Questions the FBI Did NOT Ask Clinton
No probing intent, looking the other way at evidence destruction. The list goes on.
In July, when FBI Director James Comey declared Clinton was “not guilty” of any indictable offenses, that is not the same thing as declaring her “innocent” of indictable offenses. The most significant revelation from the FBI’s Clinton interview notes, the subject of Mark Alexander’s column, Clinton the Consummate “Congenital Liar,” is not the questions investigators asked Clinton, but the questions they did NOT ask her. That would include questions about her motives for concealment, etc.
Aside from waiting until their investigation was nearly complete before interviewing Clinton — standard practice would have been to interview her early in order to corroborate her story — the FBI didn’t do a thorough follow-up. The Wall Street Journal writes of the investigation notes, “[T]he report shows the FBI didn’t pursue evidence of potential false statements, obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence.”
- Agents didn’t probe for Clinton’s intent in setting up the server in the first place.
- They bought Huma Abedin’s story that she didn’t know about the server until it became public, despite the fact that Abedin had a private email address on the server, and that she recommended contacts for the server to be set up in 2008.
- They allowed Clinton aide Cheryl Mills, who is almost surely a part of the cover-up, to be present for the interview as Clinton’s “lawyer.”
- And investigators were woefully incurious about the fact that Clinton ordered 30,000 of her emails deleted after a congressional subpoena. Destruction of evidence is usually, well, frowned upon, but Comey’s FBI looked the other way.
Oh, and they granted immunity to Paul Combetta, the computer expert who deleted Clinton’s emails. Usually, immunity is for lesser accomplices so a conviction can be obtained. Not this time.
The Journal is correct to conclude, “The FBI’s kid-glove treatment of Mrs. Clinton raises serious doubts about the seriousness of Mr. Comey’s probe. His July 5 public rebuke of her ‘extremely careless’ handling of secrets has masked that Mrs. Clinton and her aides were given a pass on much of their behavior and dubious answers. The entire episode is another Jim Comey scar on the FBI’s reputation.”
While Clinton has declared this corruption saga is “over, period,” there are dozens of Freedom of Information Act lawsuits already underway, primarily led by the intrepid folks at Judicial Watch, and many more disclosures that await the State Department’s review and redaction of classified information. Most notably, a federal judge ordered Clinton to answer — finally under oath — 25 questions prepared by Judicial Watch lawyers regarding her corruption — questions the FBI should have asked Clinton. The answers to those questions are due on Sept. 29, but expect some legal maneuver to delay her responses.