Who was there? ( blog repost from September 6, 2016)

Next up:

Who was there???

wp-1473174957055.jpg

Above is the first paragraph of the FBI Interview Notes.  It lists Hillary Clinton’s attorneys present for this interview.  One name is redacted and one can only wonder why?

On July 2, 2016, the New York Times reported:

Accompanying Mrs. Clinton into the meeting were her lawyer David E. Kendall; Cheryl D. Mills and Heather Samuelson, longtime aides who are also lawyers; and two lawyers from Mr. Kendall’s firm, Williams & Connolly, Katherine Turner and Amy Saharia.

Eight officials from the F.B.I. and the Department of Justice conducted the interview, according to a person who was familiar with the substance of the session but declined to be named because the meeting was private. This person characterized the meeting as “civil” and “businesslike.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/03/us/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi-emails.html?_r=1

So, was the other attorney Amy Saharia, as the New York Times reported back in July, or was it someone else?  Why on earth redact the name, if it was Saharia???

There are several redactions on who was present from the DOJ.  The FBI Notes list two people from the DOJ/FBI side and have three names redacted, which comes to 5 names, although the NY Times story says there were 8 DOJ/FBI people present, so who are 3 redacted names + 3 others mentioned in the NY Times story???   Even if that one long block of redaction, after David Laufman’s name is more than one name, we are still left with knowing only 2 names of who was present from the FBI/DOJ and leaves SIX unknowns. Something is very wrong when you compare the NY Times report to the FBI Notes.

Andrew McCarthy and others have explained why Cheryl Mills should not have been present.  McCarthy writes:

“Readers may recall that I suggested back in May that “the fix” was in in the investigation of the Clinton emails. The reason was that the Justice Department was allowing Cheryl Mills – a witness, if not a subject, of the investigation – to invoke attorney-client privilege on behalf of Mrs. Clinton in order to thwart the FBI’s attempt to inquire into the procedure used to produce Clinton’s emails to the State Department. Mills was a participant in that procedure – and it is the procedure in which, we now know, well over 30,000 emails were attempted to be destroyed, including several thousand that contained government-related business.

When she worked for Clinton at State, Mills was not acting in the capacity of a lawyer – not for then-Secretary Clinton and not for the State Department. Moreover, as Clinton’s chief-of-staff, Mills was intimately involved in issues related to Clinton’s private email set up, the discussions about getting her a secure BlackBerry similar to President Obama’s, and questions that were raised (including in FOIA requests) about Clinton’s communications.

That is to say, Mills was an actor in the facts that were under criminal investigation by the FBI. Put aside that she was not Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer while working for the State Department; as I explained in the May column, Mills, after leaving the State Department, was barred by ethical rules from acting as Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer “in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as a public officer or employee.”

There is no way Mills should have been permitted to participate as a lawyer in the process of producing Clinton’s emails to the State Department nearly two years after they’d both left. I thought it was astonishing that the Justice Department indulged her attorney-client privilege claim, which frustrated the FBI’s ability to question her on a key aspect of the investigation. But it is simply unbelievable to find her turning up at Mrs. Clinton’s interview – participating in the capacity of a lawyer under circumstances where Clinton was being investigated over matters in which Mills participated as a non-lawyer government official.

According to the FBI’s report, Mrs. Clinton had four other attorneys (one whose name is deleted from the report for some reason) representing her at the interview. She clearly did not need another lawyer. And it is Criminal Investigations 101 that law enforcement never interviews witnesses together – the point is to learn the truth, not provide witnesses/suspects with an opportunity to keep their story straight, which undermines the search for truth. Why on earth was Cheryl Mills permitted to sit in on Hillary Clinton’s FBI interview?

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/439676/clintons-fbi-interview-what-was-cheryl-mills-doing-there

Something smells very wrong here.  I wonder if perhaps Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch were present to oversee this interview and assure it led nowhere?  Would that even be possible?

We deserve an answer as to who all was present for this kangaroo proceeding!!!

And lest we forget, James Comey folded his cards on an indictment on July 5, 2016, as President Obama was en route to a campaign stop in Charlotte, NC, with Hillary on board Air Force One with him.


Afterthought:

Perhaps the FBI Notes release is a SOS from the FBI to let the American people know the rule of law has been hijacked by the Clintons and Obama.

Leave a comment

Filed under General Interest, Hillary's Email Scandal, Politics, Public Corruption

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s