because he was given immunity.
Why was he given immunity though?
Normally that’s for witnesses who cooperate so the bigger fish get fried.
In this case, there was absolutely no real effort to catch anyone.
So, destruction of evidence is immune and EVERYONE skates.
What a fair society we have.
Yep.
But if you give immunity to “get a big fish” knowing you’ll subsequently drop investigating the big fish too it’s a handy way to cover everything up and make it go away.
It seems in this case, he, Mills, and others received immunity to keep quiet. His "cooperation" was to protect Hillary and Obama. These immunity deals really need to be evaluated to determine if they are legal, or effectively obstruction of justice. They should all be revoked.
He was given immunity because he destroyed evidence, and immunity was the easy way to keep him from talking, now or later.