FBI agreed to destroy laptops of Clinton aides with immunity deal

Immunity deals for two top Hillary Clinton aides included a side arrangement obliging the FBI to destroy their laptops after reviewing the devices, House Judiciary Committee sources told Fox News on Monday.

Sources said the arrangement with former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills and ex-campaign staffer Heather Samuelson also limited the search to no later than Jan. 31, 2015. This meant investigators could not review documents for the period after the email server became public -- in turn preventing the bureau from discovering if there was any evidence of obstruction of justice, sources said.

The Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee fired off a letter Monday to Attorney General Loretta Lynch asking why the DOJ and FBI agreed to the restrictive terms, including that the FBI would destroy the laptops after finishing the search.

“Like many things about this case, these new materials raise more questions than answers,” Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., wrote in the letter obtained by Fox News.

“Doesn’t the willingness of Ms. Mills and Ms. Samuelson to have their laptops destroyed by the FBI contradict their claim that the laptops could have been withheld because they contained non-relevant, privileged information? If so, doesn’t that undermine the claim that the side agreements were necessary?” Goodlatte asks.

The immunity deals for Mills and Samuelson, made as part of the FBI’s probe into Clinton’s use of a private email server when she served as secretary of state, apparently included a series of “side agreements” that were negotiated by Samuelson and Mills’ attorney Beth Wilkinson.

The side deals were agreed to on June 10, less than a month before FBI Director James Comey announced that the agency would recommend no charges be brought against Clinton or her staff.

Judiciary Committee aides told FoxNews.com that the destruction of the laptops is particularly troubling as it means that the computers could not be used as evidence in future legal proceedings, should new information or circumstances arise.

Committee aides also asked why the FBI and DOJ would enter into a voluntary negotiation to begin with, when the laptops could be obtained condition-free via a subpoena.

The letter also asked why the DOJ agreed to limit their search of the laptops to files before Jan. 31, 2015, which would “give up any opportunity to find evidence related to the destruction of evidence or obstruction of justice related to Secretary Clinton’s unauthorized use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State.”

Aides expressed shock at the parameter, saying it is especially troubling as Mills and Samuelson already had immunity from the consequences of whatever might be on the laptop.

“You’re essentially extending immunity to everyone,” one aide said.

The letter to Lynch sought to determine how many documents were blocked from FBI investigators because they fell outside of the date range agreed to by the DOJ.

seems odd that "immunity" means someone did something wrong and won't be charged for their testimony on someone else that broke the law... but the FBI says everyone is clean... so why did they grant immunity to anyone?

Liberal minds are now exploding all over the country Moe

making the world a better place, one explosion ata time...

for Moe..
this personal immunity situation these people use( the law), is it because of something they did or maybe it's all an act of self defense?

true, but the FBI says no one broke any laws... so why the immunity? no need for immunity if nobody broke any laws...

Since Obamo appointed Comey as head of the FBI.
Smells rotten doesn't it

what a lot of people aren't getting is that they were government laptops as well...destruction of government property can be a felony

“This is the most transparent administration in history,” Obama said during a Google Plus “Fireside” Hangout.

There's brand new footage just released

Why not?
Destruction of the laptops doesn't necessarily mean destruction of the information that was on the laptop.

There's no real details on the immunity deals or the conversations regarding them.
For all I know it's "we'll grant you immunity from obstruction of justice if you help us download information from this laptop and help interpret what it means, context."
"Okay, I'll take that deal."
"Do you want the laptop back?"
"No. That's okay, they assigned me a new one. I think protocol is to destroy them after all information is transferred to the news system so we don't forget them in our car because we never use it and they get stolen or something."
"Okay, we'll take care of it We've got the hard drives, so we'll just destroy the rest."


That doesn't necessarily mean they know what to look for on the laptops.
It's reported Obama used a pseudonym in correspondence.
The aides and IT people can offer information on what the FBI finds, like "oh yeah, that sender is really Obama."

The FBI isn't like CSI: Miami where they have a super genius with 25 doctorates in email cryptohideyness focusing on one single solitary case for a year and can figure out anything, especially when reminded of a story their grandpappy told them 20 years ago about hot sauce.

Also, when you negotiate cooperation it can mean they are more helpful and there's less "oh, a subpoena? Due last month? Sorry, let me just find that. I'm cooperating, it's just the service we used has sent it to this other facility and they're having problems locating...oh, no they lost it. I would have given it to you, but they lost it, it was all according to protocol. So sorry. I have the forms here from 2013 to prove it. Mind the wet ink."
Weren't the IRS hard drives subpoenaed when they were investigated?
That didn't turn out well. Who went to prison for wiping and disappearing those?

Negotiating cooperation usually gets just that, cooperation.
Go in with force, you get resistance and obfuscation.
Back people into a corner they do anything to save themselves.
Draw them out, you can see what they were hiding.


I'm not sure that's what they said.
I think they said something more like "based on the evidence we have, a prosecutor wouldn't pursue charges, there's no clear indication of intent."
Seeking "intent" implies that their focus was in trying to prove espionage rather than negligence.
They couldn't prove intent to leak or sell classified information.
That only leaves gross negligence as a potential crime.
Proving "gross negligence" is extremely difficult.
"Excessive negligence," what I think he called it, is not illegal.
Legal distinction is important.

Or are you referring solely to the immunity deals?

The FBI might not have known if the aides and employees broke the law or not until they had the information from the laptops.
And immunity deals aren't blanket offers like "we won't prosecute you for anything at all whatsoever ever if you give us some information."

They're contracts that are very specific and limited.
"If applicable, we wont press charges for obstruction, resistance, perjury, or negligence if you unlock laptop 2x4gggys-7#, show us all email and classified info marked correspondence, from these email addresses, between these dates," depending on what their investigation told them to look for or their warrant allowed.
That wouldn't cover espionage, or gross negligence, or destruction of property.

Immunity deals are given in order to get the little fish to talk as a means to get more evidence on bigger fish and are generally limited.
If they're trying to get Hillary on espionage charges, they're not going to focus on prosecuting aides for doing their normal jobs, unless they were complicit in the espionage.

I would bet anything that the immunity deals were limited and did not cover willful participation in espionage.


That was right around the time Hillary started "cooperating" by releasing her emails.
If they were trying to prove espionage or whatever it would have happened before then, during her stint at state, among emails Hillary did not share, and possibly deleted, not after.
If they were trying to prove espionage back in 14, or 12, they aren't cleared or prepared to investigate cover up in 16.
They want information, not potential proof information doesn't exist and lack of knowledge of what that information was.

FBI investigations are not like on t.v. or like Obamacare. "It's not a tax! It's not a tax!...oh, it only works if it's considered a tax?...well...It's a tax and perfectly legal. We got you!"

If the FBI were originally going after Hillary for espionage, they would have had to change the investigation to go after gross negligence.

If they were going to charge her with a cover up, they would have had to change the investigation to go after her for obstruction.
And they were being heavily pushed by public and political pressure to hurry up and come up with something, to do something, say something definitive.

They couldn't switch everything up and go off in multiple directions, completely reexamine every piece of evidence from different perspectives, go after new evidence, come to new conclusions, to try and get something, anything, to stick.

They picked a path to investigate, but couldn't make their case for what they wanted.

Unless you want to grant the FBI power to absolutely investigate everything whatsoever, at any time in the history of anyone's life; arrest, charge, and prosecute on any and everything they find ever?
With courts issuing warrants and subpoena's for things that might happen in the future, or may or may not have happened ever?
With all investigations open ended so they can constantly watch everything you have done, are doing, or will do and decide to prosecute at any time once they can prove whatever they think they can prove?

"I'm not sure that's what they said.
I think they said something more like "based on the evidence we have, a prosecutor wouldn't pursue charges, there's no clear indication of intent."
Seeking "intent" implies that their focus was in trying to prove espionage rather than negligence.
They couldn't prove intent to leak or sell classified information.
That only leaves gross negligence as a potential crime.
Proving "gross negligence" is extremely difficult.
"Excessive negligence," what I think he called it, is not illegal.
Legal distinction is important. "

intent only matters when they figure what charges are to be filed...

a man killed another man with a backhand punch, because the (dead) man was mouthing off... the punch itself did nothing but knock the man down, but he hit his head and died when he hit the ground... the other man still got 7 years in prison, for negligence, but he didn't have intent to kill.. (the charges were dropped from manslaughter)


breaking the law is still breaking the law, no matter what anyones intentions are...

......and the FIX is in,and the FIX is in...................

Maybe. On the other hand, since one of the accusations is that these laptops contained classified information they were not supposed to have on them, destroying the hard drives would be the correct step to protect that information.

They already have records showing THAT such information was there.

AS usual, need a few more details.

Oh, and of course, since the anti-Clinton politicians have demonstrated a determined desire to see evidence of wrong doing in all sorts of places then be unable to find it (the repeated Bengazi hearings which all went no where, expensively) it would be logical to destroy them AS PART of the immunity agreement, so that another repeat "investigation" wouldn't be conducted against them on pretext that the exact files were different or something.

Not saying everything is wonderful or that everyone is "pure as the driven snow" used to be before pollution. Just that when something gets destroyed, we just don't KNOW what was or wasn't there.

Similar to back a ways when Karl Rove destroyed 22 MILLION emails, in order to prevent any investigation of Republicans:

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2015/03/18/flashback-rove-erases-22-million-white-house-emails-on-private-server-at-height-of-u-s-attorney-scandal-media-yawns/

oui