Apparently Hillary Clinton's Blackberry smartphones weren't the only things smashed amidst her classified e-mail scandal. Laptops got the sledgehammer as well, but this time they were swung by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Republican leaders of the House Judiciary Committee have some big questions for U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and they're focused on why the FBI severely limited itself in its own investigation and agreed to destroy evidence relating to Hillary's scandal.
According to Fox News, House Judiciary Committee sources gave them a letter the committee sent to Lynch today asking about the FBI's handling of two Hillary aides who were given immunity from prosecution before the FBI searched their laptops to see if they had evidence of Hillary's mishandling of classified information on her unauthorized, unsecured personal server. New evidence reveals that the FBI actually agreed to destroy their laptops after doing a severely limited search of their contents.
The word "cover-up" immediately springs to mind, and it appears to be what the House Judiciary Committee leaders were thinking when they asked Lynch the following questions, according to a document obtained by Zero Hedge:
— Why did the FBI agree to destroy both Cheryl Mills' and Heather Samuelson's laptops after concluding its search?
— Doesn't the willingness of Ms. Mills and Ms. Samuelson to have their laptops destroyed by the FBI contradict their claim that the laptops could have been withheld because they contained non-relevant, privileged information? If so, doesn't that undermine the claim that the side agreements were necessary?
— Please explain why DOJ agreed to limit their search of the Mills and Samuelson laptops to a date no later than January 31, 2015 and therefore give up any opportunity to find evidence related to the destruction of evidence or obstruction of justice related to Secretary Clinton's unauthorized use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State.
— Why was this time limit necessary when Ms. Mills and Ms. Samuelson were granted immunity for any potential destruction of evidence charges?
Oh, so many questions. But here's one more for you — what do you think of all this?