The nation’s legendary law enforcement agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, has once again disappointed many lawmakers and American people with its recent actions that would make it impossible for a President Donald Trump to revive the investigation and prosecution of a criminal case against Hillary Clinton and others involved in a series of suspected corruption cases. One of Trump’s campaign promises is to re-investigate the activities of Hillary Clinton and her underlings regarding the illegal email server and the Clinton pseudo-charity.
Immunity deals given with the authorization of the Attorney General Loretta Lynch and FBI Director James Comey to two of Hillary Clinton’s aides included a side arrangement obliging the FBI to destroy their laptops after reviewing the devices, according to lawmakers with the House Judiciary Committee.
“This should outrage any clear-thinking American. The FBI has actually become complicit in destroying evidence. How do we know what was contained in those laptops? If there was nothing harmful to Clinton or her minions on the hard drives, why were ordered destroyed?” asks former criminal investigator and security director Norman J. Pierre.
According to news reports on Monday, the FBI’s deal with former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills and ex-campaign staffer Heather Samuelson also stipulated that the search would entail information up to Jan. 31, 2015.
The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee wrote and delivered a letter immediately, upon discovering the deal, 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.
I wish that the next time Attorney General Lynch sends her DOJ shysters or FBI agents to a local police chief’s or county sheriff’s office, he or she tells them to cleanup their side of the street before coming into a local jurisdiction and making accusations. If they’re willing to destroy evidence to help someone allegedly involved in a criminal enterprise, they are in no position to investigate real cops,” said Tony Perez-Delgado, a former police captain and U.S. Army special forces sergeant.
“Like many things about this case, these new materials raise more questions than answers,” Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., wrote in his letter. “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 in the letter.
“The immunity deals went into effect during the FBI’s dog-and-pony show regarding Hillary Clinton’s now famous use of a private email server while serving President Barack Obama as his secretary of state. According to Rep. Goodlatte’s letter, it included a series of ‘side deals,'” said former police detective Sid Franes.
The Judiciary Committee’s GOP members said they are outraged over the destruction of the laptops. They have in essence destroyed evidence that can never be used in future legal proceedings, should a new investigation be conducted.
“What possessed supposedly professional law enforcement officers and prosecutors with the FBI and DOJ to enter into an agreement that gives Hillary and her staffers everything and gives lawmakers and the American people nothing,” Det. Franes rhetorically asked. “Imagine if one of the police or sheriffs’ departments did such a thing during an FBI probe of those departments. I doubt the President would accept such conduct.”
Congressional aides working for members of Congress said they were shocked since Mills and Samuelson already had immunity from the consequences of whatever might be on the laptop.
The FBI and the Justice Department frequently investigate alleged wrongdoing occurring at the local level in local law enforcement agencies. For example, beginning right after President Obama’s inauguration, he demanded the DOJ investigate the man called “America’s toughest sheriff,” a federal law enforcement officer who requested anonymity complained.
“The Attorney General [Eric Holder] spent millions of dollars and years investigating Arizona’s Sheriff Joe Arpaio and found nothing, but still they probe hoping to find something to end his career. The FBI spent years probing the New Jersey State Police for alleged ‘racial profiling’ even though there was no evidence other than the number of blacks and Latinos arrested for drugs or illegal weapons possession,” the cop noted.
“In fact, because of the FBI’s heavy-handed monitoring of the state cops, especially on the heavily-traveled New Jersey Turnpike (Interstate 95), drug arrests went down significantly and arrests were fewer than previous years because state troopers observed a de-facto quota system,” said former New Jersey cop Larry Taylor Ahearn. “Now that says a lot about the so-called ‘Two Americas’ in which a politician enjoys immunity while hard-working cops have to be careful about being nabbed by a federal agency that is complicit in an alleged cover up,” Ahearn pointed out.
“I wish that the next time Attorney General Lynch sends her DOJ shysters or FBI agents to a local police chief’s or county sheriff’s office, he or she tells them to cleanup their side of the street before coming into a local jurisdiction and making accusations. If they’re willing to destroy evidence to help someone allegedly involved in a criminal enterprise, they are in no position to investigate real cops,” said Tony Perez-Delgado, a former police captain and U.S. Army special forces sergeant.