The newest revelation to come out of the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server is that President Obama may have lied about knowing of its existence.
The batch of documents released Friday night includes Huma Abedin’s April 5, 2016 FBI interview, in which she was shown an email Obama had sent to Clinton using a pseudonym, suggesting the president knew she was using a private server.
“To immunize basically all the key players in the case kind of sounds like a case you’re trying to make go away”
MORE NEWS: Howard Stern Says He’s Running For President
But this isn’t the only lie exposed by the release of documents pertaining to the FBI investigation. Indeed, in Abedin’s April 5 interview, she claimed, like Obama, to not have known of the existence of Clinton’s private server until it was revealed in the news.
But this claim is belied entirely by the testimony of Justin Cooper, one of Clinton’s IT men. “Cooper recalled having conversations with Huma Abedin pertaining to Hillary Clinton moving away from an AT&T provided email account to establishing an email domain on the [private] Apple server. Cooper and Abedin discussed a covert email domain versus a domain name including the Clinton name.”
And of course, multiple lies of Hillary’s were also exposed. Clinton claimed she didn’t have any classified material on her private server. The FBI investigation proved this false. Clinton claimed her private email servers were “allowed” by State Department policy. The FBI investigation proved this false.
Clinton claimed she initially turned over all of her work-related emails to the State Department in 2014. The FBI investigation proved this false. She also claimed there were no security breaches of her private servers. The FBI investigation proved this false.
The staggering number of lies uncovered throughout the FBI’s investigation led many to assume Clinton would face indictment and prosecution — many who were then shocked when FBI Director Comey announced that they would not recommend indictment.
But in a conference call with reporters Saturday, Trump surrogates Rudy Giuliani and Victoria Toensing, former Deputy Asst. Attorney General under Reagan, said it was the inevitable conclusion of an investigation which was initiated with the purpose of clearing Clinton.
Giuliani noted that the investigation uncovered the “destruction of classified or confidential government information, obstruction of justice, and related crimes” and that the perpetrators “were given immunity.”
MORE NEWS: Part of Atlanta Wants Out Of Liberal City
“When you read the totality so far of the FBI material … it looks like they were conducting an investigation for the purpose of giving immunity, as opposed to the purpose of determining criminality, since immunity was given to some of the key players that carried out the scheme to destroy government information,” Giuliani said.
Giuliani also said it was troubling that two of the five lawyers present with Clinton during her interview, were Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, who had already been witnesses in the case.
“The ADA canon of ethics rule 3.2 basically says that a lawyer can’t act as an advocate and a witness,” Giuliani said. The only way that Mills and Samuelson could arguably have been involved in representing her … is if they knew she wasn’t going to be prosecuted — because the rule relates to not being able to be an advocate for someone in a case in which you’re going to be a witness,” he said.
“Allowing lawyers with immunity to sit with the target of the investigation is just unheard of,” Toensing added. Toensing also said the investigation featured a “seminal violation of prosecutorial protocol” from the start.
“Why was there no GJ in this case?” she asked rhetorically. “All the documents the FBI complains of (being unable to obtain) … you know how you get those? You issue a subpoena from a grand jury,” she said.
“Mils would not have had to be given immunity if you had just subpoenaed her computer. All of [this] not getting docs, not getting evidence, having to grant immunity are directly related to there not being a grand jury,” Toensing explained.
“To immunize basically all the key players in the case kind of sounds like a case you’re trying to make go away as opposed to one you’re trying to make in terms of a criminal case,” said Giuliani. “Generally the idea of a criminal investigation is not to end up giving immunity to everyone at the end.”