Replies

We asked members of the Midyear team why they did not seek to obtain the personal devices that Clinton's senior aides used during their tenure at the State Department, given that these devices were both (1) potential sources of Clinton's work-related or classified emails; and (2) unauthorized locations where classified emails were potentially being stored. In addition, we inquired about the decision not to obtain Huma Abedin's personal devices given (1) that she stated during her interview that she had given them to her attorneys for production of her work- related emails to the State Department; and (2) the decision to seek a search warrant in October 2016 in order to search the Weiner laptop. Witnesses also told us they believed there was a flaw in the culling process that resulted in the exclusion of most of Abedin's clintonemail.com emails from the State Department production.
We found that the FBI team and the prosecutors decided together to generally limit the devices they sought to those that either belonged to Clinton or were used to back-up or cull Clinton's emails. The team provided, among others, the following reasons for placing this limitation on the scope of the investigation: (1) the culture of mishandling classified information at the State Department which made the quantity of potential sources of evidence particularly vast; (2) the belief that Clinton's own devices and the laptops used to cull her emails were the most likely places to find the complete collection of her emails from her tenure as Secretary of State; and (3) the belief that the State Department was the better entity to conduct a "spill investigation." With respect to the first rationale, we note that it fails to acknowledge that the team was not required to take an all-or-nothing approach. For example, a middle ground existed where those devices belonging to Clinton's three top aides--which the team determined accounted for approximately 68 percent of Clinton's email exchanges--would have been reviewed, but devices belonging to other State Department employees would not.

ROTFL. We can't look there, there might be too much criminal activity going on! Better let the state Department swear to following the law.

Page 153 of the recent OIG/DOJ Report.