Congress, Criminal law, Politics

Newly Released FBI Records Raise Questions of Intentional Destruction of Evidence By Clinton Contractor

Hillary_Clinton_Testimony_to_House_Select_Committee_on_BenghaziOne of the most troubling aspects of the recently released documents from the FBI is a timeline established for when Clinton staffers used BleachBit to try to eradicate emails and prevent them from ever being recovered. It appears that staff may have deleted the email archive after the staff received a subpoena to preserve all such evidence. The staffer working for Platte River Networks (PRN) in Denver, Colorado reportedly had what was described as an “Oh Shit” moment when they realized that the archive could be used to uncover what the Clinton staff deleted.

PRN was a contractor working directly with the Clinton staff in the handling of the email material and has been the subject of long controversy over its lack of security to handle the classified information that was found on the emails.

The date line is troubling. In February, 2013, Clinton resigned as Secretary of State after making the decision to use the personal server for all of her email communications. Throughout 2014, Clinton staff order PRN to make a series of transfers and to wipe clean computers with emails. At the same time, the Clinton staff deletes tens of thousands of emails. While Clinton would repeatedly say that none of these emails contains anything but personal information, it is later discovered that many contained official communications.

In December 2014, Clinton handed over the remaining 55,000 emails to the State Department. In December 2014, Heather Samuelson and Cheryl Mills requested that emails be deleted from their computer using BleachBit. In December 2014/January 2015, what is described as an “unknown Clinton staff member” orders PRN to remove archives of Clinton emails from PRN server.

Then on March 2, 2015, the New York Times blows open the scandal with an article on how Clinton used a personal server. Now here is the critical date: March 4, 2015. That is when Clinton received a subpoena from House Select Committee on Benghazi instructing her to preserve and deliver all emails from her personal servers.

Some 21 days later, a PRN staff member has a conference call with “President Clinton’s Staff” and in March 25-31, 2015, a PRN staff member has what is described as an “oh shit” moment when he realizes that Clinton’s email archive from the PRN server was not wiped clean and that it might be possible to see emails that were deleted. PRN reportedly knew “of the existence of the preservation request and the fact that it meant he should not disturb Clinton’s e-mail data on the PRN server.”

If this time line is correct, a Clinton contractor destroyed the evidence on the archive by using BleachBit in full knowledge of the congressional subpoena. In combination with the later confirmation that official communication were deleted, the destruction of the archive record would seem a serious matter for investigation.

2 U.S. Code § 192 states:

Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.

There are also possible violations under obstruction, perjury, and violations of 18 U.S.C. 1001 that can be raised by such alleged conduct. I cannot imagine a private company or most individuals destroying an archive while under subpoena and not facing a series investigation for criminal charges. I may be missing something in this timeline, but it is hard to justify the destruction of an archive after the receipt of such a subpoena or constructive notice. PRN could claim that they were not subject to the subpoena but the record indicates that they were aware that a congressional committee was demanding all email evidence on the private server.  Moreover, one would expect that one of the large number of lawyers working for Clinton would have immediately contacted their contractor to tell them to halt any further deletions or scrubbing and to preserve all records.  Even when files are deleted on regular schedules in corporations, the Justice Department has reacted with charges in some cases for the failure to halt such “house cleaning” measures.  This was not even a regular practice but an effort to scrub computer after the State Department demanded records and then a congressional committee sent a subpoena.

What do you think?

124 thoughts on “Newly Released FBI Records Raise Questions of Intentional Destruction of Evidence By Clinton Contractor”

  3. @RandyJet

    Sooo, did you have to wait for the jury to come in to know that John Gotti was a mobster??? Because I think most people (the fast learners) knew it way before then, which is why they called him the Teflon Don. And, do you think OJ Simpson killed Nicole and whats-hiz-name??? Or do you think he was innocent??? And, has a jury come in yet on that other person you were complaining about, Woo or something???

    Just curious.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  4. Wow! Randy Jet – I know how you feel. The Clintons don’t deserve to be hung, and mark my words – that seems to be what their accusers want most.

  5. I have a suggestion for the Clinton haters. They can now refer to those who are found NOT GUILTY at trial as unconvicted felons. That will be one category worse than unindicted felon. That will make show how your legal minds or lack of same work. I propose that such folks are unindicted slanderers and libelous commentators. Such an obvious bunch of crooked politicians.

    1. Randyjet: If you don’t think there’s a problem with a presidential candidate that is caught red-handed lying to the public, then you’re to blame as much as she is because you’re encouraging it.

      Reasonable people who have any sense whatsoever of justice and constructive social policy don’t vote for someone whose character permits falsehoods with regard to job performance – especially in the public sector – after which the Director of the FBI testifies before Congress that several of her statements are clearly untrue. It’s no stretch to infer the false statements were made to protect herself from criminal liability. And it goes without saying that in a prosecution it can be used to prove intent under FRE 404(b) [the MIMIC rule].

      This isn’t about extracurricular sexual relations as it was with her husband, so the excuse that “it was just sex” is out. This is relevant to her position as Secretary of State and her character as a presidential candidate. Is Clinton really qualified simply because she has experience? In other words, is experience the priority we seek in a president? Does it subordinate character?

      Trump lies so patently that no one trusts what he says. With Clinton, however, for some reason there’s a continuing subconscious presumption of truthfulness in her statements. Why, knowing what we know about her? Is it the year of the blind genitalia voter? Or is it your fear of Trump that allows you to support someone with as little strength of character as Trump?

      The collective consciousness of you supporters of the duopoly has sunk into debauchery for fear of whatever it is you fear.

  6. This is in response to Ralph:

    Ralph,

    Your admonition to “get use to” the abuse of the powerful guarantees their success. Citizens should have the dignity and self respect to try and hold oligarchs to account. We may not be successful, but submission to them is what they want and we should never give that to them.

    Right now, protesters at the DAP are saying “NO” to the destruction of our air, water and land. Their courage is inspiring and shows us a model of resistance to the injustice of the powerful.

    We should no more “get use to” allowing the injustice of powerful political figures like Clinton than we should get use to the destruction of our land, water and air. We need to work to bring about justice. Your way guarantees success of the powerful. We should never willingly bow before injustice.

    Thanks Darren, for looking into all of our missing comments.

  7. @NickS

    Well, I took a little bait, but my nibbles disappeared somewhere into the CSS WordPress Ether. But anyway, here is what I wonder, and this isn’t a Conspiracy Theory or anything, but is Hillary coughing in a secret code???

    Because her email isn’t safe, she has to have an alternative way to communicate, sooo why not a Coughing Code???

    Because this is a real thing that I saw on the American Secret Agent Drama, Get Smart.

    Coughing Code Different sounding coughs replace words, this was discontinued because too many agents were getting sick. The Mummy episode.

    Plus, I found this on Youtube!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMGwfX9d7Yo

    Which I am watching Part 1.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  8. Patric, No demographic is enthused about Hillary. Trump followers are VERY motivated. I think you can throw all the old rules out the window. I think Trump will win in spite of himself. And, I don’t think any of those other Republicans, all duopoly people, would have stood a chance against her. She and her people are fighting the way these battles have been fought for decades now. The war is now asymmetrical.

  9. What is heartening is how people are not taking the bait from the Clintonista’s and are ignoring them. Kudos!!

    1. I particlulrly appreciated when Mr. Gowdy points out that if a “private” in the army did what Clinton did, he would be kicked out whereas with Clinton, intent has to be proven by her announcing publicly she is about to break such and such a law and does so knowing full well she is breaking the law.

      1. Brooklin Bridge: I liked Gowdy’s crystal clear argument, too.

        He also mentioned “false exculpatory” statements – all of the things she clearly lied about – as admissible proof of her intent when Comey said proof of intent was lacking or so unquantifiable that no reasonable prosecutor would ever bring a case against her. Gowdy is a former US Attorney.

        Clinton has a Get Out of Jail Free card, so pad your resume, put aside your morals, and do what it takes to get wealthy, or you too will be left behind in the slave class.

      1. phillyT: Thanks for the CIA bombshell. 🙂 Did Wasserman-Schultz write it under a nom de plume?

        Your party has cried wolf one time too many, and unfortunately for your cause Gowdy has character unlike your candidate.

          1. phillyT: Clinton repeatedly lied before Congress. The least she could have done is to assert her Sixth Amendment right.

            Justice has no political preference. She’s perjured herself, let alone lied about “thousands” (according to Comey) of classified documents that were on her server, many of which were not protected and returned to State.

            Do you think she set up that server so her donors could fund her foundation in exchange for face time without letting State know about it? That sounds like a late 19th Century administration’s maneuver.

            Character is of greatest priority in a presidential candidate. Clinton’s is lacking, and it burdens heavily your own for supporting her. When she’s elected and she’s decided we need more war and regime change, I’ll let you know which one of us is the Ted Nugent fan.

            I reject both of the major parties outright. Pay-for-play and patent lying while she’s destroying countries whole, and inherent party corruption, isn’t the way to get my vote.

  12. I did want to reply to Darren that I think Trump, if elected, would be overwhelmed by “yes” men and woman, some very powerful indeed, and would soon find it in his best interest to go along to get along. Hillary would remain protected by the same wall of privilege as Clinton I, Bush and Obama. A hunch, but we will never know for at the end of the day this is a coronation, not an election. The president is gone, God save the queen!

    @Squeeky, you are incorrigibly mischievous, a fun loving giver of left handed compliments, and compelling. What a combo! Were I an Eskimo and you were selling ice and snow, I’d clutch my walrus wallet and skedaddle. Oh well, at least there is something “left” about you.

  13. I looked into the comments Jill but didn’t see them in any of the filter. Some have suggested the nesting issue, I’ll look into that but I won’t have time until later.

  14. @Brooklyn, and everybody else:

    I guess we can use the old tried and true CONSERVATIVE, “@” symbol to reply to specific people. See, these new LIBERAL ideas just don’t work! 🙂

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  15. Yes, nesting seems to be the issue. Thanks Praire Rose and Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter.

  16. Darren,

    I was responding to Ralph. My comment, which I tried twice in two different formats simply disappeared.

  17. My reply to myself to correct Brooklin (not Brookline) Bridge’s name vanished. WordPress does not like this new system it seems.

  19. Testing. Several of my comments disappeared, too. They were “replies.” Sooo, I am trying one that is not “nested.”

    FWIW, I showed up in the sidebar, just not in the comments.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  20. Brookline Bridge,
    If you had more than 2 links that can prevent a comment from posting. Also, WordPress sometimes gets hungry and inexplicably eats comments. Darren can sometimes free them if he can find them buried in spam.

Comments are closed.