The Latest on the Obama Administration’s Shambolic Email Investigation

It is a staggering and dumbfounding pattern that demands accountability and an independent investigation.

Although the record shows that the Obama Administration has placed political calculations over national security numerous times, astonishing new evidence of a shambolic Department of Justice investigation emerged late last week. This evidence is consistent with the suspicion that the Department of Justice and the FBI never intended to prosecute anyone in connection with senior Obama Administration officials’ failures to safeguard and preserve classified information.

News reports published today show that former Secretary of State Clinton’s former chief of staff, Cheryl Mills and two other State Department staffers were granted immunity in exchange for cooperation with the now-closed FBI investigation. This decision prompted Representative Jason Chaffetz, Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, to conclude that the FBI was handing out immunity like candy. This sugar coating signifies that, rather than vigorously pursue evidence indicating legal violations that put our national security at risk and obstruction of justice, the Obama Administration is prepared to grant exceptions to the rule of law in order to accommodate preferences of the rich and powerful.

Consider the following facts.

First, FBI Director Comey refused to recommend a criminal referral despite the fact that former Secretary of State Clinton engaged in “extremely careless” behavior. Comey reached this decision because he wrongly asserted that intent was a predicate to such a referral despite the absence of such a requirement in the criminal statute itself. Equally true, even if intent were required, the FBI snubbed the opportunity to examine evidence of intent that was available in plain view.

The former Secretary of State gave false testimony to Congress stating that she did not transmit classified information on her private account and that she delivered all of her work-related emails to the government. Neither statement was true. The record unambiguously indicates that the former Secretary of State placed the private server in her basement and transmitted classified emails on her unsecured accounts. This constitutes unbreakable evidence of intent. In addition, Mrs. Clinton’s false statements, standing alone, constitute circumstantial evidence of intent.

Second, the recent bombshell immunity announcement serves to highlight the fact that Ms. Mills functioned as both a material witness and as an attorney for Mrs. Clinton. Not only did the FBI permit Ms. Mills to avoid answering embarrassing questions by claiming attorney-client privilege, she was granted immunity with respect to incriminating information that was lodged on her laptop.

On the other hand, an impartial examination of the entire record suggests that Ms. Mills’ may have participated in the obstruction of justice.

After Mrs. Clinton received a subpoena from the House Benghazi Committee in March of 2015 ordering her to produce all documents in unredacted form, her people sprang into action that led to the destruction of evidence. Cheryl Mills sent Platte River Networks, the firm, which maintained custody of her server, an email communication referencing the document preservation request. After receiving this communication, staffers at Platte River Networks, contrary to the requirements of the subpoena, deleted all of Clinton’s emails. Evidently, Paul Combetta of Platte River Networks, an individual who is linked by news reports to this scandal, has already invoked his Fifth Amendment right not to testify before Congress. Other individuals have either refused to testify or refused to show up at a Congressional hearing after the FBI reported that a number of the 13 mobile devices owned by Mrs. Clinton were destroyed with hammers or were lost. Consistent with this pattern of cover-ups, one or more of the technicians who participated in this scandal used Bleachbit, a software program, in order to eviscerate potentially incriminating evidence that could include proof of the existence of a richly rewarding underlying pay-to-play scheme involving the State Department and the Clinton Foundation.

Taken together, this incriminating pattern indicates that a successful effort to obstruct justice took place. Proof of this pattern was likely available on Ms. Mills’ laptop. The question becomes why were she and other Clinton staffers given immunity when their conduct was central to the FBI’s investigation. One suspicion surfaces: the investigation was conceived in both its inception and its implementation as a sham despite the Obama Administration’s self-proclaimed commitment to transparency and accountability.

In fact, the scandal reaches far outside the State Department as new reports indicate that President Obama himself used a pseudonym when communicating with former Secretary of State Clinton.  This in and of itself raises a whole host of new questions about the propriety of the FBI’s faux investigation.

In response to the Obama Administration’s pattern of lawlessness and corruption that undermines public trust, the ACLJ’s Government Accountability Project is preparing to launch its own investigation in order to shed light on Ms. Mills’ immunity deal.

The Obama Administration’s sabotage and sugar coating of vital investigations must end.

The ACLJ has already filed a major federal lawsuit against the Obama State Department’s deception regarding its decision to delete pertinent information regarding bilateral negotiations that culminated in the Iran nuclear deal. The ACLJ has also filed a Freedom of Information Request against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for scrubbing jihad and radical Islamic references from training and briefing materials. The ACLJ will continue to investigate and prepare to go back to federal court over the corrupt, unethical conduct at the State Department, DOJ, FBI, and DHS.