This is what was reported, but there could have been some unreported fine print. As in destroyed at a future date if no contradicting evidence is found, big guess on my part.
“The FBI was supposed to destroy the evidence but didn’t. This seems like it could be used against the FBI at a later date”
Maybe the FBI didn’t say WHEN they were going to destroy them...
“The FBI was supposed to destroy the evidence but didn’t. This seems like it could be used against the FBI at a later date.”
If I understand the deal correctly, Cheryl Mills et al agreed to answer questions, under the condition they be given immunity, AND their laptops would be destroyed without further scrutiny.
How dumb would a cop have to be to agree to that, and then actually do it?
Evidence contradicting the ladies’ oral answers —and possibly indicating perjury—might actually be ON those laptops. The agents were lying when they promised to destroy EVIDENCE.
I believe there is an established legal precedent, IIRC it may have been decided by the Supreme Court, that it is okay for cops to lie to suspects, under certain circumstances, in order to get suspects to talk.
It is never ok for interviewees to lie to police, though.
So IOW the Feds already suspected Mills, Samuelson , et al were lying, so they knew the deal needn’t be honored.
I believe the FBI is on solid ground here, although you’re probably correct that the Hillary team will try any thing to obstruct and dismiss.