1. Mills is avoiding questions by claiming attorney-client privilege even though she was not acting as Hillary’s attorney during the events the FBI wants to ask her about.
2. The Justice Department is not only backing Mills up on this, they’re apparently making deals with Mills without the FBI’s knowledge and then assisting in shutting down the FBI’s questioning of the witness.
3. Someone at the Justice Department is leaking all this to the Washington Post, which dutifully reports it with the DOJ’s spin in all its shameless glory.
4. The Post continues to push the line that “there is scant evidence” Hillary had “malicious” intent, as if that’s the slightest bit relevant (it’s not) and the Post doesn’t tell us how it knows this, because if it did, it would also be proving that the fix is in at the Justice Department.
Isn’t that special? The “U.S. law enforcement officials” know it is unethical for them to be speaking about what happened in an investigative interview. Do they resolve this ethical “dilemma” by ethically refraining from comment? No, they unethically leak to the press in cowardly anonymity — your government at work.
It is even possible (though by no means certain) that the Post’s pipeline includes a government lawyer who participated in the interview. It is interesting, to say the least, that the report, which heavily relies on anonymous government sources, somehow manages not to reveal the names of the government officials who participated in the events the report describes.
The other preliminary matter worth noting here is that the Post is completely in the tank for Mrs. Clinton and her minions. So what are we to make of the fact that the Obama Justice Department chose the Post to funnel its leak to?
The report advises us that “so far, investigators have found scant evidence tying Clinton to criminal wrongdoing” — and how would the Post know that? In the middle of the report, moreover, readers are invited — in blue italics — to check out another report entitled, “Officials: Scant evidence that Clinton had malicious intent in handling of e-mails.” Sounds great for her . . . especially since they conveniently fail to tell you that “malicious intent” is not required to prove felonious mishandling of classified information. In fact, gross negligence would do, so if there really is even “scant” evidence of malicious intent, that suggests it would be fairly easy to prove the crime.
Details, details. In any event, the upshot of the Post’s patent partisanship is that we do not learn key details that paper is no doubt in a position to tell us (especially since the article makes clear that Ms. Wilkinson, Mills’s lawyer, is also a very willing source).
The Post has been pushing this “scant evidence” line for more than a week, and McCarthy’s right. Not only is it irrelevant what her intent might have been, but if there is even scant evidence she had malicious intent, there must be considerably more evidence than that a crime was actually committed. How can you have any evidence at all of malicious intent – scant or otherwise – if there was no crime committed in the first place?
It sounds like the DOJ is setting up as its justification for not indicting Hillary that, sure, she may have been technically in violation of the law, but she didn’t mean to do any harm! And they’re pushing this narrative via anonymous leakers to the Washington Post, which dutifully reports it just like all Ben Rhodes’s other useful idiots in the Washington press corps.
You can expect the rest of the dinosaur media to pick up on this narrative as the investigation wraps up and Loretta Lynch makes her decision, especially if we hear that the FBI had a mountain of evidence that was summarily ignored for the purpose of protecting the queen. The easily led public will think it’s all about malice or lack thereof, and those who try to point out that what the law actually says will be shouted down in the broader public discourse.
This is how the Clintons get away with the things they do. Must be nice.