Image 01 Image 03

Jason Chaffetz asks US Attorney to open criminal probe of Hillary emails

Jason Chaffetz asks US Attorney to open criminal probe of Hillary emails

FBI notes revealed aides destroyed devices with hammers and people deleted emails.

House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) has asked the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia (USADC) to review the email case against Hillary Clinton because evidence “may amount to obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence.”

The FBI released its notes from its investigation into the private server Hillary used when she served as secretary of state. Agents discovered that some of her aides destroyed a few of her BlackBerry devices with a hammer while no one can find an Archive Laptop with 902 emails. Someone, the FBI blacked out the name, told agents that he/she “deleted the Clinton archive mailbox from the PRN server and used BleachBit to delete the exported.”

Chaffetz also asked Platte River Networks (PRN), Hillary’s IT management company, “for information related to potential evidence destruction.”

Chaffetz wrote to the USADC:

The FBI’s investigative files reveal evidence that an engineer at Platte River Networks, the company responsible for maintaining the Secretary’s third personal email server, deleted preservation orders and a congressional subpoena. Additional information-a conference call with Secretary Clinton’s attorney days before deletions; a work ticket created on or about the date of deletion; the use of Bleachbit, a software program designed to prevent recovery of evidence; the manual deletion of Datto backups; and the engineer’s refusal to discuss conference calls-raises questions about Secretary Clinton’s involvement.

Therefore, Chaffetz believes the USADC “should investigate and determine whether Secretary Clinton or her employees and contractors violated statutes that prohibit destruction of records, obstruction of congressional inquiries, and concealment or cover up of evidence material to a congressional investigation.” He also wants the office to find out why Hillary deleted these files.

In the letter to PRN, Chaffetz told CEO Treve Suazo that the Committee’s examination found that some employees at the company may have had a hand in deletion of evidence:

In brief, the summaries of the FBI’s interviews with a PRN engineer show that within days of a conference call with Secretary Clinton’s lawyers, the engineer deleted archives of Secretary Clinton’s emails, despite knowing those records were covered by preservation orders and a subpoena from Congress. The same interview summaries show that days after the conference call, a work ticket was created at PRN relating to the administration of Secretary Clinton’s email server. The contents of the ticket were not provided. Forensic analysis of Secretary Clinton’s private email servers by the FBI revealed that Secretary Clinton had not turned over all her work-related emails, despite her claims to the contrary, meaning some responsive records may have been included in the archives that PRN deleted. Due to the PRN engineer’s use of a prohram called Bleachbit, however, the FBI was apparently unable to retrieve those archives. Bleachbit is designed to “shred the files to prevent recovery.”

A PRN spokesperson said:

But a spokesman for the company wrote, “Platte River Networks did not, at any time, treat the server belonging to the Clinton’s differently than we did any other client. We maintain all security precautions were in place, and continued to be so, throughout our service to said client.”

Chaffetz told radio host Hugh Hewitt the committee may subpoena Sid Blumenthal, a longtime friend to the Clintons, since he sent many memos to Hillary with classified information:

“I mean, we still have a lot of moving parts here, and we’re trying to recover this. This, Hugh, this is potentially one of the largest breaches of security in the history of the State Department. So we’re not letting go on this. We’re going to get to the truth. We’ve got to make sure that this classified information isn’t able to walk out the door,” Chaffetz added. “Remember, there are two email systems at the State Department. You don’t just simply get a classified email and then whoops, I forwarded to the wrong person. You have to go to great lengths to take it off that system, or summarize what you saw, and put it on the non-classified system. So how Sidney Blumenthal and others are integrated into this really still, we need to get to the truth.
Pressed on whether he would use his subpoena power to gather people like Blumenthal to testify before the committee, Chaffetz responded, “I am not going to be bashful in using it.”

“I’ve tried to bend over backwards to give people a fair, honest chance. But if not, we’re going to start issuing subpoenas, absolutely,” the Utah Republican said.

Chaffetz’s request comes a week after 50 House Republicans asked the Justice Department for a new probe into the Clinton Foundation over alleged “pay to play” from donors to gain access to Hillary.

Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX) penned the letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch due to an Associated Press report that the majority of the people who met with Hillary during her term “gave money – either personally or through companies or groups – to the Clinton Foundation.”


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Our government has a harder time getting its’public records than a foreign government has in acquiring those same records. Hell, who says Hillary ain’t slick in the use of cyber info?

    Ragspierre in reply to Hawk. | September 7, 2016 at 10:33 am

    Here’s “a” thing…

    It isn’t just in the records themselves. A LOT of this is about the provenance of the records.

    We know a lot of the stuff here and where it came from.

    Conversely, we might see a BUNCH of stuff in the next little while that will come from Assange or “Russian hackers” or some damn-where, and we WILL NOT know if it is the least authentic.

    Some here will ASSume it is without any critical thought.

    That impulse has to be resisted.

Banging a Blackberry with a hammer will destroy the Blackberry but not necessarily the memory chip that holds information. If the chip can be found intact, it can be read.

The statement from PRN is as non-responsive a piece of hairsplitting irrelevance as we might expect from Hillary herself.

Jason Chaffetz asks US Attorney to open criminal probe of Hillary emails

This was all just investigated by the FBI. What’s the point?

    Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | September 7, 2016 at 11:56 am

    The rule of law. I know you’re not really that stupid.

      Ragspierre: The rule of law.

      It’s already been investigated by the FBI.

      Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | September 7, 2016 at 12:18 pm

      Yes, resulting in MORE than adequate probable cause for a prosecution, which Chaffetz is now calling to have evaluated by a prosecutor.

      For a prosecution. According the law. Which there is very little doubt has been broken in various ways, and on several occasions.

        A team of career FBI investigators disagree with that assessment. Why would a new investigation find something different?

          Petrushka in reply to Zachriel. | September 7, 2016 at 1:15 pm

          Actually they didn’t say they didn’t have grounds for prosecution. They said the case could not be successfully prosecuted.

          If they are correct, then the Justice Department is totally corrupt. If the people being investigated were anyone else, someone would be in the dock for destroying records and erasing computer files that were under subpoena.

          Usually you wring the necks of subordinates until they say who ordered the erasures.

          Petrushka: Actually they didn’t say they didn’t have grounds for prosecution. They said the case could not be successfully prosecuted.

          The FBI Director said it was not a close call.

“The FBI Director said it was not a close call.”
And you believe this to be the truth? You actually believe that Cankels did nothing to warrant charges? Really!?

    olhardhead: And you believe this to be the truth?

    It was the unanimous decision of career FBI investigators to recommend against charges. It was the opinion of many if not most legal analysts well before the FBI announced their decision. Other than you don’t like the decision, there is no reason to doubt Comey’s statement.

Remind me what they prosecuted Scooter Libby for?
I think Klintoon has a heck of a lot more process crimes to pay for.

Not even taking into account the actual crimes themselves.

    openeyes: Remind me what they prosecuted Scooter Libby for?

    Two counts of perjury, one count of obstruction of justice in a grand jury investigation, and two counts of making false statements to federal investigators. He was convicted by a jury on four of the five counts, excepting one count of making false statements to federal investigators.

    His sentence was commuted (not pardoned) by George Bush, which short-circuited an investigation that was expected to reach the Vice President.