The transcript, which was released by Rep. Doug Collins, (R-Ga.), because the Justice Department would never do it, revealed that during questioning by House Judiciary Committee general counsel Zachary Somers, Strzok admitted that Clinton’s private servers harbored various emails linked to the Clinton Foundation, as well as her role as Obama’s secretary of state and other matters.
Fox News reported:
Were you given access to [Clinton Foundation-related] emails as part of the investigation?" Somers asked.
"We were not. We did not have access," Strzok responded. "My recollection is that the access to those emails were based on consent that was negotiated between the Department of Justice attorneys and counsel for Clinton.”
In other words, Clinton, through her legal team, had final say over whether the FBI could have access to evidence they required in order to adequately investigate an alleged crime — in this case, mishandling of highly classified information.
Do you recall a time when a private citizen had the power to ‘negotiate’ with the Justice Department what evidence the FBI would not be permitted to see? Strange; President Trump's first national security adviser, retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, had no such power. Neither did Paul Manafort or long-time associate Roger Stone.
Or millions of other Americans investigated by the FBI through the years.
In his testimony, Strzok noted that a “significant filter team” at the bureau was available to “work through the various terms of the various consent agreements.”
How does a potential perpetrator get to pick and choose what the FBI sees?
"According to the attorneys, we lacked probable cause to get a search warrant for those servers and projected that either it would take a very long time and/or it would be impossible to get to the point where we could obtain probable cause to get a warrant,” said Strzok.
Just how is it the FBI could or would be denied access to email servers that were central pieces of evidence in a case involving a) criminal mishandling of classified emails; and b) electronic communications related to the Clinton Foundation?
Mind you, the foundation has been accused of accepting “pay-to-play” transactions — accusations stemming in large part from an International Business Times report that Clinton’s State Department approved $151 billion in DoD-brokered deals with 16 countries that, amazingly, donated to the foundation. That amounted to a 145 percent increase in completed sales to those countries over the same time frame during the Bush administration.
What added to speculation that the deals were dirty is the fact that contributions to the foundation fell by 90-plus percent after Hillary was defeated by Donald Trump in the 2016 election, according to financial statements.
Finally, the foundation received $145 million in donations from parties tied to the Uranium One sale, in which Hillary was said to have not taken part though she was serving as the country’s chief diplomat at the time. Coincidental, we’re sure.
But the fact that Clinton was allowed to negotiate which evidence the FBI could and could not see in the first place is outrageous.
“What's bizarre about this, is in any other situation, there's no possible way they would allow the potential perpetrator to self-select what the FBI gets to see," said former Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz, onetime chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee until 2017 “The FBI should be the one to sort through those emails -- not the Clinton attorneys.”
You would think.
Read more about the abject corruption from Bill and Hillary Clinton at Corruption.news and Clinton.news.
Sources include:
Please contact us for more information.
