The FBI plans to release its report, as soon as tomorrow, recommending no charges for Hillary Clinton in the investigation into her email server. The release is not of the FBI’s own volition; rather, they are responding to numerous FOIA requests.
— Fox News (@FoxNews) August 30, 2016
As CNN reports:
The FBI expects to publicly release as soon as Wednesday the report the bureau sent to the Justice Department in July recommending no charges in the Hillary Clinton email server investigation, according to multiple law enforcement officials.The release is in response to numerous FOIA requests including from CNN.
Also to be released is Hillary Clinton’s 302, the FBI agent notes from Clinton’s voluntary interview at FBI headquarters. The report is about 30 pages, and the 302 is about a dozen pages according to the officials.Not yet being released are additional notes from interviews of Clinton aides or other investigative materials that were sent to Congress.
Given the recommendation not to recommend charges, we don’t expect anything too earth shattering — although, likely, additional detail around FBI Director James Comey’s characterization of Hillary’s handling of classified material as “extremely careless.”
Of course, it is likely no accident that the release of the information is to be timed as the nation enters a holiday weekend — holiday weekend news dump?
In any case, the impending release of the report and the notes in response to FOIA requests — less than two months after the investigation was completed — begs one major question in my (Michelle Jesse) mind. Why is it that we will so quickly receive the FBI’s response to FOIA requests, while the State Department continues to stonewall? As we reported last week, the State Department is now going on SIX years — and a lawsuit — to fulfill a request to deliver four years of Hillary Clinton’s schedules.
What are we to make of this discrepancy in timeliness? Could one difference be, perhaps, releasing on the one hand the documents that were carefully crafted with the public eye in mind to protect Hillary — while withholding, on the other, documents that are inherently damning from the truth they reveal (e.g., pay-for-play access)?
[Note: This article was written by Michelle Jesse, Associate Editor]