This looks like actual, smoking gun evidence Cheryl Mills flat out lied to FBI

Remember how the FBI let Cheryl Mills sit in when the FBI questioned Hillary in July? They did so because they bought the story that Cheryl was unaware of Hillary's email setup/private server while they were at State, and that Mills only became aware of it when State asked Clinton to turn over her emails to them, at which time she represented Clinton.

A new email release shows this to be utter poppycock

From: cheryl.mills@gmail.com

To: john.podesta@gmail.com

Date: 2015-03-07 21:41

Subject: Fwd: POTUS on HRC emails

we need to clean this up – he has emails from her – they do not say state.gov

This is from H.A. Goodman writing for The Daily Caller:

This WikiLeaks Email Proves Cheryl Mills And Hillary Clinton Lied To The FBI

Before explaining why this WikiLeaks email destroys the rationale for Clinton’s bizarre legal arrangement, let’s address why the FBI allowed the subject of a criminal investigation to evade questions. According to a Law Newz piece by Chris White, Cheryl Mills claimed she learned about Clinton’s server only after defending Clinton during the legal struggle:

Goodman relies on background explanation from a Law Newz piece to explain how Mills was able to claim attorney-clien privilege:

Here’s What Probably Led to Blow Up During Cheryl Mills’ FBI Interview

During the deposition, Mills’ attorney, Beth Wilkinson, objected to a number of questions on the basis of attorney-client privilege and instructed Mills not to answer various questions. It was further explained that Clinton left the State Department in 2013, she then hired Mills to serve as part of her personal legal team. In that capacity, Mills claimed she helped coordinate Clinton’s response to the demand that she return her emails to the State Department. Therefore, Mills would claim attorney-client privilege prevented her from answering questions about how they decided to turnover documents.

However, Mills could not claim attorney-client privilege covered information she learned during her time as Clinton’s Chief of Staff. So, as Shannen Coffin, a former DOJ attorney, recently explained in an article at the Weekly Standard, “To fix that problem, Mills conveniently claimed that she did not know anything about Clinton’s email setup during her tenure at the State Department and only learned of relevant facts in her later capacity as Mrs. Clinton’s personal lawyer.”

(snip)

This essentially allowed Mills to claim attorney-client privilege covered any question, so long as Mills either first learned the information or refreshed her recollection about the information in her capacity as part of Clinton’s legal team, after leaving the State Department.

Here's more from the Weekly Standard piece


The Curious Case of Cheryl Mills

Why did the DOJ coddle a witness in the Clinton email investigation?

Mills's knowledge of facts learned while serving in a non-legal capacity at the State Department could not possibly be protected by an attorney-client privilege. To fix that problem, Mills conveniently claimed that she did not know anything about Clinton's email setup during her tenure at the State Department and only learned of relevant facts in her later capacity as Mrs. Clinton's personal lawyer. Mills's implausible claim she was unaware of the nature of Clinton's email setup during her tenure at State is undermined by documents showing that Mills was deeply involved as chief of staff in resolving questions regarding Clinton's email use. A March 2009 memo addressed to Mills from the assistant secretary for diplomatic security, for instance, advised against Clinton and her staff using BlackBerry devices in the executive suite, known as "Mahogany Row," because it was a secure area. Similarly, an August 2011 email chain addressed "communications issues" flagged by Mills, including a suggestion from State Department IT officials (later rejected by Huma Abedin) regarding the possibility of a State-issued BlackBerry for Clinton.

Even more specious is Mills's assertion that certain facts she became aware of as Clinton's chief of staff—such as why she knew that Clinton had transitioned her email to a clintonemail.com address very early in her tenure—were off-limits because she had "refreshed her recollection" as to those facts during her time representing Clinton in the private sector. Mills could only "refresh" her recollection because she had knowledge of those facts during her tenure as Clinton's chief of staff, putting those facts well beyond the protection of any privilege.

Especially given its criminal investigation into Clinton's email use, the Department of Justice had every reason to challenge an overbroad assertion of attorney-client privilege by a critical fact witness such as Mills. Indeed, Mills's

Read 'em and see what you think...

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

Bisbonian's picture

not only knew about, but approved Hillary's email setup.

http://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/drawn-and-quartered-podesta-sug...

up
0 users have voted.

"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X

Podesta told Mills to destroy Clinton's emails. As of this morning, Wikileaks just published the email!

That, in and of itself, spells "jail time." Conspiracy to obstruct justice. Evidence tampering. And, the list of crimes goes on from there. Hillary might get elected next Tuesday, but she's gonna' be toast, regardless. This is what happens to a Clinton "scorched-earth" campaign plan when it blows up in your face.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-01/podesta-mills-we-are-going-have...

up
0 users have voted.

"Freedom is something that dies unless it's used." --Hunter S. Thompson

since I called out Trix in a diary for reneging on a wager. Trix bet me that Bernie would end up more than 20 million in campaign debt. Loser was to contribute 15 bucks to the other campaign.

So on the side I kos mailed Trix and asked that the bet be honored. Trix berated me and claimed to have never made the wager. I provided the link to the evidence and got nothing back.

I engaged Trix in the comments section later and Trix denied it openly even though Trix knew I had the evidence, so I posted for all to see.
I then wrote diary, called "question if the day do you honor your wagers".

I have not been back since, let me know if I'm mojo'd next time you stop by.

up
0 users have voted.
Alligator Ed's picture

For instance the link containing the following tidbit:

a March 2, 2015 exchange between John Podesta and Clinton aide Cheryl Mills in which the Clinton Campaign Chair says "On another matter....and not to sound like Lanny, but we are going to have to dump all those emails."

The email, which may indicate intent, was sent at the same time as the NYT story "Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email Account at State Dept., Possibly Breaking Rules"

"May indicate intent"? Are you kidding? There is no "may" about this overt cover-up. What other reason could be given for that "dump all those emails" could reasonably explain this smoking gun? None!

up
0 users have voted.
MsGrin's picture

such a thing?

Oh, wait, she's a Clinton insider. Rules are made for little people.

up
0 users have voted.

'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member

Phoebe Loosinhouse's picture

This is a comment I wrote on Sept. 23 in another essay:

The House Judiciary Committee is meeting with Comey

next Wednesday. Chaffetz and Gowdy are on that committee and I bet they'll have a number of very explicit questions to ask Comey.

This is what I would ask in regards to Cheryl Mills:

Was she truthful when she deposed to the FBI that she didn't know about the server while she was at State?

This is tricky for Comey because essentially it's a no-win. I'll explain:

IMO, She wasn't being truthful because she is on some emails explicitly discussing the server which were revealed to Judicial Watch as a result of FOIA. BUT, the FBI had all the emails so they should have had these as well. In one from 2010, Mills explicitly asks Justin Cooper if HRC's server is down. To me, this proves that: she knew Hillary had a private server and she knew to email the Clinton aide in the Clinton home who serviced that server - ergo she knew the whole ball of wax. (See: Clinton Aides Said They Didn't Know About the Server)

If Comey says Mills was truthful, he is either completely out of the loop and not keeping up with even the general public and the intertubes or even more horribly, he is dissembling himself.

If he says she was not truthful, which appears to be the case, then it begs the question - why would the FBI put up with someone who it knows is not being truthful to them and then even give them additional grants of immunity? It boggles the mind.

Side note - Chuck Ross, who wrote the Daily Caller article linked to above, has done some of the very best reporting and commentary on the emails. He has a good memory and is detail oriented and is good at explaining contradictions or obvious logic flaws.

A good summation of the incredible fake FBI investigation is this article
James Comey's Dereliction in the National Review.

It's the most scathing, succinct and best written overview of the entire debacle that I read. If I were James Comey I would lie in a darkened room with a cold cloth on my face for a week after reading this. I hope he did read it, because he needs to know that everyone who cares about this issue knows that the "investigation" was a big fake-out.

I haven't written about emails for quite a while because until Friday I considered it pointless. She/they got away with it courtesy of the DOJ and the FBI. It also sounds like any Clinton Foundation/influence peddling investigations got effectively squashed since the DOJ told the FBI no witness interviews, no subpoenas, no grand jury.

I can't imagine life in the US under either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. If Bernie had any sense, he would disassociate from the Dems once the election is over and form his own third Party.

up
0 users have voted.

" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "

MsGrin's picture

Thanks for the always excellent links and analysis!

up
0 users have voted.

'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member

jwa13's picture

and considering the fact that the repugs will retain control of the U.S. House of Representatives (and probably a bare majority of the Senate), it seems clear to me that The $Hill will be impeached within a few months of taking office, and may actually be the FIRST PRESIDENT (let alone the FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT) to be impeached, tried, convicted, and removed from office for "high crimes & misdemeanors".

Here's hoping that Her Heinous serves some actual hard time, finally ("superpredators", indeed -- who was The $Hill referring to, exactly? her buddies in the Wall Street executive suites?? no, no, can't be that -- must be somebody else --) --

up
0 users have voted.

When Cicero had finished speaking, the people said “How well he spoke”.
When Demosthenes had finished speaking, the people said “Let us march”.

WaterLily's picture

Can one's immunity be yanked in light of evidence of perjury?

(Not that I'd expect it to happen regardless ...)

up
0 users have voted.

plea agreement would specify the witness tell the truth. I don't think that there is wiggle room here from what I have read so the plea agreement can be thrown out, and what the witness said during the deposition can be used against him/her including the new charge of lying to a federal officer.

up
0 users have voted.

"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"

WaterLily's picture

Now, we wait to see if anything comes of it ...

up
0 users have voted.

that lying to a federal officer - ask Martha Stewart - is illegal and I think I remember being told that no immunity agreement covers lies.

up
0 users have voted.

"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"

jwa13's picture

NOOO!!!

... can't hinder the "elites" in their thankless task of making the world a better place (for the "elites", of course --)

up
0 users have voted.

When Cicero had finished speaking, the people said “How well he spoke”.
When Demosthenes had finished speaking, the people said “Let us march”.