Slashdot Mirror
FBI Agreed To Destroy Laptops of Clinton Aides With Immunity Deal, Sources Say (foxnews.com)
An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes a report from Fox News: 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-led 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. 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 aids 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.
At first the immunity deal for Combetta was for destruction, to get him to talk to the FBI after using BleachBit on the server. This is unusual, because he could already have been prosecuted for this since an order was issued which doesn't allow for this. Clinton and her people asked him to do this, which means they could also be prosecuted. Furthermore, I'm genuinely confused why the other 4 immunity deals were offered. Were the 4 others granted immunity because they had a hand in the private server, or were they offered because the DOJ was looking out for them? I'm also confused why they fucking include a provision to destroy laptops (that apparently weren't subpoenaed or seized via warrant like in every other case) as intense scrutiny of this case is going on and Congress is attempting to force further investigation even though the DOJ and FBI are trying to stonewall it.
There's just too much smoke here for anyone to claim that there isn't a fire.
What America desperately needs is to start throwing politicians in jail. Right now we are on a path of ever-increasing corruption at high levels of government, and until we get back to the "everyone equal under the law" this situation will continue to get worse.
Well, Americans should care. Both parties need to crumble and we should look at the smaller parties for options. We're really picking between these two? No, there are others, and the complains I've heard against them are laughable compared to the major issues I've heard about Trump and Clinton.
We have one, it's called the Libertarian Party. They are polling in the double digits and are on the ballot in all 50 states. Hardly a fringe protest vote this time around when they have more support than Perot did in '92 and far more than Nader ever did. Johnson and Weld are running on a fiscally conservative and socially liberal platform.
It's only an "empty protest candidate" vote when you buy the herd mentality bullshit that voting for a 3rd party is a "wasted vote" and people let the debate commission get away with shunning them and moving the goalposts.
The only difference between an "empty protest candidate" and a serious 3rd party is polling numbers and the financing that brings. If you want another party, STFU and start voting and contributing to one.
No, they're both rock bottom. There is not one better than the other. They're both completely unworthy.
That makes the FBI complicit in Clinton's crimes. Destruction of evidence is a felony.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
People with immunity are generally held in contempt if they plead the 5th.
Combetta pled the 5th while under immunity protection. No contempt of court was issued.
So in this case, immunity turned out to be a protection against testifying rather than an inducement to reveal facts. Combetta got to have his cake and eat it too. So did Hillary and all of the others that could be implicated by his testimony in this ridiculous farce.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
I'll take the evil that will not be given a pass on anything vs the evil that will be given a free pass. Only one candidate will bind both sides of congress working together to stop them, and that could be a good thing for us all.
I can forgive a brainfart on Aleppo. He at least caught on after a few seconds. I doubt you could even point out Syria or Aleppo on an unlabeled map without a quick Google search first. The only reason Clinton can point it out is because is one of many of her foreign policy failures. The only reason Trump can point it out is because it's good ammo against Hillary. The other big "Libertarian blunder" was the fact he couldn't name a leader he admired. I can't name any that have been in power that I look up to either.
For someone that prides himself on being human and doesn't have an army of paid media jockeys to prepare material to spoonfeed people, he's actually doing a pretty admirable job. I actually prefer a candidate who's down to Earth versus paid shills lying through their teeth parroting canned responses prepared by an army of political science graduates and soap opera writers.
So yeah, I still consider Gary Johnson more credible and CERTAINLY more GENUINE than either mainstream candidate running.
He's a dumb asshole, she's demonstrably evil and (once again) you're an idiot.
Nearly all of those things apply to Clinton as well. She too dodged taxes, offended nearly everyone, changed positions on e.g. TPP (not to real, of course, just to get elected). And then there are a number of more serious offenses (influence peddling, mishandling of classified info, lying to the FBI, to name just a few) for which any normal person would be in prison already.
Wait were those black lenovo laptops or white Mac ones? I have to know whether to riot & loot or make conspiracy theory
opinion...
No, Clinton isn't learning from her mistakes. She looks at the polls and says the public says this is a mistake, so I'll say it is a mistake to win their approval. She has shown zero interest in understanding why any of her so-called mistakes were mistakes.
Trump doesn't publicly admit to mistakes. I don't go out of my way to make my faults known. I learn about why mistakes are mistakes and move on. Actually I do too much revealing to others when I made a mistake that had nothing to do with them and see others doing it that I've coined a saying: "Just because you've done something stupid, doesn't mean that you have to tell everyone about it." Trump just doesn't let his mistakes affect his public image.
Well, I don't see Trump attempting to launch a second airline or steak company or university, so it's not like he's repeating his mistakes. Whereas, Clinton only acknowledges "mistakes" that are mistakes in the public eye, but continues the evasive behavior that were the hallmarks of the embassy and server mistakes. Her evasiveness is the most egregious mistake I think she continues to make.
You think Hillary the Warhawk is passive-aggressive?
Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
Passive? You should see the places she's bombed! Far from passive-aggressive.
I'm sick and tired of one bullshit story after the next.
No, you mean you're sick and tired of stories that remind you how your preferred candidate gets special treatment in order to avoid indictment. Some of the rest of us are sick and tired of those stories too, but for different reasons.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
People call him racist for wanting to keep ILLEGAL immigrants out.
Actually people call him racist for his very many racist remarks. His immigration policy is just a drop in the bucket.
People call him Islamophobic for wanting to keep Islamic TERRORISTS out.
Actually people call him Islamophobic because he intends to keep out anyone who would claim to be Muslim. That is pretty much matches the definition of Islamophobic.