It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
October 5, 2016
The Honorable Loretta E. Lynch
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Madam Attorney General:
Last week your staff made available, for an in camera review by our committees, two letters to the Department of Justice (DOJ) from attorney Beth Wilkinson, on behalf of her clients Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson (the Wilkinson letters). The Wilkinson letters—both dated June 10, 2016—were incorporated by reference into the immunity agreements for Ms. Mills and Ms. Samuelson related to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) criminal investigation into former Secretary Hillary Clinton’s email server. The letters set out the precise manner in which the Department and the FBI would access and use federal records and other information stored on .PST and .OST email archives from Ms. Mills’ and Ms. Samuelson’s laptops. We understand Ms. Wilkinson and lawyers from the Justice Department drafted the Wilkinson letters jointly before Ms. Wilkinson sent them to DOJ
We write to express our concerns about the process by which Congress was allowed to view the Wilkinson letters, that the letters inappropriately restrict the scope of the FBI’s investigation, and that the FBI inexplicably agreed to destroy the laptops knowing that the contents were the subject of Congressional subpoenas and preservation letters.
With respect to the viewing restrictions imposed on the Committees, as a condition of cooperating voluntarily, the Department limited access to the letters to only Members of certain committees and one or two staff, prohibited Members and staff from “tak[ing] notes or photos, or otherwise seek[ing] to record the information contained in the memos,” and redacted the names of all DOJ and FBI personnel on the documents. These onerous restrictions are not consistent with the high degree of transparency you and Director Comey promised to Congress. Further, in previous in camera reviews these restrictions were not imposed, which calls into question why the Wilkinson letters were given special treatment. These extraordinary restrictions interfere with our constitutional obligation to conduct oversight of this matter. Thus far, the Department has not explained its rationale for imposing these restrictions.
In his statements before Congress, Director Comey repeatedly assured us that the FBI investigated whether charges of obstruction of justice and intentional destruction of records were merited. The facts of this investigation call those assertions into question. For example, the Wilkinson letters only permitted the FBI to review email archives from Platte River Networks created after June 1, 2014, and before February 1, 2015, that included emails sent or received from Secretary Clinton’s four email addresses during her tenure as Secretary of State. These limitations would necessarily have excluded, for example, any emails from Cheryl Mills to Paul Combetta in late 2014 or early 2015 directing the destruction or concealment of federal records. Similarly, these limitations would have excluded any email sent or received by Secretary Clinton if it was not sent or received by one of the four email addresses listed, or the email address was altered. Notably, in December 2014, Mr. Combetta deleted all Clinton emails older than 60 days, which was in effect all of Secretary Clinton’s emails from January 2009 to October 2014. He admitted this “change in retention policy” during his second FBI interview in February 2016.
www.grassley.senate.gov...
originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: introvert
That's out of context and not the subject of this thread.
My views on Trump are a different topic.
Do not try to derail this again.
Mods please snip his 2nd paragraph for attempting to drift or derail a perfectly good thread. Thanks.
originally posted by: tigertatzen
originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: introvert
That's out of context and not the subject of this thread.
My views on Trump are a different topic.
Do not try to derail this again.
Mods please snip his 2nd paragraph for attempting to drift or derail a perfectly good thread. Thanks.
For what? Because the truth he speaks contradicts the lie you choose to live? Your "perfectly good thread" makes a claim that you are being challenged on. You're taking something out of context and using it to stir the pot. That is more than relevant. You brought the claim, now it falls to you to defend it. Suck it up buttercup.
originally posted by: muzzleflash
originally posted by: Sillyolme
And a new investigation would do what?
I don't know the future well enough to say. I haven't had any visions or divined any fortunes about it.
It would be valid legally to investigate any allegations of criminal activity at any time though. Better safe than sorry.
What's the point of the Law anyway?
You should be calling for an investigation of the FBI and Attorney General's office. Isn't that where the problem is, then?
The State Department has refused to make public that and other emails Clinton exchanged with Obama. Lawyers have cited the "presidential communications privilege," a variation of executive privilege, in order to withhold the messages under the Freedom of Information Act.
judiciary.house.gov...
October 3, 2016
Dear Attorney General Lynch:
As part of the Judiciary Committee’s ongoing oversight of Secretary Clinton’s unauthorized use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State, the Justice Department (DOJ) provided in camera review of certain immunity agreements. After a specific request from the Committee, based on references made in the immunity agreements to certain “side agreements,” DOJ subsequently provided in camera review of those “side agreements” between DOJ, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and Beth Wilkinson, the lawyer representing both Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson. Like many things about his case, these new materials raise more questions than answers. Please provide a written response to the below questions and make DOJ staff available for a briefing on this matter no later than October 10, 2016.
1. Why did the FBI agree to destroy both Cheryl Mills’ and Heather Samuelson’s laptops after concluding its search?
2. Doesn’t the willingness of Ms. Mills and Ms. Samuelson to have their laptops destroyed by the FBI contradict their claim that the laptops could have been withheld because they contained non-relevant, privileged information? If so, doesn’t that undermine the claim that the side agreements were necessary?
3. Have these laptops, or the contents of the laptops, in fact been destroyed, thereby making follow up investigations by the FBI, or Congressional oversight, impossible?
4. For both the Mills and Samuelson laptops please provide individual numbers on the following:
How many total documents were reviewed by the FBI filter review team from the Mills and Samuelson laptops?
How many documents did the FBI filter review team deem to be privileged and withhold from the FBI investigative team?
How many documents were ultimately turned over from the Mills and Samuelson laptops to the FBI investigative team?
How many documents were withheld from the FBI investigative team from each laptop for lack of relevancy?
How many documents were withheld from the FBI investigative team because they fell outside the da e range agreed to between DOJ and Ms. Wilkinson in the side letters dated June 10, 2016?
Please indicate how many documents were withheld from the FBI investigative team because they were both not relevant AND outside the agreed upon date range.
How many classified documents, broken down by national security classification level, were on each of the Mills and Samuelson laptops?
5. Please provide the privilege log for all documents withheld by the filter review team from the FBI investigative team for both the Mills and Samuelson laptops. If no such log was created, please create one in the same manner the Deparment requires private parties to satisfy their obligations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.
6. Please provide any opinion, memo, or other materials, whether formally endorsed or not, from the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel, or the FBI Office of the General Counsel related to the following:
DOJ and FBI procedures on privilege review.
The validity of Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson’s claim of attorney client privilege with respect to Secretary Clinton.
The ability of Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson to sit in on the investigative interview of Secretary Clinton.
7. Please explain why DOJ agreed to limit their search of the Mills and Samuelson laptops to a date no later than January 31, 2015 and therefore give up any opportunity to find evidence related to the destruction of evidence or obstruction of justice related to Secretary Clinton’s unauthorized use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State.
8. Why was this time limit necessary when Ms. Mills and Ms. Samuelson were granted immunity for any potential destruction of evidence charges?
9. Please confirm whether a grand jury was convened to investigate Secretary Clinton’s unauthorized use of a private email server. Disclosure is authorized under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(A)(i) and (e)
10. Please confirm whether the immunity agreements listed on n. 2 and the “side agreements” between Beth Wilkinson and DOJ, dated June 10, 2016, are the entirety of the immunity agreements granted as part of the Department’s investigation into Secretary Clinton’s unauthorized use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State.
Sincerely,
Bob Goodlatte
Chairman
House Judiciary Committee
originally posted by: muzzleflash
My reason for this thread is to educate people about how the legal process works.
originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
I hope they follow this angle to its conclusion. I just don't know what will happen with Mills and her connections. If I were Combetta, I would be requesting protective custody.
originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: introvert
That's out of context and not the subject of this thread.
My views on Trump are a different topic.
Do not try to derail this again.
Mods please snip his 2nd paragraph for attempting to drift or derail a perfectly good thread. Thanks.
Making threats or vows to use a nation’s criminal justice system against one’s vanquished political opponent is worse than terrible policy: it’s incompatible with the survival of a stable constitutional republic and, under our Constitution, would represent an abuse of power so grave that it would be an impeachable offense—one reminiscent of Richard Nixon’s deliberate use of the IRS to go after his political enemies.”
originally posted by: muzzleflash
originally posted by: tigertatzen
originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: introvert
That's out of context and not the subject of this thread.
My views on Trump are a different topic.
Do not try to derail this again.
Mods please snip his 2nd paragraph for attempting to drift or derail a perfectly good thread. Thanks.
For what? Because the truth he speaks contradicts the lie you choose to live? Your "perfectly good thread" makes a claim that you are being challenged on. You're taking something out of context and using it to stir the pot. That is more than relevant. You brought the claim, now it falls to you to defend it. Suck it up buttercup.
No one has challenged my claims in this thread yet.
You didn't either.
Y'all are challenging off topic claims however, like my personal inclinations or disposition.
You can't just waltz in a thread and derail it because you feel like the thread is about the messenger rather than the message, especially if the messenger explicitly requests such a distinction.
originally posted by: desert
Oh, oh, Trump got in the way of his own plan. He predetermined the outcome when he said, “Because you’d be in jail.”
originally posted by: muzzleflash
It'd only be bias if he personally interfered.
Think about it, so if she wins she is immune because she'll be president, and if she loses she's immune because she's a victim of politics?
The prosecutor would have an incredibly hard job and will need to have solid, easy to understand evidence that is indisputable or they'd be revealed as bias and politicing.