The FBI investigation into the Clinton email scandal seems to grow more questionable by the day. As I discussed earlier, the five immunity deals handed out by the Justice Department were, in my view, largely unnecessary and undermined the development of any criminal case. Now, House investigators have learned that Justice Department officials, in addition to their immunity deals, cut a “side agreement” with Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson for agents to destroy their laptops after searching their hard drives for evidence. With Congress seeking the information, the side deal clearly would obstruct that investigation and the details of the side agreement make little sense if the FBI were pursuing any and all evidence of criminal conduct.
What is particularly bizarre is that the FBI agreed to limit their search to documents created before Jan. 2015. That would exclude potential evidence of an ongoing conspiracy or efforts to obstruct the investigations. The Mills computer, as I have already discussed, should have been handed over given Clint
on’s assurance that her staff would cooperate fully. Instead, Clinton and her staff refused to cooperate with the State Department investigation and then Mills refused to turn over her computer until she was given immunity from criminal charges. Once again, that computer contained government communications and, more importantly, classified information. The FBI could have seized the computer with a court order without immunity. Moreover, the contents of the computer contained property of the United States in the form of classified communications. The FBI did not have to agree to even give back the computer. Yet, the FBI first immunized Mill and then agreed to limit its search and to destroy the evidence before congressional investigators reviewed the computer.
In my view, the immunity deals and this side agreement raise very serious questions for investigation. In cutting this deal, the Obama Administration played an active role in the destruction of evidence being sought by Congress. Since there was no need for the side agreement, the actions of the Administration are now legitimately matters for congressional concern and investigation.
What do you think?
Here is the letter from the House Committee: House Letter
If only Trump would have taken the time, patience and effort to employ and utilize highly skilled individuals, who are professionals in the field of debating, to relentlessly practice the manner in which he should address and relay the crucial points contained in this article during the previous debate, Clinton would have been toast. He would have destroyed her. Handily. I remain mystified as to how he, instead, allowed Cankles, dressed in her lipstick red Mao pantsuit, to hit him, catching him completely off guard, with some irrelevant remarks that he once made, twenty years ago, about an inconsequential and overweight beauty contestant. Yeah. That’s what’s important. Mumbling some absurdity about not wanting to address various issues pertaining to Clinton because her daughter, Chelsea, was in the audience, smacked of desperation. Trump needs to prepare this time, properly and thoroughly, where he can speak, eloquently and fluently, about the multitude of crimes committed by both Hillary and Bill. These facts–and, yeah, Trump, there are LOTS of them– should be embedded, into his brain, where he can effortlessly and easily convey them to the listening audience. For the love of God, Trump, PRACTICE! You have a treasure trove of damning facts and info from which to choose. This is your election to lose.
Bam bam,
“I remain mystified as to how he, instead, allowed Cankles, dressed in her lipstick red Mao pantsuit, to hit him, catching him completely off guard”
I think Trump is in cahoots with the Clintons. This election is political theater. The joke is on us.
Everything Trump says is calculated for a particular effect. Is that not the art of the deal?
Cynical. Perhaps…
I slightly expect Trump to drop out on the eve of the election saying, “Just kidding – I wanted the publicity for the Trump brand. Have you visited my new golf course?”
“I remain mystified…” Not too mysterious. Trump is the college student who parties until 3 am the night before finals, and then crams for 30 minutes. He is not one for thorough preparation. Probably considers it boring.
As for what is embedded in Trump’s brain, it is probably the chest measurements of all his present and former wives and girl friends, and all his bimbo staffers.
Jay S @ 12:52 pm
You mean something along the lines of this?
http://www.patdollard.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Christina-Aguilera-Hillary-Clinton-768×428-e1463437721525.jpg
The exposed chest is tattooed “secret-special access only” and Hillary is wondering what to do.
The fix was in from the beginning. Comey has ties to the Clinton Foundation and he should have recused himself. This thing needed a special prosecutor. However, those use immunities are up and a special prosecutor could still work.
So, who would you nominate to be an **impartial”” special prosecutor?
Jay S – I nominate Joe diGenova as special prosecutor for the email scandal.
Interesting choice. He does not appear to be a political hack of any sort.
Paul Schulte..
Have you forwarded the nomination to Loretta?
I think she’s the one who has to make the call on whether a special prosecutor is appointed.
I haven’t noticed a lot of enthuiasm for that idea on her part, especially after Comey already decided for her not to prosecute.
after Comey already decided for her not to prosecute.
And after Comey gave her cover. She owes him big time.
The Clintons…..It’s all about team work…Step out of line & you get wacked.
A great scene, Al. If JT keeps this up he might want to get a remote starter for his car.
Shoot, they could have stopped Mills at the airport and confiscated her laptop! Yes, this is a complete sham investigation. I think bfm laid out the problem well saying: “Where do you go to call the police when the police are the problem?”
That’s not all that’s fixed. The election is fixed as well. The oligarchy isn’t going to lose no matter what. We see people on this blog and the media attempts to minimize or even dismiss the destruction of the rule of law. That is a really stupid thing to do. That is called tyranny and that is what we have. Even avowed Clinton supporters should want a real justice system.
A working nation which does good in the world is much more important than helping the oligarchy elect someone to crush the people and the planet.
“that computer contained government communications and, more importantly, classified information.”
Who decided that the subject computer contained classified information? The FBI? Do they have the authority to decide what information or document of another agency of the Federal Government is or is not classified? If so, by what regulation?
Classification authority starts with the President, and flows down to agency heads and thence to delegated individuals within each agency or department. Do any agencies get to second-guess classification within other agencies? Can (say) the Department of Education tell the FBI that some FBI document is classified? I do not think there is any hierarchy of agencies for classification purposes. So why can the FBI declare that some internal Department of State communication is classified?
“Who decided that the subject computer contained classified information? The FBI?”
Silly attempt to distract from the issue. Nobody claimed, and there is nothing to suggest, that it was the FBI that classified the information.
Not silly at all. If some junior analyst in DOS thinks something is classified, but the Secretary of State does not, is it or is it not classified? Within the Department of State, the Secretary of State is the ultimate classification authority on material generated and transmitted within that Department. Hillary has said that she didn’t think that anything in these various emails was classified. Why doesn’t this opinion settle the issue?
Jay S.
It is known that material that was marked classified was sent and received by Hillary on her homebrew system.
That material may have been marked classified by Hillary, her top aides( e.g., Cheryl Mills, Huma, etc.), ir others in the State Dept. designated by Hillary.
Hillary herself can not argue now that “she didn’t think anything in these various emails was classified”.
As bigfatmike commented, you’re distracting from the issue by making these ridiculous statements.
No matter what any of the DOS underlings say, or may have said, or may have marked, the Secretary of State is the final classification authority within the Department of State.
And it’s not a distraction at all. The core issue is, was information classified or not, and who gets to decide?
If Hillary, or State Dept. aides designated by Hillary, mark material as “classified”, they can not now claim that the material was NOT ckassified.
The “who gets to decide” has been covered here, and was covered more extensively in recent posts on this site.
The point is that once material is marked classified, and has not been declassified, it remains classified.
Hillary, or Secretaries of other Depatments, probably have abilty to declassify material.
But they can’t unilaterally and retroactively “I didn’t feel the material marked classified was actually classified”.
If Hillary or other authorized State Dept. official had declassified the sensitive material she sent and received, they could conceivably argue that she was not mishandling classified material.
Given that the material remained and remains classified, Hillary can’t make that argument.
I don’t think Hillary herself has claimed that the sensitive material had been declassified.
Not to mention she directed aides to remove classified markings.
As the final classification authority with DOS, Clinton could certainly and legitimately do that. However, in these particular cases (as I understand it) there were a very few “c” markings attached to paragraphs that had had other classified material removed, before being sent, with the non-removal of the “c” being a clerical oversight. Also, I am not sure whether these particular emails were sent to or from Hillary. If they were sent TO Hillary, is the idea that Hillary should have called her security officer instantly, and had the perpetrators reprimanded or worse?
She does not get to remove classification markings on emails on secure systems and then transmit them on her insecure system:
“It is against the law to remove classification markings from classified information and enter it into an unclassified system — which is the only way this information could have found its way into more than 1,300 emails on Clinton’s personal server.”
” Having any classified information on your private server is against the law.”
She does not get to make or interpret the law herself; she gets to follow the law like the rest of us.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/clintons-email-excuses-are-falling-apart/2016/01/25/86e8022e-c36a-11e5-8965-0607e0e265ce_story.html?utm_term=.4cea15ae9016
“Classification authority starts with the President”. True enough. But the President does NOT originate the authority, which has been in effect for decades – since before WWII. The President acted upon a recommendation.
The document originating agency is the one that designates Classification. The President hardly has the time to review all communications made so policy is set by agencies.
The FBI can certainly recognize a classified document, even when others might not. After all, didn’t they say that there hundreds of classified documents found among HRC’s emails?
Bob –
Classification always comes down to **some individual’s opinion** as to whether or not some fact or phrase or other information is classified. If the “originating agency” is someone within the Department of State, then the Secretary of State has the final say-so within the Department of State, as to whether or not that information is classified.
“The FBI can certainly recognize a classified document, even when others might not. After all, didn’t they say that there hundreds of classified documents found among HRC’s emails?” — Are you claiming that the FBI has the authority to poke into any and all other Federal agencies, and pass judgment on classification decisions within those agencies? I don’t think so.
Now, the FBI could say that, same if the information were originated within the FBI, they would classify it within the FBI for FBI purposes. But that is a different question. Suppose (for example) some agent in the FBI writes in an FBI document that “Putin wears purple underwear” and declares that to be classified. But if someone in the Department of State (or the Agriculture Department or the Coast Guard or ….) writes the same information in an email, does the FBI have the authority to go into those agencies and impose their opinion?
The FBI has the authority to classify FBI, and maybe Justice Dept., material.
I don’t think their authority extends beyond that.
Exec. Order # 13526 spells out authority for classification.
I summarized its contents here a couple of weeks ago, so I won’t go over that again now.
But 13526 doesn’t leave it up in the air as to “who gets to decide” re classified material.
In the “Putin wears purple underwear” example, if the FBI classified that, then transmitted that to another agency as classified material, the other agency wouldn’t have the authority to declassify it; they’d be obligated to treat it as classified material.
There’s probably a more solid basis than the color of Putin’s underwear in classifying material.
If an agency were cluttered up by other agencies trivial overclassification of material transferred to them, they could probably bring it to the attention of the President.
At that point, I think the hammer would drop on those responsible for transmitting such material as classified.
Yes, I have read Order 13526 as well. It certainly does NOT give the FBI authority to second-guess classification decisions within other departments and agencies. As near as I can tell, the whole philosophy is, every boat floats on its own bottom.
As an investigative body, the FBI can determine if classified material was mishandled.
E.G., the FBI didn’t do the original classification of the sensitive material Gen. Petraeus mishandled.
That had nothing to do with their determination of whether classified material was mishandled.
There has been no ondication that the FBI “se ond guessed classification decisions of other departments”.
Investigation of mishandle classified material is not the same as “second guessing” classification status.
To “mishandle classified material,” it has to have been deemed classified in the first place.
Which it was, considering it was on the SCIP system and illegally migrated to her unauthorized server.
I’m guessing the reason this isn’t talked about on the evening news is because everybody knows there’s nothing that can be done about it.
The FBI is just thumbing their nose at us because they are above the law.
The FIX is in. All the stops will be removed in order to get HRC elected, criminal or not. The outsiders cannot be elected. There is too much money at stake.
A VP Debate? Why is there now a VP candidate debate on TV? How much money is this costing. To what point? Is our vote in November to elect a VP? NO. So, what is the point?
We are also electing a VP. Who takes over if the President dies?
Once upon a time the VP was the person who came in second in the presidential race.
Really? When was that? I thought the VP and President always ran as a pair. If otherwise, certainly not in any recent time frame.
The more interesting question is, what happens if neither Donald or Hillary get 270 votes in the Electoral College. Then the President is decided in Congress. Since Congress is dominated by Republicans, they could pick Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, or for that matter George Clooney.
Jay S.
I think Hillary will end up well beyond the 270 Electoral votes needed.
My guesstimate would be about 325.
If no one gets tge required 270 votes, I think the House has to choose among the candidates who finished in the top 3, votewise.
I don’t think they can select anyone other than, say, Clinton-Trump-Johnson.
If there is a way the House can get around that- maybe there is, and I’m just not aware of it- I’d be interested in other opinions on this.
Once upon a time the VP was the person who came in second in the presidential race.
The constitutional amendment which discontinued that practice was ratified in 1804.
No wonder I don’t remember it !
Loretta Lynch seems to be channeling John Mitchell.
How so? Mitchell was not the attorney-general during the Watergate cover-up. Richard Kleindienst was the attorney-general. The only one implicated in the Watergate cover-up in Richard Kleindienst’s Justice department was L. Patrick Grey, the acting director of the FBI. Grey ‘deep-sixed’ some embarrasing files about wrongdoing ca. 1971. It’s doubtful Kleindienst ever knew anything about that.
The Watergate cover-up was run out of the White House staff and the Committee to Re-elect the President. John Mitchell resigned as director of the CRP two weeks after the Watergate break in, so he wasn’t running the cover-up.
Good analogy. I’m just taken back by the criminality in every government institution. It’s like 9/11 in our government and our media. They snuck in like the terrorists and took advantage of our laws and political correctness and used them against us.
I used to be a Democrat and cannot believe the corruptness going on. My parents are Democrats and they too are scared of what the government is doing and will be voting Republican for the first time in their life this election…..
Corruption such as this will be a regular affair if the Clintons return to the White House.
I’m with you Darren. This administration has infiltrated the smut into every government institution. Donald Trump will be working overtime to fix what Obama has effed up that past 6 years.
I look at Donald Trump as an Andrew Jackson type candidate and I intend to vote for him. I cannot in good conscious vote for a un-indicted FBI confirmed incompetent lying felon like Clinton. For the first time in my life, Im scared of my government. I don’t feel the people have control over them.
It’s already a regular affair. Time for a “pitchforks and torches” march by the citizens on DC. Fall is a lovely season for it.
I agree Ashiah. I’m very worried about our Constitutional Laws no longer being effective.
“As much as I’ve been investigated and all of that, you know, why would I? I don’t even want… Why would I ever want to do email? Can you imagine?”
In home video footage from a private fundraiser in 2000, Clinton talked about how she had deliberately avoided using email so she wouldn’t leave a paper trail.
What? The FBI was in the tank to protect Hillary Clinton? I can’t believe it. Surly the major news organizations are on this and will give a good accounting.
Hate to burst anyone’s idealistic bubble, but the fix was in from day one. The FBI Is part of the DOJ and the DOJ is run by Obama appointee Loretta Lynch. And the Obama administration has nothing to fear from a Congressional investigation. They’re just a dog and pony show but no real teeth. Heck, even the computer geek who set up Hillary’s private server ignored a Congressional subpoena. Congress is all bark and no bite.
Sadly, true.
Doglover,
I am on board with you until the last line:
“Destroying bureaucrat communications doesn’t reach the level of destroying millions of lives.”
Consider, we are not meddling in Syria because Assad is a threat to us. We are there for oil and regime change. Clinton has also destroyed millions of lives and plans to unseat Assad if she is elected.
We are also trying to cut off Russia, I think.
There is no oil to speak of in Syria, and if your looking for access to oil, military action is not cost-effective.
It is not exactly the oil that is in Syria. It is control of an oil pipeline, among other things. Regional influence, power struggles that involve the US, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.
” In 2009 – the same year former French foreign minister Dumas alleges the British began planning operations in Syria – Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter’s North field, contiguous with Iran’s South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets – albeit crucially bypassing Russia.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-attack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines
President Bush is mixed up in this, too. The establishment does not want to be shaken much more.
I highly doubt we are there for oil. Syria is 68th in the world in oil production and 31st in proven oil reserves. Not even close in either category to the United States. Thinking of the world as a strategic chess board, with Syria having borders to several US allies and ports in the Mediterranean Sea with Assad being friendly to Russia, regime change is why we are there.
I agree with you, but I would add in the issue of the oil pipeline.
Indeed, the reason the US wants regime change in Syria in the first place is to have greater control over the oil pipeline(s). Assad is too friendly with Russia meaning THEY get greater control.
As an aside, but it’s important to understand why things happen the way they do, Obama (and the powers that be) want regime change foremost in Russia (Putin is not playing ball) so as to have a friendly economic environment for neoliberal plunder and because our neocons can’t stand the idea of Russia becoming a great power again.. As always follow 1) the money, 2) the military. Russia is a huge economy. We got to plunder it shortly after the fall of the USSR and we worked our economic magic until Russia almost collapsed as a failed state. But Putin interrupted our corporate and financial plunder in cahoots with a number of stooge Russian Oligarchs and got things under control (not always with a gentle hand) which is one of the reasons he has a popularity of about 80% or greater.
So, making sure that Assad (duly elected), or for that matter any Syrian dictator that we subsequently install, is not there to provide any sort of assistance or support to Russia is a strong motive for regime change in addition to oil pipe line control.
Brooklyn Bridge, energy inputs per the Bureau of Economic Analysis amount to 3% of gross output in this country. About 36% is satisfied by coal and miscellaneous sources. About 28% is satisfied by natural gas, and about 35% is satisfied by petroleum. The Near East accounts for about 14% of the export trade in natural gas and 40% of the export trade in petroleum and Saudi Arabia et al are not price makers of sufficient potency to sustain a cartel. What’s going through any one pipeline is a fraction of what’s exported from the region. The effect on our economy of the price dynamics which would be a consequence of injuries to that pipeline would be too modest to make a business case for holding the pipeline.
You’re missing the point. It’s not to make a profit, it’s to prevent Russia from doing so. But even more, it is to prevent Russia, and any middle eastern country that is not totally subjugated to the interests of the US, from getting control of vital energy resources (in this case, access to those resources).
That said, the cumulative financial effect of skimming profits from the various oil producing (or piping) countries in that region is no small potatoes and there are some very influential international companies that don’t sneeze at doing so – which is one very big reason that Hillary and Bill’s foundation will remain open to international donations.
You’re missing the point. It’s not to make a profit, it’s to prevent Russia from doing so. But even more, it is to prevent Russia, and any middle eastern country that is not totally subjugated to the interests of the US, from getting control of vital energy resources (in this case, access to those resources).
I’m not missing the point. You’re mistaking your politico-economic fantasies for the real world situation. The business case for Russia in this situation is no better than it is for anyone else. The Near Eastern conflicts are not driven by these sorts of crudely material imperatives.
” The effect on our economy of the price dynamics which would be a consequence of injuries to that pipeline would be too modest to make a business case for holding the pipeline.”
The analysis seems plausible till you realize it relies on a national point of view.
The fact there is no national interest does not imply there is no corporate interest. The largest revenues for a corporation are only a small fraction of national GDP. And we are all aware of the unusual influence of big money on national policy.
Does corporate interest influence our middle east policy – who knows – almost certainly nobody reading here. But in the 1930’s corporate interests sent marines to fight and die to control the supply of bananas in south America – who knows?
Don’t expect Turley to be too aggressive on this. The Prof doesn’t want to get kicked off certain cocktail party lists.
Turley has the standing to make this an issue, but that will not happen. It would upset too many of the DC “in” crowd. Thus we get the Turley version of crocodile tears.
Turley is not the model of the status-conscious academic. If he were, he’d never have mentioned it. The Mercatus center at George Mason is a collecting pool of the status-conscious. Most faculty are other-directed when they’re not puerile.
Professor Turley has been following this case relentlessly. So much so that the blindly loyal partisan hacks regularly whine about it and attempt to divert attention away from it by highjacking the thread to talk about their favorite villains. Today it is Dick Cheney. Yesterday it was John Yoo.
Professor Turley follows the story and when the story advances, he writes about it on this blog or at USA Today, or he appears on TV. I don’t know what more you expect from him.
I think your charge that he doesn’t want to get kicked off the cocktail party lists is laughable. If he was concerned about that, he NEVER in a million years would have agreed to represent the House in The House of Representatives v. Burwell. Josh Blackman at Volokh Conspiracy wrote about how many lawyers declined to take the case precisely because doing so would hurt their legal careers, social standing, and the “business” of law firms. Turley even supports Obamacare in principle, but he values the constitutional separation of powers even more.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/09/22/the-origin-of-house-of-representatives-v-burwell/?utm_term=.55f726cf3023
Great comment, Scott.
Well said.
Dems still have a long way to go to catch up with the Republican cover-up of Cheney involvement in 9/11 and orders to torture people to get false justification for invading Iraq. Destroying bureaucrat communications doesn’t reach the level of destroying millions of lives.
LOL! Truthers unite!!
Doglover, you may want to go back and check Ashton Carter’s testimony on the Hill recently or that of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, former Marine Commandant Joseph Dunford, the highest ranking member of the US armed forces, being scolded like a school boy last week by Senator John McCain for candidly answering the question of what it would take to create a no-fly zone across Syria. (Answer: it’d take a war against Russia and Syria.)
Obama’s bidding for the congressional warhawks and tendering in earnest a regime change in Syria. How many lives were taken and displaced by supporting Syrian insurgents with armaments and intel, let alone our current presence in country? There’s no room here to talk about Cheney unless we want to explore his personal sadistic tendencies. He should be in chains, but Clinton to Kerry to Obama should be, too.
The corruption in the DOJ makes Nixon look like a choir boy. Selective prosecution my arse. The Democrats have taken it to new heights that Nixon could only dream about – it’s systemic.
I normally side with you, and for the most part I do here, but Obama’s DOJ and DOD are nothing to be celebrated. There’s no excuse for it, and blaming Republicans for the same conduct gets us nowhere. Obama’s bought and paid for and Clinton’s on deck with the orangutan in the hole.
If one wants to read how this Chicago Administration works, The Intimidation Game is a must read. All The President’s Men was a bestseller. Kim Strassel’s Intimidation Game should be as well.
This is not a Chicago Administration. BO has no history in Chicago ward politics, nor the people skills to prosper in Chicago ward politics. Nor any manifest concern for the welfare of flesh-and-blood human beings, which an old school precinct captain had to have. This administration is an abusive lawfare operation.
Unfortunately for Nixon, Att. Gen. Mitchell resigned months before the Watergate burglars were caught.
_He resigned to head Nixon’s reelection campaign.
And J.Edgar Hoover died a month or so before the Watergate burglars were caught.
So Nixon didn’t have a “Lorreta Lynch” or a “James Comey” as allies in the Watergate scandal.
He had to rely primarily on White House aides like Haldeman, Erlichman, and John Dean to keep a lid on things.
Dean’s defection ,after he participated for c. 10 months as a key participant in the cover up conspiracy, was a key turning point.
To ordinary people it looks like obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence by the FBI.
Does anyone think this would have happened if she were some deputy director, senior executive service laboring in some quiet department or branch? I think not.
Where do you go to call the police when the police are the problem?
BFM, That’s where the press is supposed to step up and report on this..put pressure on the duopoly elitists. They have failed and continue to fail.
Indeed, and big time.
Imagine how the MSM would handle this coverup if it were a Republican Administration. They have totally neglected their duty to elect our first queen.
Precisely.
I think the MSM would handle it exactly the same way as long as it was a cover up for someone who is an elite member of the neoliberal team – Dem-0-rat or Rethug.
Defending one team or the other at this point, alas, is usually a case of defending the beam obstructing one’s own eye; while attempting to see clearly the mote in the eye of their brother or sister. Corruption of this magnitude brooks no monopolies.
At what point will the lemmings realize this was a coverup w/ the DOJ being complicit, to protect Hillary, her people, and Obama? Stupid question, I know. They never will.
I also KNOW there are FBI agents who would love to leak the TRUTH. But, as many have learned, this Chicago Administration goes after leakers w/ a vengeance that makes Nixon look like a ham n’ egger.
What do I think? The FBI’s investigation was a sham and the FBI is another agency the Democratic Party of Rackets has ruined. President Trump will have his work cut out attempting to repair this. He’ll certainly get no help from congressional Republicans; no candy in it for the Chamber of Commerce.
The best justice that the Clintons could afford.
Really reassures the”little people” about equal justice for all.
It is the reason that we are experiencing the lawlessness in the streets, now. Our leaders get away with EVERYTHING/ANYTHING. Lawlessness is the rule not the punishable exception.