Why Didn’t the FBI Give Hillary Clinton Immunity and Spare Us the Drama?: New at Reason

Considering how many people surrounding the Hillary Clinton email controversy got immunity, perhaps it would’ve been easier if the Department of Justice simply granted immunity to Hillary Clinton.

David Harsanyi writes:

FBI Director James Comey, who testified in front of two congressional committees this week, still maintains that he was unable to recommend that the DOJ charge Clinton with mishandling classified documents because of insufficient evidence proving “intent”—although the actions themselves are irrefutably illegal.

Well, how exactly did he anticipate gathering this proof, when the DOJ had proactively shielded the five people tasked with setting up the private system and then destroying it? Was he hoping to extract a confession directly from Clinton?

Why would, for instance, a Clinton functionary like Cheryl Mills help prosecutors once she’d already secured safeguards against any criminal prosecution? While testifying in front of the House Judiciary Committee, Comey claimed that Mills was already “cooperative” and that the Justice Department had assured the FBI she had done nothing wrong.

If she were accommodating and completely innocent, why would she seek—and be given—immunity? A lawyer for Mills and Heather Samuelson, another one of the five, had already admitted the deal was struck to protect her clients from potential prosecution arising from “classification” on their laptops. Apparently, the DOJ was more convinced of their innocence than their lawyer was.

View this article.