FBI section chief Peter Strzok, who was fired by special counsel Robert Mueller for sending anti-Trump text messages, conducted interviews with two of Hillary Clinton&#8217;s top aides in 2016, who are both accused of lying about their knowledge of Clinton&#8217;s private email server when she was secretary of state.
Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin did not face any legal consequences for giving false statements to Strzok during interviews last year, the <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/04/clinton-aides-went-unpunished-after-making-false-statements-to-anti-trump-fbi-supervisor/">Daily Caller</a> reported.
The DC reviewed summaries of the interviews that were released by the FBI in 2016 in which Mills and Abedin both claim that they did not know anything about Clinton&#8217;s private email server until after she left the State Department.
Those statements were proven false, as email exchanges involving Mills and Abedin show that they communicated about Clinton&#8217;s private email server before she left the State Department.
In other words, they did not tell the truth.
What is particularly troubling about this is the fact that Strzok also interviewed former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, who lied in his interview about meeting with Russia&#8217;s ambassador last year &#8212; Flynn was <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/01/muellers-office-announces-flynn-will-plead-guilty-274349">charged</a> with a felony last week for lying to the FBI.
This latest revelation is likely to cause serious damage to the already floundering credibility of Mueller &#8212; who is viewed as heavily biased and even corrupt by others &#8212; as it is clear that there appears to be one set of standards for Republicans and another for Democrats.
The slightly left-leaning <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/muellers-credibility-problem-1512432318">Wall Street Journal</a>&#8217;s editorial board penned a piece on Monday calling Mueller&#8217;s credibility problem into question:
<blockquote>
The latest news supports our view that Mr. Mueller is too conflicted to investigate the FBI and should step down in favor of someone more credible. The investigation would surely continue, though perhaps with someone who doesn&#8217;t think his job includes protecting the FBI and Mr. Comey from answering questions about their role in the 2016 election.
</blockquote>

CORRUPT: Clinton Aides Went Unpunished After Lying To Anti-Trump FBI Investigator

Cheryl Mills

Democratic Party

Donald Trump

Hillary Clinton

Huma Abedin

James Comey

Republican Party

Robert Mueller

Trump Administration

Judicial Watch claims, in a fundraising email, that the Trump administration&#8217;s Justice Department is obstructing Judicial Watch&#8217;s (JW) pursuit of records pertaining to <a href="http://www.abc15.com/news/region-phoenix-metro/central-phoenix/loretta-lynch-bill-clinton-meet-privately-in-phoenix">last year&#8217;s tarmac meeting</a> between then Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton.
The Lynch-Clinton meeting took place on June 27, 2016, while Hillary Clinton&#8217;s negligent handling of classified information during her tenure as Secretary of State was, ostensibly, being investigated by the FBI under the stewardship of then-FBI Director James Comey.
JW says talking points, composed by the Obama administration, regarding the Lynch-Clinton meeting were redacted by the current Justice Department under a legal exemption allowing the federal government to withhold deliberative information pursued by citizens via Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
JW President Tom Fitton explained the Trump administration&#8217;s de facto protection of the Clintons in a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38q8ZkjQHzk">video published on September 29</a>. Partial transcript below.
<blockquote>
[Obama administration talking points regarding the Lynch-Clinton meeting] were blacked out by the Justice Department run by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, an appointee of President Trump. Isn&#8217;t that outrageous? &#8230;
If true, it&#8217;s really surprising, and frankly jaw-dropping that the Trump administration is blacking out this key information about that infamous Clinton-Lynch tarmac meeting. This information, these talking points, are how they spun the scandal; and we can&#8217;t get access to that under this Trump administration. They&#8217;re making a discretionary call to black out this information.
Frankly, President Trump should directly order the release of these records. &#8230;
We are in August, and the Justice Department is acting as if Hillary Clinton won the election, and acting in a way that continues to protect Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration. &#8230;
The fact that we are in court battling the Trump administration on Clinton scandal information, to me, is just unbelievable.
</blockquote>
&#8220;The FBI is out of control,&#8221; wrote Fitton, following the FBI&#8217;s revelatory discovery of 30 pages of documents (the FBI <a href="https://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/fbis-oct-21-2016-letter-tarmac/">previously claimed</a> to be unable to locate any such documents) related to the Lynch-Clinton meeting.
Via the FOIA lawsuit, JW is seeking the following:
<ul>
<li>
All FD-302 forms prepared pursuant to the Federal Bureau of Investigation&#8217;s investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton&#8217;s use of a private email server during her tenure.
</li>
<li>
All records of communications between any agent, employee, or representative of the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding, concerning, or related to the aforementioned investigation. This request includes, but is not limited to, any related communications with any official, employee, or representative of the Department of Justice, the Executive Office of the President, the Democratic National Committee, and/or the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton.
</li>
<li>
All records related to the meeting between Attorney General Lynch and former President Bill Clinton on June 27, 2016.
</li>
</ul>
JW notes the extension of immunity agreements to various Clinton confidantes by the Obama administration:
<blockquote>
The Obama administration extended numerous immunity agreements, including: Clinton&#8217;s former Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills; John Bentel, former director of the State Department&#8217;s Office of Information Resources Management; Heather Samuelson, Clinton&#8217;s executive assistant; Brian Pagliano, an IT employee at the State Department who serviced the Clinton non-government server, and an employee at Platt River Networks, the company that maintained it. It is not clear whether Hillary Clinton received some type of immunity.
</blockquote>

Watch Fitton&#8217;s commentary below:

<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe loading="lazy" allowfullscreen frameborder="0" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/38q8ZkjQHzk" width="854"></iframe></div>
Follow Robert Kraychik on <a href="https://twitter.com/kr3ch3k">Twitter</a>.

Judicial Watch: Why Is The Trump DOJ Protecting Clinton?

Barack Obama

Bill Clinton

Department of Justice

Jeff Sessions

Judicial Watch

Loretta Lynch

House Judiciary Committee Republicans called on the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel to investigate actions taken by Obama Administration officials like former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Director James Comey, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
In a <a href="https://judiciary.house.gov/press-release/goodlatte-judiciary-republicans-renew-call-second-special-counsel-address-issues-outside-scope-muellers-investigation/">Tuesday-published press release</a>, 14 Republicans requested a &#8220;second special counsel to investigate unaddressed matters that appear to be outside the scope of Special Counsel Robert Mueller&#8217;s investigation.&#8221;
The request&#8217;s signatory Republicans are Representatives Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Steve King (R-IA), Lamar Smith (R-TX), Raúl Labrador (R-ID), Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Doug Collins (R-GA), Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Jim Jordan (R-OH), Martha Roby (R-AL), Mike Johnson (R-LA), John Ratcliffe (R-TX), Blake Farenthold (R-TX), and John Rutherford (R-FL).
An attached letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein points to James Comey&#8217;s preparation of a letter &#8212; in his former capacity as FBI director &#8212; regarding the termination of an investigation of Hillary Clinton&#8217;s use of a personal email system through which to execute government correspondences as secretary of state:
<blockquote>
We write to renew this Committee&#8217;s recent call for a second special counsel, to investigate matters which may be outside the scope of Special Counsel Robert Mueller&#8217;s investigation. Such a step is even more critical given the recent revelation that former FBI Director James Comey had prepared a statement ending the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, before interviewing at least 17 key witnesses, including the former Secretary herself. At least one former career FBI supervisor has characterized this action as &#8220;so far out of bounds it&#8217;s not even in the stadium,&#8221; and &#8220;clearly communicating to [FBI executive staff] where the investigation was going to go.&#8221;
</blockquote>
The letter also noted the extension of immunity to Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson by the FBI, who both joined Clinton during her <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SejYDIAooj4">unrecorded interview with the FBI</a>. The FBI&#8217;s decision not to record its interview with Clinton is described as &#8220;inexplicable.&#8221;
The letter describes the Obama administration&#8217;s refusal to meaningfully investigate Clinton&#8217;s felonious conduct as a violation of the rule of law: 
<blockquote>
The nation&#8217;s top law enforcement officials &#8230; conspired to sweep the Clinton &#8216;matter&#8217; under the rug &#8230; [confirming] that there is, truly, one system for the powerful and politically well-connected, and another for everyone else.
</blockquote>
H/T Cristina Laila at <a href="http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/09/breaking-republicans-renew-call-second-special-counsel-investigate-hillary-comey-lynch/">Gateway Pundit</a>.
Follow Robert Kraychik on <a href="https://twitter.com/kr3ch3k">Twitter</a>.

LOCK HER UP: House Judiciary GOP Calls For Second Special Counsel

House Republicans

Obama Administration

A Circuit Court judge in Maryland has ordered the state bar to open investigations into three lawyers who allegedly deleted thousands of Hillary Clinton&#8217;s emails.
Overruling lawyers representing the state, Anne Arundel County Circuit Court Judge Paul F. Harris Jr. said the complaints lodged against top Clinton lawyers David E. Kendall, Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson could not be dismissed as frivolous.
&#8220;There are allegations of destroying evidence,&#8221; Judge Harris said at a hearing on Monday. He said that investigations must be conducted if the allegations have merit.
Lawyer Ty Clevenger, who has doggedly pursued sanctions against Clinton and her legal team, brought the case against the Clinton lawyers. He is seeking to have Clinton and her attorneys suspended or disbarred.
Clevenger contends that the lawyers helped Clinton destroy emails from a secret server the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee kept in her New York home. While Hillary turned over thousands of emails, she also destroyed some 33,000, saying they were private and not related to her work as Barack Obama&#8217;s Secretary of State.
&#8220;My thesis is: If you are a politically prominent attorney, you are held to a different standard,&#8221; Clevenger said after the hearing, according to the <a href="http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/anne-arundel/ac-cn-clinton-emails-20170912-story.html">The Baltimore Sun</a>. &#8220;I&#8217;ve seen this in Texas, California &#8230; I chose this case because I knew people would pay attention.&#8221;
During the hearing, Judge Harris asked Assistant Attorney General Alexis Rhode, who represented the Office of Bar Counsel, &#8220;how the case was frivolous, but Rhode said she could not do so without releasing confidential information,&#8221; the Sun reported.
&#8220;Because all these complaints are confidential, I&#8217;m unable to put that before the court,&#8221; she said. Rhode went on to argue that the case was frivolous.
<blockquote>
Clevenger said it was the first time his Maryland complaint was labeled as frivolous. The bar counsel initially responded to Clevenger&#8217;s complaint by saying he has &#8220;no personal knowledge of the allegations presented in your correspondence, nor are you a personally aggrieved client or party possession material information that would assist this office in reviewing such allegations,&#8221; according to court documents.
The bar counsel dismissed Clevenger&#8217;s complaint, prompting him to ask a judge to force the bar counsel to investigate the allegations.
Leading up to Monday&#8217;s hearing the Maryland Attorney General&#8217;s Office filed a motion to dismiss the case, which was denied by Judge Ronald A. Silkworth. The judge ruled Clevenger had a right to request the investigation as Maryland law allows any person to file a bar grievance.
</blockquote>
Judge Harris was having none of Rhode&#8217;s argument. &#8220;I just think this is a rather easy decision at this point,&#8221; he said. &#8220;The court is ordering bar counsel to investigate.&#8221;
Clinton this past weekend acknowledged mistakes in handling her official government email account. &#8220;The most important of the mistakes I made was using personal email,&#8221; she acknowledged in an interview with CBS Sunday Morning ahead of a book launch.
&#8220;I said it before, I&#8217;ll say it again, that was my responsibility. It was presented in such a negative way, and I never could get out from under it and it never stopped,&#8221; Mrs. Clinton said, once again blaming others for her woes.

FINALLY: Judge Orders Probe Into Hillary Clinton Lawyers Over Destroyed Emails

Judicial Watch (JW) is not through with the Clinton email scandal, reserving the right to <a href="http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-asks-court-unseal-videos-depositions-hillary-clinton-email-case/">pursue</a> those thought guilty of malfeasance though Hillary Clinton was defeated in the general election.
On Monday, JW announced it <a href="http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-plfs-motion-unseal-videotapes-01363/">filed a motion</a> requesting the unsealing of audiovisual recordings of the depositions of top Clinton aides and State Department officials. Those depositions were triggered by a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit that sought records about the employment status of Huma Abedin, deputy chief of staff to Clinton.
JW stated, &#8220;even though the election is over, the news media and the public continue to monitor and follow the proceedings in this case.&#8221; The State Department, Abedin, former State Department Director of Information Resource Management of the Executive Secretariat John Bentel, Cheryl D. Mills, Clinton&#8217;s chief of staff, and Bryan Pagliano, State Department Schedule C employee, all oppose the JW motion.
JW argues that the Supreme Court has stated, &#8220;The public has a right to know details related to the creation, purpose and use of the clintonemail.com system.&#8221; Thus the audiovisual recordings of the depositions in this case should be unsealed, as the ostensible reason for concealing them was to avoid their misuse during the 2016 campaign season.
Mills asked for a court seal on the audiovisual recordings of <a href="http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/clinton-email-update-judicial-watch-releases-former-clinton-chief-staff-cheryl-mills-deposition-testimony/">her deposition</a> even before she was deposed. That was granted, and the audiovisual recordings of all depositions were sealed.
But JW Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton countered, &#8220;The public and the media have a right to see these deposition videos of top officials from the Clinton State Department. The courts and the continued work of Judicial Watch is clearly the only hope of bringing sunlight into the Clinton email issue and completing the public record.&#8221;
Bentel took the Fifth Amendment <a href="http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/clinton-email-update-judicial-watch-releases-clinton-state-department-official-john-bentel-deposition-testimony/">87 times</a> during his testimony; in October, Clinton herself filed written responses to JW&#8217;s queries; <a href="http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/in-the-news/not-recall-clinton-dodges-email-questions-court-submission/">virtually all of her answers</a> included the phrase &#8220;Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory&#8221; or &#8220;Secretary Clinton does not recall.&#8221;

It’s Not Over for Hillary And Her Minions; Video Of Depositions May Be Made Public

Bryan Pagliano

Appearing on Fox News Tuesday, House Oversight Committee Chair Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) told host Tucker Carlson that the investigation into Hillary Clinton&#8217;s dubious behavior is far from over:
<blockquote>
We&#8217;ve got to get to the truth. It was never about the political targeting of Hillary Clinton, but she did create one of the biggest security breaches in the history of the State Department.
We have tens of thousands of documents we still haven&#8217;t seen, you have more than Hillary Clinton involved in this. You have dozens of people within the bowels of that organization, you have the Undersecretary of Management, Patrick Kennedy, who says he was able to bury documents down into the bowels of the State Department by misusing a FOIA designation.
</blockquote>
When Carlson mentioned the 650,000 emails from Anthony Weiner&#8217;s computer that were allegedly reviewed within the span of a week, Chaffetz responded:
<blockquote>
And why did it take&#8211;when they were looking at 30,000, it took them months to get through it. They also were very&#8211;if you go back and read that letter&#8211;they only looked at Hillary Clinton&#8217;s emails while she was Secretary of State.
Well, the committee is very interested in what she did when she set up her server, which was actually the day she started her senate confirmation. And what about all those months and years after the fact? Because we still, here in 2016&#8230;we still don&#8217;t have the documents that go back to 2009.
</blockquote>
It appears the investigation into Hillary Clinton&#8217;s private, unsecured email server will continue for quite some time as more individuals are implicated, and more information slowly comes to light.
However, as those around Clinton continue to <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/9561/5-reasons-james-comeys-fbi-investigation-hillary-frank-camp">plead the Fifth</a>, as did IT specialist Bryan Pagliano, and Platte River Networks&#8217; Paul Combetta, and receive <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/9665/fbi-destroyed-clinton-staffer-cheryl-mills-laptop-frank-camp">immunity deals</a>, like Clinton aide Cheryl Mills, and ex-staffer Heather Samuelson, getting to the truth will be a difficult task.

Republican Oversight Committee Chair: We’re Not Done With Hillary Yet

Appearing on Fox News&#8217; Special Report, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) and host Bret Baier had a lengthy discussion about FBI Director James Comey&#8217;s letter saying that the bureau stands by its original conclusion in the Clinton email investigation.
Throughout the segment, Chaffetz noted that just because Comey believes there wasn&#8217;t enough evidence to establish intent, criticisms of Hillary Clinton&#8217;s email practices are just as relevant as they were before.
Side note: Intent isn&#8217;t necessary under section 793(f) of the Espionage Act, under which Hillary Clinton was being scrutinized. &#8220;Gross negligence&#8221; is all that&#8217;s required according to the text of the law.
In his closing argument, Chaffetz made a salient point in order to counter Democratic claims that Clinton is &#8220;innocent,&#8221; and the FBI investigation proves such innocence:
<blockquote>
If she thinks she&#8217;s clean, then tell everybody around her to go ahead and stop pleading the Fifth, come to Congress, and tell us the truth. The closest people to Hillary Clinton, they keep pleading the Fifth. Maybe it&#8217;s time they stop doing that and actually tell the truth to the American people. They haven&#8217;t done that yet.
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/jasoninthehouse">@jasoninthehouse</a>: If Hillary is so clean then why is everyone around her pleading the 5th (via <a href="https://twitter.com/BretBaier">@BretBaier</a>) <a href="https://t.co/CUUTMxCxyd">pic.twitter.com/CUUTMxCxyd</a>
&#8212; FOX &amp; Friends (@foxandfriends) <a href="https://twitter.com/foxandfriends/status/795612016513667077">November 7, 2016</a></blockquote>
During the course of the FBI&#8217;s investigation into Hillary Clinton&#8217;s private, unsecured email server, numerous individuals close to her pleaded the Fifth, and made immunity deals in order to avoid self-incrimination.
Bryan Pagliano, one of the individuals who set up Clinton&#8217;s server, was given an immunity deal by the Department of Justice. He went on to <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/9561/5-reasons-james-comeys-fbi-investigation-hillary-frank-camp">plead the Fifth 125 times</a> during his testimony before the House.
Paul Combetta, the Platte River Networks employee who used BleachBit to erase Clinton&#8217;s emails even after a subpoena was issued for them, was given an immunity deal as well. During his testimony before the House, he <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-presidential-debate-fact-check/2016/09/trump-gets-it-right-about-clinton-staff-taking-the-fifth-228728">pleaded the Fifth</a>. Bill Thornton, another Platte River Networks employee, <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-presidential-debate-fact-check/2016/09/trump-gets-it-right-about-clinton-staff-taking-the-fifth-228728">did the same</a>.
While Cheryl Mills, Hillary Clinton&#8217;s attorney and aide, didn&#8217;t plead the Fifth, she received an <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/9665/fbi-destroyed-clinton-staffer-cheryl-mills-laptop-frank-camp">extensive immunity deal</a> from the Department of Justice. The deal included provisions restricting the scope of the FBI&#8217;s search of her laptop, and that the device be destroyed after the search was completed.
Clinton campaign staffer, Heather Samuelson, didn&#8217;t plead the Fifth, but was granted an <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/9665/fbi-destroyed-clinton-staffer-cheryl-mills-laptop-frank-camp">immunity deal</a> similar to that of Mills&#8217;. However, according to Bret Baier, sources close to the investigation tell him the laptops haven&#8217;t been destroyed.
Many Democrats continue to repeat the claim that because the FBI recommended against indictment in July, Hillary Clinton is &#8220;innocent.&#8221; End of story. That&#8217;s an overwhelmingly naive belief. There exists a wide gap between failure to recommend indictment and innocence, and given the evidence that&#8217;s been released, as well as the continuous flow of new information from WikiLeaks and elsewhere, Hillary Clinton appears far from innocent.
<blockquote>
&#8220;If she thinks she&#8217;s clean, then tell everybody around her to go ahead and stop pleading the Fifth, come to Congress, and tell us the truth.&#8221;
Rep. Jason Chaffetz
</blockquote>
Moreover, as Chaffetz notes, if nothing illegal or unethical has taken place, why were immunity deals necessary for those surrounding Clinton? Why were strangely specific side-provisions necessary? Why was it necessary to plead the Fifth over and over again? If there&#8217;s nothing to hide, there&#8217;s nothing to be gained from such deals and behaviors.

Rep. Chaffetz Urges Clinton Staffers Who Pleaded the Fifth to Tell the Truth

Jason Chaffetz

Wow.
A <a href="http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-01/podesta-mills-we-are-going-have-dump-all-those-emails">new release</a> from the Wikileaks trove of emails involving Hillary Clinton and her cohorts shows Clinton campaign Chair John Podesta emailing Clinton aide Cheryl Mills, &#8220;On another matter&#8230;.and not to sound like Lanny, but we are going to have to dump all those emails.&#8221;
<div class="media_embed">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Podesta To Mills: &#8220;We Are Going To Have To Dump All Those Emails&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/ZpWdIJ1zFF">https://t.co/ZpWdIJ1zFF</a> <a href="https://t.co/pbBKAkn0JU">pic.twitter.com/pbBKAkn0JU</a>
&#8212; zerohedge (@zerohedge) <a href="https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status/793464971350933508">November 1, 2016</a></blockquote>
</div>
The exchange came on March 2, 2015, only days before The New York Times revealed Clinton&#8217;s private email server. Mills answered Podesta, &#8220;Think you just got your new nick name.&#8221; The &#8220;Lanny&#8221; Podesta referred to could be former DOJ staffer Lanny Breuer, who left the DOJ in January 2013, or Lanny Davis, who was special counsel to President Bill Clinton, and spokesman for the President and the White House regarding campaign-finance investigations and other legal issues.
The text of the email leaves it unclear which emails Podesta refers to, though he adds, &#8220;better to do so sooner than later.&#8221;
What is critical is whether the email hints that Clinton&#8217;s claim that she only deleted &#8220;personal&#8221; emails was false, and that in fact she intended to block the State Department and FBI from pursuing the matter.
Tyler Durden of ZeroHedge points out, &#8220;And in a separate email <a href="https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/41736">sent out just days later </a>by Clinton campaign communications director, Jennifer Palmieri, we get yet another confirmation that the president actively mislead the public when he said he didn&#8217;t know Hillary was using a private email address&#8221;:
<blockquote>
Suggest Philippe talk to Josh or Eric. They know POTUS and HRC emailed. Josh has been asked about that. Standard practice is not to confirm anything about his email, so his answer to press was that he would not comment/confirm. I recollect that Josh was also asked if POTUS ever noticed her personal email account and he said something like POTUS likely had better things to do than focus on his Cabinet&#8217;s email addresses.
</blockquote>

John Podesta To Hillary Aide: ‘We Are Going To Have To Dump All Those Emails’

John Podesta

A <a href="https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9545">March 4, 2015 email</a> from Hillary Clinton&#8217;s friend and later campaign chairman John Podesta to Cheryl Mills queried as to whether to withhold email exchanges sent through Clinton&#8217;s private email server to President Obama.
The email was seemingly triggered by the House Benghazi Committee telling Clinton on March 1 to preserve and hand over all her emails. As <a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/wikileaks-podesta-asks-clintons-lawyer-think-we-should-hold-emails-and">CNSNews</a> reports, &#8220;The FBI report on Clinton&#8217;s emails <a href="https://ia801507.us.archive.org/32/items/HillaryClintonFBI/Hillary%20Clinton.pdf">notes on Page 18</a> that on March 3, 2015, the United States House Select Committee on Benghazi provided a letter to the law firm Williams &amp; Connolly requesting the preservation and production of all documents and media related to the email addresses hdr22@clintonemail.com and hrcl7@clintonemail.com.&#8221;
Podesta wrote, &#8220;Think we should hold emails to and from potus? That&#8217;s the heart of his exec privilege. We could get them to ask for that. They may not care, but I(t) seems like they will.&#8221;
Mills did not answer by email. The Clinton-Obama emails were released to the State Department, which later said they would remain private.
10 months later, at a State Department briefing, <a href="http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2016/01/251855.htm">spokesman John Kirby</a> reiterated that Clinton and Obama had exchanged emails. He added, &#8220;As they have also said previously, such presidential records shall remain confidential to protect the President&#8217;s ability to receive unvarnished advice and counsel but will ultimately be released in accordance with the Presidential Records Act. &#8230; I can confirm that 18 emails comprised of eight distinct email chains between former Secretary Clinton and President Obama are being withheld in full from the State Department&#8217;s FOIA production today of&#8230;former Secretary Clinton&#8217;s emails.
Kirby insisted:
<blockquote>
The decision to withhold presidential correspondence from State&#8217;s Freedom of Information Act production of former Secretary Clinton&#8217;s emails was widely covered months ago. In response to a FOIA request, again, it is not unusual to deny or withhold a document in full. To be clear, the emails between then Secretary Clinton and President Obama have not been determined to be classified. They are entirely separate and distinct from the emails in today&#8217;s release that were upgraded to top secret, secret, or confidential, and I&#8217;m not going to speak again to the content of that email traffic.&#8221;
</blockquote>

Podesta To Mills: ‘Think We Should Hold Emails To And From Potus?’

Peculiar new details have come to light regarding the immunity deals given to Cheryl Mills, Hillary Clinton&#8217;s former chief of staff, and Heather Samuelson, an ex-campaign staffer.
According to <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/03/fbi-agreed-to-destroy-laptops-clinton-aides-with-immunity-deal-lawmaker-says.html">Fox News</a> sources, side-deals were cut in addition to Mills&#8217; and Samuelson&#8217;s overall immunity deals. One side-deal dictated that the FBI only be allowed to review documents on Mills&#8217; and Samuelson&#8217;s laptops generated prior to January 31, 2015&#8211;over a month before Clinton&#8217;s private email server became public knowledge. Even stranger, in a second side-deal, the FBI was ordered to destroy the laptops after their search was complete.
Is this real life?
Congressman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch in which he asks <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/03/fbi-agreed-to-destroy-laptops-clinton-aides-with-immunity-deal-lawmaker-says.html">two salient questions</a>:
<blockquote>
&#8220;Doesn&#8217;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&#8217;t that undermine the claim that the side agreements were necessary?&#8221;
</blockquote>
The answer to those questions are yes, and yes. An innocent party does not withhold access; an innocent party does not agree to provide access only if they receive an immunity deal; an innocent party does not restrict what can and cannot be looked at within the scope of that access; and an innocent party does not demand the obliteration of innocuous information.
Each behavior on its own is enough to arouse suspicion&#8211;let alone all of them combined.
Why did Mills and Samuelson, via their immunity deals, dictate that anything after January 31st was off limits? There are several possible answers, one of them being that documents from after the 31st may have contained evidence of obstruction with regard to Clinton&#8217;s private server.
Why did Mills and Samuelson demand, via their immunity deals, that their laptops be destroyed after the search? Again, there are several possibilities, the most likely of which being that they didn&#8217;t want the information on their hard drives to be accessible in the event of a future investigation.
Another possibility is that the laptops contained information directly damaging to Clinton herself. This was touched upon in <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2016/10/03/fbi-destroyed-laptop-belonging-cheryl-mills-time-limited-search/">Goodlatte&#8217;s letter</a> to AG Lynch:
<blockquote>
&#8220;Why was this time limit necessary when Ms. Mills and Ms. Samuelson were granted immunity for any potential destruction of evidence charges?&#8221;
</blockquote>
If Mills and Samuelson were indeed in the clear&#8211;regardless of what was uncovered on their laptops&#8211;the only conceivable reason to demand limited access, and even take it a step further by ordering the destruction of information, is if Mills and Samuelson were protecting someone&#8211;in this case, Hillary Clinton.
At this point, however, it&#8217;s all speculation. Until more evidence is unearthed, the bottom of this sordid story will never be reached.

FBI Destroyed Clinton Staffer Cheryl Mills’ Laptop After Limited Search

State Department

Speaking before the House Judiciary Committee Wednesday, FBI Director James Comey was out of sorts, <a href="http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2016/09/28/comey-defends-clinton-case-do-not-call-us-weasels-n2224648">sternly defending</a> the Bureau&#8217;s investigation into Hillary Clinton&#8217;s private, unsecured email server:
<blockquote>
&#8220;You can call us wrong, but don&#8217;t call us weasels. We are not weasels, we are honest people and we did this in that way.
I think questions are fair, I think criticism is healthy and fair, I think reasonable people can disagree about whether I should have announced it and how I should have done it. What&#8217;s not fair is any implication that the Bureau acted in any way other than independently, competently, honestly here. That&#8217;s just not true.
I knew this was going to be controversial, I knew there would be all kinds of rocks thrown, but this organization and the people who did this are honest, independent people. We do not carry water for one side or the other. That&#8217;s hard for people to see because so much of our country we see things through sides. We are not on anybody&#8217;s side. This was done exactly the way you would want it to be done.&#8221;
</blockquote>
Here are 9 weasel-like aspects of the Clinton investigation:
<ul>
<li>Not putting Hillary Clinton <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/286849-fbi-didnt-record-clinton-interview-no-sworn-oath">under oath, or recording</a> her FBI interview.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>The Department of Justice <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/28/comey-cheryl-mills-laptop-contained-some-classified-information.html">granting immunity to Cheryl Mills</a>, despite her laptop containing classified material.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Allowing Cheryl Mills to act as Clinton&#8217;s attorney, despite her involvement as a &#8220;material witness,&#8221; thus allowing her &#8220;to shield her communications with Mrs. Clinton under attorney-client privilege,&#8221; as Wall Street Journal&#8217;s William McGurn <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-secrets-of-cheryl-mills-1474932673">notes</a>.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/us/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-investigation.html?_r=0">Granting immunity to Paul Combetta</a>, the Platte River Networks employee who deleted Clinton&#8217;s emails with BleachBit. Combetta deleted the emails <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/us/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-investigation.html?_r=0">shortly after a phone call with Cheryl Mills</a>, and despite a subpoena ordering their retention.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Granting immunity to Bryan Pagliano, the IT specialist who set up Clinton&#8217;s private server, only to have him invoke his Fifth Amendment rights <a href="http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2016/06/23/man-who-set-up-hillarys-private-server-pleads-the-fifth--times-n2182602">125 times</a> during his testimony.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Implying indictment would require &#8220;<a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/james-comey-testimony/2016/07/james-comey-clinton-criminal-intent-225235#ixzz4Lbo2KOpd">intent</a>&#8221; on the part of Hillary Clinton despite section 793(f) of the Espionage Act explicitly stating no intent is required for prosecution, simply gross negligence.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Saying Clinton was &#8220;<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/05/politics/fbi-clinton-email-server-comey-damning-lines/">extremely careless</a>&#8221; in her handling of classified material, and admitting that someone in her position should have &#8220;known better,&#8221; then turning around and saying she wasn&#8217;t grossly negligent.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Looking the other way despite a <a href="https://youtu.be/6Z8pnk2rvYo">complex series of events</a> indicating there was indeed &#8220;intent.&#8221;</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Stating that &#8220;although there is evidence of potential violations regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/05/fbi-director-james-comey-has-concluded-the-investigation-into-clintons-emails.html">no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case</a>,&#8221; then recommending against indictment.</li>
</ul>
Perhaps you&#8217;re not weasels, just incompetent.

Comey: ‘Don’t Call Us Weasels.’ No, You’re Weasels

With new revelations about Hillary Clinton&#8217;s private, unsecured email server emerging seemingly every week, it&#8217;s becoming more and more obvious that the FBI&#8217;s investigation was an absolute joke. Here are five reasons why.
1. Immunity Deals
During the FBI&#8217;s investigation into Clinton&#8217;s private server, the Justice Department granted immunity to multiple individuals close to the former Secretary of State who likely could have been prosecuted had they not been shielded.
It was recently revealed that Clinton aide and former Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills was granted immunity in exchange for her laptop. When asked by Congressman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) Wednesday if Mills&#8217; laptop contained any classified material, FBI Director James Comey <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/28/comey-cheryl-mills-laptop-contained-some-classified-information.html">said</a>:
<blockquote>
&#8220;I think there were some emails still on the computer that were recovered that were classified is my recollection.&#8221;
</blockquote>
When asked if it was a crime for Cheryl Mills to have these emails on her unauthorized system, Comey replied that until further information is obtained, he couldn&#8217;t say it was criminal. However, <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793">section 793(e) of the Espionage Act</a> states in part (emphasis added):
<blockquote>
&#8220;Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation&#8230;willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it&#8230;shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.&#8221;
</blockquote>
If the confidential material on Mills&#8217; laptop contained anything related to national defense&#8211;which is probable&#8211;that sounds like a crime.
An immunity deal was also granted to IT specialist Bryan Pagliano, who set up Clinton&#8217;s server. He went on to <a href="http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2016/06/23/man-who-set-up-hillarys-private-server-pleads-the-fifth--times-n2182602">plead the Fifth 125 times</a> during his testimony before the House.
Another <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/us/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-investigation.html">immunity deal</a> was struck with Paul Combetta, the Platte River Networks&#8217; tech who wiped Clinton&#8217;s emails with a program called BleachBit, even after the issuing of a subpoena ordering their retention.
2. Classified Material
Despite Clinton claiming she never sent or received documents marked classified on her private email, the FBI found evidence to the contrary.
During Clinton&#8217;s interview with the FBI&#8211;for which she was not under oath&#8211;she was shown an email chain from her server containing a portion marker designating confidential material:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Hillary Clinton told the FBI she didn&#8217;t know that the &#8220;C&#8221; in documents was a classification marker <a href="https://t.co/CLNMBwcTBG">pic.twitter.com/CLNMBwcTBG</a> via <a href="https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy">@oliverdarcy</a>
&#8212; Independent Journal (@TheIJR) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheIJR/status/771780062832103425">September 2, 2016</a></blockquote>
<blockquote>
&#8220;When asked about the email chain containing &#8216;(C)&#8217; portion markings that State determined to currently contain CONFIDENTIAL information, Clinton stated that she did not know what the &#8216;(C)&#8217; meant at the beginning of the paragraphs and speculated it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order.&#8221;
</blockquote>
Section 1.3(d) of the Obama administration memorandum on classified material states:
<blockquote>
&#8220;All original classification authorities must receive training in proper classification&#8230;as provided in this order and its implementing directives at least once a calendar year.&#8221;
</blockquote>
Despite the heading of the email not containing a (C), there was one such marking in the body of the text, and according to <a href="http://ijr.com/2016/09/686175-hillary-told-fbi-she-didnt-know-what-that-little-c-on-all-those-classified-emails-meant/">The Hill</a>, &#8220;a &#8216;C&#8217; in parentheses in the body of an email is used to designate a specific paragraph as containing classified information.&#8221;
As someone who was supposed to have received classification training &#8220;at least once a calendar year,&#8221; one would think the former Secretary of State should have known better.
The FBI apparently didn&#8217;t find Clinton&#8217;s excuse worthy of further inquiry.
3. Lies to the American Public
Hillary Clinton lied to the American people for over a year about a multitude of things regarding her private, unsecured email server.
During his testimony before the House Oversight Committee in July, FBI Director Comey was <a href="https://youtu.be/6Z8pnk2rvYo">asked a series of questions</a> about Clinton&#8217;s public statements, the answers to which were disturbing.
Despite Clinton&#8217;s claims to the contrary:
<ul>
<li>She did use multiple devices during her tenure as Secretary of State.</li>
<li>There was classified material in her emails, and it was marked as such.</li>
<li>She did not turn over all work-related emails to the State Department.</li>
<li>Her lawyers did not read the email content individually.</li>
</ul>
<iframe loading="lazy" allowfullscreen frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6Z8pnk2rvYo" width="560"></iframe>
4. Gross Negligence
<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793">Section 793(f) of the Espionage Act</a>, under which Clinton was being scrutinized, states (emphasis added):
<blockquote>
&#8220;Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer&#8212;Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.&#8221;
</blockquote>
At the end of the FBI&#8217;s investigation, Comey admitted that Clinton&#8217;s conduct with regard to her private email server was &#8220;<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/05/politics/fbi-clinton-email-server-comey-damning-lines/">extremely careless</a>,&#8221; and that anyone in her position should have &#8220;known better,&#8221; but added that it didn&#8217;t constitute &#8220;gross negligence.&#8221;
&#8220;Careless&#8221; and &#8220;negligent&#8221; are synonyms, by the way.
In his July testimony, Comey <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/james-comey-testimony/2016/07/james-comey-clinton-criminal-intent-225235#ixzz4Lbo2KOpd">said</a> the FBI found no evidence &#8220;sufficient to establish that she knew she was sending classified information beyond a reasonable doubt to meet the intent standard.&#8221;
As noted above, section 793(f) requires no intent, simply gross negligence.
5. Intent
However, during Comey&#8217;s testimony, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) <a href="https://youtu.be/6Z8pnk2rvYo">wondered aloud</a> why the FBI director didn&#8217;t perceive what appears to be obvious intent:
<blockquote>
&#8220;In your old job, you would prove intent&#8211;as you just referenced&#8211;by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record&#8230;She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a State.gov account, she kept these private emails for almost two years, and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private email account.
So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office, thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was in fact hacked, and you don&#8217;t know whether or not she was. This scheme took place over a long period of time, and resulted in the destruction of public records, and yet you say there is insufficient evidence of intent?&#8221;
</blockquote>
Aside from Gowdy&#8217;s rather succinct summation of events, we now know even more.
We know Cheryl Mills had classified material on her laptop; we know President Obama <a href="http://ijr.com/2016/09/700043-president-obama-busted-using-nickname-in-private-email-to-hillary-and-4-other-surprising-facts-from-fbi-doc-dump/">used a pseudonym</a> when he emailed Clinton, thereby contradicting his previous claim that he was unaware of her <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/james-comey-testimony-clinton-email-225224">unauthorized private system</a>; and we know that Platte River Networks&#8217; Paul Combetta used BleachBit to delete Clinton&#8217;s emails <a href="http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2016/09/09/clintons-server-wiped-with-bleachbit-after-a-conference-call-with-top-aides-n2216065">shortly after Cheryl Mills spoke with him over the phone</a>&#8211;despite the issuing of a subpoena to retain the emails.
Yet, in the face of all the evidence, the FBI recommended against indictment. Some people are simply too big to jail, it seems.

Menu