Joseph DiGenova, a former US Attorney and Washington, DC superlawyer is no flake. He has plenty of contacts within the FBI and a reputation to protect. So I take his words on Sirius/XM's David Webb show quite seriously, as reported by Kerry Picket of the Daily Caller:
Washington D.C. attorney Joe DiGenova said on The David Webb Show on SiriusXM Friday night that despite the FBI agreeing to destroy the laptops of Clinton aide Cheryl Mills and ex-campaign staffer Heather Samuelson as part of immunity deals made during the initial investigation of Clinton's email server, agents involved in the case refused to destroy the laptops.
"According to the agreement reached with the attorneys who handed over their laptops, the laptops were to be destroyed per the agreement after the testimony was given –the interviews were given – – by the attorneys. The bureau and the department agreed to that," DiGenova said. "However the laptops contrary to published reports were not destroyed and the reason is the agents who are tasked with destroying them refused to do so. And by the way the laptops are at the FBI for inspection by Congress or federal courts."
DiGenova said the laptops have already been subpoenaed and the FBI is waiting for Congress to ask for them.
If this is true, it indicates that a serious rebellion was underway in the FBI, with agents refusing a direct order. Although I am no lawyer, I suppose they might have regarded the order as illegitimate, part of a conspiracy to destroy evidence. It is possible that Comey knew of this rebellion, and that this knowledge shaped his decision to write to Congressional leaders on the resumption of the investigation.
Now that DiGenova has gone public, how long until the laptops are subpoenaed?
Update. Clarice Feldman has a theory as to how this information came to Joe DiGenova. She labels it speculation:
How would Joe know? The agents have a nondisclosure agreement BUT Joe's a lawyer bound to preserve the confidences of his client so they could hire him, tell him, and no one could compel him to disclose his source.
No comments:
Post a Comment