FBI, Vote Hillary, Vote Corruption Trey Gowdy, Jason Chaffetz, Comey, Bl...

##########################################
To me the only way that an interview takes place with the two central witnesses and the subject of the investigation is if the decision has already been made that all three people in that room are not going to be charged it cannot respond yes please I know in our political life sometimes people casually occurring accuse each other being dishonest but if colleagues of ours believe I am lying about when i made this decision please urge them to contact me privately so we can have a conversation about this all I can do is tell you again the decision was made after that because I didn't know what was going to happen in that interview she may be lied during the interview away we could let me finish.
I would also urge you to tell me what tools we have as prosecutors and investigators to kick out of an interview someone that the subject says is their lawyer that's not my point the interviewed never should have taken place if you were going to allow the central witnesses that you needed to prove the case to sit there and listen to the testimony that the subject was going to give it never happened it never happened to you and it's never happened to me or any other prosecutor that I met and I know you've defended the people that were involved in this being great but if it's never happened I wonder why this is a case of first president with respect to that practice the United have never seen in our careers you and I don't control the universe of what's happened I suspect it's very unusual a key fact that maybe was leading to some confusion here is we had already concluded we did have a prosecutable case against Heather Samuelson or Cheryl Mills at that point if they were targets of our investigation.
Maybe would have cancelled the interview but frankly our focuses on the subject the subject that point was Hillary Clinton alright let me go on according to FB i--'s own documents Paul competitor was in his first interview on februari the 18 told FBI agents that he had no knowledge about the preservation order for the Clinton emails correct I don't know the dates of appetite i'm sure it's in the 302 ok but then two and a half months later on made the third his second interview he made a 180 degree turn and he admitted that in fact he was aware of the preservation order and he was aware of the fact that that meant that he shouldn't disturb the Clinton emails correct yeah okay well then I need your help again here because when i was at the Justice Department of Justice your reward for lying to federal agents was an 18 USC 1104 potential obstruction of justice charge it wasn't immunity terms of where you're trying to go with the investigation so low-level guy you're trying to move up in the chain you might think about it differently but it will I didn't buy it you don't think that's important it's very important happens all the time unfortunately very very important sometimes you prosecute that person and their corporations sometimes you try and sign him up but if they lie to an FBI agent after they're given immunity they violated the terms of their immunity agreement oh sure after after the agreement and so that's my point he shouldn't have immunity anymore.
Oh I'm sorry I misunderstood you he lied to us before he came clean under the immunity agreement and admitted that he had had deleted the emails no not according to the FBI's documents he had immunity agreement in December of 2015 these interviews took place in February and March and May of this year 2016 come better competitor.
Okay I'm and I'm then i'm confused misremembering but I don't think that's right ok.
Everything do you think that any laws were broken by Hillary Clinton her lawyers do I think that'll laws were broken.
I don't think there's evidence to establish that ok well I think you're making my point when you say there's no evidence to establish that maybe not in the way she handled classified information but with respect to objective obstruction of justice and you've got a pen here i want to make sure the records clear about the evidence that you didn't have that you can't use to prove so this comes from the FBI's own report says that the FBI didn't have the Clintons personal Apple server used for Hillary Clinton work emails that was never located so the FBI could never examine it an apple macbook laptop and thumb drive that contain Hillary Clinton's email archives was lost so the FBI never examined that to blackberry devices provided the FBI didn't have sim card resti datacards 13 Hillary Clinton personal mobile devices were lost discarded or destroyed with a hammer.
So the FBI clearly didn't examine those various server backups were deleted overtime so the FBI didn't examine that after the State Department my colleague mr. Gowdy here notified his Clinton that our records would be sought by the Benghazi committee copies of her emails on the laptops of both of her lawyer share mills and Harold mills and Heather Samuelson were wiped clean with bleach bit so the FBI didn't review that after those emails were subpoenaed Hillary Clinton's email archive was also permanently deleted from the Platte River network with bleach bit so the FBI didn't review that and also after the subpoena backups of the Platte River server were manually deleted now director hopefully that list is substantially accurate because it comes from your own documents my question to you is this at any one of those in that very very long list to me says obstruction of justice collectively they scream ups obstruction of justice and to ignore them i think really allows not just reasonable rock prosecutors but reasonable people to believe that maybe the decision on this was made a long time ago not to prosecute Hillary Clinton these individuals destroyed documents pursuant or took it out of federal custody pursuant to our subpoena and our discovery as a result they committed crimes my question to you is when I was a chairman and.
I wanted to grant immunity to somebody i had to go notice the department of justice and you were consulted isn't that correct in a particular matter in any matter i don't know whether the FBI is consulted in that circle ok for your for the record yes the Department of Justice does not grant immunity without checking with federal law enforcement to see whether it will impact any ongoing investigation.
That's the reason we have a requirement to give notice when the reverse was occurring you were granting handing out like candy according to some uh immunity did you or to your knowledge Department of Justice of confer with chairman Goodlatte chairman Chaffetz chairman Smith or any of the other chairman who had ongoing subpoenas and investigations not to my knowledge so isn't there a double standard that when you granted immunity to these five individuals you took them out of the reach of prosecution for crimes committed related to destruction of documents or withholding or other crimes pursuant to congressional subpoenas I don't think anybody was given transactional immunity oh really now we have not allowed to make your immunity's public but i'm going to take the privilege of making one part of it public I read them you gave immunity from destruction to both of those attorneys not just turning them over the documents / specifically destruction you did the same thing with these other these other two individuals are Brian and and Paul better you gave them immunity from destruction a director and your opening comments she said this was an unusual case i would say that's the understatement of the year husband of the subject meets with the Attorney General three days before Secretary Clinton is interviewed by the FBI nine people get a sit-in with Secretary Clinton during that interview one of those was a chief of staff Cheryl Mills who was the subject of the investigation five people get some kind of immunity by people get some kind of immunity yet no one has prosecuted three of those people who get immunity take the fifth in front of Congress and one of them doesn't even bother to show up when he subpoenaed supposed to be at that very chair you're sitting at and of course the Attorney General announces that she's going to follow your recommendations even though she doesn't what those recommendations are the only time she's ever done that so of course this was unusual we've never seen anything like this which sort of brings me to the post i like to put up the post that some of talked about which is the post by mr. combat on reddit and you said earlier that you don't know if you examine this during your investigation so let's examine it now i need to strip out a VIPs address from a bunch of archived email.
Basically they don't want the VIPs email address exposed to anyone director when I hear the term stripout email address i think of somebody's trying to hide something somebody's trying to cover up something and it's sort of raises an important question from these two sentences who's the day who wants something hid and who's the VIP who also wants something hit record company is it likely the VIP refraction I just a VIP it's a very very important person according to mr. combat is it likely that person is Secretary Clinton yes sure.
Okay and is it also likely that the day refers to her Secretary Clinton staff and specifically Cheryl Mills I don't know that either Hearst her lawyers or some staff that had tasked him with the production so one other thing that's important on that we could put that back up one other thing that's important is the date the date of the top says July 24th 2014 so whenever I see a date I'm sure you do the same thing I always look at what's happening about that same time frame what may have happened directly before that may be directly after that so I went back to your reports that you guys had given to us the first report back last month august 18 2016 page 15 on page 15 it says during the summer of 2014 state indicated to Cheryl male State Department Cheryl Mills a request for Clinton's work-related emails would be forthcoming State Department give Cheryl Mills a heads up that she's gonna go round up all of secretary Clinton's email on that same page it says the House Select Committee on Benghazi had reached an agreement with the State Department regarding production of documents on july 23rd 2014 just the day before I find kind of interesting then from your report that we got just last week after reviewing stuff all documents stated in and around july 23rd 2014 Paul come better had a conversation with Cheryl Mills and after reviewing in July 24th there's a date again 2014 email from Brian Paglia know Paul combat explain Cheryl Mills was concerns Clinton's then current email address would be disclosed publicly so sure looks to me like it's Secretary Clinton as you said but also that it's Cheryl Mills and Brian Paglia know who are urging mr. combat otoo cover this stuff i'll agree what you read it sure sounds like they're trying to figure out a way to strip out the actual email address from what they produce we're actually trying to strip it all out PSD file everything here's here's here's here's the take away my mind Mills gets a heads up Cheryl Mills gets a heads up in mid-summer of 2014 july 23rd the day before mr. combat is reddit post the Benghazi committee the State Department reach an agreement on production of documents Cheryl Mills has a conversation with paul cabana he goes on reddit then and tries to figure out how he can get rid of all this email even though he's not successful then he has to do it later down the road with bleach bit and then the clincher the clincher.
Just last week he's going online and trying to delete these reddit post he's trying to cover up his tracks he's trying to cover up the cover-up for this reason I intent is awfully hard to prove very rarely i do I defend dance announced ahead of time I intend to commit this crime on this date go ahead and check the code section I'm going to do it that rarely happens so you have to prove about circumstantial evidence on such as whether or not the person intended to set up an email system outside the State Department such as whether or not the person knew or should have known that his or her job involved handling classified information whether or not the person was truthful about the use of multiple devices whether or not the person knew that a frequent email her to her had been hacked and whether she took any remedial steps after being put on notice that your email or someone who's been emailing with you prolifically had been hacked and whether or not and I think you would agree with his director on fault six culpa Tory statements are gold in a courtroom I would rather have a fall sick skull pittore statement than a confession i would rather have someone lie about something and it be provable that that is a lie.
Such as our that I neither sent or received classified information such as that I turned over all of my work related emails all of that to me goes to the issue of intent so I got two more questions than it will be a time for those who may have to prosecute these cases in the future.
What would she have had to do to warrant your recommendation of a prosecution if all of that was not enough because all that's what she did.
If all that's not enough surely you cannot be arguing that you have to have an intent to harm the United States to be subject to this prosecution that's treason that's not a violation this statue.
No I think we have to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a general awareness of the of the unlawfulness of your conduct you knew you were doing something you shouldn't do and then obviously that's the on the space the statute itself then you need to consider so who else has been prosecuted in what circumstances because it's all about prosecutorial judgment but those two things would be the key key questions can you prove that the person knew they were doing something they shouldn't do a general criminal intent general mens rea but the but the way to meet other people similarly the way to prove that is whether or not someone took steps to conceal or destroy what they've done that is the best evidence you have that they knew it was wrong that they lied about it it's often it's very good evidence I will always want to look at what the subject said about their conduct well and there's a lot there's a lot if you saw her initial press conference it all falls under the heading of faults exculpatory statement on that.
Tom mr. chairman but the the director did it you started off by giving us examples of things the Bureau has done and and every one of us is working with the FBI that is that is the FBI that I know but the one that went and saved that girl in North Carolina that is the FBI that I know what concerns me director is when you have father immunity agreements and no prosecution when you are allowing witnesses who happened to be lawyers who happen to be targets to sit in on an interview that is not the FBI that I used to work with so I've been really careful to not criticize you in fact I said it again this morning they wanted to know was he gotten to did somebody corrupting no I just disagree with you but it's really important to me that the FBI be respected and and you you gotta help us understand because it looks to me like some things were done differently that I don't recall being going back when I used to work with and without our deal back to the chair is this not a conscious effort to alter federal records.
I mean the proximity to the date is is just stunning.
Sorry what's the question how is this not a conscious effort to do to alter federal record depending on what the record was exactly what he was trying to do and whether there would be disclosure to the people they were producing a to saying we change this for public for privacy purposes just don't know sitting here these are documents that were under subpoena these federal records are under subpoena their honor under a preservation order did mr. combated destroy documents i don't know where that was true in july of 2014 they're under subpoena did he ultimately destroy federal records mr. competitor oh I have no reasonably be destroyed federal records use bleach bed did he not have the question is what was already produced before use the bleach pit he definitely the reason he wanted immunity was he had done the bleach bit business after it was publicity about the demand from Congress for the records that's a potential not just publicity there's a subpoena right that's pretend there was communication from Cheryl Mills.
There was a preservation order correct yes and he did indeed use bleach bit on these records sure we're okay that's where the guy wouldn't talk to us without immunity and so when you got immunity what did you learn we learned that no one had directed him to do that but he had done it if you screw you really think that he just did this by himself.
I think his account again I don't I never firmly believe anybody except my my wife but but the question is do I have evidence to disbelieve him and I don't his account is credible he was told to do it in 2014 screwed up and didn't do it panicked when he realized he hadn't and the race back in and did it after Congress ask for the records in the new york times wrote about them that was his oh shi t moment but that was incredible.
Again I don't believe people but we did not have evidence to disbelieve that established someone told him to do that no email no phone call nothing the hope was if you've been told to do that that'd be a great piece of evidence if we give him immunity maybe he'll tell us so and so told me to so-and-so asked me to and then we're working up the chain but he did indeed destroy federal records and he was told at some point to do this correct.
Who told him to do that initially when we supposed to do it in december and he didn't do it who told him to do that one of one of Secretary Clinton staff members me i can remember sitting here we know that one of her lawyers might have been Cheryl Mills someone on the team said we don't need those emails anymore get rid of the archive file this is that's unbelievable about this because there's classified information there is there are federal records that were indeed destroyed and that's up that's just the fact batter let's go back to let's go back to this here's the other thing that's a draw to your attention that is new September fifteenth of this year I issued a subpoena from the Oversight and Government Reform Committee on these reddit post four days later they were just they were destroyed or taken down they were deleted.
I would hope the FBI would take that into consideration and again we're trying under a properly issued subpoena to get to this information let's go to heather mills real quick how does the in the 2016 interview with Cheryl Mills she says quote mills did not learn in the interview report that you the interviews summary from the FBI mills did not learn Clinton it was using a private email server until after Clinton's tenure back also you have this interview with mr. pagliaro who said he approached quote peg landing approach Cheryl Mills in her office and related a State Department employees concerns regarding federal records retention and the use of a private server pagliaro remembers mills replying that former secretaries of state had done similar things to include colin powell it goes then onto a page 10 and this is what i don't understand the FBI rights Clinton's immediate aids to include mills Aventine Sullivan and read a redacted name told the FBI they were unaware of the existence of a private server until after club Clinton's tenure and state or when it became public knowledge but if you look back at the email from from heather mills if you go back to 2010 this is to Justin Cooper k mills to Cooper who does not which you where he works for Clinton's he doesn't work for the state department FYI hrc email coming back is server okay Cooper writes back you are funny we're on the same server she knew there was a server when there was a problem with Hillary Rodham Clinton's emails what did they do she called the person who has no background in this is not a State Department employee no security clearance and then tells the FBI well I'd ever knew about that but there's direct evidence to contact contradicts this how do you come to that conclusion write that in the summary statement that she had no knowledge of this that's a question time with the time of the gentleman has expired but the director will answer the question i don't remember exactly sitting here all having done many investigations myself there's always conflicting recollections of fact some of which are essential some which are peripheral I don't remember sitting here about that one but a majority of the American people have come to the conclusion that Hillary Clinton is not honest and cannot be trusted it's about to the one who say that she's dishonest in the latest Quinnipiac poll for example the question being would you say that Hillary Clinton is honest or not.


##########################################