How Obama Admin Hid the Cash Transfers to Iran

 

The U.S. government wired about $848,000 to Iran in July 2015 in order to settle a dispute over fossils and architectural drawings that are now in Iranian possession, a spokesman from the Treasury Department said. This April, the U.S. also wired roughly $9 million to Iran in exchange for 32 tons of its excess heavy water, which could be used to make a plutonium bomb. Brig. Gen. Mohammad Reza Naqdi, commander of Iran’s Basij militia, said in January that the $400 million payment “was returned for the freedom of the US spy and it was not related to the [nuclear] negotiations.” More here in further detail.

(The heavy water was delivered to Oak Ridge Laboratories in August for domestic use and for sale to other customers including Spellation Neutron Source which is an accelerator operation. The total published cost to purchase Iran’s extra heavy water from the Iranian Arak facility is $8.6 million. It is unclear out of what agency budget this money was paid, including the Department of Defense or the Department of Energy.

Obama Admin ‘Laundered’ U.S. Cash to Iran Via N.Y. Fed, Euro Banks

Congressman: ‘Administration laundered this money in order to circumvent U.S. law’

FreeBeacon: A member of the House Intelligence Committee is accusing the Obama administration of laundering some $1.7 billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars to Iran through a complicated network that included the New York Federal Reserve and several European banks, according to conversations with sources and new information obtained by the lawmaker and viewed by the Washington Free Beacon.

New disclosures made by the Treasury Department to Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.), a House Intelligence Committee member, show that an initial $400 million cash payment to Iran was wired to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) and then converted from U.S. dollars into Swiss francs and moved to an account at the Swiss National Bank, according to a copy of communication obtained exclusively by the Free Beacon.

Once the money was transferred to the Swiss Bank, the “FRBNY withdrew the funds from its account as Swiss franc banknotes and the U.S. Government physically transported them to Geneva” before personally overseeing the handover to an agent of Iran’s central bank, according to the documents.

These disclosures shine new light on how the Obama administration moved millions of dollars from U.S. accounts to European banks in order to facilitate three separate cash payments to Iran totaling $1.7 billion.

The latest information is adding fuel to accusations the Obama administration arranged the payment in this fashion to skirt U.S. sanctions laws and give Iran the money for the release of U.S. hostages, in what many have called a ransom.

Congress has been investigating the circumstances surrounding the payment for months and said the administration is blocking certain requests for more detailed information about the cash transaction with Iran.

“By withholding critical details and stonewalling congressional inquiries, President Obama seems to be hiding whether or not he and others broke U.S. law by sending $1.7 billion in cash to Iran,” Pompeo told the Free Beacon. “But Americans can plainly see that the Obama administration laundered this money in order to circumvent U.S. law and appease the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

As new details emerge, congressional critics such as Pompeo and Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) are beginning to suspect the U.S. government laundered the money in order to provide Tehran with immediate access.

“Think about this timeline: the U.S. withdraws $400 million in cash from the Swiss National Bank and then physically transports it to another city to hand-off to Iranian officials—three days before Iran releases four American hostages,” Pompeo said. “But it gets worse: less than a week after this, the U.S. again sends hordes of cash to Iran.  As we speak, Iran is still holding three more Americans hostage and I fear what precedent this administration has set.”

The initial $400 million payment to Iran was initiated on Jan. 14, 2016, according to information sent by the Treasury Department to Pompeo.

“For the first settlement payment in January, Treasury assisted the Defense Finance and Accounting Services (DFAS) in crafting a wire instruction to transfer the $400 million in principal from the Iran FMS [Foreign Military Sales program] account on January 14, 2016,” the document states.

“Treasury worked with DFAS and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY), which was acting as Treasury’s financial agent, so that the funds were converted from dollars to Swiss francs and credited to a FRBNY account at the Swiss National Bank (SNB), which is the central bank of the Switzerland [sic],” it adds.

The U.S. hostages were released shortly after Iran received this initial cash payment.

The additional $1.3 billion cash payment was facilitated by the Dutch Central Bank, which helped the United States transfer the money to an account before it was converted into euros.

The Dutch Bank “then disbursed the funds as euro banknotes in the Netherlands to an official from the Central Bank of Iran.”

The payment was broken down into two separate transactions that occurred on Jan. 22 and Feb. 5.

Senior administration officials maintain that the transaction was completely legal and not paid out as part of a ransom to Iran. These officials have said that cash was the “most reliable” method to ensure Iran received immediate access to the funds, as its banking system is still under sanctions.

Officials from the Treasury and Justice Departments would not respond to Free Beacon requests for comment about the exact type of legal approval given prior to the cash payment.

One congressional adviser who works closely on the Iran issue told the Free Beacon that the Obama administration appears to have involved multiple branches of the government in order to help conceal the cash payment to Iran.

“It looks as if the White House made just about every corner of the executive branch complicit in covering up the extent of its payments to Iran,” the source said. “Congress was already aggressively looking into payments involving the State, Treasury, and Energy Departments. Now it’s the Justice Department, too. We already know that top officials from Justice objected strongly to the ransom deal, but were overruled. Congress wants to know what happened and why.”

A senior congressional aide familiar with investigations regarding the matter told the Free Beacon that the administration continues to hide information from lawmakers about the cash payment.

“The American public and Members of Congress understand psychology—if the administration is hiding something, there is a reason.  President Obama, Secretary Kerry and others would like to pretend that their months of evasiveness and stonewalling regarding Iran are normal, but their behavior indicates otherwise” the source said. “Refusing to answer basic questions about millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars paid to the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism only invites more questions.”

Recent reports have raised questions about how much of this money may be spent to fund Iran’s international terror operations and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Lawmakers examining who in Iran assumed control of the money have told the Free Beacon that at least part of the cash was likely spent to fund the IRGC’s operations.

Ineligible Individuals Have Been Granted U.S. Citizenship

Sheesh….fingerprints eh? And those migrants, refugees and asylees don’t have any reference database for fingerprint history much less any travel documents applications.

As citizens they can vote, seek and hold sensitive jobs and more. Don’t you just wonder what DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson has to say on this? Oh wait….more money from Congress will solve it all.

Summary of the Inspector General’s report:

USCIS granted U.S. citizenship to at least 858 individuals ordered deported or removed under another identity when, during the naturalization process, their digital fingerprint records were not available. The digital records were not available because although USCIS procedures require checking applicants’ fingerprints against both the Department of Homeland Security’s and the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) digital fingerprint repositories, neither contains all old fingerprint records. Not all old records were included in the DHS repository when it was being developed. Further, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has identified, about 148,000 older fingerprint records that have not been digitized of aliens with final deportation orders or who are criminals or fugitives. The FBI repository is also missing records because, in the past, not all records taken during immigration encounters were forwarded to the FBI. As long as the older fingerprint records have not been digitized and included in the repositories, USCIS risks making naturalization decisions without complete information and, as a result, naturalizing additional individuals who may be ineligible for citizenship or who may be trying to obtain U.S. citizenship fraudulently.

As naturalized citizens, these individuals retain many of the rights and privileges of U.S. citizenship, including serving in law enforcement, obtaining a security clearance, and sponsoring other aliens’ entry into the United States. ICE has investigated few of these naturalized citizens to determine whether they should be denaturalized, but is now taking steps to increase the number of cases to be investigated, particularly those who hold positions of public trust and who have security clearances.

****

In July 2014,3 OPS provided the Office of Inspector General (OIG) with the names of individuals it had identified as coming from special interest countries or neighboring countries with high rates of immigration fraud, had final deportation orders under another identity, and had become naturalized U.S. citizens. OIG’s review of the list of names revealed some were duplicates, which resulted in a final number of 1,029 individuals. Of the 1,029 individuals reported, 858 did not have a digital fingerprint record available in the DHS fingerprint repository at the time U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) was reviewing and adjudicating their applications for U.S. citizenship.  

USCIS checks applicants’ fingerprint records throughout the naturalization process. By searching the DHS digital fingerprint repository, the Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) digital fingerprint repository, the Next Generation Identification (NGI) system,5 USCIS can gather information about an applicant’s other identities (if any), criminal arrests and convictions, immigration violations and deportations, and links to terrorism. When there is a matching record, USCIS researches the circumstances underlying the record to determine whether the applicant is still eligible for naturalized citizenship.

If USCIS confirms that an applicant received a final deportation order under a different identity, and there are no other circumstances to provide eligibility, USCIS policy requires denial of naturalization. Also, USCIS may refer the applicant’s case to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for investigation. Likewise, if a naturalized citizen is discovered to have been ineligible for citizenship, ICE may investigate the circumstances and refer the case to the Department of Justice for revocation of citizenship. Read the complete report here.

 

Judge Blasts State Dept on Hillary Email Production, then this!

Judge blasts State Dept for slow-walking Hillary emails

WashingtonTimes: A federal judge blasted the Obama administration for slow-walking the release of some of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails, saying in court Monday that the government appears to be withholding information from voters ahead of the election.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon said the State Department in not “being all that cooperative,” and told the Justice Department lawyers to get the State Department to shape up and do its duty.

“Get with the program, so to speak, so that the people of this country can have the information they need,” he ordered. “The State Department needs to start cooperating to the fullest extent possible. They are not perceived to be doing that.”

Judge Leon, who has earned a reputation as a funny but caustic jurist, particularly when he finds government bungling, said the Justice Department, by not forcing the State Department to cooperate better, is risking its own storied reputation.

He specifically called out the federal programs branch that acts as the lawyer for the rest of the government, and the head of that division, Marcia Berman. Ms. Berman wasn’t in the courtroom Monday, but has been a frequent figure at the courthouse over the last year as the administration has had to defend its handling of Mrs. Clinton’s emails.

Mondays’s case, filed by the Daily Caller News Foundation, concerned documents detailing Mrs. Clinton’s access to top secret programs. The State Department said it has found more than 1,000 documents dealing with the subject, but said it would take nearly a month to process 450 unclassified documents, and couldn’t say how long it would take to process the classified ones.

The case is one of dozens pending where the department has been accused of slow-walking, keeping information out of public view for far longer than is allowed under the Freedom of Information Act.

The State Department says it is overwhelmed by the requests and its own limited budget and manpower. Officials also say the Clinton emails are complicated because they involved classified information that requires a stricter, more time consuming process to clear for the public.

But the government has also been reluctant to divulge important details. At one point on Monday the government lawyer on the case, Jason Lee, said he didn’t know how many pages were in the documents, sparking the judge’s ire.

Judge Leon ordered a faster production of the 450, and when Mr. Lee said they would do their best, Judge Leon pounced.

“Do better than your best. Do it,” he ordered, then proceeded to scold the government for its bungling, and said it was something other judges at the courthouse had noticed.

“You have a client that, to say the least, is not impressing the judges on is court … at being all that cooperative,” he said. “This way of doing business needs to stop.”

He said this was the first open-records case he’d seen where time was so much of the essence, given Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy for the White House, and said the administration needed to realize that.

SMOKING GUN: “BleachBit” Paul Combetta ASKED TO STRIP OR REPLACE VIP’s EMAIL ADDRESS!

The electronic exchange as noted here.

[–]GateheaD 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Add the VIPs email to a generic contact and hide it in plain sight.

[–]exproject 0 points1 point  (5 children)

To my knowledge, there’s no way to edit existing messages, that’s a possibility for a discovery nightmare.

To strip/rename on outbound/inbound you could rewrite it with a transport rule.

[–][deleted]  (4 children)

[deleted]

[–]exproject 0 points1 point  (3 children)

No, a transport rule would only affect future messages.

[–]borismkv 0 points1 point  (2 children)

And it requires an Edge Transport server. Address Rewrite isn’t available on any other role.

[–]exproject 0 points1 point  (1 child)

True. I’ve seen people roll their own Transport Agents for hubs that can do rewrites, but that always looked a bit overkill.

Expanding on what /u/GateheaD said, you could give the VIP a “relay” mailbox. i.e. [email protected] forwards to [email protected]. All your users would mail VIP and Exchange would pass it in the backend so that the forwarding email address was not exposed. Meeting Forward Notifications might give it away though, I’ve never had the requirement of the sender can’t know who the end recipient is so I never actually quantified that behavior.

[–]borismkv 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Relay mailbox thing is a good solution, but you just know the VIP is going to respond to emails that get forwarded to his personal email by using his personal email, which would of course result in the personal email getting added. I’d just give him a regular mailbox and ask him to use that if he wants his private address to be private. Ultimately, the privacy of the VIP’s personal email address is something the VIP should be responsible for, not the people that person emails.

[–]odoprasm 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Is there no way to access and edb manually?

[–]brkdncr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you need to control who gets to email the vip, just set up stringent spam filtering where only whitelisted people or people the vip has emailed are allowed.

[–]borismkv 0 points1 point  (2 children)

There is no supported way to do what you’re asking. You can only delete emails after they’re stored in the database. You can’t change them. If there was a feature in Exchange that allowed this, it could result in major legal issues. There may be ways to hack a solution, but I am not aware of any.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

[–]borismkv 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As a PST file, probably not. MSG files maybe, but you would need a utility to do it, and it would be a one off kind of thing where you’d have to manually modify each email.

Moving forward, though, I would recommend that you create a mailbox for the VIP if they communicate with your environment on a regular basis. That way they aren’t using their personal email and you don’t have to worry about hiding it on future emails. There might not be much you can do about the past ones besides deleting them from all the mailboxes in your environment, which is possible.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

[–]exproject 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just because you have the messages available in multiple formats and locations doesn’t change that it’s an attribute of the envelope not meant to be rewritten. The functionality is just not built into any tool I know of. Having that functionality would create the ability to screw with discovery (I mean, there could be mitigation with versioning, but that would need other configuration)

While it may not be a read-only part of the envelope(I’m not actually sure), the only tool that MIGHT be able to do what you want is MFCMapi, and I don’t think you want to play with that for this job. The chance of getting it wrong would be pretty high I think and it is not a particularly friendly tool. I’m not sure it could be scripted with it either.

My recommendation would be what /u/borismkv said. Making a mailbox for VIP and telling them to use that. Forwarding to VIPs mailbox would be ripe for them to just respond directly instead of responding through his relay mailbox.

As for your existing messages, if the current users absolutely cannot see the existing messages, you’ll need to do a search and export and just forcibly remove the messages from their mailboxes. It’s not clean and not advised by me, but if they don’t want VIPs address out there it will need to be removed. I would do a search with his email address as the query with -LogOnly -LogLevel Full and see what kind of results you get.

Happy Constitution Day, Every Day?

Appreciate Checks and Balances on Constitution Day

This Constitution Day marks 229 years since the Framers signed the U.S. Constitution following more than four months of debate, votes, and revisions in Philadelphia.

The Constitution deserves celebration.

Civil rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights ensure numerous freedoms absent in other parts of the world. We are not kidnapped and detained without cause. We are free to practice our faith, and wear religious garments as suits our conscience. And we are free to group together and participate in political debate.

But we often overlook the benefit of a checked and balanced government. The Constitution prescribed a three-branched government to ensure that no faction could unaccountably overstep its authority. As children learn, the legislative branch makes law, taxes, and spends (Article I), the executive branch enforces law (Article II), and the judicial branch resolves cases and controversies before it (Article III).

For most of the our history, the Constitution has limited the federal government’s capacity to create law, tax, regulate, and criminalize. The three branches have the power to check each other, and the ballot box ultimately holds politicians accountable.

But the Framers could not foresee the emergence of the regulatory state, which has effectively become the fourth branch of U.S. government.

Congress abdicated its lawmaking powers to literally countless agencies from the New Deal era to the present day. Agency bureaucrats can and do generate regulations autonomously. In 1946, Congress passed the Administrative Procedures Act, which prescribed the “notice-and-comment” process to constrain agency rulemaking, but this is a poor substitute for the accountable and divided government framed by the Constitution. While the public may comment on proposed regulations before enactment, regulators may ignore opposition to costly new rules, or even fabricate public support in favor of regulation.

Agencies increasingly avoid notice-and-comment rulemaking altogether using what Clyde Wayne Crews calls “regulatory dark matter”: industry guidance, opinions, and interpretations. Because many agencies have enforcement power, guidance and opinion letters—even blog posts—may effectively impose new requirements and certainly new compliance costs of businesses. Through new “interpretations,” agencies take advantage of the deference courts give them. Interpretations can effectively announce new rules by decree, as when the Department of Labor unexpectedly decided that a 1938 law makes certain independent contractors into employees.

Some agencies have also become adept at usurping legislative and judicial powers by settling lawsuits with non-government organizations, which creates de facto law without formal rulemaking or appropriation. For example, the EPA currently hopes to expand its authority by imposing clean fuel standards on Volkswagen to settle unrelated diesel fraud claims. The EPA has a track record of setting policy though settled litigation.

While the three canonical branches of government counterbalance each other, the “fourth branch” simply accumulates regulations and dark matter rules over time. Layers accumulate like debris in a neglected gutter. Regulations fossilize over time, as once-burdensome rules become the expectations of industry, deterring competition and hindering innovation. Volumes of code can block the flow of economic development indefinitely.

But there is hope: the Framer’s original design is still intact. Congress and the President can scrape off regulatory debris, banish regulatory dark matter, and prevent more from accumulating.

It would be a fitting tribute to the Constitution.

Due to Date Lines, Lies and Immunity Proven on Hillary’s Server

It is looking much worse for how the FBI led this investigation while Director Comey has moved on, sorta:

Asked whether he knew if Clinton’s attorneys saw classified information, Comey said he did not know the answer.

Chaffetz was more certain. “It has to be yes, director,” he said. “You came across 110 and they said they went through all of them.”

Comey referred Chaffetz to his statement Tuesday in which he said Clinton’s attorneys sorted the emails for classified information using headers and search terms.

“Did Hillary Clinton give non-cleared people access to classified information?” Chaffetz asked.

“Yes,” Comey said, repeating, “Yes.”

Chaffetz asked, “What do you think her intent was?”

“I think that was to get good legal representation and to make the production to the State Department,” Comey responded. “I think it would be a very tall order in that circumstance, if I don’t see the evidence to make a case that she was acting with criminal intent in her engagement with her lawyers.”  More here from Politico. 

Judicial Watch: New State Department Documents Reveal Top Agency Officials Raised Questions about Clinton Emails in Early August 2013

‘Finally, John, you mentioned yesterday requests for Secretary Clinton’s emails; may I get copies.’ – Margaret Grafeld, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Global Information Services to John Hackett, Deputy Director, Office of Information Programs and Services, August 7, 2013

 Documents Reveal that in Early August 2013, State had 17 Freedom of Information Requests relating to requests for Clinton correspondence

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released 113 pages of new State Department documents, revealing that in early August 2013, top State Department officials raised questions about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails and the number of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests seeking information about them.

According to the newly obtained emails, in August 2013, State Department officials were aware of 17 FOIA requests relating to requests for Clinton correspondence, including four that “specifically mention Emails or Email accounts.” Despite the large number of FOIA requests and growing concern among top agency officials, the State Department did not formally request that the former secretary of state produce the emails on the clintonemail.com server until October 2014.

Included among the 17 FOIA requests was a Judicial Watch lawsuit seeking records pertaining to possible conflicts of interest between the actions taken by Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and Bill Clinton’s activities. The lawsuit produced 276 pages of internal State Department records revealing that within two days of the deadly terrorist attack on Benghazi, Mohamed Yusuf al-Magariaf, the president of Libya’s National Congress, asked to participate in a Clinton Global Initiative function and “meet President Clinton.”  The records also show Hillary Clinton’s staff coordinated with the Clinton Foundation’s staff to have her thank Clinton Global Initiative project sponsors for their “commitments” during a Foundation speech on September 25, 2009.  The lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Dept. of State (No. 1:13-cv-00772)) was filed on May 28, 2013.

In a 2014 joint expose with the Washington Examiner Judicial Watch’s Chief Investigative Reporter Micah Morrison reported:

[F]ormer President Clinton gave 215 speeches and earned $48 million while his wife presided over U.S. foreign policy, raising questions about whether the Clintons fulfilled ethics agreements related to the Clinton Foundation during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.

According to documents obtained by Judicial Watch and released … in an ongoing Freedom of Information Act case, State Department officials charged with reviewing Bill Clinton’s proposed speeches did not object to a single one.

The new State Department documents records were obtained by Judicial Watch under court order in a March 2016, FOIA lawsuit against the agency for all records “about the processing of a December 2012 FOIA request filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington [CREW]” (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:16-cv-00574)).In December 2012, CREW filed a FOIA request with the Department of State for “records sufficient to show the number of email accounts of or associated with Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton.” In May 2013, the agency responded that “no records responsive to your request were located.”  Earlier this year, the State Department Office of Inspector General concluded that the “no records response” sent in response to this request was “inaccurate and incomplete.”

According to the newly obtained records, by early August 2013, top State Department officials raised questions about FOIA requests seeking information related to the Clinton emails:

From: Grafeld, Margaret P

Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 10:47 AM

To: Walter, Sheryl; Hackett, John

Subject: Fw: IPS significant FOIA Report

… Finally, John, you mentioned yesterday requests for Secretary Clinton’s emails; may I get copies, pls and thx.

[Margaret Grafeld was the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Global Information Services. Sheryl Walter was the State Department Director, Office of Information Programs and Services/Global Information Services. John Hackett was the Deputy Director, Office of Information Programs and Services.]

From: Walter, Sheryl L

Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 10:51 AM

To: Hermesman, Geoffrey F [and others]

Subject: FW: IPS Significant FOIA Report

… Geoff, can you get a copy of all requests related to Clinton’s emails?

[Geoffrey Hermesman was a State Department program analyst.]

From: Hermesman, Geoffrey F

Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013  12:54 PM

To: Sheryl Walter [and others]

Subject: RE: IPS significant FOIA Report

A search of the F2 database identified 17 FOIA cases that contain Clinton in the subject line and can be further construed as requests for correspondence between the Secretary and other individuals and/or organizations. Of these, four specifically mention Emails or Email accounts.

From: Finnegan, Karen M

Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 4:10 PM

To: Walter, Sheryl L [and others]

Subject: RE: IPS Significant FOIA Report

Sheryl: To follow-up on my early response, Cristina is handling the Judicial Watch case, CA No. 2013-772 (DDC) (J. Kollar-Kotelly), that seeks access to all communications (including e-mail) between the Department and President Clinton and/or his foundation regarding clearing his speeches [Redacted]

[Karen Finnegan was division chief of the State Department’s freedom of information program.]

Last month, Judicial Watch released 10 pages of Department records that included an email sent by State Department spokesman Brock Johnson alerting Cheryl Mills, Hillary Clinton’s then Chief of Staff, that a “significant” Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request had been made for records showing the number of email accounts used by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

“These new emails suggest that the Obama State Department knew about the Clinton email problem at least three years but covered it up,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.  “Any criminal investigation of the Clinton email scandal must include officials in the Obama administration.”

###

 

LawNewz: The New York Times first reported on Combetta’s immunity deal in an article published late Thursday evening.  The article states Combetta’s actions with respect to his work on the Clinton email server were referenced in the FBI investigation summary released on September 2 — but his name was redacted.

According to the FBI investigation summary, Combetta appears to be the individual who deleted Clinton’s email archives from the PRN systems in late March 2015.  The FBI also uncovered evidence of a work ticket referencing a conference call between PRN and Clinton’s attorneys on March 31, 2015, but Combetta was advised by PRN lawyers not to answer questions about the conference call, citing attorney-client privilege.

During his second interview with the FBI in May 2016, Combetta told investigators that he deleted the emails in late March 2015 after recalling an order from Clinton’s team in December 2014 to delete all of the emails that may still exist.  He referred to this recollection as an “oh shit” moment and decided to delete the emails, all the while knowing the preservation order existed.  Combetta also told investigators he used the BleachBit program tool, ensuring the emails could not be recovered by investigators or anyone else.

However, during his previous interview in February 2016, he told investigators that the December 2014 deletion order played no role in his decision to delete the emails.

Despite lying to investigators, Combetta reportedly received immunity from prosecution.

Before Combetta’s identity or immunity deal was reported, the Denver Post published an editorial calling the circumstances surrounding the deletion of the emails a “hard-to-believe shocker that ought to give reasonable people pause.”  PRN is a Colorado based company.

The timing of the deletion is important because it was done after Congress requested Clinton retain all of the emails that still existed.  On Tuesday, Congressman Jason Chaffetz asked the Department of Justice to conduct an obstruction of justice investigation into the deletion of the emails.

However, if reports of the immunity deal are true, it seems unlikely that any sort of obstruction of justice investigation case can go forward.  Combetta would seemingly be protected from prosecution.

That seems to be the conclusion of the Clinton campaign, at least according to what spokesman Brian Fallon told the newspaper.  Fallon said all of this had already been “thoroughly examined by the F.B.I. prior to its decision to close out this case.”

He added, “As the F.B.I.’s report notes, neither Hillary Clinton nor her attorneys had knowledge of the Platte River Network employee’s actions. It appears he acted on his own and against guidance given by both Clinton’s and Platte River’s attorneys to retain all data in compliance with a congressional preservation request.”