Really Disappointing: The FBI’s Conduct of the Interview with Hillary Clinton [videos]

Really Disappointing: The FBI’s Conduct of the Interview with Hillary Clinton [videos]

Really Disappointing: The FBI’s Conduct of the Interview with Hillary Clinton [videos]

Unlike Hillary Clinton, our memories are just fine. We remember that her excuses are really just worn out lies. But why quit using them if they still work? That’s what she’s counting on – that voters will not remember, or care, that her patterns of obfuscation date back as far as the eye can see.

Hillary Clinton with her "attorney" Cheryl Mills
Hillary Clinton with her “attorney” Cheryl Mills

Hillary’s lies are to be expected, and so are no longer disappointing or surprising. But we still have the capacity to be appalled and shocked – and that should be fully directed at the FBI. The records of Hillary’s FBI interview were released yesterday and written about here on Victory Girls. Hillary’s answers to questions ranged from: I don’t know, I don’t recall, I bumped my head, I lost my Blackberry, to the IPad malfunctioned a lot which required my staff to go the Apple Store to get me a new one, five separate times. The shocking part about these answers is the apparent acceptance of the superficial responses and complete lack of follow through from the questioners. How completely disappointing. It’s almost as if they didn’t want to find anything.

The FBI’s process for interviewing, in this day and age of technology, is also puzzling if their goal is to seek out concrete answers. To my understanding Clinton was never under any pressure to tell the truth she did not have to be under oath, and there is no transcript or electronic recording of any kind – something that seems to be standard for any law enforcement interview today. We’ve just had a huge push for body cams on officers walking a beat because we think transparency serves the justice system, but when Hillary Clinton sits down to spill the beans, they didn’t think it was important enough to record. Somehow, I think they grasped the importance of it just fine, and still made a decision to keep all possible evidence of evidence to a minimum. In accordance with their current procedures, the FBI documents simply provide a narrative of the interviews produced from the interviewers’ notes. This may be a usual practice at the Agency, but in light of technology and the importance of this interview, the FBI should have electronically recorded or manually transcribed the interview. Everyone knew the public would be interested in the substance and exactly what was said. Old school, and not in a good way.

Most troubling from a legal ethics perspective is perhaps the presence of Cheryl Mills during this interview in the capacity as Hillary Clinton’s lawyer. The two claimed attorney-client privilege which allowed Mills to sit in during the chat session. Since Mills was not Hillary Clinton’s lawyer at any time during the period when emails were being lost, destroyed, and vulnerable for security violations, it is a mighty stretch to now claim she is her attorney – particularly when Mills is more like a co-conspirator in this complete fiasco, and we generally do not make it a practice to allow witnesses or defendants to coordinate their stories. At least not right in front of us. But that seems to be OK with the FBI. Clinton had four other attorneys there with her, what’s one more?

The potential that Hillary Clinton may become president is sickening, but the continued proof that the government is thoroughly infected with selfish, cowardly, and despicable people is even worse. Fixing this country is going to take a lot more than simply winning the White House. It is a fight that will likely take at least a generation, in the best of circumstances, and that’s only if we start now. Sadly, too many people may be willing to allow Hillary that Pennsylvania Avenue address, and if that happens, it’s almost impossible to imagine where we go from there.

Written by

  • Paul Wolf says:

    In DC and most other jurisdictions, a lawyer must have a written retainer agreement with a person in order to represent them. Lawyers are also required to keep contemporaneous records of their time spent working on cases. Neither of these documents are protected by the attorney client privilege. I think most judges would agree, that if Ms. Mills can’t produce a retainer agreement with Hillary Clinton, then she cannot invoke the attorney client privilege and must answer the questions. Although the FBI appears to have thrown the case, there is still a congressional investigation and someone should challenge the basis for her assertion of privilege.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner