By Dan Calabrese ——Bio and Archives--May 12, 2016
American Politics, News | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
The news here is not that Hillary crony Cheryl Mills walked out of her FBI interview and cited a legal technicality to try to avoid answering questions. Of course she did that. It's what Hillary cronies do. The news, rather - and it's not good news - is that there is apparently tension between FBI investigators and Justice Department prosecutors on just how doggedly to pursue the evidence in the case: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. The Washington Post said that Mills and her lawyer, Beth Wilkinson, returned to the interview room after a brief absence. However, the Post reported that Mills and Wilkinson asked for breaks during the interview to confer more than once. 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.So when Mills tries to get out of answering the FBI's questions, the federal prosecutors are siding with her? Uh oh. That's a pretty disturbing sign for those of us who are concerned the DOJ will four-bag this report and protect Hillary regardless of the evidence.
It is not completely unknown for FBI agents and prosecutors to diverge on interview tactics and approach, and the people familiar with the matter said Mills answered investigators’ questions. Mills and her lawyer, Beth Wilkinson, also asked for breaks more than once to confer, the people said. The questions that were considered off-limits had to do with the procedure used to produce emails to the State Department so they could possibly be released publicly, the people said. Mills, an attorney herself, was not supposed to be asked questions about that — and ultimately never was in the recent interview — because it was considered confidential as an example of attorney-client privilege, the people said.So does that mean that when Mills was involved with the procedure for releasing the e-mails, she was acting as Hillary's lawyer? Why else would she not have to answer questions about it? And if Hillary was really so open and forthcoming about turning everything over, why would she need a staff member giving her legal advice about it such that the staff member would then be considered off-limits for being asked about it?
Support Canada Free Press
View Comments
Dan Calabrese’s column is distributed by HermanCain.com, which can be found at HermanCain
Follow all of Dan’s work, including his series of Christian spiritual warfare novels, by liking his page on Facebook.