Posted on 11/03/2016 5:28:51 AM PDT by randita
Is the Abedin/Weiner Laptop the Last of It?
There is much evidence that the Clinton e-mails investigation was never properly pursued.
By Andrew C. McCarthy — November 3, 2016
A nagging question has been lost amid the tempest over the FBI’s revival of the Clinton e-mails investigation. As everyone knows, the file has been reopened because of a trove of e-mails found on a laptop shared by top Clinton aide Huma Abedin and her estranged husband, Anthony Weiner. What we don’t know, however, is: Why has the FBI only recently learned about a computer used by Ms. Abedin?
Remember, Abedin is said to have cooperated in the Clinton e-mails investigation and sat for a lengthy interview with FBI agents. The agents asked her about her e-mail practices. Assuming they asked basic questions, as agents are trained to do, they would have methodically itemized the computers and e-mail accounts she used. Yet, the Abedin/Weiner computer, which is said to contain 650,000 e-mails (an unknown number of which are relevant to the Clinton investigation), was not acquired by the bureau in connection with the Clinton investigation. It was seized in an unrelated investigation of Weiner, reportedly involving his alleged “sexting” with a teenage minor.
Why did the FBI agents on the Clinton e-mails investigation fail to acquire and search this computer months earlier? The question becomes more pressing in light of the Washington Examiner’s report that the FBI failed to ask not only Abedin but other Clinton aides to surrender their computers, smartphones, or other communications devices.
Now, there could be a good explanation, at least in connection with some Clinton aides. If, after a reasonably thorough investigation, the FBI had found no indication that potentially classified information was transmitted or stored on a particular device, there’d be no need to seize it. Let’s say X is a Clinton staffer. Let’s also say the FBI finds that X appears only to have used her government e-mail account for official business; that X did not have an account on the clintonemail.com domain; that whenever Clinton or other government officials e-mailed X, they addressed the e-mail to X’s state.gov account; and that X was cooperative when interviewed and convincingly said she never used her private e-mail for government business. Under those circumstances, it would be reasonable not to ask for the surrender of X’s private cellphone or computers.
Let’s now consider, though, the case we actually have. Several Clinton staffers appear to have sent and received e-mails about government business on private devices and private e-mail accounts. A number of those e-mail exchanges involved classified intelligence. It seems like a no-brainer to me that these devices should have been seized and searched.
Why was this not done? There are at least four reasons, none of them good.
First, the Obama Justice Department under Loretta Lynch denied the FBI’s Clinton e-mails investigators access to the grand jury. The grand jury’s power to compel production of evidence and testimony is the source of much of the FBI’s power to convince people to be cooperative. Defanged by DOJ, investigators were forced to negotiate and cajole when they should have been able to demand. That makes it much harder to investigate. It undoubtedly drummed into the agents the message that they should not press too many requests for the voluntary surrender of items the owners would not want to part with — and no one wants to give up personal laptops and smartphones. If a request made by an agent was denied, the agent could have no confidence that the Justice Department would back him.
Second, the Good Ship Clinton overflows with lawyers. It is also very close to the Obama Justice Department (many Obama-administration lawyers were once Clinton-administration lawyers). Lawyers know that the FBI worries about being accused of violating attorney-client privileged communications. They also know that the Obama Justice Department is indulgent of extravagant claims about what the attorney-client privilege shields from disclosure. Lawyers’ devices are thus a big hassle for agents, and they no doubt shy away from asking for them unless it’s patently necessary (as it was, for example, with the laptops of Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, since those computers were used to store and vet all of Hillary Clinton’s e-mails). And when you start shying away from seeking access to the computers of important subjects (such as Mills) because you don’t want to deal with lawyer complications, it becomes much easier to rationalize not seeking the devices of other subjects. Once it is established by habit that obtaining computers is not a priority, you stop asking.
Third, it’s never good to compartmentalize an investigation. In this case, the classified e-mails investigation has apparently been severed from the Clinton Foundation investigation, as if they were completely separate and unrelated. When obviously related matters are joined together, there is a broader basis to demonstrate probable cause that evidentiary items, such as computers, are relevant and should be seized. But that advantage is lost when what should be one investigation is divided into two or more. If you are an agent investigating the classified e-mails case, you are not going to make efforts to acquire a computer that might be very relevant to the Clinton Foundation investigation but only marginally tied to the classified-information probe. When an investigation is artificially carved up, agents do not see the big picture: Things that ought to be acquired end up falling through the cracks.
Fourth and finally, there is the enervating effect of working on an investigation that agents strongly suspect is not going to result in charges. Even as the agents on the classified-information investigation gradually assembled compelling evidence, they had to know that the president and the Justice Department were very unenthusiastic about the case. President Obama talked the investigation down, going out of his way to say Mrs. Clinton would never do anything to harm national security. Justice Department officials leaked the same message to the press.
Put yourself in the shoes of FBI agents who witness things they’ve never seen before: subjects of the investigation given immunity from prosecution and then allowed to appear as lawyers for other subjects; Justice Department lawyers more accommodating of defense lawyers than of FBI agents; witnesses who lie to the FBI given immunity rather than being arrested and squeezed for cooperation. The agents see the handwriting on the wall that their hard work is going to come to nothing. An agent no doubt asks himself: “Why should I push to acquire this computer? If DOJ wanted me to have it, they’d let me subpoena it; if they wanted to make the case, some of these suspects would already be in cuffs.”
This is an understandable attitude, but it’s not an acceptable one. The FBI is not just the nation’s premier investigative agency; it is also our domestic-security service. Wholly apart from whether a computer contains evidence that can be used to prosecute a case, that computer has become a threat to national security if — as a private device that is not hardened against espionage and operates on networks that are not hardened against espionage — it is likely to contain classified information. Even if no one is indicted, the hacking or dissemination of the intelligence on the computer could damage national security.
The reports of the FBI’s investigation that have been made public indicate that there could be dozens of computers and other communications devices which may be storing classified information, but which the FBI has neither seized nor made plans to try to obtain. If that is true, it is inexplicable. That the Justice Department and senior FBI officials have adopted a theory that undermines prosecution of crimes involving mishandling of intelligence is beside the point.
It also raises another question: Is the Abedin/Weiner laptop the last one? Or will late discoveries continue to rock Camp Clinton and roil our politics?
— Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.
Tip of the iceberg.
Look for a connection between the Clinton’s and Weiner related to the child trafficking issue in question. Highly suspicious activities in that arena.
Abedin inadvertently provided the lose thread that will unravel the Clinton crime cabal.
**************
It may expose lots of things, including many forms of criminal behavior, but don’t underestimate the cleverness of the apparatchiks and bureaucrats in DC. They are circling the wagons to protect their own interests. They live for politics and are experts at manipulating the process. The working agents pursuing the case are in many respects over matched and out gunned.
Just trying to keep it real.
I had the same discussion with a friend of mine, I kid you not he said that what she did is not any worse than slavery, and no one was punished for that.
The dumbed down liberal voters are totally convinced none of the email stuff is true and it is all drummed-up political lies from the right.......
Of course, this is the media song - and the only thing they know.........
Do you think Wiener will clam up or take a plea deal on his "Sexting" an underage female to save his butt? I do!
Great analysis. Personally, I think the most important hierarchy in society is that based on whether you try to live morally, do good things, and are unselfish. Those criteria have obviously lost importance in our nations politics, and this has been abundantly evident for quite awhile now.
In the past journalists did real investigative reporting. Now that’s almost a lost art with journalists becoming paid toadies. It’s the internet and the proletariat that is ever watching via the internet that has the ability to investigate and disseminate to expose.
I think that he was on the Kelly Files last night and he did have a lot to say.
I appreciate what you’re saying but the powers that be are very devious and they have allies in the media who do their bidding. We can watch and we can expose, but they are good a defusing things. People like this can take a clear case grand larceny and make it look look like petty shoplifting.
The point is, they are very, very good at damage control.
They manipulate perceptions and adroitly manage the public’s perception of things all with the help of a compliant media. In fact, they enjoy playing their little games.
Many of these articles refer to ‘a’ laptop or ‘the’ laptop.
In some recently threads, some posters indicated that there are 3 laptops and a thumb drive that were taken from the Weiner residence.
==
If several of those had emails/government documents, that would ruin Huma’s claim that she didn’t know how they got there. Apparently, many of them got there via Huma’s Yahoo email account.
That also muddles her claim that she had to print them at home because she didn’t know how to use the ‘work’ printer.
==
The number of emails/documents did jump drastically from tens of thousands to over 600,000.
==
So, now that Huma has been relegated to the position ‘staffer’, how will that impact the rumor of several weeks ago that she might be appointed Secretary of State in a Clinton presidency?
==
O what a tangled web ...
I wish I can say that you were wrong. I can’t.
Bookmark
I agree. Too many known crooks have been reelected over the years to think it can sink you in and of itself. If you are a lovable rogue you can get away with things.
That said I don’t think H fits the lovable rogue category.
No.
The NSA will now get involved and find their version of the metadata that transited State via Network or Modem/phone line internet & the People/Server involved. Look for major spy breach to be taught in the History books.
Printing that many documents for Clinton to read would require a truckload of copy paper delivered to the Weiner residence on a weekly basis. Weak excuse by Huma. As weak as, "I don't know how those emails got on Weiner's computer."
Likely the end game. NSA/MIL/CIA knew that Obama knew that Clinton was operating an insecure server (heck, he actually exchanged emails with her on it) and as far as we know at this point, Obama did NOTHING to stop her. As CIC, he either took national security extremely lightly or he was complicit in compromising it. Add Lynch to that mix as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.