TREY GOWDY: If the FBI and the Department of Justice gave this witness transactional immunity, it is tantamount to giving the triggerman immunity in a robbery case. I was stunned when I read the New York Times article last night and by the way, the same reporter who broke the article last night, is the guy who broke the initial email story so I’m inclined to believe it unless there’s evidence to the contrary. But it looks like they gave immunity to the very person you’d most want to prosecute. Which is the person who destroyed official public records after there was a subpoena and after there was a preservation order. And that defies logic why some techie in Colorado would, despite a subpoena, despite a preservation order but after a conference call with David Kendall and Cheryl Mills decide on his own that he is going to destroy public records. And then you grant this person immunity which means, perhaps that he cannot be prosecuted – [FBI Director] Comey said he’s not going to prosecute anybody. We need to ask the FBI, what kind of immunity did you give and why did you give it to the triggerman? Why did you give it to the person who actually destroyed government documents?
So why would the FBI give the guy who deleted the emails immunity?
Advertisement - story continues below
GOWDY: Because they guessed wrong, that’s why. They got it wrong, they blew it. They gave immunity to the triggerman. That’s why those of us who used to do it for a living, didn’t like to give immunity. This is prosecutor 101: You don’t give immunity to the person who actually robbed the bank. You may want to give it to the getaway driver, you may want to give it to the person who helped them count the money afterwards but you don’t give immunity to the person who walked in and robbed the bank, that ain’t that complicated. But that’s apparently what the FBI did.