According to a recent congressional hearing, FBI director James Comey,
“granted immunity to five individuals [of the Clinton campaign] which essentially takes the five individuals out of the reach of prosecution for crimes committed related to destruction of documents, and other crimes.” -Congressman Darrel Issa (Rep. CA)
The FBI’s Comey stated that there was no evidence that there had been an effort to keep information from the American people. However, these acts prove a lack of conduct and procedure in a contextual circumstance; where lack of conduct and procedure entail breaking the law. As such, there are laws about gross negligence that have been breached.
When asked if classified information was found on Clinton aide: Cheryl Mills’ laptop, the FBI stated that it had.
According to the congressional hearing, James Comey gave immunity from destruction to two attorneys who worked for Clinton in the state department. These lawyers, who also worked with Clinton through her presidential campaign, were present during FBI questioning.
It is common to have your lawyer present during discovery (questioning by authorities during an investigation). But it seems wrong to have lawyers present who are also under investigation for the same possible crime. Essentially, this seems like a clear conflict of interest to obtaining actual discovery from Clinton and her aides/lawyers. There is clear evidence that beyond serving their client in a court of law, these lawyers are actually preventing law enforcement.
Generally, granting immunity is a conditional situation during an investigation in order to attain more evidence from a possible witness to a larger crime. But under the conditions, this was hardly the case. Under these conditions, immunity seemed like protection from the crime itself.
In addition, Clinton’s IT aide also invoked the 5th amendment more than 100 times during a deposition with conservative advocacy group, Judicial Watch. The spokesperson for the Judicial Watch stated that Bryan Pagliano, who worked as Hillary Clinton’s IT aide, declined to answer questions when subpoenaed.
Early this year, Pagliano, who was responsible for setting up Clinton’s private email server, accepted an immunity deal from the FBI. In addition, Pagliano was also employed to maintain Clinton’s private server at her estate in Chappaqua, N.Y. Pagliano received payments for maintaining Clinton’s servers as Secretary of State. His payments for his work in Clinton’s home; however, were not reported or billed in his official record and financial statements.
Pleading the fifth is an action that should never be taken lightly when testifying in a court of law or when involved in discovery of a possible crime.
It seems unfathomable that Clinton, her IT aide and her lawyer/aides, who were responsible for deleting thousands of emails, bleaching and hammering servers, would now find themselves with immunity from the FBI. In exchange for collaborating with the investigation and in order to comply with the investigation. Something they did not do.
While attorneys know of the ongoing subpoena and investigation in regards to Hillary Clinton’s private email server, it is questionable for the FBI to allow Mr. Pagliano immunity. Regardless if the emails were or were not classified. Essentially, the American people have a right to know what this immunity was for.