Ever since it became known that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had for years hidden her work emails from lawful document requests by Congress and the public, her campaign has acted as though the entire investigation was nothing but a partisan witch hunt.

Certainly Republicans have a vested interest in exposing the Democratic nominee's utter corruption, and her party would keep it concealed. But that doesn't mean there isn't a profound public interest in getting to the bottom of the matter. Her concealment and her willingness to jeopardize national secrets for her personal, political and financial gain is a very big deal. Vice President Joe Biden, in his more candid moments, might describe it as, ahem, an even bigger deal than that.

Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon seems to have spent hundreds of hours defending his boss with first one argument and then another. Here are some examples: Clinton's email arrangement was nothing unusual; it's reasonable that the nation's top diplomat doesn't recognize markings that identify classified documents; there's no evidence that her unsecured server was ever breached. All these excuses would be bogus even if they were based on fact, which they aren't.

One of several nagging questions about Clinton's emails is that if there's no "there" there, as the campaign claims, why are so many of the people involved pleading the Fifth before Congress? Why do they need a shield from self-incrimination?

Even more puzzling in that light is why nearly everyone involved in this fiasco, including the man who set up the illegal server, and the one who used BleachBit to destroy Clinton's data beyond recovery, was given immunity by Obama's Justice Department?

On Friday, House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, revealed that the Justice Department had given an immunity deal to none other than Cheryl Mills, who was Clinton's chief of staff at the State Department and who has since served as her personal attorney, even sitting in on the Democratic nominee's infamous interview with the FBI.

Democrats on Chaffetz's committee point out that Mills' immunity deal was limited. It required her to give them access to her laptop. In exchange, they agreed not to use anything on it against her.

But this makes the immunity offer more troubling. Immunity offers in exchange for testimony are common, because no one can be forced to testify in situations that put the witness in legal jeopardy. But there exist other investigative and judicial means of obtaining materials from a personal laptop that do not involve such a grant of immunity, and there is no Fifth Amendment right not to have one's laptop examined through a lawful process involving a search warrant. This has all the markings of an investigative shortcut that compromises the FBI's investigation.

Clinton's campaign immediately accused Chaffetz of "trying to make something out of nothing" to create a fuss ahead of Monday night's presidential debate. It even claimed the lawmaker was abusing his office, which if nothing else, is testament to Team Clinton chutzpah. But the proliferation of immunity deals for Clinton aides in this case doesn't at all support the idea that there is "nothing" to see here, or that there's any reason for Congress to stop asking questions.

If Clinton is not personally to blame for obstructing justice by spoliating evidence that was under congressional subpoena, someone else must be. Yet somehow, no one is going to be held accountable, perhaps in part because everyone involved has been granted immunity.

This whole thing absolutely stinks, and we're not the only ones of this opinion. The latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows that 64 percent of American voters are concerned about Clinton's email scandal. Contrary to team Clinton's protestations, this new revelation should prompt Congress to investigate further, and ask more questions, not fewer.