FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok, testifies before a House Judiciary Committee joint hearing on “oversight of FBI and Department of Justice actions surrounding the 2016 election” on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, July 12, 2018. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)
Judicial Watch founder Tom Fitton has received 218 pages of emails between former FBI agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page from August 2016. The topic is the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State.
The first revelation shows that FBI officials failed to write up 302 reports (summaries of interviews) for at least four witnesses in the investigation. In one email, Page tells Strzok, FBI intelligence analyst Jonathan Moffa and others that the reports “were never written.” Unfortunately, she doesn’t indicate who the subjects of those interviews were or why they were not written. She writes: “[Redacted] discovered that there were four (I think) 302s that had never been written.”
If one 302 was missing or, for whatever reason, had never been written, it would be an oddity, but it wouldn’t necessarily raise a red flag.
When four are missing, however, it is a different story. Who were the witnesses? What did they tell the FBI interrogators? Something that didn’t quite fit their narrative? Something that perhaps incriminated the former Secretary of State. Because if witnesses close to Clinton simply told the truth, by definition the information would be incriminating to Clinton. We know she sent and received classified information over a private server.
It is significant that an FBI interviewer would fail write up a 302 which is standard FBI operating procedure after any witness contact. This is an anomaly that members of John Durham’s team, who is authorized to request related classified documents, can look into.
This is not the first time important documents related to the Clintons have ‘disappeared.’ According to Fox News, during the 2016 Clinton investigation, two “bankers boxes” of Clinton’s emails went missing. Just like that.
The other new information gleaned from the emails is that FBI officials, particularly then-FBI General Counsel James Baker, were exceedingly accommodating to the requests made by Clinton’s attorney, David Kendall.
On August 16, 2016, Baker emailed then-Associate Deputy Director David Bowditch; Michael Steinbach, former executive assistant director for national security; former Acting Assistant Director Jason V. Herring; Page; former Principal Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson; Michael Kortan, FBI assistant director for public affairs, now retired; James Rybicki, former chief of staff to Comey; and others. He wrote:
I just spoke with David Kendall … I conveyed our view that in order to obtain the documents [FBI investigative material] they are seeking they need to submit a request pursuant to the Privacy Act and FOIA. I said they could submit a letter to me covering both statutes. They will send it in the morning. I said that we would process it expeditiously. David asked us to focus first on the Secretary’s 302 [FBI interview report]. I said OK. [Redacted] We will have to focus on this issue tomorrow and get the 302 out the door as soon as possible and then focus on the rest of the stuff.
In my view, we need to move as quickly as possible on this, but pursuant to David’s oral request last night, we should focus first on Secretary Clinton’s 302…. Is the end of this week out of the question for her 302?
Anderson replies that they need to “coordinate a plan for processing and releasing” Clinton’s 302. One official surprisingly “reminds others that they should process the request “consistent” with other requests.”
Additional emails say that Baker promises to give Kendall “a heads up before they posted the Clinton interview 302 publicly online. I said we would alert him shortly before it appeared on our website.” Which they proceed to do.
What do we make of the compliant behavior of top FBI officials? Did it have anything to do with the “agreement” between Clinton’s lawyers and top-ranking DOJ officials that we learned about from Strzok’s testimony last summer? It’s likely.
When you contrast this submissive behavior to the stone-walling faced by Rep. Devin Nunes’ (R-CA) or Sen. Chuck Grassley’s (R-IA) whether committees requested documents during the congressional investigations, the difference is night and day. There’s no doubt that Clinton’s attorneys received what Tom Fitton calls “special treatment.”
Fitton said, “These incredible documents show the leadership of the FBI rushed to give Hillary Clinton her FBI interview report shortly before the election. And the documents also show the FBI failed to timely document interviews in the Clinton email ‘matter’ – further confirming the whole investigation was a joke. AG Barr can’t reopen the Clinton email investigation soon enough.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, appeared on Hannity last night and said the reason Hillary Clinton was not prosecuted is that the deep state wanted her to win. Graham said, “If you want her to win, you can’t prosecute her.” That’s why she and her attorneys received special treatment. He said, “Hillary Clinton committed obstruction of justice.”
Watch the clip below.