Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

DC Whispers

Hillary Clinton Did Not Give The FBI 13 Devices Containing Her Emails

Published

on

Hillary Clinton’s lawyers failed to give the FBI at least 13 different mobile devices containing information about Clinton’s private email network clintonemail.com, according to a new FBI document dump.

This revelation comes almost two years after Clinton signed a sworn statement confirming that she turned over all of her emails to federal government investigators.

Hillary Clinton, Facebook

Williams and Connelly, the law firm representing Clinton, gave the FBI two or three smartphones that did not include a SIM card, essentially rendering them meaningless to any investigation into Clinton’s conduct in the email affair.

The 42 pages of documents dumped by the FBI were mostly redacted, making it difficult to ascertain what, exactly, the FBI did while investigating Clinton throughout the presidential campaign.

Trending: Maxine Waters Wants Trump Supporters To Stop Confronting Her

“We are presuming there are still 13 devices at issue. The new records show how badly the Obama Justice Department and FBI mishandled the Clinton email investigation. They get the equivalent of wiped phones from the Clinton lawyers and do nothing?,” said Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton, who has been struggling to retrieve information from the FBI probe.

An FBI insider told Big League Politics that the dumped documents suggest that fired FBI director James Comey was personally managing the investigation instead of the special agent assigned to the case — a highly unusual situation.

“This is the most important case the Bureau had and the case agent in charge of the case is only involved in a third of the case. The case agent is a pasty and case agent (SA) in name only.  Comey ran the case!!!  This case was never conducted according to FBI MIOG (Manual of Investigative Operations) rules,” Chuck Marler, a longtime FBI Special Surveillance Group member, told Big League.

Marler points to the 39 “1A” forms dumped by the FBI, one for each piece of evidence collected in that portion of the investigation. In most of these FBI documents, the Received “By” line is fully redacted.

But in two of the documents, the “By” line features the handwritten term “SA” followed by a redacted portion. “SA” stands for “Special Agent,” meaning, the special agent working the case. Therefore, it is only confirmed that two of the 39 pieces of evidence were formally received by the special agent working the case.

At least one is signed by “FOA,” or “Forensic accountant,” indicating that individuals other than the special agent received some of the evidence and the special agent never signed off on the evidence in question.

Marler points to handwriting inconsistencies — including strict capitalization on some forms and not on others — to make his case that the special agent did not sign off on some of the evidence.

The highly unusual scenario points to a situation in which FBI management, and not an individual special agent or team, was processing evidence.

As Big League Politics reported, the FBI was in possession of a definitive Clinton backup email device the whole time, unbeknownst to most lawmakers and members of the public.

Court records show that the Connecticut-based email storage company Datto handed over a “device” consisting of five or six disks to the FBI in October 2015. Insiders believe the device potentially contains every electronic communication that Hillary Clinton sent or received during her tenure as Secretary of State. James Comey spent his entire FBI investigation missing many Hillary Clinton emails and communications, according to the official version of events.

The FBI handed the device over to the State Department, which has not searched it at all.

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

DC Whispers

Prominent GOP Attorney Says Jim Jordan Accuser Admitted He Was ‘Hoping’ to Get Money

Published

on

A prominent GOP attorney wrote a long defense of Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) on her personal Facebook page yesterday, in which she claimed that one of Jordan’s accusers has admitted to making his accusations on false pretenses.

Cleta Mitchell wrote the following:

“My friend Rep Jim Jordan is under attack by some very disreputable sources. To suggest that Rep Jordan would turn a blind eye to any injustice, wrongdoing, immoral or illegal act is absolutely laughable. Anyone who has known and worked with Jim Jordan, as I have, for nearly a decade knows that Rep Jordan never shies from a fight and that he leads the charge whenever there is a hint of something wrong – even to his own political detriment where others prefer that he remain silent, as they do. He never does.

The question I ask is why are these spurious allegations from disreputable sources being fomented against him now? Who is really behind this? It appears to me to be a concerted effort to smear one of the most honorable gentlemen ever to have served in the US House of Representatives. That is what NBC and other news outlets should be investigating…who is behind this? Can it be sources close to those in the Mueller investigation and the Department of Justice who are uncomfortable with Rep Jordan’s relentless pursuit of the truth behind what they have been doing for the past two years? That is much more likely than that these bizarre accusations are based in any facts whatsoever. We know Jim Jordan. We are only now learning about his accusers and there is something smelly about this entire episode. And yesterday, one of Jordan’s accusers admitted that they were “hoping” to get money … that’s a federal crime. Will the FBI arrest them?”

Mitchell did not specify which accuser was hoping to use the scandal for financial gain, but she is a GOP legal insider.

She confirmed her statement for Big League Politics but did not provide further details at this time.

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Our Privacy Policy has been updated to support the latest regulations.Click to learn more.×

Thanks for sharing!

We invite you to become a Big League Politics insider. Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Send this to a friend