With investigative standards from the DOJ such as these ,we expect no Grand Jury referral.
- With such a soft touch from the dominant liberal media, well, we expected such results from both.
Clinton aide Cheryl Mills leaves FBI interview briefly after being asked about emails (excerpt)
Near the beginning of a recent interview, an FBI investigator broached a topic with longtime Hillary Clinton aide Cheryl Mills that her lawyer and the Justice Department had agreed would be off limits, according to several people familiar with the matter.
Mills and her lawyer left the room — though both returned a short time later — and prosecutors were somewhat taken aback that their FBI colleague had ventured beyond what was anticipated, the people said.
Investigators consider Mills — who served as chief of staff while Clinton was secretary of state — to be a cooperative witness. But the episode demonstrates some of the tension surrounding the criminal probe into possible mishandling of classified information involving the leading Democratic presidential candidate. In the coming weeks, prosecutors and FBI agents hope to be able to interview Clinton herself as they work to bring the case to a close.
Prosecutors were “taken aback” at the temerity of the investigator to ‘broach’ a topic that the investigation is all about
What kind of “investigation is this? They must not “broach the topic of Hillary’s emails. What the heck topics are they allowed to “broach”?
Of course there was the earlier WaPo readership conditioning:
Officials: Scant evidence that Clinton had malicious intent in handling of emails
Scant evidence! How about the existence and near exclusive use of a private server in contradiction of the nation’s security, all under the direction and continued purview of Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State.
Consider in Hillary’s case the concept “malicious intent.” So, her wishing no one catches on to the vulnerabilities created by what she was doing means “no malicious intent.” Hillary’s demand for complete control and the ability to unilaterally dispose of government communications is friendly intent and not malicious. Being wilful, being dismissive towards government regulations . . . ordinary security rules . . . people’s right to know rules . . . is not malicious. How about criminal negligence then?
Consider an analogy “She didn’t mean to hazard the ship of state.”
United States v. Henderson, 59 MJ 350 (the elements of Article 110, UCMJ, improper hazarding of vessel, are (1) that a vessel of the armed forces was hazarded in a certain manner; and (2) that the accused by certain acts or omissions, willfully and wrongfully, or negligently, caused or suffered the vessel to be hazarded; willfully hazarding a vessel is a non-mandatory capital offense, punishable by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct; negligently hazarding a vessel is a lesser-included, noncapital offense, punishable by dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 2 years).
DLH and R Mall
