Wrong

Under Barack Obama, almost every government department has been politicized and often weaponized. Scandals abound. As Hillary Clinton comes ever-closer to being elected President of the United States, the Obama Justice Department has given us a preview of the hyper-partisanship and outright corruption that will accompany a Clinton administration. The editors of The Wall Street Journal comment:

We already knew that Justice offered immunity to at least five central figures in the private email probe [of Hillary Clinton], including Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, the aides in charge of deciding which of the former Secretary of State’s emails on her private server would be turned over to the State Department. FBI Director James Comey struggled to explain to Congress last week why immunity was necessary to obtain the laptops the two had used for sorting the emails.

Now we learn that Ms. Mills and Ms. Samuelson also obtained guarantees that investigators would not search these laptops after Jan. 31, 2015. More amazing, Justice agreed to destroy both laptops after examining them. Think about that: Before the authorities knew what was on the laptops, they agreed to destroy potential evidence in their investigation. The evidence was also under a congressional subpoena and preservation order.

The “no-look” date beyond Jan. 31, 2015 means the FBI couldn’t see what the two aides said or did after the news of Mrs. Clinton’s private server became public in March 2015. Investigators would be unable to determine if Ms. Mills or Ms. Samuelson had engaged, as Mr. Goodlatte put it in his letter, in “destruction of evidence or obstruction of justice related to Secretary Clinton’s unauthorized use of a private email server.” Why else would time limits be necessary given that the two women already had immunity?

We’re told by prosecutors that this kind of special treatment is all but unheard of. Justice would typically empanel a grand jury, which would issue subpoenas to obtain physical evidence like the laptops. No grant of immunity would have been necessary.

So why no grand jury? Mr. Comey told Congress last week that the FBI was eager to see the laptop evidence and that it is sometimes easier to have informal agreements to obtain it. But surely it’s possible to negotiate with lawyers and conduct a grand jury at the same time. Without the threat of a grand jury the Clinton entourage had all the leverage, and they were able to get away with what amounted to formal get-out-of-jail-free cards.

It's rather odd, don't you think, that so many immunity-from-prosecution deals were offered to Clinton's closest aids and a few of her flunkies, why so many people took the fifth rather than testify, when according to Hillary, the "FBI exonerated her." If, in fact, there was no wrong-doing, why the need for immunity? Not to mention the need for the FBI to destroy evidence that might be used later?

I've spoken to many Clinton supporters—Democrats all—who have lost faith in Barack Obama but argue that Clinton will not be as incompetent, as scandal ridden, or as hyper-partisan as this president. We'll all have an opportunity to test their hypothesis, but it's very important to remember that those same people argued that Obama would be the transformative (in a good way). He would bring people together, rebuild our economy with GDP averaging 3.0 percent over his term, bring down the debt, bring peace to the Middle East, bring detente to China and Russia, reform government, and in a famous quote—"stop the rise of the oceans." History has indicated that they were very wrong then, and they're very wrong now.