Toscas Interview: Clinton Email MYE Investigation Planned as "Headquarters Special" from the start? P13:  By Mr. Baker to Mr. Toscas "  Q:  Was any component of the Department, besides the FBI, involved in the Midyear Exam investigation before NSD  got involved?    A:  Other than the deputy attorney general's office, if that  --    Q:  Was the U.S. Attorneys' Office involved? A:  Was the  --   Oh, no.    No U.S. Attorneys' Office was involved until we  --    Q:  Criminal Division?   A:  I don't believe so.    It's hard for me to say before we were involved.    I think  at the beginning of  the investigation there was some question about who  could or should be  involved because there may have been some questions flagged about potential need for recusals because there were different people in email chains that were involved in the investigation.     But that, I think, was quickly resolved by the deputy attorney general's office, and once NSD was brought into it, which I don't believe took very long, but I can't say for sure how long  that period lasted, but once NSD was brought on board, John Carlin,  who was then the assistant attorney general for national security, sat  us down and said he wanted me to lead our team's efforts, and essentially directed me to conduct the  investigation; not that this type of  direction is needed, but specifically directed that, you know, follow the evidence wherever this goes.     It is an important case.    It is an important investigation.    You know, whatever you  may need, obviously, we are here to make sure that the resources that  you need and other  assistance that is  needed in the investigation are there.    But follow the facts wherever they go.    And the way he designed it was that I  would be the lead career person on it. " Then, on P20:   "  Q:  The IG's report discusses that Dana Boente may have had  some issues with it being assigned to the Eastern District of Virginia.  Were you aware of those?   A:  Yeah.    I talked to Dana about that at the time, and I think it is reflected, the same type of statement is reflected in the IG report.  I think, essentially, as the IG report lays out, Dana's question was:    Well, I'm not really sure we have venue in EDVA for this.     From our standpoint, we didn't know where venue would eventually settle, which sometimes in investigations, and I think  I mentioned this just generally, in some of the IG  --  and it's reflected in the IG report  --  in cases  like this, the counterintelligence cases, as I said, it is not uncommon  for the Bureau to  hold it for a  while at  headquarters or to investigate it out of headquarters initially.    The same may go for us, because we don't know what the venue may be.     So in this instance, I understood  what Dana was  saying, but we didn't think that  venue necessarily  was going to end  up in EDVA, but we understood that,  if you can  help us, if your attorneys  can help us, in addition, not only help us with the actual case, the day-to-day review of the case  and review of the  evidence, but also to have a place from which we can serve process, obviously, we want a district involved to be able to do that. " When I read the sentence from p13, "at the beginning of  the investigation there was some question about who  could or should be  involved because there may have been some questions flagged about potential need for recusals because there were different people in email chains that were involved in the investigation. ", it set my mistrust meter off.   Then, as I read about EDVA and Dana Boente and their concerns, I went hmmmm.  Wasn't Dana Boente and EDVA somehow involved in the DNC/Seth Rich research I did many months ago?  I don't remember much about it, and it may be my excessive connect-the-dot-itis issue. Anyway, I wondered also if these kind of "sensitive" investigations were tightly contained so that they could be tightly controlled.  It caused me to be suspicious of the phrase "follow the facts wherever they go."  I wonder if it is an instruction on how to handle evidence.