While reaction to a government watchdog report made public Thursday has focused on its harsh rebuke of the FBI’s actions during the Hillary Clinton email investigation, the document also finds plenty of fault with former President Barack Obama’s Justice Department.
The report — 17 months in the making — by Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz reveals tensions between FBI agents and federal prosecutors over how to proceed in the probe of Clinton’s handling of classified information while she was secretary of state.
The report blasts Peter Strzok (shown above right), the senior FBI counterintelligence official who was a supervisor in the investigation, for extreme bias against President Donald Trump. He and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, with whom he was involved in an intimate relationship, exchanged numerous text messages expressing their loathing for the then-Republican presidential nominee.
The report also suggests that ironically, in some instances, Strzok and Page (above left) met resistance from DOJ prosecutors when FBI staffers wanted to take the Clinton probe further.
“We further found evidence that, in some instances, Strzok and Page advocated for more aggressive investigative measures than did others on the midyear team, such as the use of grand jury subpoenas and search warrants to obtain evidence,” the report states.
Among the biggest points of contention was how to handle laptop computers that were in the possession of Cheryl Mills, who was Clinton’s chief of staff at the State Department, and Heather Samuelson, who was Clinton’s liaison to the Obama White House.
The report indicates that some in the FBI wanted to review those computers and obtain access to classified materials as part of the investigation; but DOJ lawyers expressed concerns that the officials could assert a legal privilege to block it. Strzok told investigators from the IG that reviewing the materials would have been a logical investigative step.
Page was one of the strongest advocates during a March 28, 2016, meeting in favor of interviewing Mills and Samuelson about the laptops.
A prosecutor identified in the report only as “Prosecutor 4” wrote in an email to Strzok the next day that he did not like “former prosecutors” — a reference to Page — “giving their opinions from the cheap seats.”
The prosecutor went on to call himself “the most aggressive prosecutor” agents had ever worked with.
Strzok defended Page during the email exchange with the prosecutor.
Prosecutors objected to Strzok’s assertion that the they had agreed to notify Beth Wilkinson, a lawyer representing Mills and Samuelson, of the FBI’s intention to interview her clients regarding the culling process.
“Prosecutor 1” told IG investigators, “It’s not smart to make demands when you don’t understand what kind of leverage you have.”
The report details widespread concern among FBI agents that prosecutors were not aggressive enough in their dealings with Wilkinson. Despite that, according to the report, former FBI Director James Comey told IG investigators he did not address those concerns with the department, ask for new prosecutors or seek the appointment of a special counsel.
“There was serious concern about the reluctance to pursue the laptops … I had no reason to believe that was driven by an improper consideration,” Comey told IG investigators.
The report makes clear that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates told IG investigators they were unaware of complaints that prosecutors were not sufficiently aggressive or that the FBI believed the prosecutors were intimidated by high-powered defense lawyers.
“I don’t remember that being conveyed to me,” Lynch told investigators. “You know, agents always think that prosecutors aren’t aggressive enough. But they don’t know the discussions and decisions that go behind the decisions as to … what steps you’re going to take.”
In June 2016, near the end of the Clinton investigation, investigators found three email chains that included eight individual emails marked “C” for confidential. The FBI had not known about those emails until the intelligence community inspector general’s office discovered them.
Before prosecutors and FBI agents even interviewed Hillary Clinton, they had determined she would not be charged unless she confessed to a crime.
“DoJ was Very Concerned about this … Because they’re worried, holy cow, if the fbi missed this, what else was missed?” Strzok wrote in a text message to Page on June 13, 2016. “No one noticed. And while minor, it cuts against ‘I never send or received anything marked classified.'”
The report makes clear that before prosecutors and FBI agents even interviewed Hillary Clinton, they had determined she would not be charged unless she confessed to a crime.
“We have nothing — shouldn’t [sic] even be interviewing,” one agent wrote in a message on June 28, 2016.
Still, agents and prosecutors clashed over how to conduct the interview with Clinton, disagreeing on how many people should be involved. Strzok texted he believed the DOJ wanted too many prosecutors in the room.
Page warned Strzok in a text, “One more thing: she might be our next president. The last thing you need [is] us going in there loaded for bear. You think she’s going to remember or care that it was more doj than fbi?”
Related: Alert! DOJ IG Report Flames Comey for ‘Departing Dramatically’ from FBI Norms
Numerous FBI and officials from the Justice Department told IG investigators they opposed a decision to allow Mills and Samuelson to attend the interview of Clinton because they were witnesses.
The IG report criticized that decision, despite testimony that it did not impact the investigation and that authorities had a backup plan in case Mills or Samuelson tried to intervene during the interview.
“Nevertheless, we found the decision to allow the Clinton interview to proceed in the presence of two fact witnesses, who also were serving as Clinton’s counsel, was inconsistent with typical investigative strategy and gave rise to accusations of bias and preferential treatment,” the report states. “Moreover, there are serious potential ramifications when one witness attends another witness’s interview.”
PoliZette senior writer Brendan Kirby can be reached at [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter.
Join the Discussion
COMMENTS POLICY: We have no tolerance for messages of violence, racism, vulgarity, obscenity or other such discourteous behavior. Thank you for contributing to a respectful and useful online dialogue.