, Alberto Gonzales also resigned (after being threatened with impeachment) and his third attorney general, Michael Mukasey, faced ethics complaints — both relating to their advocacy of torture of Al-Qaeda jihadists.

Under President Obama, former Attorney General Eric Holder was found to be in criminal and civil contempt of Congress — the first cabinet member in American history to be found guilty of those charges — for his role in the “Fast and Furious” state-sanctioned gun-running program. Holder resigned before he could be impeached.

Attorney General Lynch has been no stranger to these political games, and Republicans rightly suspected that she would play puppet to Obama when it came to granting a “Get Out of Jail Free” card to his former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.

For months, as the FBI investigated, conservatives had hoped that highly educated and credentialed FBI Director James Comey, who had a no-nonsense reputation for detailed, thorough investigations, would prove to be an unsparing “bad cop” to Lynch’s “good cop.”

Now, 14 months after the FBI’s investigation began and tens of thousands of man-hours later, we’ve discovered that Comey has tight connections to the Clinton Foundation through his serving as a director of the Swiss banking arm of financial giant HSBC, which has deep ties to the Clinton organization and many of its shady donors.

Given these connections, it appears that Comey is all but co-opted, and it’s even questionable if he’s an appropriate choice for the nation’s “top cop,” if one of the functions of that job is to go after the high-level drug smugglers and terrorists who have admittedly used HSBC to launder money in the past.

But Comey’s investigation into Clinton and her aides now appears to have been a joke the entire time as the FBI chief testified before Congress that Clinton had indeed lied about her emails — she sent or received at least 110 that were classified.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Comey didn’t recommend an indictment for Clinton to Lynch. And even if he had, Lynch may or may not have taken up the recommendation, given how compromised she clearly is.

In fact, it was Lynch who met personally with ex-President Bill Clinton on the former’s private plane for half an hour on June 27 while she sat waiting on the tarmac, just 10 days before announcing to the world at large that Hillary Clinton would be given a free pass for her role in the infamous email scandal thus far.

Unsatisfied conservatives wish to dig further; Republican House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Rep. Jason Chaffetz angrily demanded the FBI’s source materials and files when he held a hearing grilling FBI Acting Assistant Director for Congressional Affairs Jason Herring, among others, over the investigation thus far.

After getting nowhere with Herring at the hearing, he handed a subpoena to the assistant director for specific documents relating to Clinton’s aides’ testimony. Herring appeared to laugh off the request, making a farce of where the investigation has led up to this point.

Even worse, it’s now come out that the FBI has granted immunity to no less than five Clinton aides and consultants over the course of the case. The first to be given prosecutorial immunity was Clinton IT aide Bryan Pagliano.

When this occurred, Republicans rubbed their hands with glee, as typically, witnesses are granted immunity in exchange for damning testimony about major figures in a case — in this case that would be Hillary Clinton. There were whispers that a grand jury was being convened secretly somewhere in Washington and that it would only be a matter of time before an indictment would be handed down for the former Secretary.

In hindsight, it now looks like Pagliano gave up no valuable information whatsoever, and the Democrats must have been laughing up a storm as Republicans dreamed in vain of the day when Clinton would be fried like a shrimp on a barbecue on a hot summer’s day.

That day never came to pass, however, and now it’s been revealed that the FBI also granted immunity to top Clinton aide Heather Samuelson, former State Department Information Resources Director John Bentel, Paul Combetta of consulting company Platte River Networks (who helped delete Clinton’s old emails even after a subpoena for them was served) and now — astonishingly — Clinton’s top deputy at the State Department, Cheryl Mills.

For Congressman Chaffetz and other Republicans, this was a total outrage. “No wonder [the FBI] couldn’t prosecute a case,” remarked Chaffetz. “They were handing out immunity deals like candy. I’ve lost confidence in this investigation and I question the genuine effort in which it was carried out. Immunity deals should not be a requirement for cooperating with the FBI.”

For those who don’t know Cheryl Mills, her association with the Clintons goes back decades, and the more one looks at her connection to the couple, the more it looks like Mills has been the hired gun doing the Clintons’ dirty laundry for years — if not decades — as she’s been at the center of nearly all the former first family’s biggest scandals going back to the 1990s.

She was Hillary Clinton’s aide during the Whitewater hearings and acted as Bill Clinton’s personal counsel during the Monica Lewinsky affair (for which she was excoriated by prominent Washington judge Royce Lamberth for her “totally inadequate” and “loathsome” behavior) when more than 1.8 million White House emails went missing or were withheld. Legal watchdog group Judicial Watch characterized Mills as a “cover-up expert” in that case.

FBI Director Comey, who was one of the original investigators of the Whitewater scandal, desired information from Mills in that notorious case, but Mills claimed at the time that a burglar had stolen her notes. A Senate committee later accused her of highly improper misconduct and “destruction of documents.”

In 2012, it was Mills who sorted through key files relating to the Benghazi affair and decided which ones would be withheld. She also apparently told Deputy Ambassador to Libya Gregory Hicks to not cooperate with investigators.

Given her previous history with the Clintons, Mills has extreme familiarity with handling email servers and devices as well as with deletion, storage and addressing of specific messages and archiving where appropriate.

In view of her past roles working in government and for presidential administrations, Mills should be extremely familiar with laws about how, why and which emails need to be preserved and where they should be saved.

Yet it appears from her recent testimony to the FBI that she aided and abetted Clinton in deliberately setting up computers and systems that were outside the scrutiny of State Department IT and evaded the rules for security and for storage of messages that the federal government established and communicated to both Clinton and her staff.

In Mills’ testimony to legal watchdog organization Judicial Watch, she invoked the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment (the right to not incriminate oneself) or answered “I can’t recall” or “I don’t know” an astonishing 189 times over the course of seven hours. To seasoned observers, it was a mockery of her interviewers.

Even more outrageous than her non-answers was Mills’ sitting in on Clinton’s testimony to FBI Director Comey in June of this year. When reporters questioned why Mills needed to be present, Clinton’s camp said that Mills was acting as one of Clintons’ personal attorneys, but this seemed a weak excuse as Mills had not worked in that role at the State Department, and furthermore, it’s highly irregular for a lawyer to act as someone’s counsel in a case if they’re under investigation themselves.

In fact, the more one rolls over the rock of Mills’ excuses, the more one can see how much is crawling underneath it. It’s high time that Congressman Chaffetz and other lawmakers either strip Mills of her immunity (which is limited) or demand prosecution of this rule-breaker via federal obstruction of justice charges.

It seems more than clear at this point that Mills is one of the bedrock supports the Clintons’ defenses rests on; if she were really charged as she should be (and might potentially be, under a Donald Trump administration), the Clintons might not feel so secure about illegal dealings going forward.


Most Popular

These content links are provided by Content.ad. Both Content.ad and the web site upon which the links are displayed may receive compensation when readers click on these links. Some of the content you are redirected to may be sponsored content. View our privacy policy here.

To learn how you can use Content.ad to drive visitors to your content or add this service to your site, please contact us at [email protected].

Family-Friendly Content

Website owners select the type of content that appears in our units. However, if you would like to ensure that Content.ad always displays family-friendly content on this device, regardless of what site you are on, check the option below. Learn More



Most Popular
Sponsored Content

These content links are provided by Content.ad. Both Content.ad and the web site upon which the links are displayed may receive compensation when readers click on these links. Some of the content you are redirected to may be sponsored content. View our privacy policy here.

To learn how you can use Content.ad to drive visitors to your content or add this service to your site, please contact us at [email protected].

Family-Friendly Content

Website owners select the type of content that appears in our units. However, if you would like to ensure that Content.ad always displays family-friendly content on this device, regardless of what site you are on, check the option below. Learn More

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *