At a House Government Oversight Committee hearing on Wednesday with FBI Director James Comey, Rep. Darrell Issa revealed that Cheryl Mills did not receive immunity just for her laptop, but also for destruction of documents. He grilled Comey on how far that immunity covers her, for example if it covers her from future prosecution. From the exchange:





REP. DARRELL ISSA: Isn't there a double standard that when you granted immunity to these 5 individuals you took them out of the reach of prosecution for crimes committed related to destruction of documents or withholding or other crimes pursuant to Congressional subpoenas?



JAMES COMEY, FBI DIRECTOR: I don't think anybody was given 'transactional immunity.'



ISSA: Oh, really? Now we have not allowed to make your immunities public, but I am going to take the privilege of making one part of it public. I read them. You gave immunity from destruction to both of those attorneys, not just turning the documents over, specifically for destruction. You did the same thing with these other two individuals... you gave them immunity from destruction.



COMEY: Again, I could always be wrong, but I don't have it in front of me.



ISSA: But because you don't let us take them out of the SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility) it makes it a little hard for us to. But the fact is that when we read them --



COMEY: Let me answer. I am pretty sure that what was granted was 'use immunity.' In the case of those two people coextensive with 18 U.S.C. 6001, which means no statement you make can be used against directly or indirectly. Transactional immunity is sometimes also given by prosecutors. It says, you will not be prosecuted in any event for this set of facts. I don't think there was any transactional immunity.



ISSA: But when I read for both the attorneys that that immunity was granted in both cases it said destruction in addition to the turning over. Why would you believe that was necessary or do you believe that was necessary? You wanted the physical evidence, why did you have to give them immunity from destruction of materials?



When you look into it and hopefully get back to this committee, I'd like to know does that immunity apply only to destruction on the computers delivered so that other destructions by Cheryl Mills could still be prosecuted?



COMEY: My recollection is that no transactional immunity was given. A protection of statements was given to the Bennett guy and Mr. Pagliano.