“Clinton aide Cheryl Mills leaves FBI interview … ” Washpost


"Near the beginning of a recent interview, an FBI investigator broached a topic with longtime Hillary Clinton aide Cheryl Mills that her lawyer and the Justice Department had agreed would be off limits, according to several people familiar with the matter.

Mills and her lawyer left the room — though both returned a short time later — and prosecutors were somewhat taken aback that their FBI colleague had ventured beyond what was anticipated, the people said.

Investigators consider Mills — who served as chief of staff while Clinton was secretary of state — to be a cooperative witness. But the episode demonstrates some of the tension surrounding the criminal probe into possible mishandling of classified information involving the leading Democratic presidential candidate. In the coming weeks, prosecutors and FBI agents hope to be able to interview Clinton herself as they work to bring the case to a close."  Washpost


For people who have nothing to hide they seem quite "jumpy."  pl  


This entry was posted in As The Borg Turns, Current Affairs, government, Justice. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to “Clinton aide Cheryl Mills leaves FBI interview … ” Washpost

  1. Bill Herschel says:

    A thousand percent off-topic.
    These guys, not the guy in dark glasses, seem like two or three Americans to me. That would be great if they were there doing something incredibly worthwhile.

  2. Seamus says:

    But the WaPo pulls its punches here as it’s presumably afraid to cross those really in power. There’s a good interview with Snowden in the Columbia Journalism Review as to why this is increasingly the case:

  3. The Clinton machine has gone to great lengths to hide something. They cleaned the home server before turning it over to the FBI. They limited backups at the Denver server to 30 days. They’ve thrown every obstacle they could in front of the investigation. Luckily this Stamford, Connecticut backup firm created a cloud backup that Clinton didn’t know about. This backup is in the hands of the FBI. The whole idea behind clintonemail.com was not convenience. It was about keeping Clinton communications forever out of the reach of the public and the government. If the reason was convenience, why exert so much energy impeding the investigation now? Where’s the convenience in that? The cover up continues.

  4. Jack says:

    The fix is in. The Borg Queen must be protected at all costs. The fear of a President Trump is driving the Borgistas insane. All stops are being pulled to insure the Borg Queen ascends the throne. The all out campaign of fear is being readied for launch this summer. The question is are there any decent men of conscience left in the FBI who can draw the curtain back a little to allow some sunlight?

  5. turcopolier says:

    “Luckily this Stamford, Connecticut backup firm created a cloud backup that Clinton didn’t know about. This backup is in the hands of the FBI.” IMO Obama will tell the AG not to prosecute. IMO she will obey. The FBI may have a rendezvous with destiny approaching. Perhaps there is no there there, but if there is… pl

  6. Fred says:

    And just how insecure is the cloud? Rain metaphors abound.

  7. notlurking says:

    If Obama gives the marching orders to the AG, hopefully that would be exposed……but maybe too late.

  8. rjj says:

    they may be jumpy and have something to hide, but it seems perfectly reasonable to enforce agreed-on discussion limits.

  9. Jackrabbit says:

    NYTimes: It’s OK, everybody does it.
    (I’m exaggerating a bit, but the import is close to that.)

  10. John Minnerath says:

    The Clinton machine.
    I had hoped by now HRC would have her political ambitions thwarted, but more time passes.
    Stalling tactics and constant grinding away by her supporters keeps her in the game.
    Scary thoughts.

  11. turcopolier says:

    If this had been a deposition in a civil law suit I would agree but it was not. This was an interview by the federal police into possible violations of federal law. Am not a lawyer but do not think that someone interviewed by the FBI has a right to negotiate the terms of the interview. My assumption is that when Mills and her lawyer left the room they called someone to get the FBI off their backs. pl

  12. Fred,
    The cloud is much more a marketing concept rather than a technical solution and it is certainly not a security solution.

  13. pl,
    There’s another possible source of Clinton emails. Just read an article about the SVR having a trove of 20,000 emails from the clintonemail.com server obtained through their surveillance of guccifer’s online activities. Supposedly, there is a debate in the Kremlin over whether to release the emails to the public. The source for this report looks pretty damned squirrelly. Perhaps one of our Russian brethren can look for something less squirrelly in the original language. The article mentions a 2013 release of some emails obtained by Guccifer from Blumenthal’s account by RT.
    Unfortunately, this may be just a “Batboy sighted in Central Park” kind of story. But one can hope.

  14. Jackrabbit,
    This is an important article. It points out the real difficulty of ever getting an indictment of Clinton over mishandling of classified information. The DOS does most of its business over unclassified systems. Much of the USG, including major offices of the Pentagon, also relies on unclassified systems to do business. Information is not inherently classified by these people because they do not start from a need to protect their sources and methods of information collection. To those of us who worked around intelligence, this is a real culture shock. This results in information being classified after the fact after us secret squirrels catch wind of it.

  15. robt willmann says:

    I have read and heard of instances, usually in “high profile” or white collar cases, in which parameters were set out in advance of an interview. I think this is done because the interview is voluntary and the FBI would not otherwise have an opportunity to ask questions in this type of setting. I find it a little odd, but the investigators might want to use documented facts to see if Mills will confirm them to establish that someone aided and abetted an offense or did an overt act in a conspiracy, or to describe the pattern and practice of e-mail use by Hillary and the State Department, or to see if she dodges a questions or will lie.
    In my experience we presented only one client to be interviewed by the FBI because he was clean and we could prove it. The first session had the usual two FBI agents plus a forensic accountant, and the two agents did the second session. We did not have any agreements in advance, but they stayed on the subject of activities at a business, asked a lot of questions, and we interrupted only if a question seemed ambiguous or confusing.
    The interview with Mills was obviously not before a grand jury because her lawyer was present, and a witness’s attorney cannot be in the grand jury room.
    Cheryl Mills goes way back with Hillary, when Bill Clinton was elected president, and as a staff lawyer at the Clinton White House, and was in the middle of the impeachment process.
    Unless a person thinks he or she has political protection, or clearly has no exposure, the usually preferred course of action is this–

  16. bth says:

    FBI will need to look busy and thorough until June 7 which is the last Democratic caucus/primary date. Then it seems unlikely there will be any write up until the last congressional in session date in June which is the 24th. Then Congress is back in session pressing to wrap up appropriations bills in July. Republican National Convention is July 18th-21 and Democratic Convention is July 25-28.
    Thus, Friday July 1 or Friday August 5th are the take out the trash days in the news cycle depending on what the FBI finds and the AG’s conclusions on the matter. August 5 might be a good day for President Obama to pardon Petraeus and decline to pursue the email-gate matter against Clinton from his vacation rental on Martha’s Vineyard.

  17. doug says:

    I agree. DT has activated the immune response in the DC elites of the UniParty. From their POV HRC cannot be brought down. What a giant mess.

  18. Nightsticker says:

    Col Lang,
    Actually they do have the right to negotiate
    the terms. They do not even have to consent to an
    interview at all. If they do consent, their
    attorney can propose limits. If it is advantageous
    to the investigation the US Attorney/FBI can agree
    to the limits proposal. In interviews such as this the FBI
    almost always already knows the answers to the questions asked.
    It is worth $5K and 5 years to lie to the FBI in an
    interview [18 US Code 1001]. This is the famous “interview
    trap”. Our legal system allows for several types of response
    to a question from the FBI; a lie or a material misrepresentation
    or withholding are not among them. The FBI loves it when
    an interview subject identifies areas where they prefer
    not to be examined under penalty of law. This frequently
    further focuses/refines the investigation. It still amazes
    me that there is a certain type of criminal and a certain types
    of attorney that think that they “outfox” the FBI in an
    interview. I am not aware of any instance in the last 75
    years wherein anybody [POTUS/AG/anybody], let alone the subject,
    “called” and the planned course of an interview was changed.

  19. turcopolier says:

    Thanks for the correction. You would know. pl

  20. Keith Harbaugh says:

    This story has been savagely attacked by two people who know far more about the law and DOJ than I do:
    1. former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York Andrew C. McCarthy:
    Here is a sample from that story:
    How can it be possible that the FBI is not being permitted by the Justice Department to ask a key witness —
    an accomplice witness —
    about one of the central transactions under investigation?
    The Post rationalizes that
    “it is not completely unknown for FBI agents and prosecutors to diverge on interview tactics and approach.”
    That’s ridiculous. This was not tactical.
    This was not a disagreement over whether to play “good cop/bad cop.”
    This was a disagreement about the substance of the case, about what the FBI is permitted to investigate.
    2. former United States Attorney, District of Columbia Joseph E. diGenova
    That contains a ~7 minute audio interview, in which di Genova says:
    “This is a prizefight that has been fixed.”
    (His emphasis.)

Comments are closed.