Posted on 07/02/2019 7:35:40 AM PDT by OfficialJudicialWatch
eather Samuelson also testifies under oath in Judicial Watch court-ordered deposition that, contrary to what she told the FBI, she was in fact aware that Clinton used private email account as secretary of state
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s White House Liaison at the State Department, and later Clinton’s personal lawyer, Heather Samuelson, admitted under oath that she was granted immunity by the U.S. Department of Justice in June 2016:
Samuelson: I was provided limited production immunity by the Department of Justice.
Judicial Watch: And when was that?
***
Samuelson: My recollection, it was June 2015 [later corrected to 2016].
A complete copy of her deposition transcript is available here. Samuelson also revealed that, contrary to what she told the FBI in 2016, she was, in fact, aware that Sec. Clinton used a private email account while secretary of state:
Judicial Watch: Ms. Samuelson, when did you first become aware that Secretary Clinton used the e-mail address hdr22@clintonemail.com while she was at the State Department?
Samuelson: I believe I first became aware when either she e-mailed me on personal matters, such as wishing me happy birthday, or when I infrequently would receive e-mails forwarded to me from others at the department that had that e-mail address listed elsewhere in the document.
(Excerpt) Read more at judicialwatch.org ...
OfficialJudicialWatch
Since Jul 2, 2019
There is a conspiracy against the American People and it seems that just about everyone in government is in on it.
Samuelson: I was provided limited production immunity by the Department of Justice.
Judicial Watch: And when was that?
Samuelson: My recollection, it was June 2015 [later corrected to 2016].
ON OR ABOUT 2016-——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?
By any chance does that void the immunity deal?
There is a conspiracy against the American People and it seems that just about everyone in government is in on it.
**************
The Deep State is much deeper than most people realize.
It’s like a bad spy movie involving a third-world government. Or perhaps a slap stick comedy. The Secretary of State of the United States reading, sending, receiving sensitive emails with national security secrets, threats and classified or top secret intelligence over Google’s public Gmail. We expect this from chatting soccer moms but not from the top diplomat of the United States and her aides. (Excerpt) Read more at truepundit.com ...
Terming Clinton’s use of her private email system, “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency,”
Lamberth wrote in his MEMORANDUM OPINION:
".....then-President Barack Obama’s State and Justice Depts fell far short.
So far short that the court questions, even now, whether they are acting in good faith".......
<><> Did Hillary Clinton use her private email as Secy of State to thwart Obama's lofty stated goal for "transparency"?
<><> Was the State Department’s attempt to settle this FOIA case in 2014 an effort to avoid searching –
and disclosing the existence of – Clinton’s missing emails?
<><>And has State ever adequately searched for records in this case?
“There is a conspiracy against the American People and it seems that just about everyone in government is in on it.”
We do not engage them, hold them accountable, remove them, charge them, imprison them. Around 15% of us vote, largely ignorantly or misinformed.
We stupidly allow them the freedom to conspire against us, to not represent us, to fleece us, to destroy classic American values and virtues, to pervert our children.
If Trump cannot fix this within the system, then no one can. 2020 will tell the tale of which box will have to be used next.
Obama used a pseudonym in emails with Clinton, FBI documents reveal
By JOSH GERSTEIN and NOLAN D. MCCASKILL / 09/23/2016 06:27 PM EDT / Updated 09/24/2016
President 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.”
Partisan fireworks over Clinton aides’ immunity deals
By RACHAEL BADE, politico.com
The State Department has refused to make public that and other emails Clinton exchanged with Obama. Lawyers have cited the “presidential communications privilege,” a variation of executive privilege, in order to withhold the messages under the Freedom of Information Act.
The report doesn’t provide more details on the contents of that particular email exchange, but says it took place on June 28, 2012, and had the subject line: “Re: Congratulations.”
It may refer to the Supreme Court’s ruling that day upholding a key portion of the Obamacare law.
It’s been known since last year that Obama and Clinton corresponded occasionally via her private account, but the White House has insisted Obama did not know she relied on it routinely and exclusively for official business.
A report on the FBI’s June 7, 2016 interview with “Guccifer” confirms FBI Director James Comey’s claim that Lazar falsely asserted that he’d surreptitiously accessed Clinton’s server.
“Lazar began by stating that he had never claimed to hack the Clinton server. [An FBI agent] then advised that Fox News had recently published an article which reported that Lazar had claimed to hack the Clinton server. Lazar then stated that he recalled the interview with Fox News, and that he had lied to them about hacking the Clinton server.”
As much as I admire Sen Charles Grassley tenacity when is any members HC team going to jail?
I don’t know if it’s ever been confirmed that this personal lawyer had a sufficient level security clearance to have reviewed any of the emails on HRC’s illegal server, let alone the highly classified ones.
The wheels of justice grind slowly...but they grind exceedingly well.
It’s pointless to continue to pursue Hillary... she will NEVER be indicted, much less convicted.
“There is a conspiracy against the American People and it seems that just about everyone in government is in on it.”
We do not engage them, hold them accountable, remove them, charge them, imprison them. Around 15% of us vote, largely ignorantly or misinformed.
We stupidly allow them the freedom to conspire against us, to not represent us, to fleece us, to destroy classic American values and virtues, to pervert our children.
We’re losing daylight. There are statutes of limitations.
They're not. Laws are for the little people.
Excellent point.......
Remember these were the heady days of “anything goes”....when Hillary was a shoo-in.
None of this was supposed to see the light of day.
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.