Her Majesty and Cheryl Mills (right) creditL zimbio.com

Her Majesty and Cheryl Mills (right)
creditL zimbio.com

While watching the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton and her fellow criminal conspirators—ooops, I mean her colleagues, her colleagues!—I’ve expressed concerns about DOJ interference with their investigation, and, of course, concerns that the DOJ will simply ignore the evidence and refuse to indict/prosecute any violation of the law, no matter how egregious. In analyzing this case, I’ve had to rely on media accounts. Even those, as slanted in Clinton’s favor as they have tended to be, reveal massive law breaking, and the grossly negligent exposure of national security secrets to our enemies, and even casual civilian hackers.

Now, we see what appears to foretell the inevitable DOJ salvation of Clinton. Via Fox News: 

Senior Hillary Clinton aide Cheryl Mills and her lawyer walked out of a recent interview with the FBI about Clinton’s private email system after an investigator asked a question Mills believed to be off limits, according to a published report.

That sounds bad enough. Mills, who even evidence published in the media indicates she was the primary scrubber of incriminating evidence against Clinton, walking out on the interview is indicative of her criminal knowledge and involvement. You can’t make that inference! Yes I can. This isn’t a court of law, and when people being interviewed by law enforcement run away and refuse to answer questions, any rational person can and should draw a negative inference from that.

But this is even worse. Mills thought some questions “off limits?” In a criminal, national security inquiry? Ms. Mills is nothing special. She’s at the least, a witness, in which case, what possible reason does she have to refuse to answer any question, or to declare any question “off limits”? Any FBI agents working this case have sufficient secrurity clearances to hear and hold any related evidence. And if she’s a criminal suspect, which is highly likely, she can take the 5th if she likes, but we can certainly draw the obvious inferences from that as well. Of course, her lawyer was present.

According to the paper, the FBI investigator’s questions that caused Mills and Wilkinson to walk out were related to the procedure used to produce emails for possible public release by the State Department. Mills ultimately did not answer questions about it because her attorney and Justice Department prosecutors deemed it confidential under attorney-client privilege.

And there is the real problem: Her attorney “and Justice Department prosecutors” agreed to limit the FBI’s investigation. The story does not explain whether there were actual DOJ attorneys present, but it’s clear that the DOJ has already limited the FBI’s ability to investigate the case.

Normally, prosecutors might advise investigators about points of the law, or suggest which areas they want them to look into, but only as a means of obtaining the truth and the best possible case for prosecution. Where national security is involved, there may be some sensitivities, but remember, Clinton has claimed she never handled secret material, or at least that it wasn’t secret when she handled it. In this case, it appears the DOJ is actively working to restrict the FBI’s investigation, doubtless so that it can say there was insufficient evidence—which the FBI was prevented from gathering—to prosecute.

One would not think an office procedure for producing e-mails for public release would be something Ms. Mills would be shy about discussing, unless, of course, she violated that procedure in hiding or destroying relevant information, which evidence suggests she did.

This is not a good sign. It is, however, not a surprise. If the DOJ is, beforehand, limiting the scope of the investigation, the information leaked to the press and public when it refuses to prosecute should be damning indeed.

This, like so much else during the Age of Obama, is bad, very bad indeed, for the rule of law and our republic.

Former DOJ Prosecutor Andy McCarthy has similar concerns at National Review Online.

Advertisements