The FBI has agreed to destroy two laptops belonging to Clinton aides, Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson. According to a letter from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte to Attorney General Loretta Lynch, the FBI promised to destroy these laptops to keep Hillary from being charged.
This was just one of many backdoor deals leading the announcement that Hillary won’t be indicted. Goodlatte feels the destruction of the laptops is troubling because they could not be used as evidence in future legal proceedings. Loretta Lynch wanted so badly to get Hillary off the hook that she attempted to completely erase the crime. And the evidence that wasn’t destroyed had so much red tap around it that there’s no way a proper investigation could have been conducted.
The real question here, is why did the FBI feel the need to destroy the laptops. Nothing says guilt like trying to eliminate the evidence. If Hillary truly wasn’t guilty of her crimes, they wouldn’t be trying so hard to cover them up.
The letter also asked why the DOJ agreed to limit their search of the laptops to files before Jan. 31, 2015, which would “give up any opportunity to find evidence related to the destruction of evidence or obstruction of justice related to Secretary Clinton’s unauthorized use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State.”
Aides expressed shock at the parameter, saying it is especially troubling as Mills and Samuelson already had immunity from the consequences of whatever might be on the laptop.
Goodlatte wrote a scathing series of questions to Lynch on the subject:
Like many things about this case, these new materials raise more questions than answers…
Why did the FBI agree to destroy both Cheryl Mill’s and Heather Samuelson’s laptops after concluding its search? [Emphasis in original.]
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?
Have these laptops, or the contents of these laptops, in fact been destroyed, thereby making follow-up investigations by the FBI, or Congressional oversight, impossible?
Yes, yes it does. And in another twist of fate, it would seem that one of the “side-agreements” for the two former aides was negotiated by Beth Wilkinson, whose husband is a Clinton donor. Coincidence? I think not.