Replies

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?