Posted on 02/12/2019 7:26:39 AM PST by Red Badger
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today it received 215 pages of records from the U.S. Department of Justice revealing former FBI General Counsel James Baker discussed the investigation of Clinton-related emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop with Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall. Baker then forwarded the conversation to his FBI colleagues.
The documents also further describe a previously reported quid pro quo from the Obama State Department offering the FBI more legal attaché positions if it would downgrade a redaction in an email found during the Hillary Clinton email investigation “from classified to something else.”
The newly obtained emails came in response to a May 21 order in a January 2018 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed after the DOJ failed to respond to a December 4, 2017 FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-00154)). Judicial Watch seeks:
All records of communications, including but not limited to, emails, text messages and instant chats, between FBI official Peter Strzok and FBI attorney Lisa Page; All travel requests, travel authorizations, travel vouchers and expense reports of Peter Strzok. All travel requests, travel authorizations, travel vouchers and expense reports of Lisa Page.
On October 28, 2016, the day that Comey sent a letter to Congress regarding the FBI’s discovery that the Weiner laptop contained Clinton’s emails. Hillary Clinton’s personal lawyer David Kendall, within hours, emails Baker requesting a call “ASAP” about the Comey letter. Baker describes his follow-up call to senior FBI officials:
I received the email below from David Kendall and I called him back. Before doing so I alerted DOJ via email that I would do that.
[Redacted paragraph]
He said that our letter was “tantalizingly ambiguous” and made statements that were “inchoate and highly ominous” such that what we had done was worse than transparency because it allows people to make whatever they want out to make out of the letter to the prejudice of Secretary Clinton.
I told him that I could not respond to his requests at this time but that I would discuss it with others and get back to him.
I suggest that we have some kind of follow up meeting or phone call with this group either this evening or over the weekend to address this and probably other issues/questions that come up in the next 24 hours. Sound reasonable?
Baker’s heads up on the Kendall call was sent to:
Then-Director James Comey; since fired; Then-Associate Deputy Director David Bowdich, who later replaced Andrew McCabe as deputy director; Michael Steinbach, the F.B.I.’s former executive assistant director for national security; Then-Assistant Director of Counterintelligence E.W. Priestap, now retired; James Rybicki, former chief of staff to Comey; FBI intelligence analyst Jonathan Moffa; Former Acting Assistant Director Jason V. Herring; Michael Kortan, FBI assistant director for public affairs, now retired; Former principal deputy general counsel Trisha Anderson; Strzok and Page
The emails show that a conference call for the above senior officials was set up for the next day by Peter Strzok. (Two days before the election, on November 6, Comey sent a second letter reporting that the FBI’s review of the Weiner laptop material would not change his “conclusion” that Hillary Clinton should not be prosecuted.)
On October 13, 2016, former FBI attorney Lisa Page sent an email, which apparently references a related Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit and further discusses a previously reported quid pro quo offer from the State Department:
Jason Herring will be providing you with three 302s of current and former FBI employees who were interviewed during the course of the Clinton investigation. These 302s are scheduled to be released to Congress in an unredacted form at the end of the week, and produced (with redactions) pursuant to FOIA at the beginning of next week. As you will see, they describe a discussion about potential quid pro quo arrangement between then-DAD in IOD [deputy assistant director in International Operations Division] and an Undersecretary at the State Department whereby IOD would get more LEGAT [legal attaché] positions if the FBI could change the basis of the FOIA withhold re a Clinton email from classified to something else. [Emphasis added]
The lawsuit also forced the release of a November 6, 2016, email by then-FBI official Peter Strzok telling Bowdich, Priestap, Rybicki, Page, former FBI General Counsel James Baker and others: “[Redacted], Jon and I completed our review of all of the potential HRC work emails on the [Anthony Weiner] laptop. We found no previously unknown, potentially classified emails on the media.”
As Judicial Watch previously reported, there were at least 18 classified emails found on the Weiner laptop by the FBI. Paul Sperry’s RealClear Investigations report revealed that only 3,077 of the 340,000 emails “were directly reviewed for classified or incriminating information.”
The new records also include a September 2, 2016, email that Comey forwards containing a press release issued that day by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), in which Grassley criticized the FBI for not publicly releasing many unclassified records related to the Clinton email-server investigation, as demanded by Congress. In his cover note responding to Grassley’s charge, Comey tells his top aides, “To be great is to be misunderstood.” Page then responds with, “Outstanding.”
On October 23, 2016, Strzok forwarded to Page and others the Wall Street Journal article revealing that Andrew McCabe’s wife had received a half million dollars for her Democratic state senate campaign. Page responded that the article, “shaded or omitted or mischaracterized” facts “in order to get out the story [the reporter] wanted to tell.” She claimed the WSJ story was just “another depressing chapter in this whole post-investigation saga.”
“It is big news that, just days before the presidential election, Hillary Clinton’s personal lawyer pressured the top lawyer for the FBI on the infamous Weiner laptop emails,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “These documents further underscore that the fix was in for Hillary Clinton. When will the Justice Department and FBI finally do an honest investigation of the Clinton email scandal?”
Last month, United States District Judge Royce C. Lamberth ruled that discovery can begin in Hillary Clinton’s email scandal. Obama administration senior State Department officials, lawyers, and Clinton aides will now be deposed under oath. Senior officials — including Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, and FBI official E.W. Priestap — will now have to answer Judicial Watch’s written questions under oath. The court rejected the DOJ and State Department’s objections to Judicial Watch’s court-ordered discovery plan. (The court, in ordering a discovery plan last month, ruled that the Clinton email system was “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.”)
Judicial Watch’s discovery will seek answers to:
Whether Clinton intentionally attempted to evade the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by using a non-government email system; whether the State Department’s efforts to settle this case beginning in late 2014 amounted to bad faith; and whether the State Department adequately searched for records responsive to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request.
###
“Nothing to see here”
FReeps won’t get it.
“Covering it all up.”
Not THAT well, as it’s all coming out, but per Post #17, who’s going to risk BJ’s wife’s handlers’ wrath?
My good friend was there, 12 years old, and clearly remembers the events.
Obama used a pseudonym in emails with Clinton, FBI documents reveal
By JOSH GERSTEIN and NOLAN D. MCCASKILL, 09/23/2016
Pres Barack Obama used a pseudonym in email communications with Hillary Clinton and others, according to FBI records made public Friday. The disclosure came as the FBI released its second batch of documents from its investigation into Clinton’s private email server during her tenure as secretary of state.
The 189 pages the bureau released includes interviews with some of Clinton’s closest aides, such as Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills; senior State Department officials; and even Marcel Lazar, better known as the Romanian hacker “Guccifer.”
In an April 5, 2016 interview with the FBI, Abedin was shown an email exchange between Clinton and Obama, but the longtime Clinton aide did not recognize the name of the sender. “Once informed that the sender’s name is believed to be a pseudonym used by the president, Abedin exclaimed: ‘How is this not classified?’” the report says. “Abedin then expressed her amazement at the president’s use of a pseudonym and asked if she could have a copy of the email.”
“Trump needs to something decisive like this otherwise the indictments at SDNY, DC and Chicago kangaroo courts will eat him up.”
I ideally picture a scene during his 2021 inauguration like the baptism of Michael Corleone’s niece, haha.
Just wondering.....
<><> Who transported S/Of/S Hillary’s server from NY to NJ’s Platte River Networks?
<><>Did the Secret Service (who Hillary insists had been guarding it since it was really Bill’s Library/Foundation asset) accompany and supervise the transport of the server?
<><> Per the interview with Platte River Networks, did they just take it, lock it up, not power it up, connect it to the internet, or not have it functioning as an active email server?
<><> Was there continuity of server activity between May 2013 to August 2015, or did the server go off-line starting in June 2013?
<><> Who received actual server in NJ - the name of the Platte River Networks employee/technician? What WAS it - make/model/form factor, etc.?
<><> Did the Clinton Foundation (or issuer of the RFP on Hillary’s behalf) indicate that the company that would provide data services qualified to handle national-security-level data?
<><> In various interviews and reports, Platte River Networks repeatedly stated they were to “upgrade, manage, and secure” the server. What - specifically - does that mean?
<><> What did Hillary’s RFP/contract order the data center to do specifically?
<><> Does Platte River Networks have sufficient security clearance to handle this type of contract?
<><> What were the firewall protocols in place at the time?
<><> Who - by name - had access to the server, and the administrative authorization to wipe and cleanse the server? When was that done?
<><> Does “upgrade, manage, and secure” the server mean that they PRN was given the task to remove all data from the server when it received it in June 2013?
<><> Was malware or antivirus also on the server?
<><> Was the inherent firewall, virus protection, or operating system “upgraded, managed, and secured”?
<><> Any incidents reported such as DOS attack, hacking, etc.? What were they? How were they resolved?
<><> Other than arranging for the server to be moved from NY to NJ, what was the Denver company contracted to do in relation to maintaining the server?
<><> What tangible evidence is there that the server arrived in functioning condition, was being used as an email server, was “upgraded, managed, and secured”, then wiped just prior to seizure by the FBI?
<><> Were normal and regular backup procedures executed on the server, and where would the back ups be kept?
<><> If no backups were taken, was there a disaster recovery location?
<><> Where was that? If no backups and no disaster recovery, what was the plan if the equipment failed or found to have been wiped of any functionality?
<><> Were any foreign nationals employed at Platte River Networks, or at Datto, that had access to the Clinton server?
FBI Talks to Hillary’s Lawyer About Her Weiner Problem
Now with a proper headline, I can read the article
Stay freep.
Sen Charles Grassley writes to express concerns about the process by which Congress was allowed to view the Wilkinson letters (an atty for Hillary aides Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson) that inappropriately restricted the scope of the FBI’s investigation, and that the FBI inexplicably agreed to destroy the laptops knowing that the contents were the subject of Congressional subpoenas and preservation letters.
“These limitations would necessarily have excluded, for example, any emails from Cheryl Mills to Paul Combetta in late 2014 or early 2015 directing the destruction or concealment of federal records. Similarly, these limitations would have excluded any email sent or received by Secretary Clinton if it was not sent or received by one of the four email addresses listed, or the email address was altered. “Further, the Wilkinson letters memorialized the FBI’s agreement to destroy the laptops. This is simply astonishing given the likelihood that evidence on the laptops would be of interest to congressional investigators. “The Wilkinson letters raise serious questions about why DOJ would consent to such substantial limitations on the scope of its investigation, and how Director Comey’s statements on the scope of the investigation comport with the reality of what the FBI was permitted to investigate.” Full text of the letter follows:
The Wilkinson letters raise serious questions about why DOJ would consent to such substantial limitations on the scope of its investigation, and how Director Comey’s statements on the scope of the investigation comport with the reality of what the FBI was permitted to investigate. So we can better understand the Department’s basis for agreeing to these restrictions, please respond to the following questions as soon as possible, but no later than October 19, 2016:
1. What is the basis for the FBI’s legal authority—in any circumstance—to destroy records which are subject to a congressional investigation or subpoena?
2. Why did the FBI agree to terms that allowed it to destroy both laptops?
3. Has the FBI, in fact, destroyed any evidence acquired from the laptops or the laptops themselves?
4. Is there any circumstance in which an email from Ms. Mills to Mr. Combetta (and only Mr. Combetta) in December of 2014 or March of 2015 discovered on Ms. Mills’ laptop or Ms. Samuelson’s laptop would have been turned over to the investigative team under the terms of the Wilkinson letters? If so, please explain.
5. Given that the range of emails the FBI could view under the terms of the Wilkinson letters were only those sent or received while Secretary Clinton was Secretary of State, how did the FBI intend to investigate the laptop files for evidence of possible intentional destruction of records or obstruction of evidence given the fact many of those emails were out of the allowed date range?
6. Did the filter team identify any emails that were otherwise responsive but were not turned over to the investigative team because they were privileged? Did anyone create a privilege log for such emails?
7. How many total documents were reviewed by the filter team from both laptops? Of those, how many were deemed privileged? Of the total, how many were sent to the investigative team?
8. How many total documents were withheld from the investigative team because they fell out of the date range imposed by the June 10, 2016 agreements?
9. How many of the documents acquired by the FBI from both laptops were classified? Please list each document, the classification level, and the classifying agency.
10. The Wilkinson letters apparently provided for different treatment of email fragments from Secretary Clinton’s email addresses on the “clintonemail.com” domain versus her email addresses on the “blackberry.net” domain. Specifically, email fragments without a date sent to or received by either of the clintonemail.com addresses were included, while email fragments without a date that were sent to or received by either of the blackberry.net addresses were excluded. Please explain the difference in treatment of these email addresses.
11. The Wilkinson letters included a caveat that the FBI was not assuming custody, control, or ownership of the laptops for the purpose of any request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
a. How does that statement square with the reality that the FBI had both laptops in its possession?
b. Has DOJ ever used that statement or a similar statement to avoid compliance with FOIA?
Just because YOU haven't heard anything doesn't mean that nothing is going on behind the scenes.
The documents also further describe a previously reported quid pro quo from the Obama State Department offering the FBI more legal attaché positions if it would downgrade a redaction in an email found during the Hillary Clinton email investigation “from classified to something else.”
Good to know what the FIB’s priorities are. Overseas paid vacations for you and your family it is. These are the types of plums that keep the “rank and file” fully supportive of the Deep State.
That is a crime.
Even if they were discussing a deal involving confidential info, it is still a significant classification. Confidential info can be used by intel experts to build a picture of more highly classified activity. That is the whole point of military intelligence analysis.
Also sure if someone speaks, their family and their lives will be on the line! These people play for keeps!!!!
The FBI used to be a top detective agency that was respected worldwide. After Obama and Comey it is now a big joke for everybody all over the world. Very sad.
the deep state and swamp sit firm, in the drivers seat.
and on the next thread, dangling from the treason tree.
It’s not too far fetched, of course the CIC can do this under the aegis of law. But we really had and still have a coup d’état going on. You can’t just put these people though a normal court proceeding because this essentially a declaration of WAR by the instigators of the coup. He has to protect from and enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. Trump can’t continue to believe that the judicial system will somehow uphold justice especially since it has been the DOJ itself that has fomented the coup.
Remember when Mia Farrow told Al Pacino that Senators and politicians don’t have people killed. He quickly disabused her of that quaint notion.
The practical reality is that in spite of laws proclaiming it, there is no protection for whistle-blowers.
All Trump has to do is suspend the National Security Clearances of Mueller and his team for failing to report the leak of Roger Stone’s raid to CNN while the case was under seal. So not only the leak, but knowing of the leak and not reporting it is also a felony.
Without security clearance the communications of the insurrectionist U.S. Intelligence community become subject to public exposure.
The article below is filled with details and analysis also the summary below is the text - there are screenshot images and a scribd document.
Summary:
There were only three people in the Mid-Year-Event team granted authority to physically do the Clinton email review.
They were: FBI Agent Peter Strzok, FBI Attorney-1 Tashina “Tash” Gauhar, and an Sally Moyer, the lead analyst.
FBI Agent Peter Strzok says they were able to cull the number of emails through the use of “some amazing things to rapidly de-duplicate” the emails.
The New York FBI case agent assigned to the Weiner investigation, a certified Digital Extraction Technician, as well as the FBI forensics team in Quantico say it was impossible to use the conflicted metadata to “de-duplicate” the emails.
Someone is lying.
FBI Director James Comey said his investigative unit used some form of “wizardry” to review the content of the Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner laptop.
The Inspector General makes no determination as to who is telling the truth; and never asked the question of whether an actual review of the laptop emails took place.
The FBI still has possession of the Abedin/Weiner laptop?
.Email chain
https://www.scribd.com/document/399428924/Kendall-to-Baker-Email-October-28-2016
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.