To The Contrary FBI Never Destroyed Laptops Of Clinton Aides

FBI agents REFUSED to destroy Hillary top aides’ laptops per agreement; they still exist, says DiGenova

Agents within the Federal Bureau of Investigation never destroyed laptops given to them by aides of Hillary Clinton as previously reported, a Washington D.C. lawyer with a source close to the Clinton investigation says.

Washington D.C. attorney Joe DiGenova said on The David Webb Show on SiriusXM Friday night that despite the FBI agreeing to destroy the laptops of Clinton aide Cheryl Mills and ex-campaign staffer Heather Samuelson as part of immunity deals made during the initial investigation of Clinton’s email server, agents involved in the case refused to destroy the laptops.

“According to the agreement reached with the attorneys who handed over their laptops, the laptops were to be destroyed per the agreement after the testimony was given –the interviews were given – – by the attorneys. The bureau and the department agreed to that,” DiGenova said. “However the laptops contrary to published reports were not destroyed and the reason is the agents who are tasked with destroying them refused to do so. And by the way the laptops are at the FBI for inspection by Congress or federal courts.”

DiGenova said the laptops have already been subpoenaed and the FBI is waiting for Congress to ask for them.

Read more: dailycaller.com...

www.bizpacreview.com...

Here was the original story

Will these be used as part of the reopening of the investigation. Rumored 4 laptops? Can ATS help me validate this? What are the implications?

a reply to: gmoneystunt

If it was part of a signed deal and never happened, that would be wrong. No one would ever choose to testify in order to receive immunity ever again.
Yikes.

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: gmoneystunt

If it was part of a signed deal and never happened, that would be wrong. No one would ever choose to testify in order to receive immunity ever again.
Yikes.

Do you agree with them receiving immunity but yet not holding up their end of the deal and not testifying?

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: gmoneystunt

If it was part of a signed deal and never happened, that would be wrong. No one would ever choose to testify in order to receive immunity ever again.
Yikes.

Do you agree with them receiving immunity but yet not holding up their end of the deal and not testifying?

They received immuity in return for something. It is not given for nothing.

Whatever the deal was, they did it. Or else they would be being charged for something.

This is like not seeing half of the puzzle, but they did something.

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: gmoneystunt

If it was part of a signed deal and never happened, that would be wrong. No one would ever choose to testify in order to receive immunity ever again.
Yikes.

Well if it was an illegal deal in the first place maybe people would take that into consideration. If you look at what is going on it seems to me that maybe Comey was forced to make the deal the first go round which is why this time he chose to ignore DOJ and go straight to congress.

originally posted by: brutus61

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: gmoneystunt

If it was part of a signed deal and never happened, that would be wrong. No one would ever choose to testify in order to receive immunity ever again.
Yikes.

Well if it was an illegal deal in the first place maybe people would take that into consideration. If you look at what is going on it seems to me that maybe Comey was forced to make the deal the first go round which is why this time he chose to ignore DOJ and go straight to congress.

Forced to make a deal? I doubt it. Also, the word deal means 'you do this, we do that'. Whatever it was, it was done.

I would like to see the deal. But, it seems people think they are entitled to see every legal deal between attorneys and every email every written, as of late. That is simply not the case.

a reply to: gmoneystunt

A person is granted immunity in exchange for information that would normally cause the person to be charged.

IF a person is given immunity, and depending on type given, and the FBI locates the same information elsewhere the person who was granted immunity can still be charged. If a person granted immunity lies, omits , conceals, in any way violates the terms of an immunity agreement then the immunity is nulll and void and a person can be charged.


The agreement to destroy the laptops was in violation of a congressional subpoena. Congressional over site has their own independent (from the judicial / executive branch) authority to conduct investigations and issue subpoenas.

Agreeing to destroy laptops in violation of congressional subpoenas surprised me when it was announced. Thank god some people at the FBI still have ethics and a belief in the Republic over politics.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: gmoneystunt

A person is granted immunity in exchange for information that would normally cause the person to be charged.

IF a person is given immunity, and depending on type given, and the FBI locates the same information elsewhere the person who was granted immunity can still be charged. If a person granted immunity lies, omits , conceals, in any way violates the terms of an immunity agreement then the immunity is nulll and void and a person can be charged.


The agreement to destroy the laptops was in violation of a congressional subpoena. Congressional over site has their own independent (from the judicial / executive branch) authority to conduct investigations and issue subpoenas.

Agreeing to destroy laptops in violation of congressional subpoenas surprised me when it was announced. Thank god some people at the FBI still have ethics and a belief in the Republic over politics.

Did congress not just want emails? I saw nothing where they demanded physical devices. If the FBI makes a deal with ones attorney and both sides comply, that is legal.

And immunity is granted as a a protection against possible charges, not necessarily actual charges.

Hmmm.

While I agree the deal should have been kept I am willing to wager that once everybody started pleading the fifth to every damn question they had a change of heart.

originally posted by: In4ormant
Hmmm.

While I agree the deal should have been kept I am willing to wager that once everybody started pleading the fifth to every damn question they had a change of heart.

Lots of people pleaded the 5th, in an open forum. We have no idea what happened behind the scenes.


They get immunity from prosecution, but they testify to something that might or might not be a crime in open court, they lose their job or possible future job prospects. That wouldn;t be a very good deal.

a reply to: reldra


Ummm...Reldra...Reldra...Reldra...some things are...WAY...bigger than immunity grants to criminals...

It's time to face it dear...you've hitched your wagon to a band of miscreants...malcontents...and hornswogglers...
Why they're about to run with you off a cliff...

Here...take my hand...and jump off that particular carnival ride...Step onto some real...solid ground...

There...doesn't that feel better...


Cha-ching...my job here is done...I just loves me some...interventionism...




YouSir

Edit to add: That will be $300.00 please...I even take American Express...

originally posted by: YouSir
a reply to: reldra


Ummm...Reldra...Reldra...Reldra...some things are...WAY...bigger than immunity grants to criminals...

It's time to face it dear...you've hitched your wagon to a band of miscreants...malcontents...and hornswogglers...
Why they're about to run with you off a cliff...

Here...take my hand...and jump off that particular carnival ride...Step onto some real...solid ground...

There...doesn't that feel better...


Cha-ching...my job here is done...I just loves me some...interventionism...

YouSir

You Sir, should never speak to me in that condescending tone. It simply does not work. It does not further any point you were attempting to make.

eta: You are not as funny as you think you are.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: In4ormant
Hmmm.

While I agree the deal should have been kept I am willing to wager that once everybody started pleading the fifth to every damn question they had a change of heart.

Lots of people pleaded the 5th, in an open forum. We have no idea what happened behind the scenes.

They get immunity from prosecution, but they testify to something that might or might not be a crime in open court, they lose their job or possible future job prospects. That wouldn;t be a very good deal.

The number of times I heard witnesses invoked it was staggering. I find it odd they plead the 5th when given immunity.

Why broker a deal for immunity if your not going to answer anything. I'm sure the FBI was happy about that.

a reply to: reldra

Congress issued subpoenas and hold orders for anything related to Clinton's emails, including media storage devices. The DOJ must make immunity agreements and not the FBI when it comes to prosecution. Also it depends on the type of immunity granted (IE transactional etc). Another type is where a prosecutor promises not to prosecute in exchange for something. That type is less secure as its only between that prosecutor and the subject.

The deal made is legal. Destroying those items in violation of a subpoena issued by an over site committee is not.

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: In4ormant
Hmmm.

While I agree the deal should have been kept I am willing to wager that once everybody started pleading the fifth to every damn question they had a change of heart.

Lots of people pleaded the 5th, in an open forum. We have no idea what happened behind the scenes.

They get immunity from prosecution, but they testify to something that might or might not be a crime in open court, they lose their job or possible future job prospects. That wouldn;t be a very good deal.

The number of times I heard witnesses invoked it was staggering. I find it odd they plead the 5th when given immunity.

Why broker a deal for immunity if your not going to answer anything. I'm sure the FBI was happy about that.

If they broke the deal, I imagine they would be charged. They have not been. As I said...behind the scenes.

a reply to: reldra

I personally don't feel the need to see any emails. However, I agree with a great number of people who believe that they need to be seen. I think most would agree that if these emails were being viewed by someone who unbiased(either personally or by outside influences) they would be ok with that.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: reldra

Congress issued subpoenas and hold orders for anything related to Clinton's emails, including media storage devices. The DOJ must make immunity agreements and not the FBI when it comes to prosecution. Also it depends on the type of immunity granted (IE transactional etc). Another type is where a prosecutor promises not to prosecute in exchange for something. That type is less secure as its only between that prosecutor and the subject.

The deal made is legal. Destroying those items in violation of a subpoena issued by an over site committee is not.

For anything related to Clinton's emails, ever? Your answer lacks sources for a lot of points.

originally posted by: brutus61
a reply to: reldra

I personally don't feel the need to see any emails. However, I agree with a great number of people who believe that they need to be seen. I think most would agree that if these emails were being viewed by someone who unbiased(either personally or by outside influences) they would be ok with that.

Yes, they need to be seen. But in a timely manner. Dragging out what could be old or new, related or not 11 days before a presidential election is insane.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: In4ormant
Hmmm.

While I agree the deal should have been kept I am willing to wager that once everybody started pleading the fifth to every damn question they had a change of heart.

Lots of people pleaded the 5th, in an open forum. We have no idea what happened behind the scenes.

They get immunity from prosecution, but they testify to something that might or might not be a crime in open court, they lose their job or possible future job prospects. That wouldn;t be a very good deal.

The number of times I heard witnesses invoked it was staggering. I find it odd they plead the 5th when given immunity.

Why broker a deal for immunity if your not going to answer anything. I'm sure the FBI was happy about that.

If they broke the deal, I imagine they would be charged. They have not been. As I said...behind the scenes.

I'm not saying they broke it, I am thinking the FBI got conned.

Witnesses brokered immunity for testimony...the FBI is feeling good......interviews start with pencils at the ready.......questions 1-120 end with......






...FBI gets pissed

a reply to: reldra


Ummm...No condescension intended...Not one teensy bit...

Merely the compassion warranted me by my progressive...tolerant...ideology...

Why...it was the very definition of tolerance...that bade me...reach out in such a noninsular manner...
To extend my hand in your moment of need...

And...thank you very much...for the opportunity...




YouSir