The ACLJ has just obtained previously unreleased documents related to the Clinton investigation and immunity agreements given to top Clinton aids by the Obama DOJ.
At the ACLJ we have been busy litigating multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits against the Deep State and Obama-era holdovers in various agencies in Washington, D.C.
In one of those FOIA lawsuits, the ACLJ took the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) to court to force production of various records surrounding former FBI Director James Comey’s sham investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of private email servers and mishandling of classified information.
After months of litigation, the ACLJ’s diligence and persistence is paying off.
The ACLJ has obtained the DOJ’s infamous immunity agreements with Hillary Clinton’s top aides Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson – documents previously unreleased to the public.
These documents were directly responsive to a FOIA request the ACLJ had submitted to the DOJ and FBI awhile back, and we were forced to file a federal lawsuit in Washington, D.C., to get them. Our FOIA request sought:
All records concerning the immunity agreements entered into between the Department of Justice (DOJ) and witnesses and/or subjects of the FBI’s Clinton investigation, including but not limited to Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, and all other such agreements whereby the DOJ agreed to destroy any records retrieved.
Forced to comply under the court’s supervision in our lawsuit, in March 2019, DOJ produced to the ACLJ a set of records which the FBI had sent to the DOJ “for processing and direct response to you [the ACLJ].” These records consisted of the immunity agreements reached between the DOJ National Security Division (NSD) and both Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson. According to the DOJ’s immunity agreement with Mills:
As we have advised you, we consider Cheryl Mills to be a witness based on the information gathered to date in this investigation. We understand that Cheryl Mills is willing to voluntarily provide the Mills Laptop to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, if the United States agrees not to use any information directly obtained from the Mills Laptop in any prosecution of Cheryl Mills for the mishandling of classified information and/or the removal or destruction of records as described below.
And, according to the immunity agreement:
To that end, it is hereby agreed. as follows:
- That, subject to the terms of consent set forth in a separate letter to the Department of Justice dated June 10, 2016, Cheryl Mills will voluntarily produce the Mills Laptop to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for its review and analysis.
- That no information directly obtained from the Mills Laptop will be used against your client in any prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) and/or (f); 18 U.S.C. § 1924; and/or 18 U.S.C. § 2071.
- That no other promises, agreements, or understandings exist between the parties except as set forth in this agreement, and no modification of this agreement shall have effect unless executed in writing by the parties.
The agreement was then executed by Cheryl Mills.
The immunity agreement with Samuelson reads the same.
Importantly, in item #1 of both the Mills and Samuelson immunity agreements we obtained, the DOJ NSD referenced and incorporated the terms of a “separate letter” of the same date (June 10, 2016) containing the “terms of consent” to which the FBI/DOJ agreed to comply.
We are pleased to report that, as a result of our continued negotiations and efforts in this case, we have now secured assurances that the DOJ will produce to us those two separate letters the DOJ has thus far withheld from production.
These documents are especially relevant given “the thousands of pages of testimony” released by congressional committees in the past few months “about how the bureau handled the probe into Clinton’s use of a private server to send classified government emails” – and the recent headlines that testimony is generating. Portions of that testimony reveal “the intricate role of the DOJ in attempting to limit the FBI’s ability to gain access to laptops belonging to two Clinton confidants Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson.”
The documents we received, and the ones we have now secured an agreement to receive, confirm our earlier report – more than a year ago – that, based on the Senate Judiciary Committee’s investigation and interviews:
[T]he DOJ entered into “highly unusual” immunity agreements with key witnesses in the investigation, including Cheryl Mills (Clinton’s top aide) and Heather Samuelson (the aide tasked with going through the Clinton emails and deciding which should be made public and which deleted). It is reported that Mills and Samuelson agreed to allow the agency access to their computers in exchange for immunity – i.e. DOJ’s assurances that the findings of those searches would not be used against them.
It was in this same lawsuit that the ACLJ sought and succeeded in obtaining the release of multiple records showing Comey’s various draft exoneration statements prepared weeks before the FBI had even interviewed Hillary Clinton or Mills and Samuelson. As we reported, “The bombshell document – entitled on the FBI’s records Vault as “Drafts of Director Comeys July 5, 2016 Statement Regarding Email Server Investigation” – is a completely redacted draft copy of fired FBI Director James Comey’s statement exonerating Hillary Clinton from criminal liability.”
And it was this same lawsuit in which the ACLJ uncovered FBI records revealing that the FBI had lost the chain of custody of one of Clinton’s email servers, and that the “original chain of custody” was missing for two months. As we had explained, “The chain of custody in a criminal investigation is critical. It ensures there is no tampering with the evidence. But for two months no one knows where this server was or how it was secured.”
Also, the ACLJ was at the forefront of exposing the attempted coverup that followed then Attorney General Lorretta Lynch’s secret meeting with Bill Clinton on the tarmac of an Arizona airport just days before Hillary Clinton was interviewed by the FBI – and then exonerated shortly thereafter. After Comey’s FBI replied to our legal demands that “No records responsive to your request were located,” the DOJ produced records to us containing email communication with the FBI – a.k.a. FBI records. The ACLJ, and the public attention these developments received, forced the FBI to reopen the case and admit that “records potentially responsive to your request may exist.”
As an editorial in The Washington Times put it, Lynch “plunged her department and the White House into a panic when a local reporter got wind of the meeting. We finally know a bit more about it, thanks to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit pursued by the American Center for Law and Justice.”
Among the records we obtained were redacted talking points the DOJ had shared with the FBI about the secret tarmac meeting.
In fact, this week, the ACLJ filed its opening brief in our appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit challenging the redaction of those talking points.
We will keep you advised of our progress as these cases and document productions move forward.
You can join us in our fight for the truth. Sign our Petition to defeat the Deep State today.
As we aggressively fight to expose the shadow government and protect our national security, we urgently need your support. Donate today.
It’s another example of the vipers in the swamp turning on each other. On today’s broadcast, we discussed former Obama-era Attorney General Loretta Lynch –whose secret runway meeting with former President Bill Clinton during the 2016 campaign and the investigation of then-candidate Hillary Clinton...
Attorney General Barr’s probe into misconduct by Deep State actors after the conclusion of Special Counsel Mueller’s inquiry, is now leading to a cannibalistic feeding frenzy. Former Obama Administration officials in the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Intel community are beginning to...
The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word spying as “to collect information about something to use in deciding how to act.” Which is what it appears the FBI did to the Trump campaign under former Director James Comey. And yet, it appears Mr. Comey hasn’t read the definition. On today’s show,
In a huge revelation, the Attorney General stated he believes spying did occur within his own agency – under the prior Administration – and that he is taking action to expose it and prevent such abuses of power from continuing. On today’s broadcast, we discussed new testimony by Attorney General...