quote:

Isnt he the guy that said obama is a secret muslim? or at least used it as a dog whistle, claiming that he (obama) has a secret reason for letting in so many ME people?

quote:

Despite conducting her own government business through a personal “homebrew” server while secretary of state, Hillary Clinton is seen in a newly obtained video lecturing her staff of their “special duty” to recognize the importance of cybersecurity.

“The real key to cybersecurity rests with you,” Clinton says in the 2010 video, which was obtained by FoxNews.com. “Complying with department computing policies and being alert to potential threats will help protect all of us.”

Clinton goes on in the video to underscore the important work the State Department Bureau of Diplomatic Security and IT department were doing to guard against cyber-attacks. She warns hackers try to “exploit” vulnerabilities and penetrate department systems. She then urges staffers to log onto the internal cybersecurity awareness website or subscribe to their “cybersecurity awareness newsletter.”

“Together we can do our part to improve the security of the State Department and of our nation,” Clinton says.

During her interview with the FBI, according to bureau documents released last month, Clinton claimed she could not remember a number of details regarding the training or guidance she received on various areas of department protocol. The interview summary said Clinton “could not recall” any briefing or training regarding the retention of federal records or the handling of classified information.

She also claimed she could not recall receiving guidance on “email policies outlined in the Foreign Affairs Manual.”

The video marks the latest example of how Clinton ran afoul of the very practices she expected others to follow. As Fox News’ Catherine Herridge previously reported, an internal 2011 department cable shows Clinton’s office once told employees not to use personal email for security reasons.

The same year, Clinton skipped a cyber briefing that the department security team put together just for her, according to congressional investigators and an unclassified letter from the State Department.

In 2010, the same year as the video, some State Department officials were voicing concerns about Clinton’s own email and computer setup. A department report found that two Information Resource Management officials had discussed worries about the system and were told it was approved by the legal department staff.

The inspector general report said it “found no evidence that staff in the Office of the Legal Adviser reviewed or approved Secretary Clinton’s personal system.”

Further, the same report detailed a January 2011 incident where an adviser who provided tech support for the Clinton email system notified a Hillary Clinton aide that “he had to shut down the server because he believed ‘someone was trying to hack us and while they did not get in i didnt [sic] want to let them have the chance to.’”

quote:

Now that the final debate is more fully in the rearview mirror, let's revisit the scandal Mrs. Clinton barely discussed in Las Vegas. She'll hide behind the "does not recall" obfuscations she offered to Judicial Watch under oath, but let's consider the context and the source: This is just another lie from a compulsive liar, lying about her national security-endangering email scandal for which nobody has been held accountable -- to the reported chagrin of the career FBI agents and DOJ lawyers who worked the case. Via the Washington Examiner, here we go again:

quote:

Responding to a set of questions under oath last week, Clinton said through her lawyer that she did not recall discussing her server with Bryan Pagliano, the IT aide whose immunity deal was the first to emerge publicly from the year-long FBI probe. "Secretary Clinton states that she does not recall having communications with Bryan Pagliano concerning or relating to the management, preservation, deletion, or destruction of any emails in her clintonemail.com email account," Clinton testified through her lawyer, David Kendall, after raising objections to the question. But emails provided to conservative-leaning Judicial Watch through the Freedom of Information Act show Clinton included Pagliano in discussions about her Blackberry, iPad and server when her network experienced problems in 2012..."Let me take a look at the server to see if it offers any insight," Pagliano wrote in an email to Clinton after she complained to him and Cooper of the "troubles" plaguing her Blackberry. The new records were among the roughly 15,000 emails FBI agents turned over to the State Department at the conclusion of their investigation.

Her testimony was that she "does not recall" ever communicating with Bryan Pagliano, the IT tech who set up and operated her bootleg, unsecure, improper server. That doesn't pass the smell test on its face. She never communicated with the guy who was running this scheme for her? Buying that story requires a "willful suspension of disbelief," ...Beyond the smell test, these newly-released emails identify at least one instance in which Clinton personally emailed Pagliano, seeking assistance when her system was on the fritz (relatedly, you may remember that during a separate bout of server technical difficulties, the State Department actually disabled its official system's virtual defenses in order to try to accommodate her issue). Sec. Clinton reached out to Pagliano for help, and he replied that he was working on the issue. Does anyone believe this was the only time the two interacted? It's a safe bet that she can't recall that either...

In any case, all of this simple fuels the overwhelming public sentiment that Mrs. Clinton is dishonest and untrustworthy. In this week's Quinnipiac poll, a 49 percent plurality called Hillary unfit to be president -- a terrible number for a woman who's campaigning on her experience and qualifications. Fortunately for Democrats, her opponent is the man they were rooting for in the GOP primary, and whose "unfit" rating in that same poll was an unelectable (38/58). Last but not least, even if Clinton had sworn that she'd never conversed with Pagliano about the management of her secret server, without any "recollection" fudging, would that have mattered? Probably not. Remember, Clinton appears to have lied to the FBI about violating protocols by using personal computers in the secure areas (SCIF's) of her residences:

That contradiction resulted in...absolutely nothing. Just like everything else she's done. Being a Clinton means never, ever being held accountable.

quote:


Her testimony was that she "does not recall" ever communicating with Bryan Pagliano

quote:


she did not recall discussing her server with Bryan Pagliano

quote:

Fox News [oh no comrades!] judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano reacted Monday to news of a scandal surrounding the FBI's investigation into the compromising of classified information by Hillary Clinton, which involves the wife of an FBI official and the governor of Virginia:

A top Clinton ally’s political organization gave nearly a half-million dollars to the campaign of the wife of an FBI official who would go on to help oversee the probe into Hillary Clinton’s email practices – a tangled web that is fueling fresh Republican complaints about the investigation.

The Wall Street Journal first reported Sunday night on the connections. According to the Journal, finance records show Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s PAC gave $467,500 to Dr. Jill McCabe’s 2015 state Senate campaign. The Virginia Democratic Party spent an additional $207,788 on the campaign, the Journal reported.

McCabe, who ended up losing to Republican incumbent Dick Black, is married to Andrew McCabe – the FBI’s deputy director.

At the time of the campaign and of McAuliffe’s support, McCabe was associate deputy director. He later was promoted to deputy after the campaign ended, assuming an oversight role in the Clinton email investigation

McAuliffe is also a key ally of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

"There are probably 100 FBI agents who worked on the investigation of Mrs. Clinton-- hardworking men and women in field who gathered evidence and interviewed witnesses--...and are furious at the decision not to prosecute her," Napolitano said on The Kelly File.

"They we're denied the right tools, no grand jury, no subpoena, no search warrant--They are the ones who are leaking information to undermine the decision not to prosecute-- to demonstrate that it was not professionally made-- that it was done for political reasons," he said.

Napolitano said the situation was an issue of the "appearance of impropriety...[that] it looks like its fishy."

"How can this guy be the #2 person in the Justice Department when the person providing the money to his wife himself is being investigated by the FBI?" Napolitano said, referring to McAuliffe.

McAuliffe is being investigated by federal agents over campaign contributions.

"He has an interest in that money going to his wife, and when he has an interest in seeing to it that Mrs. Clinton is not indicted, because that disrupts the financial stream to his wife," Napolitano said.

"Do you see how this crowd has degraded the FBI... and degraded the rule of law?"

quote:

Unbelievably, employees of the Department of Justice, who were responsible for investigating Clinton’s private email scandal, gave Clinton 97 percent of their donations.

The analysis states:

Employees at all the agencies analyzed, without exception, are sending their campaign contributions overwhelmingly to Clinton over her Republican counterpart. Several agencies, such as the State Department, which Clinton once led, saw more than 99 percent of contributions going to Clinton.

And from IRS employees, Clinton received 94 percent of donations. From Department of Education employees this cycle, Trump received three donations totaling $220. Clinton received 724 donations for more than $74,000. In all, she received 99.7 percent of donations from employees of the department. Donations from the State Department, which Clinton ran from 2009 to 2013, were even more slanted in her favor. State Department employees gave Trump 39 donations, for $4,652. Over the same time period, they gave their former boss 2,518 donations, for $425,525.

quote:

A former IT aide at the State Department refused to answer questions posited by Judicial Watch in their ongoing lawsuit over Hillary Clinton’s email server. Sarah Westwood at The Washington Examiner reported yesterday that John Bentel, the former Director of Information Resource Management, invoked the Fifth 90 times after being ordered to testify under oath by a judge when his previous account was ruled inconsistent with the official State Department Inspector General report:

A federal judge in August ordered Bentel to testify under oath because "the record in this case appears to contradict his sworn testimony before the Benghazi Committee."

Bentel told the House Select Committee on Benghazi in June 2015 that he had no knowledge of Clinton's private email server.

However, the State Department inspector general later discovered that Bentel "told employees in his office that Secretary Clinton's email arrangement had been approved by the State Department's legal staff and also instructed his subordinates not to discuss the Secretary's email again," according to the court order.

The email fiasco that’s plagued Hillary touched the Obama White House today when Wikileaks revealed that Clinton’s former Chief of Staff at State, Cheryl Mills, scrambled to remove any traces that President Obama had corresponded with Clinton through her unsecure and unauthorized email server via a pseudonym.

“We need to clean this up – he [Obama] has emails from her – they do not say state.gov,” wrote Mills on March 7, 2015, five days after The New York Times reported that Clinton had a secret email server. Obama had said that he found out about the secret server in the papers. That’s apparently another lie in Hillary’s email saga.

quote:

What was their security-clearance level? What was the legal rationale under which Hillary Clinton quite intentionally shared classified information with her lawyers, including David Kendall, Cheryl Mills, and Heather Samuelson?

As I outlined in last weekend’s column, we know that Clinton’s e-mails were replete with classified information. According to the FBI, the classified e-mails included intelligence graded at the most closely guarded level: eight top-secret e-mails, and seven designated as “special access program” (SAP) information. (While FBI director James Comey’s presentation understandably left this vague, the likelihood is that seven of the eight top-secret e-mails are SAP.) Under President Bill Clinton’s 1995 executive order, top-secret intelligence is information the mishandling of which “could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security.” The SAP designation is added when the unauthorized disclosure of intelligence could compromise critical intelligence-gathering methods or imperil the lives of intelligence sources.

That is why access to this information is so tightly restricted, and its unauthorized disclosure is routinely prosecuted. With that as our backdrop, let’s get two things straight.

First, there is no lawyer exception to the federal criminal law that prohibits the transmission of classified information to unauthorized persons. When the government gives an official a security clearance, that does not mean any lawyer whom the official retains derivatively has one, too. The laws that make it a felony to transmit classified information to a person not authorized to have it apply whether the official transmits such information to the technician who services her private e-mail server or to her lawyers.

Second, merely having a security clearance — even a top-secret security clearance — does not make a person an authorized recipient of all classified information. Dissemination of a great deal of government intelligence, particularly if it is designated as SAP, is restricted to those officials who have been read into the program because they have a government-certified need to know the information in order to perform their duties.

To take a prominent recent example, Paula Broadwell, General David Petraeus’s mistress, had a security clearance. This fact, however, was unavailing to Petraeus when he was prosecuted for disclosing his highly classified journals to her. Regardless of Broadwell’s holding of a security clearance, the transmission of the information to her was not authorized: She had not been read into the intelligence programs alluded to in the journals and did not have a certified need to know the information. Well, on what basis did Clinton share top-secret, SAP information with her many lawyers? It has been reported that Clinton’s principal defense lawyer, David Kendall, has a security clearance and that his firm, Williams and Connolly, has approved facilities for storing classified information, at least at some level of classification. If we assume (as I do) that these things are true, it would still have been illegal for Clinton to transmit top-secret, SAP intelligence to Kendall, and for that information to be stored at the firm.

I also assume (though I have no way of knowing) that, having served as chief of staff to the secretary of state and as a top policymaker at the State Department, Cheryl Mills had a very high-level security clearance from 2009 through 2012 and maintained some grade of security clearance (probably a high one) after she left Foggy Bottom on Clinton’s departure. I also assume that Heather Samuelson had a security clearance and maintained it after leaving the State Department, even though she was a few rungs subordinate to Mills and not nearly as involved in policy matters. Even if these assumptions are correct, that alone would not have made Mills and Samuelson authorized recipients of top-secret, SAP information. In addition to sufficient security clearances, they would have needed to be read into those programs. The government would have to have certified their need to know. That seems unlikely.

Moreover, it certainly would not have been lawful to store such highly classified, restricted-access intelligence on Mills’s and Samuelson’s laptop computers — the ones the Justice Department and the FBI neglected to seize from them by subpoena or search warrant; the ones that Justice obtained in exchange for, astonishingly, a grant of immunity from prosecution and that it agreed the FBI would destroy.

As I’ve previously recounted, FBI director Comey dismissed the significance of Mills’s and Samuelson’s possession of classified information on their laptops because the e-mails they were storing were merely duplicates of what was on Clinton’s private server. It is not enough to say this is no defense; it exemplifies exactly the danger that Congress was targeting in criminalizing the mishandling of classified information. If there is one unauthorized, non-secured copy of a document containing top-secret SAP intelligence, and then two additional copies are made, it becomes three times more likely that the information will be lost, unlawfully disclosed, or stolen by a foreign intelligence service.

That, by the way, is why federal law makes it a felony for people with security clearances to fail to report to the government their knowledge that classified information has been removed from its proper place of custody and has been transmitted or stored elsewhere without authorization. The FBI has revealed that fully 110 of Clinton’s e-mails were classified at the time they were sent or received — not just the eight top-secret (seven SAP) documents but, in addition, numerous documents classified as secret or confidential (as in “(C),” the symbol about which Clinton preposterously claimed ignorance when it showed up in her e-mails).

For argument’s sake, let’s pretend that director Comey is correct that Clinton did not mean for classified information to end up on the non-secure server that she systematically used to conduct business. Let’s even pretend that her gross negligence (or, as Comey put it, her “extreme carelessness”), which resulted in that information’s transmission and storage on the server, should not be prosecuted — notwithstanding that such misconduct perfectly fits the relevant criminal statute.

All that aside, did Clinton, Mills, Samuelson, and Kendall, consistent with their obligations as security-clearance holders, immediately report to the government that they were in possession of classified information that had been removed from its proper place of storage? Recall that the Clinton team began the process of reviewing her e-mails in mid 2014, in anticipation of a formal State Department request that Clinton surrender all e-mails related to her tenure as secretary. So when did the Clinton lawyers report their possession of top-secret, SAP intelligence?

Moreover, rather than simply handing her homebrew server over to the State Department, Hillary Clinton knowingly and willfully transmitted the classified e-mails stored on her server to her lawyers. So, were those lawyers authorized to receive top-secret, SAP information? If they were not, why hasn’t Mrs. Clinton been indicted?

quote:

The more information that drips out about the Clinton e-mail investigation, the more we learn that two key subjects, Hillary confidants Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, got extraordinarily special treatment — concessions that would never be given to subjects in a normal investigation. The primary reason for this is that the Obama Justice Department was never going to charge Hillary Clinton and her accomplices with crimes.

The guise under which Mills and Samuelson got the kid-glove treatment was their status as lawyers. Crucially, this status was the Justice Department’s pretext for resolving that potentially incriminating evidence against them, and against their “client,” Mrs. Clinton, had to be shielded from investigators pursuant to the attorney-client privilege.

Except neither Mills nor Samuelson was eligible to represent Clinton in matters related to the e-mails, including the FBI’s criminal investigation. Moreover, even if they had arguably been eligible, attorney-client communications in furtherance of criminal schemes are not privileged.

I wrote on Tuesday about the jaw-dropping allegation by House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte (R. Va.) that the immunity deals given to Mills and Samuelson were accompanied by at least two “side agreements.” One severely hampered the FBI’s examination of Mills’s and Samuelson’s laptop computers — the ones used to vet e-mails on Hillary Clinton’s server in order to determine which ones would be turned over to the State Department and which ones Clinton would hoard and destroy, falsely claiming that they were all “personal” in nature. The other side deal, astonishing if true, is said to have called for the FBI to destroy the laptop computers after the Bureau’s limited examination was concluded.

In congressional testimony last week, FBI director James Comey did not mention the side deals but did attempt to defend the immunity grant. He claimed it was justifiable because it is always very complicated for investigators when a lawyer’s computer becomes evidence in a criminal probe — it’s “a big meghillah” as he put it.

However colorfully expressed, Comey was making a category error. When a lawyer is implicated in a criminal investigation, which is not all that unusual, searching the lawyer’s computer tends to be complicated because there are likely to be privileged attorney-client communications on it. If the lawyer has a busy practice, many of those communications will have nothing to do with the investigation in which the lawyer is a suspect. That is not an immunity issue. It is a privilege issue. The problem is routinely addressed, without a grant of immunity, by a screening procedure that prevents the prosecutors and agents investigating the case from getting access to any communications that are legitimately protected by attorney-client privilege.

Chairman Goodlatte’s letter indicates that just such a procedure was employed in the limited search of the Mills and Samuelson computers. This underscores that the immunity grant was wholly unnecessary. Granting immunity does nothing to resolve attorney-client privilege complications, just as the screening procedure does nothing to shield the lawyer from prosecution for any non-privileged incriminating evidence.

Mills and Samuelson were given immunity in exchange for surrendering their laptops not because searching lawyers’ computers is complicated, but because the Justice Department had no intention of prosecuting them. That is also why Justice severely limited the FBI’s search of the laptops, just as it severely limited the FBI’s questioning of Mills. Mills and Samuelson were given immunity because Justice did not want to commence a grand-jury investigation, which would have empowered investigators to compel production of the laptops by simply issuing subpoenas. Justice did not want to use the grand jury because doing so would have signaled that the case was headed toward indictment. The Obama Justice Department was never going to indict Hillary Clinton, and was determined not to damage her presidential campaign by taking steps suggestive of a possible indictment.

My purpose here is not to rehash these points, all of which I’ve argued before. Instead, I am challenging the premise relied upon by the Justice Department to make evidence unobtainable and the case un-prosecutable, namely: that Mills and Samuelson were properly regarded as lawyers, not suspects.

To the contrary, they were disqualified from acting as attorneys in the Clinton e-mail controversy from the start. It was not merely unethical but unlawful for Mills and Samuelson to represent Clinton in this matter. Legally, they were barred from providing representation; factually, they do not appear to have been much engaged in the practice of law at the time they were drafted to vet e-mails. Their usefulness to Clinton was as accomplices, not legal advisers. Their claim of lawyer status is better understood as a scheme to obstruct the investigation by concealing potentially incriminating evidence under bogus assertions of attorney-client privilege. In this, they were indulged rather than challenged by the Justice Department.

To begin with, Mills and Samuelson should have been disqualified from representing Clinton in connection with the e-mail investigation under attorney ethics rules. Both were both subjects of the FBI’s investigation — suspected to be coconspirators of each other and of Mrs. Clinton. When a lawyer is a participant in the facts under investigation, she is burdened by intractable conflicts of interest — e.g., the client is entitled to objective advice about the merits of cooperating with the prosecutor, but how can the lawyer provide such advice if the client’s cooperation could subject the lawyer to prosecution? Consequently, a lawyer’s participation in the facts under investigation triggers the ethical rule against providing representation when doing so would create the appearance of impropriety.

In the case of Mills and Samuelson, it wasn’t just an appearance. This was textbook impropriety.

Apart from that, Mills and Samuelson were government officials when they first became involved in the matter under investigation: their boss’s conducting of government business — including classified business — on a private e-mail system, and failing to comply with federal recordkeeping laws. As I’ve explained a few times (see, e.g., here), attorney ethics rules forbid private lawyers who are former government officials from representing clients in matters in which they were involved while working for the government.

And here, we’re not just talking about ethics rules. As Shannen Coffin points out, federal statutory law makes it a crime for former government officials to try to influence the government in connection with matters they were involved in while working for the government. Mills and Samuelson are former State Department officials who, posing as private lawyers for Mrs. Clinton, sought to influence the government’s criminal investigation of Clinton — an investigation that arose out of then-secretary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail system while Mills and Samuelson worked for her and communicated with her through that very system.

Under ethical canons and federal law, then, there could not have been a legitimate attorney-client relationship between Clinton and either Mills or Samuelson for purposes of the e-mail investigation. But even if we assume for argument’s sake the permissibility of such a relationship, there remain other compelling reasons to reject the claim that the communications between Clinton and these lawyers were privileged.

Most obviously, the attorney-client privilege only covers legal advice. In directing Mills and Samuelson to vet her e-mails, Clinton was not seeking their legal advice. She was delegating to them a ministerial, non-lawyer task that every official who has retained government files is expected to perform upon leaving government service — a task Clinton could and should have done for herself. This isn’t complicated. For the vast majority of federal officials, the direction to “place in the agency’s files any documents you possess relating to agency work” is not the stuff of legal jeopardy.

If I’m the manager of a baseball team and I send a guy who happens to be a lawyer out to play catcher, his admission to the bar does not turn the signals he flashes to the pitcher into privileged communications. A non-lawyer job does not become a lawyer job just because a lawyer is asked to do it. And criminal conversations are not shrouded in attorney-client privilege by having lawyers participate in them.

I want to be clear here. Let’s say Mrs. Clinton called her principal lawyer, David Kendall, and said, “I’m worried that there’s classified information in the private e-mails the State Department is asking me to turn over, what should I do?” No one, least of all me, would suggest that this is not a privileged communication that should be shielded from government investigators. But let’s say Clinton tells Mills and Samuelson, “I’m too busy to sort through 62,000 e-mails and pick out the ones that relate to State Department business. You two figure it out.” That’s a directive Clinton could have given to any non-lawyer subordinates. The status of Mills and Samuelson as lawyers would not tuck this mundane process under a cone of attorney-client privilege.

Which brings us to another reason for rejecting assertions of attorney-client privilege in the Clinton e-mail scenario: the so-called crime-fraud exception. As we’ve noted before, even if there is a formal, legitimate attorney-client relationship, communications will not be shielded by privilege if (a) the client was committing or plotting a crime or fraud, and (b) the communications between attorney and client were in furtherance of that scheme. If Clinton, Mills, and Samuelson were complicit in obstruction of justice, destruction of government files, the mishandling of classified information, or other crimes, their conversations to facilitate those unlawful objectives are not protected by the attorney-client privilege.

Finally, it is worth considering how much law Ms. Mills and Ms. Samuelson were practicing after they left government service. Clinton has a legion of top-flight attorneys; how much was she really relying on Mills and Samuelson for legal services as opposed to other kinds of collaboration?

Mills did not function as a lawyer in her years as Clinton’s top State Department staffer. When she left State at the conclusion of Clinton’s tenure, she began running a development company called BlackIvy Group, which builds enterprises in Africa. She also sat on the board of the Clinton Foundation. She does not appear to have joined an established law firm. Nevertheless, according to the FBI’s interview report, she told investigators that, “immediately after completing her service” at State, she became “personal counsel for Hillary Clinton.”

Samuelson has been in the Hillary orb since 2002, when she became a young staffer in political-action committees that supported the then-senator. After working in Mrs. Clinton’s failed 2008 presidential campaign, Samuelson was invited to join Clinton at the State Department. She served as a senior advisor and White House liaison, apparently under Mills’s supervision. When Clinton and Mills left State, Samuelson lateraled to the Obama White House Counsel’s office for a little over a year, until April 2014. Shortly after that, according to the FBI’s report of its interview with Samuelson, she says she became “Clinton’s personal attorney.”

Interestingly, Mills told the FBI that Samuelson had “joined Mills’ firm” in order to become Clinton’s personal attorney. Samuelson appears not to have said anything to the FBI about Mills’s having a law firm. Her Linked-in profile page, in which she describes herself as a Washington-area attorney specializing in government administration (not criminal defense), says nothing about working at a Mills law firm. Nor, oddly, does it mention what would be, if she really had it, the most prominent job she has ever held: personal attorney for a major-party candidate for president of the United States. That is omitted even though Samuelson takes pains to list her other, less flashy work experience, going back 14 years.

Last year, Politico reported that Mills had “tapped Samuelson to help her and Clinton’s other lawyer, David Kendall, to screen Clinton’s emails[.]” If the scope of her work as Clinton’s “personal attorney” was broader than the e-mail caper, that is not apparent. Even when Samuelson was among the lawyers present at Clinton’s testimony before the House Benghazi Committee in October 2015, the main topic was the e-mails.

The Politico report elaborates that Samuelson moved to Brooklyn in 2015 to work on Clinton’s presidential campaign. But she never formally started. Once Clinton’s e-mail became a public controversy, “things got really complicated,” according to an unidentified friend of Samuelson’s. As we should recall, the New York Times broke the news of Clinton’s private e-mail system on March 3, 2015, rocking the nascent campaign just a few weeks before Clinton formally announced her presidential bid on April 12. Plainly, this called unwanted attention to the fact that Samuelson, who did the first cut through Clinton’s e-mails, apparently “missed” thousands of government-related e-mails that Clinton insisted were “personal” and undertook to delete and destroy.

Maybe Mills really does have a thriving law firm, with Samuelson working by her side. But from here, it looks like their “practice” mainly involves covering Clinton’s tracks.
To summarize, Hillary Clinton systematically used a private server system to conduct government business because she hoped her e-mails would never see the light of day. In 2014, when the State Department requested that she turn over any State-related documents in her possession, she knew this would be a huge political problem and portended legal jeopardy. In an attempt to insulate herself and impede any potential criminal investigation, she transmogrified a ministerial review of her retained files into a legal matter: This simple task of locating and producing government-related e-mails was delegated to lawyers so it could be smothered in attorney-client privilege.

The two lawyers she chose, Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, were trusted, long-time cronies who were actually disqualified from representing her on the matter because of their involvement in the facts and their status as former government officials. Furthermore, because their consultations appear to have involved mishandling of classified information, destruction of government files, and obstruction of official investigations and court cases, pertinent communications among Clinton, Mills, and Samuelson would not be shielded by attorney-client privilege in any event.

Yet, the Justice Department and the FBI accepted the claim that Mills and Samuelson were lawyers for Clinton. Accordingly, they turned a blind eye to potentially conspiratorial communications, immunized their potential criminal conduct, consciously avoided relevant evidence as if it were legitimately privileged, and reportedly even agreed to destroy evidence for Mills and Samuelson — after ostensibly investigating them for . . . destroying evidence.

Ms. Mills and Ms. Samuelson have law degrees, just like Mrs. Clinton does. But in this case they were not lawyers. They were suspects. And that’s how they should have been treated.

quote:

It turns out even Hillary Clinton's closest advisers were taken aback by her use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state. Thanks to WikiLeaks, we find out just what the Center for American Progress's Neera Tanden, Clinton adviser, thought about Clinton's email use and whether anyone has faced accountability for it.

quote:

In the thousands of emails WikiLeaks has released, we've found out just how panicked Team Clinton was over her inappropriate and dangerous decision to send and receive potentially classified information via an unsecure server. We've also learned that despite what President Obama told the media last year, he knew of Clinton's private server way before it became public...

Like Tanden, many are probably wondering who is going to be held accountable.