hillarysideye

Let’s hope there’s still a sliver of the Rule of Law out there.

Via Daily Caller.

Two reports out Sunday provide new details about the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton, including that 147 FBI agents have been involved in the probe and that federal prosecutors are expected to soon seek an interview with the presidential candidate.

According to The Los Angeles Times, prosecutors have contacted the attorneys for the top Clinton State Department aides who sent and received classified information that landed on the former secretary of state’s private email server.

The FBI seized that device in August, after the intelligence community’s inspector general determined that some of the emails sent to Clinton contained “Top Secret” information.

According to The Times, dates have not yet been set for the interviews with Clinton’s aides, but they are forthcoming, indicating that the Justice Department will soon wrap up its investigation.

In the meantime, ambassador John Bolton thinks “If Politics Triumphs Over Legalities in Clinton Email Investigation ‘Real Risk’ that ‘FBI Will Explode'”

***************************************************




This section is for comments from tammybruce.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Tammy agrees with or endorses any particular comment just because she lets it stand.
2 Comments | Leave a comment
  1. deaves1 says:

    If called upon to answer questions, she’ll just lie to them and get up and walk out. Jessica Lynch covering Obama’s butt.

  2. Maynard says:

    Last year, when Bryan Pagliano, Hillary’s staff member who set up her server, was called in, he asserted his 5th Amendment rights and refused to testify. In a political arena, this is the opposite of “transparency”, and we (the public) reasonably assume he’s covering up evidence that would put him in jail. Earlier this month, the Justice Dept. granted Pagliano immunity; this precludes him from asserting his 5th Amendment rights and thus compels his testimony. Correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding is the ONLY reason this would be done is to pursue a guilty party higher on the food chain. Immunity is not granted for no reason. SOMEBODY is coming under scrutiny here, somebody more important. So there had better be interviews, and ultimately a full explanation. If they grant immunity and then it all quietly goes away — well, that would be pure, blatant, criminality and corruption. Not that I’d be surprised.

You must be logged in to post a comment.