Once again, more information only leads to more questions instead of answers.
It. Never. Ends. Judicial Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) sent a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch after the committee discovered that a few “side agreements” the FBI gave Hillary Clinton aides during its email investigation included destroying their laptops.
Goodlatte asked for in camera reviews of these “side agreements” after the committee discovered them while reviewing the immunity agreements the DOJ gave to a few people, including aides Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson.
Fox News reported:
Sources said the arrangement with former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills and ex-campaign staffer Heather Samuelson also limited the search to no later than Jan. 31, 2015. This meant investigators could not review documents for the period after the email server became public — in turn preventing the bureau from discovering if there was any evidence of obstruction of justice, sources said.
The side deals were agreed to on June 10, less than a month before FBI Director James Comey announced that the agency would recommend no charges be brought against Clinton or her staff.
Judiciary Committee aides told FoxNews.com that the destruction of the laptops is particularly troubling as it means that the computers could not be used as evidence in future legal proceedings, should new information or circumstances arise.
Here’s a few of the questions Goodlatte gave Lynch to answer no later than October 10:
- Why did the FBI agree to destroy both Cheryl Mills’ and Heather Samuelson’s laptops after concluding its search?
- Doesn’t the willingness of Ms. Mills and Ms. Samuelson to have their laptops destroyed by the FBI contradict their claim that the laptops could have been withheld because they contained non-relevant, privileged information? If so, doesn’t that undermine the claim that the side agreements were necessary?
- Have these laptops, or the contents of the laptops, in fact been destroyed, thereby making follow up investigations by the FBI, or Congressional oversight, impossible?
Goodlatte wants to know exactly how many documents the FBI review team reviewed on these laptops and which ones the agents deemed privilege, meaning they didn’t hand them over to FBI investigators. He also wants Lynch to tell him “[H]ow many classified documents, broken down by national security classification level, were on each of the Mills and Samuelson laptops.”
This is actually very interesting because when I reviewed the FBI’s notes from the interviews with Mills I couldn’t find anything immunity worthy. I didn’t want to act like a conspiracy theorist, but I wondered if the FBI provided everything Mills told them.
FBI Director James Comey told the committee the DOJ gave Mills immunity “as a request pertaining to the production of her laptop during the investigation.” Comey told Rep. Ben Sasse (R-NB) that Mills needed the immunity “because without it, Mills would have fought investigators tooth and nail in an effort to withhold her computer.” But as Guy Benson points out, Hillary has claimed she and her team have fully cooperated. Well, doesn’t this declaration contradict her statement?
He also admitted to Goodlatte that Mills was in fact a “subject” of the investigation because of her computer. Comey confirmed Mills had classified emails on her computer, but denied she committed a crime because they do not know why she had the emails on her unsecure server.DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.