Shadow IT can be defined as software and hardware solutions as well as associated manpower used in organization
that are neither approved not supported by the formal IT organization. This is a
double edge sword. It can help to introduce innovative things into corporation, but it also can completely destroy the security and
endanger the vital corporate data.
Hillary Clinton
email scandal is a classic story of use of shadow IT on the highest levels of the US government. She went as far as creating hew own private parallel IT infrastructure. Her
shadow IT infrastructure included smartphones tablets, laptops, a email server with Web frontend. All set-up using semi-qualified staff
connected to Clinton foundation, which specializes mainly in serving non-profits and charities. This was she actually
endangered the US
diplomatic communications during her tenure as the Secretary of State.
The existence of Shadow IT implies a failure on the part of IT to provide the services to meet the users need. As such this problem
is a typical sign of the rotting of IT organizations ("fish rots from the head") -- a widespread phenomenon due to promotion of incompetent
manages, outsourcing and other related phenomenon. IT is no longer young and losing IQ this is just one of the ailment of the old age.
According to old Gartner forecast, by 2015, 35% of enterprise IT expenditures for most organizations will be managed outside the
IT department's budget. While now in 2019, this figure looks definitely overinflated we definitely can talk about around 10% of
budget here (unless we count outsourcing), although in research organizations shadow IT might be well over 50%. Wikipedia defines
this widespread phenomenon the following way:
Shadow IT, also known as Stealth IT or Client IT, are
Information technology (IT) systems
built and used within organizations without explicit organizational approval, for example, systems specified and deployed by departments
other than the IT department.
Many people consider shadow IT an important source of innovation,
and such systems may become prototypes for future approved
IT solutions. On the other hand, shadow IT solutions are not often in line with organizational requirements for control, documentation,
security, reliability, etc.
Typically shadow IT is not a source on innovation -- typically this is a reaction on excessive centralization and bureaucratization of IT, endemic for large corporations. It created
hidden conflict between IT organization and the rest of corporation, conflict exposure of which is not considered to be "politically correct",
and which typically is swiped under the carpet. Central IT with time tend to became detaches from interests or the
organization and engaged in data hoarding, self-promotion and favor trading, including reckless outsourcing (the way to increase
bonuses for top level brass at the expense of everybody else).
So this is looks to me like shadow economics in the USSR where overcentralization essentially paralyzed local activity, other
then huge centrally assigned government projects. One of clear analogies is Byzantine system of ordering of new hardware that
many corporations now adopt. In some case Soviet system looks definitely superior to those corporate schemes, which entail almost
complete paralysis of any local innovation and especially negatively affect corporate research.
Proliferation of DevOPs hoopla is one typical way to swipe under the carpet negative problems caused
by excessive outsourcing and centralization. In a way "DevOps is an opium for the IT people" ;-)
Proliferation of DevOPs hoopla is one typical way to swipe under the carpet problems caused
by excessive outsourcing and centralization. In a way "DevOps is an opium for the IT people" ;-)
Introduction of applications that are viewed by users as 'second rate" in comparison with previous version also create stimulus
for Shadow IT. One example is Office 365, which provides questionable benefits in comparison with previous versions of Microsoft
Office, especially for power users. And the switch is connected mainly with Microsoft's desire to "milk the cow" via subscription model.
Many power users do not see
value to switch and readapt to the "new brave world" of cloud applications, which are often slower. As well as relearn things
that does not improve their productivity, or even effect it negatively. Usage of abandonware, applications another typical
"Shadow IT" domain as many enterprise users own licenses to previous version of now discontinued applications. One example
here is Microsoft Frontpage. Recently the rise of Shadow IT became somewhat connected with the resistance to DevOps hoopla, especially
among system administrators which are badly affected. The other is installation of Windows 7 in VM on Windows 10 desktops as
power user usually have registration codes and disks to make this happen.
It is also can be used by "rogue" top brass for "double books" kind of schemes like in Hillary Clinton case (aka
Emailgate). While Wikipedia
article is trying to whitewash Hillary, it does provide some relevant facts that attest the amazing, really staggering level of arrogance and incompetence involved:
At the time of Senate confirmation hearings on Hillary Clinton's nomination as Secretary of State, the
domain names clintonemail.com, wjcoffice.com, and presidentclinton.com
were registered to Eric Hoteham,[20]
with the home of Clinton and her husband in Chappaqua, New York, as the contact address.[21][22]
The domains were pointed to a private email server that Clinton (who never had a state.gov email account) used to send and receive
email, and which was purchased and installed in the Clintons' home for
her 2008 presidential campaign.[23]
The email server was located in the Clintons' home in Chappaqua, New York, from January 2009 until 2013, when it was sent to a
data center in New Jersey before being handed over to
Platte River Networks, a Denver-based
information technology firm that
Clinton hired to manage her email system.[24][25][26][27][28]
The server itself runs a Microsoft
Exchange 2010[29][30]
server with access to emails over the internet being delivered by
Outlook Web App. The web
page is secured with a TLS certificate to
allow information to be transmitted securely when using the website. However, for the first two months of its use - January 2009
through March 29, 2009 - the web page was reportedly not secured with a TLS certificate, meaning that information transmitted using
the service was unencrypted and may have been liable to interception.[19]
In the latter case the key goal was to avoid accountability and disclosure of emails and other documents connected with Clinton
Foundation dealings. This is typical if
some executive have shadow business. In large corporate environment the discovery of such a scheme typically lead to immediate
termination. This discipline is strictly enforced because such cases can cause huge PR and financial damage to the corporation.
Annual security training which includes security of email often is an annual obligatory course (for example Harvard provides such
course for large corporations) and include viewing and listening specially prepared presentation and passing more or less
difficult quiz. such annual training serves as an important deterrent for engaging in reckless "a la Hillary" schemes.
In the past few years, Shadow IT gone from being considered a minor problem, to being considered a huge security risk. Still in over-centralized
(and/or outsourced ) IT organizations it is to a certain extent unavoidable, as people in such an organization are essentially unable
to solve user problems "naturally". That's why they started to resort to methods that often lie outside traditional
enterprise IT and some of them undermine enterprise security.
The classic case is too tight control of Internet access. For example attempt to decode encrypted communications, which make
browsing of the WEB almost unusable. People switch to use of cell phone and totally bypass corporate infrastructure.
The simplest case is
the abuse of webmail such as Gmail. Such a desire to bypass corporate email typically arise when corporate email does now
work well -- for example you can't sent a big attachment. Similarly, if you can't download the necessary files for
your business partners, Microsoft Drive or Google drive can used to "solve" this problem. Or you might use your Hotmail or
Gmail account to send attachment to say Dell or HP. Few people are stupid enough to use Facebook.
Another typical example is use of social sites for business purposes (for exchanging some photos or documents). Similar abuse is
possible with Google drive and ismilar storage areas provided by major corporations such as Microsoft and Google.
Cloud servers open really infinite possibilities for shadow infrastructure as they are not tightly controlled by traditional IT,
which often does no understand cloud well, So they can compete with university graduates who do not actually know other
infrastructure and for whom setting cloud server in Ubuntu is natural way of doing things.
At the same time IT management is unwilling to acknowledge that the strategy to save costs via over-centralization mixed with outsourcing
is dead-ended and quickly reaches the stage of unintended consequences, or as it often called "centralization blowback".
IT management often is unwilling to acknowledge that the strategy to save costs via over-centralization mixed with outsourcing
is dead-ended and quickly reaches the stage of unintended consequences or as it often called "centralization blowback".
So, as we mentioned above, shadow IT naturally develops as a reaction to excessive bureaucratization of central IT typical for large
corporations. As well as the loss of flexibility of IT (fossilization) resulting in the compete, utter inability of IT to serve user
needs. When a simple helpdesk ticket travels to central helpdesk and than is lingering somewhere for two days and then is assigned to
clueless outsourcer, the user community quickly adapt, creates its own experts (out of the most knowledgeable users who run complex
home networks, are involved with home automation or robotics) and "private" knowledge centers and start ignoring official IT functions
and services. This the reality of outsourcing and over centralization and is backside of all this
DevOps hoopla. Which actually raises the level of complexity of environment, which is
already way too complex.
When corporate desktop became unmanageable mess of badly chosen applications amplified by redundant or duplicating each other
functions security software, users try to "escape" this environment into more predictable, better for them. For most users this is
connected with usage of virtual machines. This is especially typical for sysadmins who known Linux well. In this case moving
to Linux became that way to escape "the idiotism of typical corporate desktop environment". It does not completely avoids
useless fighting with helpdesk about why you can't connect to DRAC or why Teraterm suddenly stopped working, but it helps.
If the organization provides users access to Azure of Amazon cloud this is another avenue of "escapism movement". In many
case this allow to relax or even completely avoid problems with corporate proxy which often throws a monkey wrench in installation
of complex software, especially for researchers.
Many corporations have completely dysfunctional IT now due to cuts in manpower and outsourcing. For example, if helpdesk tickets
are travelling two or more days in a bureaucratic maze before assigning to a specialist who can resolve them (and often to the wrong specialist, which extends the agony), laptops after patching exhibit "strange" behaviour and/or some applications change behaviour, or
even stop working after patching.
Often corporate laptop boots so long that it became so annoying that people do not shut it down
at the end of the day creating windows of opportunity to various hacks. Or bluetooth stops working and nobody care why.
In dysfunctional IT organization an important server after a minor malfunction can stay down for a week or even a month, and nobody cares.
Sounds familiar? It is ;-).
Another typical example of "shadow IT" are private backups and general "abuse" of USB drives, as a reaction
to switching to backups over WAN, or outsourcing this operation. They also might be result of some high level brass attempt to hide
nefarious activities.
Now we know for sure that emails
on her private, recklessly created email server were intercepted by a foreign power. And it was not Russia.
Typical enterprise backup tools such as HP Data Protector can create a horrible mess: it tend to stop making backup on its own and
personnel often overlook this fact until it's too late. Often users stop trusting central backup after one or two accidents in which
they lost data. With the capacity of modern USB drives (256GB for falsh drives and 3TB for portable USB) any sysadmin can make
"private" backups at least of the OS and critical files to avoid downtime. But road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Even if this is done on site such a move represents some security risk. If backup stored offsite in the cloud -- a huge security risk.
Some example of private backups are images on OS done using a FIT (small factor) flash drive to keep local
copy of OS and key files. Those can be viewed as kind of "self-preservation" strategy that can help to avoid frantic efforts to restore
damaged servers after power loss (typically such "external" events provoke additional failures and if at this point RAID5 array has
one bad drive and the second failed your data are in danger). Linux LVM is another frequent point failure.
Generally you need to have a copy of of /etc/ on the first login during the particular day. Especially important is a
copy of /etc/lvm/backup/volume_name which contain vital information for recovery of mangled LVM partitions.
That's why it is prudent to backup root partition at least
weekly and backup /etc directory on the first login during particular day. You can write such data on a flash card of the
server or blade (vFlash in Dell) which provide this operation a patina of legitimacy, or a
FIT form factor flash drive
permanently installed in one of USB ports.
The same FIT flash drive can contain a tar ball
of major filesystems as provided by Relax-and-Recover. With
the current prices there is no excuse not to use FIT drive as a recovery medium. As of October 2019 256GB SanDisk FIT drive costs around $36. Samsung
also sell FIT form factor USB
flash drives.
In large enterprise environment
you can use a dedicated server for such "partial" backups and bare metal recovery ISO
files. You should do it yourself, as central backup
in large, typically highly bureaucratized corporation is often unreliable. In other words you do need to practice "Shadow
IT".
Centralized backup often it is performed by the other department
(operators on night shift)
and restore is delegated to operators too, who can screw-up already damaged system further instead of helping
to recover it just due to the lack of knowledge and understanding of the environment. Then you will
need to deal with two problems :-(.
"First and foremost, not too much zeal [with outsourcing]" ;-)
Taleyrand
The term "blowback" is richer than the term of "unintended consequences" and includes the elements of hidden revolt,
or at least active and growing resistance to the policies of central IT.
(The Full Wiki) :
Blowback is the espionage term for the violent,
unintended consequences of a
covert operation that are suffered by the civil population
of the aggressor government. To the civilians suffering it, the blowback typically manifests itself as "random" acts of political
violence without a discernible, direct cause; because the public-in whose name the
intelligence agency acted-are ignorant of the effected
secret attacks that provoked revenge (counter-attack) against them. Specifically, blowback denotes the resultant,
violent consequences - reported as news fact, by domestic and international mass communications media, when the actor intelligence
agency hides its responsibility via media manipulation.
Generally, blowback loosely denotes every consequence of every aspect of a secret attack operation, thus, it is synonymous
with consequence-the attacked victims' revenge against the civil populace of the aggressor country, because the responsible
politico-military leaders are invulnerable.
Originally, blowback was CIA internal coinage
denoting the unintended, harmful consequences-to friendly populations and military forces-when a given weapon is carelessly used.
Examples include anti-Western religious fanatics who, in due course, attack foe and sponsor; right-wing counter-revolutionaries
who sell drugs to their sponsor's civil populace; and banana
republicjuntas who kill American reporters.
This is the situation when, unfortunately, users start implicitly sending central IT to hell. So "Shadow IT" has its place
in the modern datacenter and large corporations. But as everything it is important to remember Talleyrand advice to young diplomats
"first and foremost, not too much zeal" ;-). Even if you forces to resort to shadow It by circumstances, it is important not to overstep
boundaries.
RSA 2012 paper on the subject, although written from a position of a security company interested in additional business, and as such
highly suspect, still contain interesting observations. I would recommend to read it first. Generally we can distinguish several forms of Shadow IT and new form arise along with new technologies (two recent additions
are use of Azure and Amazon cloud for Shadow IT activities)
Use of unapproved and/or unsupported by central IT applications. This is probably the most widespread form. That
includes first of all open source applications, editors such as SlickEdit, packages like Cygwin, terminal emulators like Teraterm,
additional scripting languages, gnu toolchain, etc.
Running software from USB drives. There is a whole class of software which is able to run from USB using
only user-level privileges. For example, WinSCP, MobaTerm and Total Commander.
Bringing to the corporation distributives or RPMs downloaded at home as it is impossible to installed software without them
and corporate proxy blocks sites from which they can be downloaded.
Subverting corporate controls via VM (see below)
Running older versions of software using existing corporate licensed or licenses from corporate acquisitions of smaller rivals
as newer version are inferior or too slow due to WAN connectivity involved (for example Office 365 vs Office 2007 or even
Office 2003).
Installing virtual machine (or just VMware player, which often is a corporate approved application) on the standard desktop.
And running additional OS on it (typically Linux) without bizarre restrictions introduced by central IT.
Use of decommissioned, but not discarded laptops, desktops and cellphones to host local applications. You might
be surprised how much you can do using old cellphones -- you can host pretty complex applications for a sizable group on
it. And old laptop can serve as a shadow server for along, long time. Some Dell D620 laptops are still use in corporations
for this purpose even today. There is volumes of "undeground" literature about hwoto use IPv6 in IPv4 networks to avoid
detection (you can do anything on a local segment with IPv6). Access to internet from provate cellphones is now another "window
into the world" that is widely exploited. In a sense excessive zeal by corpoate security departments, now not only
backfire, user taken countermeasures often make the security much lower.
Deliberate duplication of functions.
When official helpdesk became useless, people in regional offices often try to duplicate support contracts with vendors, or
consulting organization, masking them in their budgets. Small repairs (like harddrives) are bought on corporate
credit card, as wait time for cercvice cfrom outsourced corporate IT is completely unacceptable.
When official backup solutions became fossilized and unreliable (for example performed over the WAN with the spill out into
working hours) sysadmins and power users create their own backup systems
When tech support from "official" channel is a joke (often this the case with outsourcers) users buy additional/duplicating
support from vendors bypassing central IT or use their contacts with universities to hire some "bright guys" as
consultants, hiding or distorting the real nature of their work.
Proliferation of staff (typically at remote sites, not in headquarters) that does not belong to formal IT, but is engaged
in pure IT functions, sometimes full-time. This is especially typical for engineering departments and research labs,
were there is a lot technical expertise on the floor. Sometimes those specialists later are "discovered" and incorporated into "official
IT".
Unapproved Web services from third party providers that replace or complement similar applications dictated by central IT.
For example, partial switch to use of Gmail instead of using Notus Notes mail which is centralized on other continent and as
result is slow as hell. When email to the user sitting the next cubicle takes two-three minutes to deliver, people start thinking
about alternatives. And not always constructively, as often it is easier to tell such a user information verbally, then to type and
send email :-). Such practices of course worry security department and is bad for corporation as whole. But often it falls under radar.
And even if threatening letters to "all users" are sent, they have unintended consequences. People really stop using Gmail and hotmail
for sending letters to colleagues. But they often switch to Facebook which is much less secure then Gmail, but is politically correct,
because social platforms are now in fashion and the last month or year vice president responsible for IT (often accountant by trainings,
who understand in IT only elements of Excel) wrote a letter recommending employees to create a page on Facebook (big mistake,
but he might understand this only a couple of years later :-). Internal company blogs also can often be used a email substitution.
Unapproved support contracts that duplicate support which should be provided by central IT.
Unapproved hardware that undermines central IT monopoly. For example
Using private Microsoft Surface pro tablets as a compliment to centrally assigned (aka "standard") and sluggish Dell
or HP laptops
with some excessive scanning and restriction of functions.
Proliferation of personal devices with 4G connectivity including, but not limited to ultrabooks, tablets (especially Microsoft
Surface Pro with 4G modem), smartbooks with 4G connectivity, Chromebooks, large smartphones. All of them allow to browse Web outside control
or knowledge of central IT.
User owed USB drives, cards, and other media (sometimes pretty sophisticated).
"Parallel networks" running on some non-routable IP space, or via broght from home wireless router bypassing
corporate proxy and access policies.
Shadow virtual or real server running Linux and email or LAMP stack with some SaaS software (for example blogs or wiki).
Modern tower desktop is a pretty capable servers that can serve regional office needs quite well, if corporate policy dictates that
those function are centralized at the site across Atlantic. If there are capable people on a remote site ;-).
Attempts to create alternative networking infrastructure either in a form netbooks with non-approved WAN cards (breaking firewall)
or Linksys routers brought from home and running some devices on additional private network (typically using 196.168.x.x IP range,
which is non-routable and is seldom used in corporate environment). These cases are less common as they require networking
qualification which is rare outside IT.
According to Wikipedia:
A 2012 French survey
of 129 IT managers revealed some examples of shadow IT :
Excel macro 19%
software 17%
cloud solutions 16%
ERP 12%
BI systems 9%
Websites 8%
hardware 6%
VoIP 5%
shadow IT support 5%
shadow IT project 3%
BYOD 3%
Another form of shadow IT comes by way of OAuth connected applications, where a user authorizes access to a third-party application
via a sanctioned application. For example, the user can use their Facebook credentials to log into Spotify, or another 3rd party
application via their corporate cloud app (Google G Suite or Microsoft Office 365). With this access, the 3rd party app may have
excessive access to the sanctioned app, thereby introducing up unintended risk.
All-in-all rise of "Shadow IT" signify both loss of control and loss of influence that IT organizations experienced during the last
decade. It is the most pronounced when due to over-centralization and outsourcing the quality of service became unacceptably low (despite
Potemkin villages of official reporting with their excellent and completely fake "incident resolution time" metrics)
All-in-all rise of "Shadow IT" signify both loss of control and loss of influence that IT organizations experienced during
the last decade. It is the most pronounced when due to over-centralization and outsourcing the quality of service became unacceptably
low (despite Potemkin villages of official reporting with their excellent and completely fake "incident resolution time" metrics)
Excessive outsourcing, red tape in servicing user requests, lack of qualification if central IT (especially noticeable on middle
management level) and severe lag in deploying modern Web-based solutions. Like in the USSR everything was decided in Moscow and all
money first went to Moscow and then were distributed top down, over-centralized IT headquarters concentrate tremendous information flows
that they are unable to deal with. We already mentions pretty stupid idea of "global helpdesk" which quickly deteriorate into "global
absence of helpdesk". Often it is exacerbated by outsourced helpdesk analysts which do not understand complex corporate context and
are just low paid monkey who look into database of precooked solution. in such an environment end users feel frustration or even
a state of disaster, when user can't get solution for trivial problems for a weeks and the response for a trivial helpdesk ticket can
take three days (I am not joking here).
There are several major symptom of this loss of flexibility and alienation from user needs:
Draconian "privilege deprivation" on corporate desktops and laptops. Often this is related to removal of administrative
privileges granted to the user (we are talking only about power users here; corporate lemmings is quite another category).
Often this is done in the name of fighting virus epidemics, while other more reasonable measures are not deployed. This is
an open invitation for users to have their own private laptop for some processing that was made too difficult by central IT.
Restrictions that convert PC into a dumb terminal and interfering with productivity usually provoke a strong (and inventive) counter
reaction. At this point often laptop or netbook is brought from home to have work done. Sometimes this affect part of
IT personal (for example inability to use VM to have linux as alternative to Windows OS raffle feathers of some Unix administrators)
creating disgruntled employees on regional sites and stimulating creation of quite inventive shadow IT solutions explicitly design
to defeat efforts of central IT. This is so called "site revolt" which in sycophantic IT environment of large corporation is
never open, and is swiped under the carpet. Although end users of influential sites and their manager can be much less
diplomatic and direct at times ;-)
Broken patch process and overzealous use of Active directory. While "IT sadists" previously naturally gravitated toward
sysadmin position and security, Active directory provides a new and very powerful way to inflict pain on unsuspecting users ;-).
It goes without saying that its power is abused and petty and sometimes humiliating restrictions provide strong backlash.
Combination of broken patch process and unqualified IT support is another interesting factor in rejection of corporate desktop
by power users. Dual boot if it is allowed became actively used. Virtual machines, if they are allowed, become the mean of
escape from clutches on centralized It, instead of a regular tool.
Deployment of inefficient, slow, or half-baked systems (often from IBM ;-) that are worse then their predecessors in the name
of unification and centralization. Sometimes the impression is with the loss of qualification of IT management vendors take
IT hostage and push useless or harmful products with impunity. This is modern variant of Anderson "invisible dress" tale. And
it usually takes several years of constant frustration and swiping problems under the carpet for somebody to cry "The king is naked".
Only then something is done of alleviate the situation. This situation if often typical after corporate takeoffs, when a large fossilized
company acquire more nimble competitor and push through the throat fossilized, inadequate IT systems (especially painful is helpdesk
change). Users who used to see better days and better system are frustrated and resort to guerilla tactic (while they still have
jobs, which often in not very long; this is the nature of acquisitions).
Reliance of fashion that dramatically raise the costs and lessen flexibility. Especially if this is a stupid "campaign"
in best over-centralized corporate IT style that completely lost touch with reality: "all our servers should use SAN", "we move everything
to VMware", "we buy blades only from Cisco" (with their exorbitant prices ;-), "we deploy DevOps", etc;
Inability to analyze technological and financial consequences of (often stupid, and assigned via nepotism channels) middle
and incompetent higher management initiatives.
Like with any counterculture there are risks in using Shadow IT. If you overstep your boundaries you can lose your job. But if everybody
is suffering from the same problem attempts to find a solution outside normal IT channel usually are not punished severely and often
are pursue with implicit support of local management. Typically such cases are just swiped under the rag. Often solution initiated
as part of "Shadow IT' later find its way into mainstream. In this sense it serves as internal innovation incubator.
Countermeasures to the removal of administrative privileges on laptops
Reagan citing old Russian proverb "Trust but verify" was right not only about international relations, but also about best
policy for the user laptops. "Trust but verify" complianceis a better approach than "scan and block".
for advanced users and system administrators removal of administrative privileges is essentially declaration from the central IT
that the user lost the trust. And it rises the classic question "Who are the judges ?" Why often incompetent (in comparison with staff
of engineering and research departments often having Ph.Ds among members) and detached from reality central IT staff should impose without
consultation and consent from business departments measures that undermines productivity in those departments? After all central IT
is a somewhat parasitic organization that spends money earned by business units. Why business units can't be consulted what that is
needed and treated like children, who are just told what to do and what don't?
That's why users without administrator privileges on his/her laptops often rebel. Sometimes there is no direct removal, but severe
restrictions are imposed via Active Directory ("AD fascism"). Restrictions that make doing useful work for certain tasks within the
framework imposed by organization next to impossible. Again, this typically is not a problem in accounting department (which actually
can squeeze overzealous IT jerks pretty easily ;-), but in research units and labs who have creative people able to smash those
restrictions, and who understand some part of IT much better then central IT (especially people involved with such things like genome
sequencing, molecular modeling, etc where community is generally extremely computer literate.)
At this point it is the central IT which is a loser as people are much more creative and often invent elegant tricks to bypass restrictions
imposed by IT infrastructure and create more usable alternative. In other words shadow IT exists because the business unit(s) perceive
that IT is not meeting their needs and using official tools is either unsuitably cumbersome and slow or is detrimental to the success
of business.
The key performance indicator for IT is availability. But users satisfaction is equally important and disgruntled users represent
much bigger danger to IT infrastructure. The danger that stupid and/or overzealous members of security group that invert those measure
fail to understand... In other words instead of improving security such measures are undermining it.
Countermeasures by "deprived" members
Let's discuss countermeasures that "deprived" members of corporate units (and that typically includes some It members, for example
Unix administrators) can use to restore status quo. There are several avenue for undermining this decision.
Pressure on "power hungry". Typically such measures are introduced during new hardware deployment. As environment is not
perfect especially during new laptop deployment period you can always claim that existing arrangement does not allow you to performs
some important part of your job. Logging a couple of tickets and putting a negative evaluation for unresolved ticket can help
to speed the sobering of "drunk with power" members of IT team, but this is a razor sharp weapon and should be used with extreme
caution and only as a reaction to a real screw-ups. You just no longer need to swipe them under the floor. And you need to find
and cultivate allies. There is strength in numbers.
Switch to alternative hardware.
Private tablets, Ultrabooks or Macbooks. They are not the expensive and can be used in additional to company granted
laptop or in tandem with company granted laptop. Typically company policy is fuzzy about ultrabooks and, especially, tablets that
user owns. Here Microsoft Surface Pro can be very handy in bypassing the "IT standards". You probably need to buy your own 4G
internet access card and that can eliminate restrictions imposed by company proxy. This clearly run contrary to company policy
on sharing corporate data and you can be fired. In extreme cases this just a reckless stupidity (Hillary Clinton bathroom
server is good example here). In any case freedom has its price :-).
Using some old corporate laptop or desktop (aka "previous generation" laptops, desktops) connected along with "standard"
laptop via Linksys (on which you can emulate any MAC address, including one of you laptop) or similar routers with the address
translation. Often you can justify your desire to keep older laptop quite easily. And "out of site is out of mind" --
central IT does not care about them anymore so as long as you can keep your mouth shut. This way you can avoid the most ridiculous
restriction imposed by the "new regime" for the most difficult "transitional" period. For example, this is a temporary solution
for a typical for Linux sysadmins problem when on a new laptop you can't connect to DRAC or ILO because Java is not compatible.
The danger here is the lack of security, because you can't provide adequate level of security on such things unless you install
linux on them. For this solution you should be have real understand of corporate networking or have a friend who does. Of
course nmap and similar tools will discover it presence on the corporate network, but usually this is pretty safe
method that for a limited time gives you the possibility to adapt or fight some restriction that paralyze your work. You
probably need to use additional non-routable address space for those two connections. For example if organization is using 10
network you can use 192.168 network on the segment that Linksys provides. Used Linksys gateway is approximately $10 on eBay so
this is not a big expense.
Some unused server or virtual machine can be used as you "surrogate desktop". Old, decommissioned hardware often is
not discarded immediately and if you are Linux/Unix administrator you have some power to prolong their life. Using this
as an alternative desktop is a good avoidance maneuver. Windows server can serve as a reasonable alternative to your desktop and
most application install and run perfectly well of it. Linux is mainly suitable for those who have previous Unix experience.
If you in IT you have multiple opportunities in this area. In the classic case of broken connection to DRAC/ILO you first
connect to this server and then from it to DRAC or ILO. As this server is outside the control of desktop specialists, you are
much less restricted in what you can do with it and as an administrator you have administrative privileges.
Switch to alternative OSes. Current laptops are so over specified that they can curry multiple OSes. Of
couse UEFI thows monkey wrench in direct use, but sophisticated people heroes always chose a detour to arrive to designation ;-)
Windows 10 allows Linux VM running (Ubuntu or Suse), so with some skills in bypassing IT bureaucracy this is a feasible way
of switching, especially attractive for system administrators (one nice wait is to wait for an emergency in which IT incompetence
is involved and then ask for a favor ;-)
Dual boot. This is the simplest possibility, if you can do without company specific services (for example use you Blackberry
for email). Both Linux and some older version of Windows can be installed. Using virtual machine is another. Guerilla installation
of Windows 2003 server are also pretty nice countermeasure. Often you can create some fancy justification for such a "private"
server and by definition is not controlled by the same group as desktop. So you get more degrees of freedom.
Use a virtual machine. If company allow using VM players you externally are given a free pass for this solution. Microsoft
also provides the ability to install VM with Windows 7. You just need to justify this which is not that difficult as many applications
after transition has difficulties.
Using "in the cloud" servers or services. Using alternative email is very common among company employees as using official
email for private messages is one of the stupidest thing that you can do in the corporate environment.
Those points are of course raw and incomplete. But stupidity of official policy is the gasoline that fuels "shadow IT renaissance"
and inventions of those who are affected. Creatively bypassing of those restrictions is a banner of real IT professional. Pleas note
that this often puts company data on far less protected then a regular corporate PC environment. Excessive zeal in security often backfire
in a very interesting ways.
In many instances, corporate IT policies and standardization efforts are simply stupid in the very exact meaning of this word. They
are often created by a clueless bureaucrat that does not understand (and don't want to) understand the situation "in the trenches".
That means that even parts of official IT staff can be engaged in "shadow IT" activities.
Creating shadow Web services
Deployment of unreliable, slow, resource hungry systems like Lotus Notes, Lotus Sametime, Documentum and, especially, SAP/R3 (which
often has very slow response that defeats the purpose and benefits of the centralization) also stimulate search for alternatives.
Like any counterculture creating your own Web services entails certain risks including security risks, but it would be simplistic
just to condemn it like many writers do. For example
The existence of Shadow IT within an organization is symptomatic of a lack of alignment between business units and IT and, possibly,
even senior management and IT. Shadow IT is, at best, a shortsighted strategy that may work well for a given business unit, but be
detrimental for the organization overall.
One precondition for creation of shadow Web services is the ability to run virtual machine on your corporate laptop or desktop. Or
on remote sites, availability of some local Linux expertise
Often Shadow IT is associated with Unix culture and open source software. Lpsp; the service is not visible outside the particular
site and it represents much lesser security risks.
Any modern desktop is extremely capable and powerful server in disguise, often superior to the "real" server from HP or Dell that
is five years old. If it allow "dual boot" (rarely true) or installing VMs on (often true) you already has all the necessary infrastructure.
Also on remote sites there is always possibility to get "departmental" desktop and use it as departmental server. In case central
IT goes nuts this is one path that might be considered. Using Internet ISPs and places like Amazon cloud is another possibility, but
here the problem is that your data migrates outside of IT infrastructure. This is a definite security risk and this way you might violate
some corporate policy.
Creation of shadow IT file servers
If using corporate file servers is too painful, creation of a Ubuntu server on unused laptop or workstation can fill the void. A simple linux box with Samba is a decent and quick
solution.
Creating of alternative email infrastructure
To a certain extent alternative email infrastructure existed as long as Web connectivity exist. Hotmail, Gmail and other Web-based
mail applications automatically mean alternative email infrastructure. That only question if how widely it is used (it definitely should
be used for all private emails). The fact that it is impossible to synchronize with corporate Blackberry or other smart phone works
against shadow email infrastructure, but many people have their own smart phones those days in additional to a corporate one.
here you are esepally stepping into Hillary Clinton territory. This is a dangerous path if such server communicated with the ourside
world. For strictly internal mail (for example specialized for monitoring messages) it might be OK.
Conclusions
Shadow IT is a reaction of users to the problem of fossilization and loss of efficiently and competence of over centralized IT organizations.
As such it is just a symptom of the disease. In perverted world of corporate IT, such methods often serve to increase productivity (or
partially restore it from complete paralysis caused by some ill though "reorganization" of IT functions) and as such has the right for
existence.
It is naive to think that an official edict can stop shadow IT from emerging in a typical large, bureaucratized IT organization with
its multiple sites, multiple datacenters and multiple jerks, authoritarians ("kiss up, kick down" type), and psychopaths (especially
dangerous are female psychopaths) at the top and middle levels of IT management.
Budgets cuts also stimulate looking for alternatives for officially supported IT products but not to the extent that bureaucratization
and stagnation of "official" IT organizations.
Shadow IT has been presented as a new threat to IT departments because of the cloud. Not
true -- the cloud has simply made it easier for non-IT personnel to acquire and create their
own solutions without waiting for IT's permission. Moreover, the cloud has made this means of
technical problem-solving more visible, bringing shadow IT into the light. In fact, "shadow IT"
is more of a legacy pejorative for what should better be labeled "DIY IT." After all, shadow IT
has always been about people solving their own problems with technology.
Here we take a look at how your organization can best go about leveraging the upside of DIY
IT.
What sends non-IT problem-solvers into the shadows
The IT department is simply too busy, overworked, understaffed, underutilized, and sometimes
even too disinterested to take on every marketing Web application idea or mobile app initiative
for field work that comes its way. There are too many strategic initiatives, mission-critical
systems, and standards committee meetings, so folks outside IT are often left with little
recourse but to invent their own solutions using whatever technical means and expertise they
have or can find.
How can this be a bad thing?
They are sharing critical, private data with the wrong people somehow.
Their data is fundamentally flawed, inaccurate, or out of date.
Their data would be of use to many others, but they don't know it exists.
Their ability to solve their own problems is a threat to IT.
Because shadow IT practitioners are subject matter experts in their domain, the second
drawback is unlikely. The third is an opportunity lost, but that's not scary enough to sweat.
The first and fourth are the most likely to instill fear -- with good reason. If something goes
wrong with a home-grown shadow IT solution, the IT department will likely be made responsible,
even if you didn't know it existed.
The Forrester Wave™ Endpoint Detection & Response, Q1 2020 Report
Sunburst On-Demand Attack Simulation
On-Demand Attack Simulation
The wrong response to these fears is to try to eradicate shadow IT. Because if you really
want to wipe out shadow IT, you would have to have access to all the network logs, corporate
credit card reports, phone bills, ISP bills, and firewall logs, and it would take some effort
to identify and block all unauthorized traffic in and out of the corporate network. You would
have to rig the network to refuse to connect to unsanctioned devices, as well as block access
to websites and cloud services like Gmail, Dropbox, Salesforce, Google apps, Trello, and so on.
Simply knowing all you would have to block access to would be a job in itself.
Worse, if you clamp down on DIY solutions you become an obstacle, and attempts to solve
departmental problems will submerge even further into the shadows -- but it will never go away.
The business needs underlying DIY IT are too important.
The reality is, if you shift your strategy to embrace DIY solutions the right way, people
would be able to safely solve their own problems without too much IT involvement and IT would
be able to accomplish more for the projects where its expertise and oversight is truly
critical.
Embrace DIY IT
Seek out shadow IT projects and help them, but above all respect the fact that this
problem-solving technique exists. The folks who launch a DIY project are not your enemies; they
are your co-workers, trying to solve their own problems, hampered by limited resources and
understanding. The IT department may not have many more resources to spread around, but you
have an abundance of technical know-how. Sharing that does not deplete it.
You can find the trail of shadow IT by looking at network logs, scanning email traffic and
attachments, and so forth. You must be willing to support these activities, even if you do
not like them . Whether or not you like them, they exist, and they likely have good reasons
for existing. It doesn't matter if they were not done with your permission or to your
specifications. Assume that they are necessary and help them do it right.
See how SecureX turns security from a blocker into an enabler.
Take the lead -- and
lead
IT departments have the expertise to help others select the right technical solution for
their needs. I'm not talking about RFPs, vendor/product evaluation meetings, software selection
committees -- those are typically time-wasting, ivory-tower circuses that satisfy no one. I'm
talking about helping colleagues figure out what it is they truly want and teaching them how to
evaluate and select a solution that works for them -- and is compliant with a small set of
minimal, relevant standards and policies.
That expertise could be of enormous benefit to the rest of the company, if only it was
shared. An approachable IT department that places a priority on helping people solve their own
problems -- instead of expending enormous effort trying to prevent largely unlikely, possibly
even imaginary problems -- is what you should be striving for.
Think of it as being helpful without being intrusive. Sharing your expertise and taking the
lead in helping non-IT departments help themselves not only shows consideration for your
colleagues' needs, but it also helps solve real problems for real people -- while keeping the
IT department informed about the technology choices made throughout the organization. Moreover,
it sets up the IT department for success instead of surprises when the inevitable integration
and data migration requests appear.
Plus, it's a heck of a lot cheaper than reinventing the wheel unnecessarily.
Create
policies everyone can live with
IT is responsible for critical policies concerning the use of devices, networks, access to
information, and so on. It is imperative that IT have in place a sane set of policies to
safeguard the company from loss, liability, leakage, incomplete/inaccurate data, and security
threats both internal and external. But everyone else has to live with these policies, too. If
they are too onerous or convoluted or byzantine, they will be ignored.
Therefore, create policies that respect everyone's concerns and needs, not IT's alone.
Here's the central question to ask yourself: Are you protecting the company or merely the
status quo?
Security is a legitimate concern, of course, but most SaaS vendors understand security at
least as well as you do, if not better. Being involved in the DIY procurement process (without
being a bottleneck or a dictator) lets you ensure that minimal security criteria are met.
Data integrity is likewise a legitimate concern, but control of company data is largely an
illusion. You can make data available or not, but you cannot control how it is used once
accessed. Train and trust your people, and verify their activities. You should not and cannot
make all decisions for them in advance.
Regulatory compliance, auditing, traceability, and so on are legitimate concerns, but
they do not trump the rights of workers to solve their own problems. All major companies
in similar fields are subject to the same regulations as your company. How you choose to comply
with those regulations is up to you. The way you've always done it is not the only way, and
it's probably not even the best way. Here, investigating what the major players in your field
do, especially if they are more modern, efficient, and "cloudy" than you, is a great start.
The simplest way to manage compliance is to isolate the affected software from the rest of
the system, since compliance is more about auditing and accountability than proscriptive
processes. The major movers and shakers in the Internet space are all over new technologies,
techniques, employee empowerment, and streamlining initiatives. Join them, or eat their
dust.
Champion DIY IT
Once you have a sensible set of policies in place, it's high time to shine a light on shadow
IT -- a celebratory spotlight, that is.
By championing DIY IT projects, you send a clear message that co-workers have no need to
hide how they go about solving their problems. Make your intentions friendly and clear up
front: that you are intent on improving business operations, recognizing and rewarding
innovators and risk-takers, finding and helping those who need assistance, and promoting good
practices for DIY IT. A short memo/email announcing this from a trusted, well-regarded
executive is highly recommended.
Here are a few other ideas in helping you embrace DIY IT:
Establish and publicize "office hours" for free consultations to help guide people toward
better, technically informed choices. Offer advice, publish research, make recommendations,
and help any way you can.
Offer platform services to make it easier for co-workers to get the cloud resources they
need while providing known, safe environments for them to use.
Ask people what software or systems they're using -- a simple survey or email can reveal
a lot. Offer a checklist of software you think people might or should be using with a few
blanks for services not listed to get the conversations started. Encourage people to track
what they really use for a day or a week. Let them know you are looking for existing
solutions to enhance and support, not searching for "contraband."
Examine your internal server/email traffic. Are there patterns or spikes of large
documents or long-running connections? Investigate the source of these, and help them
optimize. For example, if design engineers routinely email each other gigantic design
documents every Wednesday, provide them with a secure shared drive to use instead. Follow
the bandwidth to get to the source -- and help them work better.
Examine your support load for patterns, such as an uptick in calls for new software or
unsupported/unrecognized software, or a severe downturn in calls for old software. This may
indicate that an older, problematic system has been surreptitiously replaced.
Publicize and praise prior DIY IT projects, recognize and reward their creators, and
share their results and techniques with other departments. To spread successful practices,
provide proof of your good intentions and publicize the benefits of reasonable IT efforts
outside the IT department. Make it known, with strong executive support, that you want these
projects to succeed and you want the fruits of these labors to be recognized, applauded, and
shared for the betterment of the company.
Ask everyone, systematically, what they've done and/or need help with. Don't ask, "Are
you doing shady shadow IT things?" The answer will be no, of course not. Instead ask, "How
can we help you eliminate or simplify repetitive, mind-numbing activities?"
If possible, provide a roving high-caliber but small team of IT and devops specialists to
make "house calls" to help people get set up, fix problems, and improve DIY IT projects. This
will help the projects succeed while remaining compliant with balanced IT policies. Plus,
being visibly proactive and helpful is good for public relations.
When warranted, embed a small IT team within a business unit to help them solve their
larger problems, and share that learning with the rest of the company.
DIY IT can be a great benefit to your organization by relieving the load on the IT
department and enabling more people to tap technical tools to be more productive in their work
-- a win for everyone. But it can't happen without sane and balanced policies, active support
from IT, and a companywide awareness that this sort of innovation and initiative is valued.
It would be interesting if Durham prove result revealed in October, not matter how
whitewashed they are.
From comments below it is lear that for this particular subset neoliberal elite lost all
legitimacy
Notable quotes:
"... Told to Erase Laptop Containing Investigation of Anthony Weiner Laptop ..."
"... Robertson alleges that the FBI did nothing for a month after discovering Clinton's emails on the Anthony Weiner laptop. It was only after he spoke with the U.S. Attorney's office overseeing the case, he claims, that the agency took action. ..."
"... Robertson's assertions match up with a Wall Street Journal report from 2018 . In that report, text messages between agent Peter Strzok and his girlfriend, lawyer Lisa Page, indicated the former had been called to discuss the newly discovered emails on September 28th. Those emails wouldn't be revealed until former Director James Comey notified Congress about them on October 28th. ..."
"... A book written by James B . Stewart in 2019 asserts that FBI agents had referred to the discovery of Hillary Clinton's emails as an "oh s***" moment." One agent admitted there were "ten times" as many emails as Comey admitted to publicly. ..."
"... These allegations make it difficult to say Comey did not lie to the public – if not Congress . ..."
"... Recently released documents from the DOJ show multiple FBI officials had "accidentally wiped" their phones after the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) requested them . ..."
"... Erasing evidence is a consistent theme for the Obama-era FBI. Meanwhile, the Senate Homeland Security Committee has voted to authorize over three dozen subpoenas and depositions of some of these officials, including Comey. ..."
"... The difficulty is not just that Comey and his underlings were obstructing justice to benefit Clinton, and made a total **** show of it. It is that Sessions was, "to protect the DOJ"... and Barr, also, clearly, as long he continues to run interference for Comey, Clinton, et al, is also obstructing justice. Barr has crafted a veneer, it seems... in the Durham probe... to provide himself plausible deniability. That veneer can remain plausible only as long as Durham does nothing, and fails to make the files public. ..."
"... It was the NYPD. And, that cadre of NYPD officers recognized what was likely to happen when they did turn it over to the FBI. So they made copies. And, the copies got distributed to the cloud. ..."
"... The emails are in the stellarwind database , according to William Binney. So are all the texts that the Mueller crew "erased." IntercoursetheEU is correct - every email and text ever sent is archived in that database. ..."
"... Where is that slimy, former CIA Director who wouldn't shut-up on national TV from late 2016 to early 2020? Hhmm, not a freaking peep nor have I seen any recent images. How about the dirtball, prior FBI Dir? His Twitter acct has only had "quotes" posted for about a month now. ..."
"... Clapper? Another Trump trasher on constant TV the last few years.....where is he? NOT A PEEP. Why wouldn't he keep trashing to diminish DJT's election chances? ..."
"... Brennan was on an MSNBC panel last week pale, sweating, moving around in his seat at the mere mention of John Durham. Not his usual cocky self that's for sure. ..."
FBI agent John Robertson, the man who found Hillary Clinton's emails on the laptop of
Anthony Weiner, claims he was advised by bosses to
erase his own computer.
Former FBI Director James Comey, you may recall, announced days before the 2016 presidential
election that he had "learned of the existence" of the emails on Weiner's laptop .
Weiner is the disgraced husband of Clinton aide Huma Abedin.
Robertson alleges that the manner in which his higher-ups in the FBI handled the case was
"not ethically or morally right."
His startling claims are made in a book titled, "October Surprise: How the FBI Tried to Save
Itself and Crashed an Election," an excerpt of which has been published by the
Washington Post .
Told to Erase Laptop Containing Investigation of Anthony Weiner Laptop
Robertson alleges that the FBI did nothing for a month after discovering Clinton's emails on
the Anthony Weiner laptop. It was only after he spoke with the U.S. Attorney's office overseeing the case, he claims,
that the agency took action.
"He had told his bosses about the Clinton emails weeks ago," the book contends . "Nothing
had happened."
"Or rather, the only thing that had happened was his boss had instructed Robertson to
erase his computer work station."
This, according to the Post report, was to "ensure there was no classified material on it,"
but also would eliminate any trail of his actions taken during the investigation.
FBI Did Nothing About Hillary Clinton's Emails For Months?
Robertson's assertions match up with a Wall Street Journal
report from 2018 . In that report, text messages between agent Peter Strzok and his girlfriend, lawyer Lisa
Page, indicated the former had been called to discuss the newly discovered emails on September
28th. Those emails wouldn't be revealed until former Director James Comey notified Congress about
them on October 28th.
A book written by James B . Stewart in 2019 asserts that FBI agents had referred to the
discovery of Hillary Clinton's emails as an "oh s***" moment." One agent admitted there were "ten times" as many emails as Comey admitted to publicly.
These allegations make it difficult to say Comey did not lie to the public – if not
Congress .
Robertson's story is being revealed as U.S. Attorney John Durham is investigating the FBI's
role in the origins of the Russia probe into President Trump's campaign.
Recently released documents from the DOJ show multiple FBI officials had "accidentally
wiped" their phones after the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) requested them .
Erasing evidence is a consistent theme for the Obama-era FBI. Meanwhile, the Senate Homeland Security Committee has voted to authorize over three dozen
subpoenas and depositions of some of these officials, including Comey.
Democrats seem skittish about what Durham is uncovering .
Four House committee chairs last week
asked for an "emergency" review of Attorney General William Barr's handling of Durham's
probe.
"We are concerned by indications that Attorney General Barr might depart from longstanding
DOJ principles," a letter to the IG reads .
They contend Barr may "take public action related to U.S. Attorney Durham's investigation
that could impact the presidential election." Top Democrats have also been threatening to impeach Barr over the investigation.
Kevin Clinesmith, one of the FBI officials involved in gathering evidence in the Russia
investigation, pled
guilty last month to making a false statement. He was accused by the Inspector General of altering an email about former Trump campaign
adviser Carter Page.
President Trump's Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows, said in July that he expects further
indictments and jail time to come out of Durham's probe. Democrats, Comey, and others at the FBI might be a little nervous.
DaiRR , 12 hours ago
DemoRat operatives still pervade the DOJ and to a lesser extent the FBI. Treasonous F's
all of them. Andrew Weissmann is an evil a Rat as any of them and he should be tried,
disbarred and punished for all his lying and despicable crimes while at the DOJ. Of course
MSNBC now loves paying him to be their "legal analyst".
MissCellany , 13 hours ago
What, like with a cloth or something?
RoadKill4Supper , 12 hours ago
"What difference, at this point, does it make?"
FBGnome , 3 hours ago
The current election would be at stake.
Unknown User , 14 hours ago
Unless the Swamp does it. Not just a post or a website disappear, people disappear.
Sense , 13 hours ago
The difficulty is not just that Comey and his underlings were obstructing justice to
benefit Clinton, and made a total **** show of it. It is that Sessions was, "to protect the
DOJ"... and Barr, also, clearly, as long he continues to run interference for Comey,
Clinton, et al, is also obstructing justice. Barr has crafted a veneer, it seems... in the
Durham probe... to provide himself plausible deniability. That veneer can remain plausible
only as long as Durham does nothing, and fails to make the files public.
Only if Durham proceeds to use the files, and/or makes the files public, will we find
out if we get prosecutions, or if we get more obstruction under Barr's watch. So, Barr is
carrying a pretty big hammer. It isn't at all clear what he intends to do with that hammer,
or how he intends to use it if he does.
A wild card, perhaps, in the potential for an Senate or House investigation including
Barr's forced participation... in response to which he might be compelled to answer the
unasked question ? Makes it kind of hard to see how "investigating Barr"... poses a threat
to Barr, or Trump... rather than a threat to those investigating him ? The fact they're
even twittering about it suggests more than awareness about the content of that
information... and thus maybe complicity in the effort to cover it up ?
That would explain most of the events of the last four years.
And, as a note, it wasn't "the FBI" that "found the e-mails" (and other files) on the
Weiner laptop.
It was the NYPD. And, that cadre of NYPD officers recognized what was likely to happen
when they did turn it over to the FBI. So they made copies. And, the copies got distributed to the cloud.
It is not possible, I'd think, that Julian Assange didn't get a copy... in case you
wonder why Barr's DOJ is still prosecuting journalism. I doubt they're doing that because
of past publication... rather than in an effort to prevent future publication. Because Assange... in all likelihood... might be the only journalist left in the
world... who will not be coerced into withholding publication.
ElmerTwitch , 12 hours ago
The emails are in the stellarwind database , according to William Binney. So are all the texts that the Mueller crew "erased." IntercoursetheEU is correct - every email and text ever sent is archived in that
database.
The DOJ is indeed protecting Obama, Hillary, Comey, Brennan, Clapper et al.
by claiming "the emails are gone! The texts are gone, too!"
sparky139 , 12 hours ago
What is the stellarwind database
TheReplacement's Replacement , 1 hour ago
Look up NSA.
takeaction , 15 hours ago
As all of us here on ZH understand. NOTHING WILL EVER HAPPEN... And Trump Team....if you are reading this... THIS IS THE BIGGEST LET DOWN OF YOUR ENTIRE PRESIDENCY...
No_Pretzel_Logic , 14 hours ago
takeaction - I disagree. I think things are happening right now....out of the
country.
TRIALS.....
Where is that slimy, former CIA Director who wouldn't shut-up on national TV from late
2016 to early 2020? Hhmm, not a freaking peep nor have I seen any recent images. How about
the dirtball, prior FBI Dir? His Twitter acct has only had "quotes" posted for about a
month now.
Clapper? Another Trump trasher on constant TV the last few years.....where is he? NOT A
PEEP. Why wouldn't he keep trashing to diminish DJT's election chances?
I'm telling ya, I think they are on a certain Caribbean Island. And my wager is that
Trump is going to toss a wild curveball into this election about the 3rd week of Oct.
Treason convictions announced, is my bet.
maggie2now , 13 hours ago
Brennan was on an MSNBC panel last week pale, sweating, moving around in his seat at the
mere mention of John Durham. Not his usual cocky self that's for sure. HRC was online
flapping her yap with Jennifer Palmieri not too long ago trying to convince the Biden
campaign not to concede the 2020 election under any circumstances. As for Clapper, I don't
know - maybe hiding in a remote location ****ting himself?
MoreFreedom , 12 hours ago
They've shut up because their actions betray them. Publicly they say Trump is a Russian
spy or puppet, while under oath, in a closed room, representing their former government
position and top secret clearance, they've no information to support it. That shows an
anti-Trump political motivation, regarding their prior actions in government. It's also
defrauding the public and government.
YouJustCouldnt , 2 hours ago
Couldn't agree more. How many times have we been here before!
20 years on from 9/11 - From the thousands of experts on the Architects and Engineers
for 9/11 Truth , the latest news is that The National Institute of Standards and Technology
( NIST ) is now more than a week late in issuing its "initial decision" on the pending
"request for correction" to its 2008 report on the collapse of World Trade Center Building
7. Big Whoop - and just another nothing burger.
Ms No , 15 hours ago
Uhhhh.....yeah.
We have seen this type of thing since JFK. If you hadn't long ago figured this out then
you are either an amateur or a paid internet herd-moving troll/anti-human.
Some of us aren't part of the herd.
(((Anthony Weiner))), just like (((Mossad Epstein honeypot))) and (((lucky Larry
Silverstein))), countless other examples that blow statistical likelihood way beyond
coincidence.
Not rocket science. Its a mob and these are their puppets and fronts. They dont just own
the FBI. They own all branches of your government and all the alphabets.
Enjoying the covid hysteria and run-up to WWIII?
Unknown User , 14 hours ago
If by (((they))) you mean the British who created the OSA and then the CIA. They also
created all the think-tanks, like the CFR. They own the Fed and run the worldwide banking
cartel. The British Crown owns all the countries of the Commonwealth. And they started the
COVID-19 delusion. Yes. Make no mistake. It is (((THEY))).
VWAndy , 15 hours ago
An he didnt go public with it either.
occams razor. they are all corrupt.
Stackers , 15 hours ago
Anyone who thinks that anybody beyond this low level flunky, Kliensmith, is going to get
any kind of prosecution is dreaming. None of these people will face any consequences to
their outright sedition and they know it. Disgusting.
radical-extremist , 15 hours ago
She created a private personal server to purposely circumvent the FOIA system and any
other prying eyes. Her staff was warned not to do it, but they refused to confront her
about it. They were so technically inept that they didn't understand emails are copied on
to servers everywhere...including the pentagon and the state department. And Huma's laptop
that her perv husband used to sext girls.
She maintained and exchanged Top Secret information on a personal/private/unsecured
server in her house. That is a crime punishable with prison time...and yet she skates.
High Vigilante , 15 hours ago
This guy should avoid walking out in dark.
His name was Seth!
Bay of Pigs , 13 hours ago
We have to face reality. If Durham doesn't indict some of these people before the
election, nothing is going to happen. It's the end of the line. Time has run out.
"We bullsh#tted some folks...."
dogfish , 13 hours ago
Trump is a charlatan and a fraud. The only winners with Trump are the Zionist they are
Trumps top priority.
play_arrow
OCnStiggs , 13 hours ago
Good thing NYPD copied the HD on that laptop for just this occurrence. There reportedly
at least two copies in safes in NYC. Criminality of the highest order that eclipses by
100,000,000 whatever happened in Watergate. These FBI people need to hang.
Sparehead , 13 hours ago
Safe in NYC? Like all the evidence of criminal banking activity that was lost in World
Trade Center 7?
4Y_LURKER , 12 hours ago
Oh look! We found passports even though steel and gold was vaporized by jet
fuel!!
There were no prosecution in three years since publication of this article
Notable quotes:
"... New York Police Department detectives and prosecutors working an alleged underage sexting case against former Congressman Anthony
Weiner have turned over a newly-found laptop he shared with wife Huma Abedin to the FBI with enough evidence "to put Hillary (Clinton)
and her crew away for life," NYPD sources told True Pundit. ..."
"... NYPD detectives and a NYPD Chief, the department's highest rank under Commissioner, said openly that if the FBI and Justice
Department fail to garner timely indictments against Clinton and co- conspirators, NYPD will go public with the damaging emails now
in the hands of FBI Director James Comey and many FBI field offices. ..."
"... Meanwhile, FBI sources said Abedin and Weiner were cooperating with federal agents, who have taken over the non-sexting portions
the case from NYPD. The husband-and-wife Clinton insiders are both shopping for separate immunity deals, sources said. ..."
"... Prosecutors in the office of US Attorney Preet Bharara have issued a subpoena for Weiner's cell phones and travel records,
law enforcement sources confirmed. NYPD said it planned to order the same phone and travel records on Clinton and Abedin, however, the
FBI said it was in the process of requesting the identical records. Law enforcement sources are particularly interested in cell phone
activity and travel to the Bahamas, U.S. Virgin Islands and other locations that sources would not divulge. ..."
"... Both NYPD and FBI sources confirm based on the new emails they now believe Hillary Clinton traveled as Epstein's guest on at
least six occasions, probably more when all the evidence is combed, sources said. Bill Clinton, it has been confirmed in media reports
spanning recent years, that he too traveled with Epstein over 20 times to the island. ..."
"... Because Weiner's campaign website is managed by the third-party consultant and political email guru, FBI agents are burdened
with the task of trying to decipher just how many people had access to Weiner's server and emails and who were these people. Or if the
server was ever compromised by hackers, or other actors. ..."
"... Abedin told FBI agents in an April interview that she didn't know how to consistently print documents or emails from her secure
Dept. of State system. Instead, she would forward the sensitive emails to her yahoo, Clintonemail.com and her email linked to Weiner.
..."
"... Abedin said, according to FBI documents, she would then access those email accounts via webmail from an unclassified computer
system at the State Dept. and print the documents, many of which were classified and top secret, from the largely unprotected webmail
portals. ..."
New York Police Department detectives and prosecutors working an alleged underage sexting case against former Congressman
Anthony Weiner have turned over a newly-found laptop he shared with wife Huma Abedin to the FBI with enough evidence "to put Hillary
(Clinton) and her crew away for life," NYPD sources told True Pundit.
NYPD sources said Clinton's "crew" also included several unnamed yet implicated members of Congress in addition to her aides and
insiders.
The NYPD seized the computer from Weiner during a search warrant and detectives discovered a trove of over 500,000 emails to and
from Hillary Clinton, Abedin and other insiders during her tenure as secretary of state. The content of those emails sparked the
FBI to reopen its defunct email investigation into Clinton on Friday.
But new revelations on the contents of that laptop, according to law enforcement sources, implicate the Democratic presidential
candidate, her subordinates, and even select elected officials in far more alleged serious crimes than mishandling classified and
top secret emails, sources said. NYPD sources said these new emails include evidence linking Clinton herself and associates to:
Money laundering
Child exploitation
Sex crimes with minors (children)
Perjury
Pay to play through Clinton Foundation
Obstruction of justice
Other felony crimes
NYPD detectives and a NYPD Chief, the department's highest rank under Commissioner, said openly that if the FBI and Justice
Department fail to garner timely indictments against Clinton and co- conspirators, NYPD will go public with the damaging emails now
in the hands of FBI Director James Comey and many FBI field offices.
"What's in the emails is staggering and as a father, it turned my stomach," the NYPD Chief said. "There is not going to be
any Houdini-like escape from what we found. We have copies of everything. We will ship them to Wikileaks or I will personally hold
my own press conference if it comes to that."
The NYPD Chief said once Comey saw the alarming contents of the emails he was forced to reopen a criminal probe against Clinton.
"People are going to prison," he said.
Meanwhile, FBI sources said Abedin and Weiner were cooperating with federal agents, who have taken over the non-sexting portions
the case from NYPD. The husband-and-wife Clinton insiders are both shopping for separate immunity deals, sources said.
"If they don't cooperate they are going to see long sentences," a federal law enforcement source said.
NYPD sources said Weiner or Abedin stored all the emails in a massive Microsoft Outlook program on the laptop. The emails
implicate other current and former members of Congress and one high-ranking Democratic Senator as having possibly engaged in criminal
activity too, sources said.
Prosecutors in the office of US Attorney Preet Bharara have issued a subpoena for Weiner's cell phones and travel records,
law enforcement sources confirmed. NYPD said it planned to order the same phone and travel records on Clinton and Abedin, however,
the FBI said it was in the process of requesting the identical records. Law enforcement sources are particularly interested in cell
phone activity and travel to the Bahamas, U.S. Virgin Islands and other locations that sources would not divulge.
The new emails contain travel documents and itineraries indicating Hillary Clinton, President Bill Clinton, Weiner and multiple
members of Congress and other government officials accompanied convicted pedophile billionaire Jeffrey Epstein on his Boeing 727
on multiple occasions to his private island in the US Virgin Islands, sources said. Epstein's island has also been dubbed
Orgy Island or
Sex Slave Island where Epstein allegedly pimps out underage girls and boys to international dignitaries.
Both NYPD and FBI sources confirm based on the new emails they now believe Hillary Clinton traveled as Epstein's guest on
at least six occasions, probably more when all the evidence is combed, sources said. Bill Clinton, it has been confirmed in media
reports spanning recent years, that he too traveled with Epstein over 20 times to the island.
Laptop Also Unveiled More Classified, Top Secret Breaches
According to other uncovered emails, Abedin and Clinton both sent and received thousands of classified and top secret documents
to personal email accounts including Weiner's unsecured campaign web site which is managed by Democratic political consultants in
Washington D.C.
Weiner maintained little known email accounts that the couple shared on the website anthonyweiner.com. Weiner, a former seven-term
Democratic Congressman from New York, primarily used that domain to campaign for Congress and for his failed mayoral bid of New York
City.
At one point, FBI sources said, Abedin and Clinton's classified and top secret State Department documents and emails were stored
in Weiner's email on a server shared with a dog grooming service and a western Canadian bicycle shop.
However, Weiner and Abedin, who is Hillary Clinton's closest personal aide, weren't the only people with access to the Weiner's
email account. Potentially dozens of unknown individuals had access to Abedin's sensitive State Department emails that were stored
in Weiner's email account, FBI sources confirmed.
FEC records show Weiner paid more than $92,000 of congressional campaign funds to Anne Lewis Strategies LLC to manage his email
and web site. According to FBI sources, the D.C.-based political consulting firm has served as the official administrator of the
anthonyweiner.com domain since 2010, the same time Abedin was working at the State Department. This means technically Weiner and
Abedin's emails, including top secret State Department emails, could have been accessed, printed, discussed, leaked, or distributed
by untold numbers of personnel at the Anne Lewis consulting firm because they can control where the website and it emails are pointed,
FBI sources said.
According to FBI sources, the bureau's newly-minted probe into Clinton's use and handling of emails while she served as secretary
of state, has also been broadened to include investigating new email-related revelations, including:
Abedin forwarded classified and top secret State Department emails to Weiner's email
Abedin stored emails, containing government secrets, in a special folder shared with Weiner warehousing over 500,000 archived
State Department emails.
Weiner had access to these classified and top secret documents without proper security clearance to view the records
Abedin also used a personal yahoo address and her Clintonemail.com address to send/receive/store classified and top secret
documents
A private consultant managed Weiner's site for the last six years, including three years when Clinton was secretary of state,
and therefore, had full access to all emails as the domain's listed registrant and administrator via Whois email contacts.
Because Weiner's campaign website is managed by the third-party consultant and political email guru, FBI agents are burdened
with the task of trying to decipher just how many people had access to Weiner's server and emails and who were these people. Or if
the server was ever compromised by hackers, or other actors.
Abedin told FBI agents in an April interview that she didn't know how to consistently print documents or emails from her secure
Dept. of State system. Instead, she would forward the sensitive emails to her yahoo, Clintonemail.com and her email linked to Weiner.
Abedin said, according to FBI documents, she would then access those email accounts via webmail from an unclassified computer
system at the State Dept. and print the documents, many of which were classified and top secret, from the largely unprotected webmail
portals.
Clinton did not have a computer in her office on Mahogany Row at the State Dept. so she was not able to read timely intelligence
unless it was printed out for her, Abedin said. Abedin also said Clinton could not operate the secure State Dept. fax machine installed
in her Chappaqua, NY home without assistance.
Perhaps more alarming, according to the FBI's 302 Report detailing its interview with Abedin, none of the multiple FBI agents
and Justice Department officials who conducted the interview pressed Abedin to further detail the email address linked to Weiner.
There was never a follow up, according to the 302 report.
But now, all that has changed, with the FBI's decision to reopen the Clinton email investigation and the husband and wife seeking
immunity deals to testify against Clinton and other associates about the contents of the laptop's emails.
Highly recommenced to listen. Judge Napolitano is an interesting speaker (start at 41 min)
As CIA in the USA government organizational chart stands above the Presidential Office Hillary is really untouchable, unless the
Presidential Office is also occupied by CIA-democrat like Obama.
Notable quotes:
"... She absolutely thinks she is untouchable ..."
"... Every corrupt person was praised and given more power!!! Hillary sat back and knew of all the raping that bill was doing to kids teenagers young ladies boys young men and she never blinked an eye!!! If a simple tax paying citizen was to pull the bullshit that Hillary has pulled in front of Howdy that citizen would be see the lights day until Jesus came and took us home to Heaven!! ..."
"... Hillary Clinton actually says in this video that half of Trump supporters are "deplorable". That is equivalent to roughly 25% of the American population! That constitutes a very strong statement from someone who wants to be president of The United States. ..."
Congress is a waste of tax money, they have no power, so obvious! Criminal leaders just lie to them, knowing they can't do
a thing and most of them are paid off anyway, they don't want to do anything! Elections are rigged, so they don't have to worry
about, "we the poor, lowly people!" We are not even in the equation!
Why is this pathological liar Hillary still running around free ?? Isn't lying to Congress a felony ??? If this lowlife is
simply above the law lets change the laws !
Prosecute everyone of them that knew and allowed even the smallest bit of knowledge and make every one of them ineligible for
their pensions. They do not deserve those pensions, they stole them, treasonous acts against your government does not make you
eligable..they do not deserve it!!
Not only a habitual serial liar but a career Criminal! Hillary and Bill have been involved in illegal manners for over 40 years!
Hillary stated it best last year during the time of the election!. " If Donald Trump becomes president, WE WILL ALL HANG!" She
finally told the truth!
She absolutely thinks she is untouchable because not one person has been brave enough and bold enough to take her
down the Clinton's have been corrupt and evil from child good and they were taught from NWO that they will never be taken down
go child rob steel kill do everything in the power we Give you both and bring me all glory!!! We will let you control the United
States as long as you want!!!
All the connected deaths that embrace the Clinton's and not single piece of evidence is kept found
or stored that it doesn't come up missing so they sit back and allow these foreign governments to take over major areas and promote
child sex trafficking who're houses with kids being sold to any man with air in his lungs!
Every corrupt person was praised and
given more power!!! Hillary sat back and knew of all the raping that bill was doing to kids teenagers young ladies boys young
men and she never blinked an eye!!! If a simple tax paying citizen was to pull the bullshit that Hillary has pulled in front of
Howdy that citizen would be see the lights day until Jesus came and took us home to Heaven!!
She gas lied straight face looked him dead in the eyes and laughed at the bengahzi deaths that She is on record having him
killed she laughed and she didn't Give a f*** about killing him and leaving his remains behind but my question is why hasn't she
been arrested booked finger printed and mugshot took with a huge bond or mot and put behind bars until you beat the f******truth
out if her??? I would get the death penalty she wouldn't and hasn't gotten a contempt of court for not complying with mr. Gowdy
Hillary Clinton actually says in this video that half of Trump supporters are "deplorable". That is equivalent to roughly 25%
of the American population! That constitutes a very strong statement from someone who wants to be president of The United States.
To say that 80 million people are "deplorable" IS TRULY DEPLORABLE!!! After hearing this I can't really understand WHY she got
even a single vote!
This is a fantastic mosaic of the state of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. It is absolutely clear that she is an
habitual liar, corrupt to the extreme and has absolutely no credibility.
I'd love to see Mr Gowdy take the gloves off and take
her down. She must be removed from the public as she is a menace. She is the mother of deplorable.
It is unclear how long this vulnerability exists, but this is pretty serious staff that shows
how Hillary server could be hacked via Abedin account. As Abedin technical level was lower then
zero, to hack into her home laptop just just trivial.
Microsoft also patched
Exchange against a vulnerability that allowed remote attackers with little more than an
unprivileged mailbox account to gain administrative control over the server. Dubbed
PrivExchange, CVE-2019-0686 was publicly disclosed last month , along with
proof-of-concept code that exploited it. In Tuesday's
advisory , Microsoft officials said they haven't seen active exploits yet but that they
were "likely."
"... Shadow IT broadly refers to technology introduced into an organisation that has not passed through the IT department. ..."
"... The result is first; no proactive recommendations from the IT department and second; long approval periods while IT teams evaluate solutions that the business has proposed. Add an over-defensive approach to security, and it is no wonder that some departments look outside the organisation for solutions. ..."
Shadow IT broadly refers to technology introduced into an organisation that has not passed
through the IT department. A familiar example of this is BYOD but, significantly, Shadow IT now
includes enterprise grade software and hardware, which is increasingly being sourced and
managed outside of the direct control of the organisation's IT department and CIO.
Examples
include enterprise wide CRM solutions and marketing automation systems procured by the
marketing department, as well as data warehousing, BI and analysis services sourced by finance
officers.
So why have so many technology solutions slipped through the hands of so many CIOs? I
believe a confluence of events is behind the trend; there is the obvious consumerisation of IT,
which has resulted in non-technical staff being much more aware of possible solutions to their
business needs – they are more tech-savvy. There is also the fact that some CIOs and
technology departments have been too slow to react to the business's technology needs.
The reason for this slow reaction is that very often IT Departments are just too busy
running day-to-day infrastructure operations such as network and storage management along with
supporting users and software. The result is first; no proactive recommendations from the IT
department and second; long approval periods while IT teams evaluate solutions that the
business has proposed. Add an over-defensive approach to security, and it is no wonder that
some departments look outside the organisation for solutions.
From the semi-serious to the confusingly
ironic, the business world is not short of pseudo-scientific principles, laws and management theories
concerning how organisations and their leaders should and should not behave.
CIO UK
takes a look at
some sincere, irreverent and leftfield management concepts that are relevant to CIOs and all business leaders.
The Peter Principle
A concept formulated by Laurence J Peter in 1969, the
Peter Principle
runs that in a
hierarchical structure, employees are promoted to their highest level of incompetence at which point they are
no longer able to fulfil an effective role for their organisation.
In the
Peter Principle
people are promoted when they excel, but this process falls down
when they are unlikely to gain further promotion or be demoted with the logical end point, according to Peter,
where "every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out its duties" and that
"work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence".
To counter the
Peter Principle
leaders could seek the advice of Spanish liberal philosopher
José Ortega y Gasset.
While he died 14 years before the
Peter Principle
was
published, Ortega had been in exile in Argentina during the Spanish Civil War and prompted by his observations
in South America had quipped: "All public employees should be demoted to their immediately lower level, as they
have been promoted until turning incompetent."
Parkinson's Law
Cyril Northcote Parkinson's eponymous law, derived from his extensive experience in the British Civil
Service, states that:
"Works expands so as to fill the time available for its completion."
The first sentence of a humorous essay published in
The Economist
in 1955,
Parkinson's Law
is familiar with CIOs, IT teams, journalists, students, and every other occupation that can learn from
Parkinson's mocking of pubic administration in the UK. The corollary law most applicable to CIOs runs that
"data expands to fill the space available for storage", while Parkinson's broader work about the
self-satisfying uncontrolled growth of bureaucratic apparatus is as relevant for the scaling startup as it is
to the large corporate.
Flirting with the ground between flippancy and seriousness, Parkinson argued that boards and members of an
organisation give disproportional weight to trivial issues and those that are easiest to grasp for non-experts.
In his words:
"The time spent on any item of the agenda will be in inverse proportion to the sum of money
involved."
Parkinson's anecdote is of a fictional finance committee's three-item agenda to cover a £10 million contract
discussing the components of a new nuclear reactor, a proposal to build a new £350 bicycle shed, and finally
which coffee and biscuits should be supplied at future committee meetings. While the first item on the agenda
is far too complex and ironed out in two and a half minutes, 45 minutes is spent discussing bike sheds, and
debates about the £21 refreshment provisions are so drawn out that the committee runs over its two-hour time
allocation with a note to provide further information about coffee and biscuits to be continued at the next
meeting.
The Dilbert Principle
Referring to a 1990s theory by popular Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams, the
Dilbert Principle
runs that companies tend to promote their least competent employees to management roles to curb the amount of
damage they are capable of doing to the organisation.
Unlike the
Peter Principle
, which is positive in its aims by rewarding competence, the
Dilbert Principle
assumes people are moved to quasi-senior supervisory positions in a
structure where they are less likely to have an effect on productive output of the company which is performed
by those lower down the ladder.
Hofstadter's Law
Coined by Douglas Hofstadter in his 1979 book
Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid,
Hofstadter's Law
states:
"It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account
Hofstadter's Law."
Particularly relevant to CIOs and business leaders overseeing large projects and transformation programmes,
Hofstadter's Law
suggests that even appreciating your own subjective pessimism in your
projected timelines, they are still worth re-evaluating.
An old adage and without basis in any scientific laws or management principles,
Murphy's Law
is always worth bearing in mind for CIOs or when undertaking thorough scenario planning for adverse situations.
It's also perhaps worth bearing in mind the corollary principle
Finagle's Law
, which states:
"Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong - at the worst possible moment."
Lindy Effect
Concerning the life expectancy of non-perishable things, the
Lindy Effect
is as relevant to
CIOs procuring new technologies or maintaining legacy infrastructure as it is to the those buying homes, used
cars, a fountain pen or mobile phone.
Harder to define than other principles and laws, the
Lindy Effect
suggests that mortality
rate decreases with time, unlike in nature and in human beings where - after childhood - mortality rate
increases with time. Ergo, every day of server uptime implies a longer remaining life expectancy.
A corollary effect related to the
Lindy Effect
which is a good explanation is the
Copernican Principle
, which states that the future life expectancy is equal to the current age, i.e.
that barring any addition evidence on the contrary, something must be halfway through its life span.
The
Lindy Effect
and the idea that older things are more robust has specific relevance to
CIOs beyond servers and IT infrastructure with its association with source code, where newer code will in
general have lower probability of remaining within a year and an increased likelihood of causing problems
compared to code written a long time ago, and in project management where the lifecycle of a project grows and
its scope changes, an Agile methodology can be used to mitigate project risks and fix mistakes.
The Jevons Paradox
Wikipedia offers the best economic
description of the
Jevons Paradox
or Jevons effect, in which a technological progress increases efficiency
with which a resource is used, but the rate of consumption of that resource subsequently rises because of
increasing demand.
Think email, think Slack, instant messaging, printing, how easy it is to create Excel reports,
coffee-making, conference calls, network and internet speeds, the list is endless. If you suspect demand in
these has increased along with technological advancement negating the positive impact of said efficiency gains
in the first instance, sounds like the paradox first described by William Stanley Jevons in 1865 when observing
coal consumption following the introduction of the Watt steam engine.
Ninety-Ninety Rule
A light-hearted quip bespoke to computer programming and software development, the
Ninety-Ninety
Rule
states that: "The first 90% of the code accounts for the first 90% of the development time. The
remaining 10% of the code accounts for the other 90% of the development time." See also,
Hofstadter's
Law
.
Related to this is the
Pareto Principle
, or the 80-20 Rule, and how it relates to software,
with supporting anecdotes that "20% of the code has 80% of the errors" or in load testing that it is common
practice to estimate that 80% of the traffic occurs during 20% of the time.
Pygmalion Effect and Golem Effect
Named after the Greek myth of Pygmalion, a sculptor who fell in love with a statue he carved, and relevant
to managers across industry and seniority, the
Pygmalion Effect
runs that higher expectations
lead to an increased performance.
Counter to the Pygmalion Effect is the
Golem effect
, whereby low expectations result in a
decrease in performance.
Dunning-Kruger Effect
The
Dunning-Kruger Effect
, named after two psychologists from Cornell University, states
that incompetent people are significantly less able to recognise their own lack of skill, the extent of their
inadequacy, and even to gauge the skill of others. Furthermore, they are only able to acknowledge their own
incompetence after they have been exposed to training in that skill.
At a loss to find a better visual representation of the
Dunning-Kruger Effect
, here is
Simon Wardley's graph with
Knowledge
and
Expertise
axes - a warning as to why self-professed
experts are the worst people to listen to on a given subject.
Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not
manage and those who manage what they do not understand. --Putt's Law
If
you are in IT and are not familiar with Archibald Putt, I suggest you stop reading this blog
post, RIGHT NOW, and go buy the book
Putt's Law and the Successful Technocrat. How to Win in the Information Age . Putt's
Law , for short, is a combination of Dilbert and
The Mythical Man-Month . It shows you exactly how managers of technologists think, how they
got to where they are, and how they stay there. Just like Dilbert, you'll initially laugh, then
you'll cry, because you'll realize just how true Putt's Law really is. But, unlike Dilbert,
whose technologist-fans tend to have a revulsion for management, Putt tries to show the
technologist how to become one of the despised. Now granted, not all of us technologists have a
desire to be management, it is still useful to "know one's enemy."
Two amazing facts:
Archibald Putt is a pseudonym and his true identity has yet to be revealed. A true "Deep
Throat" for us IT guys.
Putt's Law was written back in 1981. It amazes me how the Old IT Classics (Putt's Law,
Mythical Man-Month, anything by Knuth) are even more relevant today than ever.
Every technical hierarchy, in time, develops a competence inversion. --Putt's
Corollary
Putt's Corollary says that in a corporate technocracy, the more technically competent people
will remain in charge of the technology, whereas the less competent will be promoted to
management. That sounds a lot like The Peter Principle (another timeless
classic written in 1969).
People rise to their level of incompetence. --Dave's Summary of the Peter Principle
I can tell you that managers have the least information about technical issues and they
should be the last people making technical decisions. Period. I've often heard that managers
are used as the arbiters of technical debates. Bad idea. Arbiters should always be the
[[benevolent dictators]] (the most admired/revered technologist you have). The exception is
when your manager is also your benevolent dictator, which is rare. Few humans have the
capability, or time, for both.
I see more and more hit-and-run managers where I work. They feel as though they are the
technical decision-makers. They attend technical meetings they were not invited to. Then they
ask pointless, irrelevant questions that suck the energy out of the team. Then they want status
updates hourly. Eventually after they have totally derailed the process they move along to some
other, sexier problem with more management visibility.
I really admire managers who follow the MBWA ( management by walking around
) principle. This management philosophy is very simple...the best managers are those who leave
their offices and observe. By observing they learn what the challenges are for their teams and
how to help them better.
So, what I am looking for in a manager
He knows he is the least qualified person to make a technical decision.
He is a facilitator. He knows how to help his technologists succeed.
Everyone's heard of the Peter
Principle - that employees tend to rise to their level of incompetence - a concept that walks
that all-too-fine line between humor and reality.
We've all seen it in action more times than we'd like. Ironically, some percentage of you
will almost certainly be promoted to a position where you're no longer effective. For some of
you, that's already happened. Sobering thought.
Well, here's the thing. Not only is the Peter Principle alive and well in corporate America,
but contrary to popular wisdom, it's actually necessary for a healthy capitalist
system. That's right, you heard it here, folks, incompetence is a good thing. Here's why.
Robert Browning
once said, "A man's reach should exceed his grasp." It's a powerful statement that means you
should seek to improve your situation, strive to go above and beyond. Not only is that an
embodiment of capitalism, but it also leads directly to the Peter Principle because, well, how
do you know when to quit?
Now, most of us don't perpetually reach for the stars, but until there's clear evidence that
we're not doing ourselves or anyone else any good, we're bound to keep right on reaching. After
all, objectivity is notoriously difficult when opportunities for a better life are staring you
right in the face.
I mean, who turns down promotions? Who doesn't strive to reach that next rung on the ladder?
When you get an email from an executive recruiter about a VP or CEO job, are you likely to
respond, "Sorry, I think that may be beyond my competency" when you've got to send two kids to
college and you may actually want to retire someday?
Wasn't America founded by people who wanted a better life for themselves and their children?
God knows, there were plenty of indications that they shouldn't take the plunge and, if they
did, wouldn't succeed. That's called a challenge and, well, do you ever really know if you've
reached too far until after the fact?
Perhaps the most interesting embodiment of all this is the way people feel about CEOs. Some
think pretty much anyone can do a CEO's job for a fraction of the compensation. Seriously, you
hear that sort of thing a lot, especially these days with class warfare being the rage and
all.
One The
Corner Office reader asked straight out in an email: "Would you agree that, in most
cases, the company could fire the CEO and hire someone young, smart, and hungry at 1/10 the
salary/perks/bonuses who would achieve the same performance?"
Sure, it's easy: you just set the direction, hire a bunch of really smart executives, then
get out of the way and let them do their jobs. Once in a blue moon you swoop in, deal with a
problem, then return to your ivory tower. Simple.
Well, not exactly.
You see, I sort of grew up at Texas Instruments in the 80s when the company was nearly run
into the ground by Mark Shepherd and J. Fred Bucy - two CEOs who never should have gotten that
far in their careers.
But the company's board, in its wisdom, promoted Jerry Junkins and, after his untimely
death, Tom Engibous , to the CEO post. Not only were those guys competent, they revived the
company and transformed it into what it is today.
I've seen what a strong CEO can do for a company, its customers, its shareholders, and its
employees. I've also seen the destruction the Peter Principle can bring to those same
stakeholders. But, even now, after 30 years of corporate and consulting experience, the one
thing I've never seen is a CEO or executive with an easy job.
That's because there's no such thing. And to think you can eliminate incompetency from the
executive ranks when it exists at every organizational level is, to be blunt, childlike or
Utopian thinking. It's silly and trite. It doesn't even make sense.
It's not as if TI's board knew ahead of time that Shepherd and Bucy weren't the right guys
for the job. They'd both had long, successful careers at the company. But the board did right
the ship in time. And that's the mark of a healthy system at work.
The other day I read a truly fantastic story in Fortune about the rise and fall of
Jeffrey Kindler
as CEO of troubled pharmaceutical giant Pfizer . I remember when he suddenly stepped down
amidst all sorts of rumor and conjecture about the underlying causes of the shocking news.
What really happened is the guy had a fabulous career as a litigator, climbed the corporate
ladder to general ounsel of McDonald's and then Pfizer, had some limited success in operations,
and once he was promoted to CEO, flamed out. Not because he was incompetent - he wasn't. And
certainly not because he was a dysfunctional, antagonistic, micromanaging control freak - he
was.
He failed because it was a really tough job and he was in over his head. It happens. It
happens a lot. After all, this wasn't just some everyday company that's simple to run.
This was Pfizer - a pharmaceutical giant with its top products going generic and a dried-up
drug pipeline in need of a major overhaul.
The guy couldn't handle it. And when executives with issues get in over their heads, their
issues become their undoing. It comes as no surprise that folks at McDonald's were surprised at
the way he flamed out at Pfizer. That was a whole different ballgame.
Now, I bet those same people who think a CEO's job is a piece of cake will have a similar
response to the Kindler situation at Pfizer. Why take the job if he knew he couldn't handle it?
The board should have canned him before it got to that point. Why didn't the guy's executives
speak up sooner?
Because, just like at TI, nobody knows ahead of time if people are going to be effective on
the next rung of the ladder. Every situation is unique and there are no questions or test that
will foretell the future. I mean, it's not as if King Solomon comes along and writes who the
right guy for the job is on the wall.
The Peter Principle works because, in a capitalist system, there are top performers, abysmal
failures, and everything in between. Expecting anything different when people must
reach for the stars to achieve growth and success so our children have a better life than ours
isn't how it works in the real world.
The Peter Principle works because it's the yin to Browning's yang, the natural outcome of
striving to better our lives. Want to know how to bring down a free market capitalist system?
Don't take the promotion because you're afraid to fail.
Putt's Law, Peter Principle, Dilbert Principle of Incompetence &
Parkinson's Law
Get link
Icons/ic_24_facebook_dark
Facebook
Icons/ic_24_twitter_dark
Twitter
Icons/ic_24_pinterest_dark
Pinterest
Icons/ic_24_google+_dark
Google+
Email
Other Apps
June 10, 2015
Putt's Law, Peter Principle,
Dilbert Principle of Incompetence & Parkinson's Law
I am a big fan of Scott
Adams & Dilbert Comic Series.
I realize that these laws
and principles - the Putt's law, Peter Principle, the Dilbert Principle, and Parkinson's Law
- aren't necessarily founded in reality. It's easy to look at a manager's closed doors and
wonder he or she does all day, if anything. But having said that and having come to realize
the difficulty and scope of what management entails. It's hard work and requires a certain
skill-set that I'm only beginning to develop. One should therefore look at these principles
and laws with an acknowledgment that they most likely developed from the employee's
perspective, not the manager's.
Take with a pinch of salt!
Source: Google Images
The Putt's law:
·
Putt's Law: "
Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what
they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand.
"
·
Putt's Corollary: "
Every technical hierarchy, in time, develops a competence inversion.
" with
incompetence being "flushed out of the lower levels" of a technocratic hierarchy, ensuring
that technically competent people remain directly in charge of the actual technology while
those without technical competence move into management.
The Peter Principle:
The Peter Principle states
that "
in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level
of incompetence."
In other words, employees who perform their roles with competence are
promoted into successively higher levels until they reach a level at which they are no longer
competent. There they remain.
For example, let's say you
are a brilliant programmer. You spend your days coding with amazing efficiency and prowess.
After a couple of years, you're promoted to lead programmer, and then promoted to team
manager. You may have no interest in managing other programmers, but it's the reward for your
competence. There you sit -- you have risen to a level of incompetence. Your technical skills
lie dormant while you fill your day with one-on-one meetings, department strategy meetings,
planning meetings, budgets, and reports.
The Dilbert Principle
The principle states that
companies tend to promote the most incompetent employees to
management as a form of damage control
. The principle argues that leaders, specifically
those in middle management, are in reality the ones that have little effect on productivity.
In order to limit the harm caused by incompetent employees who are actually not doing the
work, companies make them leaders.
The Dilbert Principle
assumes that "the majority of real, productive work in a company is done by people lower in
the power ladder." Those in management don't actually do anything to move forward the work.
How it happens?
The Incompetent Leader
Stereotype often hits new leaders, specifically those who have no prior experience in a
particular field. Often times, leaders who have been transferred from other departments are
viewed as mere figureheads, rather than actual leaders who have knowledge of the work
situation. Failure to prove technical capability can also lead to a leader being branded
incompetent.
Why it's bad?
Being a victim of the
incompetent leader stereotype is bad. Firstly, no one takes you seriously. Your ability to
insert input into projects is hampered when your followers actively disregard anything you
say as fluff. This is especially true if you are in middle management, where your power as a
leader is limited. Secondly, your chances of rising ranks are curtailed. If viewed as an
incompetent leader by your followers, your superiors are unlikely to entrust you with further
projects which have more impact.
How to get over it
Know when to concede. As a
leader, no one expects you to be competent in every area; though basic knowledge of every
section you are leading is necessary. Readily admitting incompetency in certain areas will
take out the impact out of it when others paint you as incompetent. Prove competency
somewhere. Quickly establish yourself as having some purpose in the workplace, rather than
being a mere picture of tokenism. This can be done by personally involving yourself in
certain projects.
Parkinson's Law
Parkinson's Law states that
"
work expands so as to fill the time available for its
completion
." Although this law has application with procrastination, storage capacity,
and resource usage, Parkinson focuses his law on Corporate lethargy. Parkinson says that
lethargy swell for two reasons:
(1) "A manager wants to
multiply subordinates, not rivals" and (2) "Managers make work for each other."
In other words, a team size
may swell not because the workload increases, but because they have the capacity and
resources that allow for an increased workload even if the workload does not in fact
increase. People without any work find ways to increase the amount of "work" and therefore
add to the size of their lethargy.
My Analysis
I know none of these
principles or laws gives much credit to management. The wrong person fills the wrong role,
the role exists only to minimize damage control, or the role swells unnecessarily simply
because it can.
I find the whole topic of
management somewhat fascinating, not because I think these theories apply to my own managers.
These management theories
are however relevant. Software coders looking to leverage coding talent for their projects
often find themselves in management roles, without a strong understanding of how to manage
people. Most of the time, these coders fail to engage. The project leaders are usually
brilliant at their technical job but don't excel at management.
However the key principle to
follow should be this:
put individuals to work in their core
competencies
. It makes little sense to take your most brilliant engineer and have him or
her manage people and budgets. Likewise, it makes no sense to take a shrewd consultant, one
who can negotiate projects and requirements down to the minutest detail, and put that
individual into a role involving creative design and content generation. However, to
implement this model, you have to allow for reward without a dramatic change in job
responsibilities or skills.
While similar things can, and do, occur in large technical hierarchies, incompetent
technical people experience a social pressure from their more competent colleagues that causes
them to seek security within the ranks of management. In technical hierarchies, there is always
the possibility that incompetence will be rewarded by promotion.
Other Putt laws we love include the law of failure: "Innovative organizations abhor little
failures but reward big ones." And the first law of invention: "An innovated success is as good
as a successful innovation."
Now Putt has revised and updated his short, smart book, to be released in a new edition by
Wiley-IEEE Press ( http://www.wiley.com/ieee ) at the end of this month. There
have been murmurings that Putt's identity, the subject of much rumormongering, will be revealed
after the book comes out, but we think that's unlikely. How much more interesting it is to have
an anonymous chronicler wandering the halls of the tech industry, codifying its unstated,
sometimes bizarre, and yet remarkably consistent rules of behavior.
This is management writing the way it ought to be. Think Dilbert , but with a very
big brain. Read it and weep. Or laugh, depending on your current job situation.
"... Eric Samuelson is the creator of the Confident Hiring System™. Working with Dave Anderson of Learn to Lead, he provides the Anderson Profiles and related services to clients in the automotive retail industry as well as a variety of other businesses. ..."
In 1981, an author in the Research and Development field, writing under the pseudonym
Archibald Putt, penned this famous quote, now known as Putt's Law:
"Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not
manage, and those who manage what they do not understand."
Have you ever hired someone without knowing for sure if they can do the job? Have you
promoted a good salesperson to management only to realize you made a dire mistake? The
qualities needed to succeed in a technical field are quite different than for a leader.
The legendary immigrant engineer Charles Steinmetz worked at General Electric in the early
1900s. He made phenomenal advancements in the field of electric motors. His work was
instrumental to the growth of the electric power industry. With a goal of rewarding him, GE
promoted him to a management position, but he failed miserably. Realizing their error, and not
wanting to offend this genius, GE's leadership retitled him as a Chief Engineer, with no
supervisory duties, and let him go back to his research.
Avoid the double disaster of losing a good worker by promoting him to management failure. By
using the unique Anderson Position Overlay system, you can avoid future regret by comparing
your candidate's qualities to the requirements of the position before saying "Welcome
Aboard".
Eric Samuelson is the creator of the Confident Hiring System™. Working with Dave
Anderson of Learn to Lead, he provides the Anderson Profiles and related services to clients in
the automotive retail industry as well as a variety of other businesses.
Putt's Law and the Successful Technocrat is a book, credited to the pseudonym Archibald Putt, published
in 1981. An updated edition, subtitled How to Win in the Information Age , was published
by Wiley-IEEE
Press in 2006. The book is based upon a series of articles published in
Research/Development Magazine in 1976 and 1977.
Putt's Law: " Technology is dominated by two types of people, those who understand
what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand. "
[3]
Putt's Corollary: " Every technical hierarchy, in time, develops a competence
inversion. " with incompetence being "flushed out of the lower levels" of a technocratic
hierarchy, ensuring that technically competent people remain directly in charge of the actual
technology while those without technical competence move into management. [3]
Jump up
^ Archibald Putt. Putt's Law and the Successful Technocrat: How to Win in the
Information Age , Wiley-IEEE Press (2006), ISBN0-471-71422-4 .
Preface.
^ Jump
up to: ab Archibald Putt. Putt's Law and the Successful Technocrat: How to
Win in the Information Age , Wiley-IEEE Press (2006), ISBN0-471-71422-4 . page
7.
Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage,
and those who manage what they do not understand. -- Archibald Putt
Neoliberal PHBs like talk about KJLOCs, error counts, tickets closed and other types of
numerical measurements designed so that they can be used by lower-level PHBs to report fake
results to higher level PHBs. These attempts to quantify 'the quality' and volume of work
performed by software developers and sysadmins completely miss the point. For software is can
lead to code bloat.
The number of tickets taken and resolved in a specified time period probably the most ignorant way to measure performance of
sysadmins. For sysadmin you can invent creative creating way of generating and resolving
tickets. And spend time accomplishing fake task, instead of thinking about real problem that
datacenter face. Using Primitive measurement strategies devalue the work being performed by Sysadmins and programmers. They focus
on the wrong things. They create the boundaries that are supposed to contain us in a manner that is comprehensible to the PHB who
knows nothing about real problems we face.
Notable quotes:
"... Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage, and those who manage what they do not understand. ..."
In an advanced research or development project, success or failure is largely determined
when the goals or objectives are set and before a manager is chosen. While a hard-working and
diligent manager can increase the chances of success, the outcome of the project is most
strongly affected by preexisting but unknown technological factors over which the project
manager has no control. The success or failure of the project should not, therefore, be used as
the sole measure or even the primary measure of the manager's competence.
Putt's Law Is promulgated
Without an adequate competence criterion for technical managers, there is no way to
determine when a person has reached his level of incompetence. Thus a clever and ambitious
individual may be promoted from one level of incompetence to another. He will ultimately
perform incompetently in the highest level of the hierarchy just as he did in numerous lower
levels. The lack of an adequate competence criterion combined with the frequent practice of
creative incompetence in technical hierarchies results in a competence inversion, with the most
competent people remaining near the bottom while persons of lesser talent rise to the top. It
also provides the basis for Putt's Law, which can be stated in an intuitive and nonmathematical
form as follows:
Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not
manage, and those who manage what they do not understand.
As in any other hierarchy, the majority of persons in technology neither understand nor
manage much of anything. This, however, does not create an exception to Putt's Law, because
such persons clearly do not dominate the hierarchy. While this was not previously stated as a
basic law, it is clear that the success of every technocrat depends on his ability to deal with
and benefit from the consequences of Putt's Law.
"... "Most of the emails were never examined, even though they made up potentially 10 times the evidence" of what was reviewed in the original year-long case that Comey closed in July 2016, said a law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the investigation. ..."
"... "Yet even the "extremely narrow" search that was finally conducted, after more than a month of delay, uncovered more classified material sent and/or received by Clinton through her unauthorized basement server, the official said. Contradicting Comey's testimony, this included highly sensitive information dealing with Israel and the U.S.-designated terrorist group Hamas. The former secretary of state, however, was never confronted with the sensitive new information and it was never analyzed for damage to national security. ..."
"If neocons and neolibs succeed tearing this president down, than 65 million folks
like me will have absolute, incontrovertible evidence that we no longer live in a democracy
and our vote means nothing, therefore we are powerless unless we take to the streets
with..."
It was incontrovertible long ago, these are just the more blatant latest examples. For
instance, giving just one example, a Sec of State using an unauthorized, unsecured personal
email server in her basement most likely to avoid the ability of FOIA requests to find
anything on a particular topic, a server which contained classified emails up to
TS/SCI/TK/NOFORN (spysat stuff) being given a total pass for what anyone who has ever handled
classified materials would know they'd be put in a small room at Leavenworth for.
Then, the now known to be false claim by Comey that the Weiner laptop which almost
certainly contained even the deleted Clinton emails was thoroughly examined:
"Only 3,077 of the 694,000 emails were directly reviewed for classified or incriminating
information. Three FBI officials completed that work in a single 12-hour spurt the day before
Comey again cleared Clinton of criminal charges.
"Most of the emails were never examined, even though they made up potentially 10 times
the evidence" of what was reviewed in the original year-long case that Comey closed in July
2016, said a law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the investigation.
"Yet even the "extremely narrow" search that was finally conducted, after more than a
month of delay, uncovered more classified material sent and/or received by Clinton through
her unauthorized basement server, the official said. Contradicting Comey's testimony, this
included highly sensitive information dealing with Israel and the U.S.-designated terrorist
group Hamas. The former secretary of state, however, was never confronted with the sensitive
new information and it was never analyzed for damage to national security.
"Even though the unique classified material was improperly stored and transmitted on an
unsecured device, the FBI did not refer the matter to U.S. intelligence agencies to determine
if national security had been compromised, as required under a federally mandated "damage
assessment" directive.
"The newly discovered classified material "was never previously sent out to the relevant
original classification authorities for security review," the official, who spoke to
RealClearInvestigations on the condition of anonymity, said.
To conclude:
Mark Baum: It's time to call BS.
Vinnie Daniel: BS on what?
Mark Baum: Every-f'ing-thing.
-- film "The Big Short" (2015)
"... In fact, a technical glitch prevented FBI technicians from accurately comparing the new emails with the old emails. Only 3,077 of the 694,000 emails were directly reviewed for classified or incriminating information. Three FBI officials completed that work in a single 12-hour spurt the day before Comey again cleared Clinton of criminal charges. ..."
"... "Most of the emails were never examined, even though they made up potentially 10 times the evidence" of what was reviewed in the original year-long case that Comey closed in July 2016, said a law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the investigation. ..."
"... Contradicting Comey's testimony, this included highly sensitive information dealing with Israel and the U.S.-designated terrorist group Hamas. The former secretary of state, however, was never confronted with the sensitive new information and it was never analyzed for damage to national security. ..."
"... Even though the unique classified material was improperly stored and transmitted on an unsecured device, the FBI did not refer the matter to U.S. intelligence agencies to determine if national security had been compromised, as required under a federally mandated "damage assessment" directive . ..."
"... "There was no real investigation and no real search," said Michael Biasello, a 27-year veteran of the FBI. "It was all just show -- eyewash -- to make it look like there was an investigation before the election." ..."
"... Many Clinton supporters believe Comey's 11th hour reopening of a case that had shadowed her campaign was a form of sabotage that cost her the election. But the evidence shows Comey and his inner circle acted only after worried agents and prosecutors in New York forced their hand. At the prodding of Attorney General Lynch, they then worked to reduce and rush through, rather than carefully examine, potentially damaging new evidence. ..."
"... However, conducting a broader and more thorough search of the Weiner laptop may still have prosecutorial justification. Other questions linger, including whether subpoenaed evidence was destroyed or false statements were made to congressional and FBI investigators from 2014 to 2016, a time frame that is within the statute of limitations. The laptop was not searched for evidence pertaining to such crimes. Investigators instead focused their search, limited as it was, on classified information. ..."
"... The headers indicated that the emails on the laptop included ones sent and/or received by Abedin at her clintonemail.com account, her personal Yahoo! email account as well as a host of Clinton-associated domains including state.gov, clintonfoundation.org, presidentclinton.com and hillaryclinton.com. ..."
"... (McCabe told Horowitz he didn't remember Sweeney briefing him about the Weiner laptop, but personal notes he took during the teleconference indicate he was briefed. Sweeney also updated McCabe in a direct call later that afternoon in which he noted there were potentially 347,000 relevant emails, and that the count was climbing. McCabe was fired earlier this year and referred to the U.S. Attorney's office in Washington, D.C., for possible criminal investigation into allegations he made false statements to federal agents working for Horowitz.) ..."
"... FBI officials in New York assumed that the bureau's brass would jump on the discovery, particularly since it included the missing emails from the start of Clinton's time at State. In fact, the emails dated from the beginning of 2007 and covered the entire period of Clinton's tenure as secretary and thereafter. The team leading the Clinton investigation, codenamed "Midyear Exam," had never been able to find Clinton's emails from her first two months as secretary. ..."
"... Lynch -- who had admonished Comey to call the Clinton case a "matter" and not an investigation, aligning FBI rhetoric with the Clinton campaign, and who inappropriately agreed to meet with Bill Clinton aboard her government plane five days before the FBI interviewed Hillary Clinton -- sought to keep the Weiner laptop search quiet and was opposed to going to Congress with the discovery so close to the election. ..."
"... But this time, Comey made no public show of his announcement. On Oct. 28, 2016, Comey quietly sent a terse and private letter to the chairs and the ranking members of the oversight committees on the Hill, informing them, vaguely, that the FBI was taking additional steps in the Clinton email investigation. ..."
"... The unnamed agent, who is identified in the IG report only as "Agent 1," is now married to another Midyear investigator, who on Election Day IM'd her then-boyfriend to say Clinton "better win," while threatening to quit if she didn't. Known as "Agent 5," she also stated, "fuck trump," while calling his voters "retarded." ..."
"... Also excluded were Abedin's Yahoo emails, even though investigators had previously found classified information on her Yahoo account and would arguably have probable cause to look at those emails, as well. ..."
"... Also removed from the search were the BlackBerry data -- even though the FBI had previously described them as the "golden emails," because they covered the dark period early in Clinton's term. ..."
"... In addition to limiting the scope of their probe, the agents were also under pressure from both Justice Department prosecutors and FBI headquarters to complete the review of the remaining emails in a hurry. ..."
"... Lynch urged Comey to process the Weiner laptop "as fast as you can," according to notes from a high-level department meeting on Oct. 31, 2016, which were obtained by the IG. ..."
"... Advanced new "de-duplicating" technology would allow them to speed through the mountain of new emails automatically flagging copies of previously reviewed material. ..."
"... But according to the IG, FBI's technology division only "attempted" to de-duplicate the emails, but ultimately was unsuccessful. The IG cited a report prepared Nov. 15, 2016, by three officials from the FBI's Boston field office. Titled "Anthony Weiner Laptop Review for Communications Pertinent to Midyear Exam," it found that "[b]ecause metadata was largely absent, the emails could not be completely, automatically de-duplicated or evaluated against prior emails recovered during the investigation." ..."
"... Contrary to Comey's claim, the FBI could not sufficiently determine how many emails containing classified information were duplicative of previously reviewed classified emails. As a result, hundreds of thousands of emails were not actually processed for evidence, law enforcement sources say. ..."
"... Later that evening of Nov. 6, after he announced to Congress that Clinton was in the clear again, an exuberant Comey gathered his inner circle in his office to watch football. ..."
"... Page noted that "Trump is talking about [Clinton]" on Fox News, and how "she's protected by a rigged system." ..."
"... RCI has learned that these highly sensitive messages include a Nov. 25, 2011, email regarding talks with Egyptian leaders and Hamas, and a July 9, 2011, "call sheet" Abedin sent Clinton in advance of a phone conversation she had that month with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The document runs four pages. ..."
"... Another previously unseen classified email, dated Nov. 25, 2010, concerns confidential high-level State Department talks with United Arab Emirates leaders. The note, including a classified "readout" of a phone call with the UAE prime minister, was written by Abedin and sent to Clinton, and then forwarded by Abedin the next day from her [email protected] account to her then-husband's account identified under the rubric "Anthony Campaign." ..."
"... Comey and Strzok also decided to close the case for a second time without interviewing its three central figures: Abedin, Weiner and Clinton. ..."
"... In a statement, Strzok's attorney blamed the delays in processing the new emails on "bureaucratic snafus," and insisted they had nothing to do with Strzok's political views, which he said never "affected his work." ..."
"... "When informed that Weiner's laptop contained Clinton emails, Strzok immediately had the matter pursued by two of his most qualified and aggressive investigators," Goelman said. Still, contemporaneous messages by Strzok reveal he was not thrilled about re-investigating Clinton. On Nov. 5, for example, he texted Page: "I hate this case." ..."
"... A final mystery remains: Where is the Weiner laptop today? ..."
"... Wherever its location, somewhere out there is a treasure trove of evidence involving potentially serious federal crimes -- including espionage, foreign influence-peddling and obstruction of justice -- that has never been properly or fully examined by law enforcement authorities. ..."
When then-FBI Director James Comey announced he was closing the Hillary Clinton email
investigation for a second time just days before the 2016 election, he certified to Congress
that his agency had "reviewed all of the communications" discovered on a personal laptop used
by Clinton's closest aide, Huma Abedin, and her husband, Anthony Weiner.
James Comey, above.
Top photo: His certification to Congress just before Election Day clearing Hillary Clinton a
second time. That certification is challenged by new reporting. AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite,
File Top: AP Photo/Jon Elswick
At the time, many wondered how investigators managed over the course of one week to read the
"hundreds of thousands" of emails residing on the machine, which had been a focus of a
sex-crimes investigation of Weiner, a former Congressman.
Comey later
told Congress that "thanks to the wizardry of our technology," the FBI was able to
eliminate the vast majority of messages as "duplicates" of emails they'd previously seen.
Tireless agents, he claimed, then worked "night after night after night" to scrutinize the
remaining material.
But virtually none of his account was true, a growing body of evidence reveals.
In fact, a technical glitch prevented FBI technicians from accurately comparing the new
emails with the old emails. Only 3,077 of the 694,000 emails were directly reviewed for
classified or incriminating information. Three FBI officials completed that work in a single
12-hour spurt the day before Comey again cleared Clinton of criminal charges.
"Most of the emails were never examined, even though they made up potentially 10 times the
evidence" of what was reviewed in the original year-long case that Comey closed in July 2016,
said a law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the investigation.
Yet even the "extremely narrow" search that was finally conducted, after more than a month
of delay, uncovered more classified material sent and/or received by Clinton through her
unauthorized basement server, the official said. Contradicting Comey's testimony, this included
highly sensitive information dealing with Israel and the U.S.-designated terrorist group Hamas.
The former secretary of state, however, was never confronted with the sensitive new information
and it was never analyzed for damage to national security.
Even though the unique classified material was improperly stored and transmitted on an
unsecured device, the FBI did not refer the matter to U.S. intelligence agencies to determine
if national security had been compromised, as required under a federally mandated "damage
assessment" directive
.
The newly discovered classified material "was never previously sent out to the relevant
original classification authorities for security review," the official, who spoke to
RealClearInvestigations on the condition of anonymity, said.
Other key parts of the investigation remained open when the embattled director announced to
Congress he was buttoning the case back up for good just ahead of Election Day.
One career FBI special agent involved in the case complained to New York colleagues that
officials in Washington tried to "bury" the new trove of evidence, which he believed contained
the full archive of Clinton's emails -- including long-sought missing messages from her first
months at the State Department.
RealClearInvestigations pieced together the FBI's handling of the massive new email
discovery from the "Weiner laptop." This months-long investigation included a review of federal
court records and affidavits, cellphone text messages, and emails sent by key FBI personnel,
along with internal bureau memos, reviews and meeting notes documented in government reports.
Information also was gleaned through interviews with FBI agents and supervisors, prosecutors
and other law enforcement officials, as well as congressional investigators and public-interest
lawyers.
If the FBI "soft-pedaled" the original investigation of Clinton's emails, as some critics
have said, it out-and-out suppressed the follow-up probe related to the laptop, sources for
this article said.
"There was no real investigation and no real search," said Michael Biasello, a 27-year
veteran of the FBI. "It was all just show -- eyewash -- to make it look like there was an
investigation before the election."
Although the FBI's New York office first pointed headquarters to the large new volume of
evidence on Sept. 28, 2016, supervising agent Peter Strzok, who was fired on Aug. 10 for
sending anti-Trump texts and other misconduct, did not try to obtain a warrant to search the
huge cache of emails until Oct. 30, 2016. Violating department policy, he edited the warrant
affidavit on his home email account, bypassing the FBI system for recording such government
business. He also began drafting a second exoneration statement before conducting the
search.
The search warrant was so limited in scope that it excluded more than half the emails New
York agents considered relevant to the case. The cache of Clinton-Abedin communications dated
back to 2007. But the warrant to search the laptop excluded any messages exchanged before or
after Clinton's 2009-2013 tenure as secretary of state, key early periods when Clinton
initially set up her unauthorized private server and later periods when she deleted thousands
of emails sought by investigators.
Far from investigating and clearing Abedin and Weiner, the FBI did not interview them,
according to other FBI sources who say Comey closed the case prematurely. The machine was not
authorized for classified material, and Weiner did not have classified security clearance to
receive such information, which he did on at least two occasions through his Yahoo! email
account – which he also used to email snapshots of his penis.
Many Clinton supporters believe Comey's 11th hour reopening of a case that had shadowed her
campaign was a form of sabotage that cost her the election. But the evidence shows Comey and
his inner circle acted only after worried agents and prosecutors in New York forced their hand.
At the prodding of Attorney General Lynch, they then worked to reduce and rush through, rather
than carefully examine, potentially damaging new evidence.
Comey later admitted in his memoir "A Higher Loyalty," that political calculations shaped
his decisions during this period. But, he wrote, they were calibrated to help Clinton:
"Assuming, as nearly everyone did, that Hillary Clinton would be elected president of the
United States in less than two weeks, what would happen to the FBI, the Justice Department or
her own presidency if it later was revealed, after the fact, that she still was the subject of
an FBI investigation?"
What does it matter now? Republicans are clamoring for a special counsel to reopen the
Clinton email case, though a five-year statute of limitations may be an issue concerning crimes
relating to her potential mishandling of classified information.
However, conducting a broader and more thorough search of the Weiner laptop may still have
prosecutorial justification. Other questions linger, including whether subpoenaed evidence was
destroyed or false statements were made to congressional and FBI investigators from 2014 to
2016, a time frame that is within the statute of limitations. The laptop was not searched for
evidence pertaining to such crimes. Investigators instead focused their search, limited as it
was, on classified information.
Also, the FBI is still actively investigating the Clinton Foundation for alleged
foreign-tied corruption. That probe, handled chiefly out of New York, may benefit from evidence
on the laptop.
The FBI did not respond to requests for comment.
The Background
In March 2015, it was revealed that Hillary Clinton had used a private email server located
in the basement of her Chappaqua, N.Y., home to conduct State Department business during her
2009-2013 tenure as the nation's top diplomat. The emails on the unsecured server included
thousands of classified messages, including top-secret information. Federal law makes it a
felony for government employees to possess or handle classified material in an unprotected
manner.
By July, intelligence community authorities had referred the matter to the FBI.
That investigation centered on the 30,490 emails Clinton handed over after deeming them
work-related. She said she had deleted another 33,000 because she decided they were "personal."
Also missing were emails from the first two months of her tenure at State – from Jan. 21,
2009, through March 18, 2009 -- because investigators were unable to locate the BlackBerry
device she used during this period, when she set up and began using the basement server,
bypassing the government's system of archiving such public records as required by federal
statute.
Comey faces media on July 5, 2016. AP Photo/Cliff Owen
One year later, in a dramatic July 2016 press conference less than three weeks before
Clinton would accept her party's nomination for president, Comey unilaterally cleared Clinton
of criminal wrongdoing. While Clinton and her aides "were extremely careless in their handling
of very sensitive, highly classified information," he said, "no charges are appropriate in this
case."
Comey would later say he broke with normal procedures whereby the FBI collects evidence and
the Department of Justice decides whether to bring charges, because he believed Attorney
General Loretta Lynch had engaged in actions that raised doubts about her credibility,
including secretly meeting with Clinton's husband, the former president, just days before the
FBI interviewed her.
Fast-forward to September 2016.
FBI investigators in New York were analyzing a Dell laptop, shared by Abedin and Weiner, as
part of a separate sex-crimes investigation involving Weiner's contact with an underage girl. A
former Democratic congressman from New York, Weiner is serving a 21-month prison sentence after
pleading guilty to sending obscene material to a 15-year-old.
On Sept. 26, 2016, the lead New York agent assigned to the case found a large volume of
emails – "over 300,000" – on the laptop related to Abedin and Clinton, including a
large volume of messages from Clinton's old BlackBerry account.
The headers indicated that the emails on the laptop included ones sent and/or received by
Abedin at her clintonemail.com account, her personal Yahoo! email account as well as a host of
Clinton-associated domains including state.gov, clintonfoundation.org, presidentclinton.com and
hillaryclinton.com.
The agents had reason to believe that classified information resided on the laptop, since
investigators had already established that emails containing classified information were
transmitted through multiple email accounts used by Abedin, including her clintonemail.com and
Yahoo! accounts. Moreover, the preliminary count of Clinton-related emails found on the laptop
in late September 2016 -- three months after Comey closed his case -- dwarfed the total of some
60,000 originally reported by Clinton.
The agent described the discovery as an "oh-shit moment." "Am I seeing what I think I'm seeing?" he asked another case agent. They agreed that the information needed "to get reported up the chain"
immediately.
The next day, Sept. 27, the official in charge of the FBI's New York office, Bill Sweeney,
was alerted to the trove and confirmed "it was clearly her stuff." Sweeney reported the find to
Comey deputy Andrew McCabe and other headquarters officials on Sept. 28, and told Justice
Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz that "everybody realized the significance of
this."
(McCabe told Horowitz he didn't remember Sweeney briefing him about the Weiner laptop, but
personal notes he took during the teleconference indicate he was briefed. Sweeney also updated
McCabe in a direct call later that afternoon in which he noted there were potentially 347,000
relevant emails, and that the count was climbing. McCabe was fired earlier this year and
referred to the U.S. Attorney's office in Washington, D.C., for possible criminal investigation
into allegations he made false statements to federal agents working for Horowitz.)
McCabe, in turn, briefed Strzok - who had led the Clinton email probe - that afternoon, text
messages show.
Comey was not on the conference call, but phone records show he and McCabe met privately
that afternoon and spoke during a flurry of phone calls late that evening. McCabe said he could
not recall what they discussed, while Comey told investigators that he did not hear about the
emails until early October -- and then quickly forgot about them. ("I kind of just put it out
of my mind," he said, because he claimed it did not "index" with him that Abedin was closely
connected to Clinton. "I don't know that I knew that [Weiner] was married to Huma Abedin at the
time.")
FBI officials in New York assumed that the bureau's brass would jump on the discovery,
particularly since it included the missing emails from the start of Clinton's time at State. In
fact, the emails dated from the beginning of 2007 and covered the entire period of Clinton's
tenure as secretary and thereafter. The team leading the Clinton investigation, codenamed
"Midyear Exam," had never been able to find Clinton's emails from her first two months as
secretary.
By Oct. 4, the Weiner case agent had finished processing the laptop, and reported that he
found at least 675,000 emails potentially relevant to the Midyear case (in fact, the final
count was 694,000). "Based on the number of emails, we could have every email that Huma and
Hillary ever sent each other," the agent remarked to colleagues. It appeared this was the
mother lode of missing Clinton emails. But Strzok remained uninterested. "This isn't a ticking
terrorist bomb," he was quoted as saying in the recently issued inspector general's report.
Besides, he had bigger concerns, such as, "You know, is the government of Russia trying to get
somebody elected here in the United States?"
Strzok and headquarters sat on the mountain of evidence for another 26 days. The career New
York agent said all he was hearing from Washington was "crickets," so he pushed the issue to
his immediate superiors, fearing he would be "scapegoated" for failing to search the pile of
digital evidence. They, in turn, went over Strzok's head, passing their concerns on to career
officials at the National Security Division of the Justice Department, who in turn set off
alarm bells at the seventh floor executive suites of the Hoover Building.
The New York agent has not been publicly identified, even in the recent IG report, which
only describes him as male. But federal court filings in the Weiner case
reviewed by RCI list two FBI agents present in court proceedings, only one of whom is male -
John Robertson. RCI has confirmed that Robertson at the time was an FBI special agent assigned
to the C-20 squad investigating "crimes against children" at the bureau's New York field office
at 26 Federal Plaza, which did not return messages.
The agent told the inspector general that he wasn't political and didn't understand all the
sensitive issues headquarters may have been weighing, but he feared Washington's inaction might
be seen as a cover-up that could wreak havoc on the bureau. "I don't care who wins this election," he said, "but this is going to make us look really,
really horrible."
Once George Toscas, the highest-ranking Justice Department official directly involved in the
Clinton email investigation, found out about the delay, he prodded headquarters to initiate a
search and to inform Congress about the discovery.
By Oct. 21, Strzok had gotten the word. "Toscas now aware NY has hrc-huma emails," he texted
McCabe's counsel, Lisa Page, who responded, "whatever."
Four days later, Page told Strzok - with whom she was having an affair - about the murmurs
she was hearing from brass about having to tell Congress about the new emails. "F them," Strzok
responded, apparently referring to oversight committee leaders on the Hill.
The next day, Oct. 26, the New York agent finally was able to brief Strzok's team directly
about what he had found on the laptop. On Oct. 27, Comey gave the green light to seek a search
warrant.
Michael Horowitz: Pressure from New York was key to
reopening email case.
"This decision resulted not from the discovery of dramatic new information about the Weiner
laptop, but rather as a result of inquiries from the Weiner case agent and prosecutors from the
U.S. Attorney's Office [in New York]," Horowitz said in his recently released report on
the Clinton investigation.
Former prosecutors say that politics is the only explanation for why FBI brass dragged their
feet for a month after the New York office alerted them about the Clinton emails.
"There's no rational explanation why, after they found over 300,000 Clinton emails on the
Wiener laptop in late September, the FBI did nothing for a month," former deputy Independent
Counsel Solomon "Sol" L. Wisenberg said in a recent interview with Fox News host Laura
Ingraham. "It's pretty clear there's a real possibility they did nothing because they thought
it would hurt Mrs. Clinton during the election."
Horowitz concurred. The IG cited suspicions that the inaction "was a politically motivated
attempt to bury information that could negatively impact the chances of Hillary Clinton in the
election."
He noted that on Nov. 3, after Comey notified Congress of the search, Strzok created a
suspiciously inaccurate "Weiner timeline" and circulated it among the FBI leadership.
The odd document, written after the fact, made it seem as if New York hadn't fully processed
the laptop until Oct. 19 and had neglected to fill headquarters in on details about what had
been found until Oct. 21. In fact, New York finished processing on Oct. 4 and first began
reporting back details to top FBI executives as early as Sept. 28.
Fearing Leaks
Fears of media leaks also played a role in the ultimate decision to reopen the case and
notify Congress.
FBI leadership worried that New York would go public with the fact it was sitting on the
Weiner emails, because the field office was leaking information on other sensitive matters at
the time, including Clinton-related conflicts dogging McCabe, which the Wall Street Journal had
exposed that October. At the same time, Trump surrogate and former New York Mayor Rudy
Giuliani, who was still in touch with FBI sources in the city, was chirping about an "October
surprise" on Fox News.
Loretta Lynch: Stop those leaks.
During the October time frame, McCabe called Sweeney in New York and chewed him out about
leaks coming out of his office. On Oct. 26, then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch was so worried
about the leaks, she called McCabe and Sweeney and angrily warned them to fix them. Sweeney
confirmed in an interview with the inspector general that they got "ripped by the AG on leaks."
McCabe said he never heard the attorney general "use more forceful language."
Lynch -- who had admonished Comey to call the Clinton case a "matter" and not an
investigation, aligning FBI rhetoric with the Clinton campaign, and who inappropriately agreed
to meet with Bill Clinton aboard her government plane five days before the FBI interviewed
Hillary Clinton -- sought to keep the Weiner laptop search quiet and was opposed to going to
Congress with the discovery so close to the election.
"We were quite confident that somebody is going to leak this fact, that we have all these
emails. That, if we don't put out a letter [to Congress], somebody is going to leak it,"
then-FBI General Counsel James Baker said. "The discussion was somebody in New York will leak
this."
Baker advised Comey that he also was under obligation to update Congress about any new
developments in the case. Just a few months earlier, the director had testified before Hill
oversight committees about his decision to close the case. Baker said the front office
rationalized that since Clinton was ahead in the polls, the notification would not have a big
impact on the race. The Democratic nominee would likely win no matter what the FBI did.
But this time, Comey made no public show of his announcement. On Oct. 28, 2016, Comey
quietly sent a terse and private letter to the chairs and the ranking members of the oversight
committees on the Hill, informing them, vaguely, that the FBI was taking additional steps in
the Clinton email investigation.
Those steps, of course, started with finally searching the laptop for relevant
emails.
'Giant Nothing-Burger'
Prosecutors and investigators alike, however, approached the search as an exercise in
futility, even prejudging the results as a "giant nothing-burger."
That was an assessment that would emerge later from David Laufman, then a lead prosecutor in
the Justice Department's national security division assigned to the Clinton email probe. He had
"a very low expectation" that any evidence found on the laptop would alter the outcome of the
Midyear investigation. And he doubted a search would turn up "anything novel or consequential,"
according to the IG report.
Mary McCord: Discounted laptop trove, and she wasn't the only
one.
Hired by former Attorney General Eric Holder, Laufman complained it was "exceptionally
inappropriate" to restart the investigation so close to the election. (Records show Laufman,
who sat in on Clinton's July 2016 interview at FBI headquarters, gave money to both of Barack
Obama's presidential campaigns.)
His boss, Mary McCord, discounted the laptop trove as emails they'd already seen. "Hopefully
all duplicates," she wrote in notes she took from an October 2016 phone call she had with
McCabe, who shared her hope. McCord opposed publicly opening the case again "because it could be a big nothing."
In an Oct. 27 email to the lead Midyear analyst, Strzok suggested the search would not be
serious, that they would just need to go through the motions, while joking about "de-duping,"
or excluding emails as ones they'd already seen.
The reactivated Midyear investigators were not eager to dive into the new emails, either.
They also prejudged the batch as evidence they had already analyzed -- while at the same time
expressing pro-Hillary and anti-Trump sentiments in internal communications.
For example, the Midyear agent who had called Clinton the "future pres[ident]" after
interviewing her in July, pooh-poohed the idea they would find emails substantively different
than what the team had previously reviewed. Even though he expected they'd find some missing
emails, even new classified material, he discounted their significance.
"My best guess -- probably uniques, maybe classified uniques, with none being any different
tha[n] what we've already seen," the agent wrote in an Oct. 28 instant message to another FBI
employee on the bureau's computer system. (Back in May 2016, as Clinton was locking up the
Democratic primary, the agent had revealed in another IM that there was "political urgency" to
wrap up her email investigation.)
The unnamed agent, who is identified in the IG report only as "Agent 1," is now married to
another Midyear investigator, who on Election Day IM'd her then-boyfriend to say Clinton
"better win," while threatening to quit if she didn't. Known as "Agent 5," she also stated,
"fuck trump," while calling his voters "retarded."
At the same time, the lead FBI attorney on the Midyear case, Sally Moyer (whose lawyers
confirmed is the anonymous "FBI Attorney 1" cited in the IG report), was in no hurry to process
the laptop. Before examining them, she expressed the belief that the massive volume of emails
"may just be duplicative of what we already have," doubting there was a "smoking gun" in the
pile.
A Hurried, Constrained Search
Moyer, a registered Democrat, was responsible for obtaining legal authority to review the
laptop's contents. She severely limited the scope of the evidence that investigators could
search on the laptop by setting unusually tight parameters.
Working closely with her was Strzok, who forwarded a draft of the warrant to his personal
email account in violation of FBI policy, where he helped edit the language in the affidavit.
By processing the document at home, no record of his changes to the document were captured in
the FBI system.
(Strzok had also edited the language in the drafts of Comey's public statement about his
original decision on the Clinton email investigation. He changed the description of Clinton's
handling of classified information from "grossly negligent" -- which is proscribed in the
federal statute -- to "extremely careless," eliminating a key phrase that could have had legal
ramifications for Clinton.)
The next day, the search warrant application drafted by Strzok and Moyer was filed in New
York. It was inexplicably self-constraining. The FBI asked the federal magistrate judge, Kevin
N. Fox, to see only a small portion of the evidence the New York agent told headquarters it
would find on the laptop.
"The FBI only reviewed emails to or from Clinton during the period in which she was
Secretary of State, and not emails from Abedin or other parties or emails outside that period,"
Horowitz pointed out in a section of his report discussing concerns that the search
warrant request was "too narrow."
That put the emails the New York case agent found between 2007 and 2009, when Clinton's
private server was set up, as well as those observed after her tenure in 2013, outside
investigators' reach. The post-tenure emails were potentially important, Horowitz noted,
because they may have offered clues concerning the intent behind the later destruction of
emails.
Also excluded were Abedin's Yahoo emails, even though investigators had previously found
classified information on her Yahoo account and would arguably have probable cause to look at
those emails, as well.
Also removed from the search were the BlackBerry data -- even though the FBI had previously
described them as the "golden emails," because they covered the dark period early in Clinton's
term.
"Noticeably absent from the search warrant application prepared by the Midyear team is both
any mention that the NYO agent had seen Clinton's emails on the laptop and any mention of the
potential presence of BlackBerry emails from early in Clinton's tenure," Horowitz noted.
Even though the BlackBerry messages were "critical to [the] assessment of the potential
significance of the emails on the Weiner laptop, the information was not included in the search
warrant application," he stressed, adding that the application appeared to misrepresent the
information provided by the New York field agent. It also grossly underestimated the extent of
the material. The affidavit warrant mentioned "thousands of emails," while the New York agent
had told them that the laptop contained "hundreds of thousands" of relevant emails.
That meant that the Midyear team never got to look, even if it wanted to, at the majority of
the communications secreted on the laptop, further raising suspicions that headquarters wasn't
really interested in finding any evidence of wrongdoing – at least on the part of Clinton
and her team.
"I had very strict instructions that all I was allowed to do within the case was look for
Hillary Clinton emails, because that was the scope of our work," an FBI analyst said, even
though Horowitz said investigators had probable cause to look at Abedin's emails as well.
In addition to limiting the scope of their probe, the agents were also under pressure from
both Justice Department prosecutors and FBI headquarters to complete the review of the
remaining emails in a hurry.
One line prosecutor, identified in the IG report only as "Prosecutor 1," argued that they
should finish up "as quickly" as possible. Baker said there was a general concern about the new
process "being too prolonged and dragged [out]."
Lynch urged Comey to process the Weiner laptop "as fast as you can," according to notes from
a high-level department meeting on Oct. 31, 2016, which were obtained by the IG.
On Nov. 3, Strzok indicated in a text that
Justice demanded he update the department twice a day on the FBI's progress in clearing the
stack. "DOJ is hyperventilating," he told Page.
De-Duplicating 'Wizardry'
Before the search warrant was issued, the Midyear team argued that the project was too vast
to complete before the election. According to Comey's recently published memoir, they insisted
it would take "many weeks" and require the enlistment of "hundreds of FBI employees." And, they
contended, not just anybody could read them: "It had to be done by people who knew the
context," and there was only a handful of investigators and analysts who could do the job.
"The team told me there was no chance the survey of the emails could be completed before the
Nov. 8 election," Comey recalled, which was right around the corner.
But after Comey decided he'd have to move forward with the search regardless, Strzok and his
investigators suddenly claimed they could finish the work in the short time remaining prior to
national polls opening.
At the same time, they cut off communications with the New York field office. "We should
essentially have no reason for contact with NYO going forward on this," Strzok texted Page on
Nov. 2.
Strzok followed up with another text that same day, which seemed to echo earlier texts about
what they viewed as their patriotic duty to stop Trump and support Clinton.
"Your country needs you now," he said in an apparent attempt to buck up Page, who was "very
angry" they were having to reopen the Clinton case. "We are going to have to be very wise about
all of this."
"We're going to make sure the right thing is done," he added. "It's gonna be ok."
Responded Page: "I have complete confidence in the [Midyear] team."
"Our team," Strzok texted back. "I'm telling you to take comfort in that." Later, he
reminded Page that any conversations she had with McCabe "would be covered under atty
[attorney-client] privilege."
Suddenly, however, the impossible project suddenly became manageable thanks to what Comey
described as a "huge breakthrough." As the new cache of emails arrived, the bureau claimed it
had solved one of the most labor-intensive aspects of the previous Midyear investigation
– having to sort through the tens of thousands of Clinton emails on various servers and
electronic devices manually.
Advanced new "de-duplicating" technology would allow them to speed through the mountain of
new emails automatically flagging copies of previously reviewed material.
Strzok, who led the effort, echoed Comey's words, later telling the IG's investigators that
technicians were able "to do amazing things" to "rapidly de-duplicate" the emails on the
laptop, which significantly lowered the number of emails that he and other investigators had to
individually review manually.
But according to the IG, FBI's technology division only "attempted" to de-duplicate the
emails, but ultimately was unsuccessful. The IG cited a report prepared Nov. 15, 2016, by three
officials from the FBI's Boston field office. Titled "Anthony Weiner Laptop Review for
Communications Pertinent to Midyear Exam," it found that "[b]ecause metadata was largely
absent, the emails could not be completely, automatically de-duplicated or evaluated against
prior emails recovered during the investigation."
Trump at rally Nov. 7, 2016, in
Manchester, N.H. : "You can't review 650,000 emails in eight days."
The absence of this metadata -- basically electronic fingerprints that reveal identifying
characteristics such as To, CC, Date, From, Subject, attachments and other fields –
informed the IG's finding that "the FBI could not determine how many of the potentially
work-related emails were duplicative of emails previously obtained in the Midyear
investigation."
Contrary to Comey's claim, the FBI could not sufficiently determine how many emails
containing classified information were duplicative of previously reviewed classified emails. As
a result, hundreds of thousands of emails were not actually processed for evidence, law
enforcement sources say.
"All those communications weren't ruled out because they were copies, they were just ruled
out," the federal investigator with direct knowledge of the case said. The official, who wished
to remain anonymous, explained that hundreds of thousands of emails were simply overlooked.
Instead of processing them all, investigators took just a sample of the batch and looked at
those documents.
After Comey announced his investigators wrapped up the review in days – then-candidate
Donald Trump expressed skepticism. "You can't review 650,000 emails in eight days," he said
during a rally on Nov. 7. He was more correct than he knew.
Exoneration Before Investigation
At the urging of Lynch, Comey began drafting a new exoneration statement several days before
investigators finished reviewing the sample of emails they took from the Weiner laptop.
High-level meeting notes reveal they even discussed sending Congress "more-clarifying"
statements during the week to "correct misimpressions out there."
A scene from the
documentary "Weiner."
As the search was under way, one of the Midyear agents – Agent 1 -- confided to
another agent in a Nov. 1 instant message on the FBI's computer network that "no one is going
to pros[ecute Clinton] even if we find unique classified [material]."
On Nov. 4 – two days before they had completed the search – Strzok talked about
"drafting" a statement. "We might have this stmt out and be substantially done," Page texted
back about an hour later.
The pair seemed confident at that point that Clinton's campaign had weathered the new
controversy and would still pull off a victory.
"[O]n Inauguration Day," Page texted Strzok, "in addition to our kegger, we should also have
a screening of the Weiner documentary!" The film, "Weiner," documented the former Democratic
lawmaker's ill-fated run for New York mayor in 2013.
Filtering
Even after the vast reservoir of emails had been winnowed down by questionable methods, the
remaining ones still had to be reviewed by hand to determine if they were relevant to the
investigation and therefore legally searchable as evidence.
Moyer, the lead FBI attorney on the Midyear team who had initially discounted the trove of
new emails as "duplicates" and failed to act upon their discovery, was also head of the
"filtering" team. After various searches of the laptop, she and the Midyear team came up with
6,827 emails they classified as being tied directly to Clinton. Moyer then culled away from
that batch emails she deemed to be personal in nature and outside the scope of legal
agreements, cutting the stack in half. That left 3,077 which she deemed "work related."
On Nov. 5, Moyer, Strzok and a third investigator divided up the remaining pool of 3,077
emails -- roughly 1,000 emails each -- and rifled through them for classified information and
incriminating evidence in less than 12 hours, even though the identification of classified
material is a complicated and prolonged process that requires soliciting input from the
original classification authorities within the intelligence community.
"We're doing it ALL," Strzok told Page late that evening. The trio ordered pizza and worked into the next morning combing through the emails. "Finishing up," Strzok texted Page around 1 a.m. that Sunday.
By about 2 a.m. Sunday, he declared they were done with their search, noting that while they
had found new State Department messages, they had found "no new classified" emails. And
allegedly nothing from the missing period at the start of Clinton's term that might suggest a
criminal motive.
Later that evening of Nov. 6, after he announced to Congress that Clinton was in the clear
again, an exuberant Comey gathered his inner circle in his office to watch football.
As news of the case's swift re-closure hit the airwaves, Page and Strzok giddily exchanged
text messages and celebrated. "Out on CNN now And fox I WANT TO WATCH THIS WITH YOU!" Strzok
said to Page. "Going to pour myself a glass of wine ."
Page noted that "Trump is talking about [Clinton]" on Fox News, and how "she's protected by
a rigged system."
New Classified Information
Like a self-fulfilling prophecy, earlier prognostications that the results of the laptop
search would not be a game-changer turned out to be accurate. Yet investigators nonetheless
found 13 classified email chains on the unauthorized laptop just in the small sample of 3,077
emails that were individually inspected, and four of those were classified as Secret at the
time.
Contrary to the FBI's public claims, at least five classified emails recovered were not
duplicates but new to investigators.
RCI has learned that these highly sensitive messages include a Nov. 25, 2011, email
regarding talks with Egyptian leaders and Hamas, and a July 9, 2011, "call sheet" Abedin sent
Clinton in advance of a phone conversation she had that month with Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu. The document runs four pages.
Another previously unseen classified email, dated Nov. 25, 2010, concerns confidential
high-level State Department talks with United Arab Emirates leaders. The note, including a
classified "readout" of a phone call with the UAE prime minister, was written by Abedin and
sent to Clinton, and then forwarded by Abedin the next day from her [email protected]
account to her then-husband's account identified under the rubric "Anthony Campaign."
Tom
Fitton: "sham" investigation.
Judicial Watch, a Washington-based government watchdog group which has filed a lawsuit
against the State Department seeking a full production of Clinton records, confirmed the
existence of several more unique classified emails it has received among the rolling release of
the 3,077 "work-related" emails.
"These classified documents are not duplicates," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told
RCI. "They are not ones the FBI had already seen prior to their November review."
He accused the FBI of conducting a "sham" investigation and called on Attorney General Jeff
Sessions to order a new investigation of Clinton's email.
The unique classified emails call into question Comey's May 2017
testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, when he maintained that although
investigators found classified email chains on the laptop, "We'd seen them all
before."
No Damage Assessment
Comey, in subsequent interviews and public testimony, maintained that the FBI left no stone
unturned. This, too, skirted the truth.
Although Comey claimed that investigators had scoured the laptop for intrusions by foreign
hackers who may have stolen the state secrets, Strzok and his team never forensically examined
the laptop to see if classified information residing on it had been hacked or compromised by a
foreign power before Nov. 6, law enforcement sources say. A complete forensic analysis was
never performed by technicians at the FBI's lab at Quantico.
Nor did they farm out the classified information found on the unsecured laptop to other
intelligence agencies for review as part of a national security damage assessment -- even
though Horowitz confirmed that Clinton's illegal email activity, in a major security breach,
gave "foreign actors" access to unknowable quantities of classified material.
Without addressing the laptop specifically, late last year the FBI's own inspection division
determined that classified information kept on Clinton's email server "was compromised by
unauthorized individuals, to include foreign governments or intelligence services, via cyber
intrusion or other means."
Judicial Watch is suing the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the State
Department to force them to conduct, as required by law, a full damage assessment, and prepare
a report on how Clinton's email practices as secretary harmed national security.
Comey and Strzok also decided to close the case for a second time without interviewing its
three central figures: Abedin, Weiner and Clinton.
Abedin was eventually interviewed, two months later, on Jan. 6, 2017. Although summaries of
her previous interviews have been made public, this one has not.
Investigators never interviewed Weiner, even though he had received at least two of the
confirmed classified emails on his Yahoo account without the appropriate security clearance to
receive them.
The IG concluded, "The FBI did not determine exactly how Abedin's emails came to reside on
Weiner's laptop."
Premature Re-Closure
In his May 2017 testimony, however, Comey maintained that both Abedin and Weiner had been
investigated.
Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana: Investigating investigators. AP
Photo/Jacquelyn Martin
Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.): Is there an investigation with respect to the two of them?
Comey: There was, it is -- we completed it.
Pressed to answer why neither of them was charged with crimes, including mishandling
classified information, Comey explained:
"With respect to Ms. Abedin, we didn't have any indication that she had a sense that what
she was doing was in violation of the law. Couldn't prove any sort of criminal intent."
At the time, the Senate Judiciary Committee was unaware that the FBI had not interviewed
Abedin to make such a determination before the election. What about Weiner? Did he read the classified materials without proper authority? the
committee asked. "I don't think so," Comey answered, before adding, "I don't think we've been able to
interview him."
Pro-Clinton Bias
The IG report found that Strzok demonstrated intense bias for Clinton and against Trump
throughout the initial probe, followed by a stubborn reluctance to examine potentially critical
new evidence against Clinton. These included hundreds of messages exchanged with Page, embodied
by a Nov. 7 text referencing a pre-Election Day article headlined, "A victory by Mr. Trump
remains possible," about which Strzok stated, "OMG THIS IS F*CKING TERRIFYING."
Strzok is a central figure because he was a top agent on the two investigations with the
greatest bearing on the 2016 election – Clinton emails and the Trump campaign's ties to
Russia. These probes overlapped in October as the discovery of Abedin's laptop renewed Bureau
attention on Clinton's emails at the same time it was preparing to seek a Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act warrant to spy on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.
Some Republicans have charged that the month-long delay between the New York office's
discovery of the laptop and the FBI's investigation of it can be explained by Strzok's partisan
decision to prioritize the Trump investigation over the Clinton one.
Among the evidence they cite is an Oct. 14 email to Page in which Strzok discussed applying
"hurry the F up pressure" on Justice Department attorneys to secure the FISA surveillance
warrant on Page approved before Election Day. (This also happened to be the day the Obama
administration promoted his wife, Melissa Hodgman , a big Hillary booster,
to associate director of the SEC's enforcement division.) On Oct. 21, his team filed an
application for a wiretap to spy on Carter Page.
IG Horowitz would not rule out bias as a motivating factor in the aggressive investigation
of Trump and passive probe of Clinton. "We did not have confidence that Strzok's decision to
prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the Midyear-related investigative lead
discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias," he said.
Asked to elaborate in recent Senate testimony, Horowitz reaffirmed, "We did not find no bias
in regards to the October events."
Throughout that month, the facts overwhelmingly demonstrate that instead of digging into the
cache of new Clinton evidence, Strzok aggressively investigated the Trump campaign's alleged
ties to Moscow, including wiretapping at least one Trump adviser based heavily on unverified
allegations of espionage reported in a dossier commissioned by the Clinton campaign.
In a statement, Strzok's attorney blamed the delays in processing the new emails on
"bureaucratic snafus," and insisted they had nothing to do with Strzok's political views, which
he said never "affected his work."
The lawyer, Aitan D. Goelman, a partner at Zuckerman Spaeder LLP in Washington, added that
his client moved on the new information as soon as he could.
"When informed that Weiner's laptop contained Clinton emails, Strzok immediately had the
matter pursued by two of his most qualified and aggressive investigators," Goelman said. Still,
contemporaneous messages by Strzok reveal he was not thrilled about re-investigating Clinton.
On Nov. 5, for example, he texted Page: "I hate this case."
Recovering the
Laptop
A final mystery remains: Where is the Weiner laptop today?
The whistleblower agent in New York said that he was "instructed" by superiors to delete the
image of the laptop hard drive he had copied onto his work station, and to "wipe" all of the
Clinton-related emails clean from his computer.
But he said he believes the FBI "retained" possession of the actual machine, and that the
evidence on the device was preserved.
The last reported whereabouts of the laptop was the Quantico lab. However, the unusually
restrictive search warrant Strzok and his team drafted appeared to remand the laptop back into
the custody of Abedin and Weiner upon the closing of the case.
"If the government determines that the subject laptop is no longer necessary to retrieve and
preserve the data on the device," the document states on its final page, "the government will
return the subject laptop."
Wherever its location, somewhere out there is a treasure trove of evidence involving
potentially serious federal crimes -- including espionage, foreign influence-peddling and
obstruction of justice -- that has never been properly or fully examined by law enforcement
authorities.
I have had my suspicions of the divisions inside the FBI ever since late summer of 2016
when it was reported that the NYC FBI was pushing to reveal the Hillary emails found inside
Anthony Weiner's home computer. If you recall rumor had it, that the NYC insistence to go
public forced Comey to reopen the Hillary case uh-oh, darn. I also see Rudy as representative
of the opposing faction against the Comey/Brennan/Claper cabal. The only thing after Trump
bumps these guys off, is how he should shuttle CNN & MSNBC to be continued.
"... Watching Strzok perform, I was reminded of another performance of a similar nature by one Oliver North. Back in the days of plausible deniability and so forth. I recall reading that North got acting coaching for a few months, and intense preparation (as most who testify substantively before Congressional committees do) before the actual appearance. ..."
"... The gritty earnestness of Strzok was very reminiscent of North's gig. In neither case is it likely that any kind of penalty under existing laws or as an exercise of honest governance will apply, nor will the behaviors of the empire's acting principals change even a whit. ..."
"... "I'm unconvinced Strzok knew" Knew what, exactly? Did he know that Hillary Clinton's emails were being bcc'ed to China? Yeah, he know that with a certainty, because ICIG sent investigator Frank Rucker and ICIG attorney Janette McMillan to personally brief Strzok on that very fact. ..."
"... As one of the top counter-intelligence agents it would have been his duty to ensure that the Chinese stealing of classified information was investigated by the FBI CI team and a damage assessment made. ..."
"... I am surprised that you do not wish to understand that it was the sworn duty of the FBI as the chief federal police force to pursue this, not cover it up for the obvious purpose of improving the felon Clinton's chances. ..."
Here is the Congressional Record with the speech by Rep. Gohmert. The excerpt above starts at the 8th paragraph. The version in
the pdf computer file format is three pages long and starts down in the third column. It can be printed out and shown to your
friends as a conversation starter--
Good stuff. Hangs it around the Dems' necks for sure - now what are they going to do about it?
This part "because they are not going to be able to adequately research all of those emails in just a matter of 2 or 3 days"
isn't necessarily correct, if the emails were duplicates of the others the FBI looked at, which is alleged to be the case. Is
it the case? Who knows? But they could verify that in 2 or 3 days by computer using hashes of the originals compared to the new
ones.
But can we trust them on this? Again, who knows, given what we know now.
Watching Strzok perform, I was reminded of another performance of a similar nature by one Oliver North. Back in the days of plausible
deniability and so forth. I recall reading that North got acting coaching for a few months, and intense preparation (as most who
testify substantively before Congressional committees do) before the actual appearance.
The gritty earnestness of Strzok was very
reminiscent of North's gig. In neither case is it likely that any kind of penalty under existing laws or as an exercise of honest
governance will apply, nor will the behaviors of the empire's acting principals change even a whit.
"I'm unconvinced Strzok knew" Knew what, exactly? Did he know that Hillary Clinton's emails were being bcc'ed to China? Yeah,
he know that with a certainty, because ICIG sent investigator Frank Rucker and ICIG attorney Janette McMillan to personally brief
Strzok on that very fact.
So you can't claim that he didn't *know*, and even Strzok is only claiming that he can't remember
that he once knew about this.
Apparently his Alzheimer's is so bad that he forgot about it the moment he walked out of the briefing room, because that's
the only possible explanation for why he failed to pass this new information on to the "FBI's geek squad" for their own investigative
pleasure.
Gee, why am I standing here outside the Briefing Room? Must have been heading to the cafeteria to gra . oh, look, a squirrel!
As one of the top counter-intelligence agents it would have been his duty to ensure that the Chinese stealing of classified
information was investigated by the FBI CI team and a damage assessment made.
Of course from the perspective of the Hillary investigation which he was running this should have tipped the scale to "gross
negligence" on her part for not handling classified information in a secure manner. But as the IG report showed this was always
a political investigation and not a criminal one as it did not follow normal procedures for such cases and exoneration was decided
well in advance. It is good to be the Borg Queen!
I am surprised that you do not wish to understand that it was the sworn duty of the FBI as the chief federal police force
to pursue this, not cover it up for the obvious purpose of improving the felon Clinton's chances. IMO she could be charged
with being an accessory before the fact to espionage against the US.
Here's the Congressional Record transcript of an exhaustive speech Representative Louis
Gohmert (R-Tex) gave on the floor of the US House of Representatives about the penetration of
Hillary Clinton's e-mail system.
{time} 1815
"So, unfortunately, what I brought out in that hearing and he denied recalling should not be
lost in the exchange about his lying. It is far more important.
But for the record, as a prosecutor, a defense attorney, a felony judge, a chief justice,
and as a Member of Congress, I have asked thousands of witnesses questions. When you have
somebody who has just gotten so good at lying that there is no indication in their eyes
whatsoever that it bothers them to lie, somebody has got to call them out on it. It is just not
good for the state of this Union.
It is also denying credibility to actually have the witness say he doesn't recall getting
information about a foreign entity that is not Russia getting every--actually, it was over
30,000 emails, emails that were sent through to Hillary Clinton through the unauthorized server
and unsecured server and every email she sent out. There were highly classified--beyond
classified--top secret-type stuff that had gone through that server.
Out of the over 30,000 emails that went through that server, all but 4 of them--no
explanation why those 4 didn't get the same instruction, but we have some very good
intelligence people--when they were asked to look at Hillary Clinton's emails, they picked up
an anomaly. As they did forensic research on the emails, they found that anomaly was actually
an instruction embedded, compartmentalized data embedded in the email server telling the server
to send a copy of every email that came to Hillary Clinton through that unauthorized server and
every email that she sent out through that server, to send it to this foreign entity that is
not Russia.
We know that efforts were made to get Inspector General Horowitz to receive that
information. He would not return a call. Apparently, he didn't want that information because
that would go against his saying that the bias did not affect the investigation.
Of course it affected the investigation. It couldn't help but affect the investigation. It
denies logic and common sense to say somebody with that much animus, that much bias and
prejudice would not have it affect their investigation.
Madam Speaker, I can tell you I know there are people in this House who don't care for me,
but I can also tell you there is no one in this House on either side of this aisle who I would
put up with being investigated and prosecuted by somebody with the hatred, the absolute nasty
prejudice that Peter Strzok had for Donald Trump. I wouldn't put up with it. I would go to bat
for any Democrat in this House, any Republican in this House, the ones who don't like me on
either side. It wouldn't matter.
Nobody in the United States of America should have the full power of the Federal Government
coming after them in the hands of somebody prejudiced, full of hate for that individual. But
such is what we are dealing with here. That is why I laid the groundwork, gave the names of the
people--some of them--that were there when Peter Strzok was informed about Hillary Clinton's
emails for sure going to a foreign entity. This is serious stuff.
What came of our intelligence community providing that information to the FBI agent in
charge, Peter Strzok? Nothing. Peter Strzok received the information that it wasn't
speculation, that maybe Hillary Clinton's emails were capable of being hacked, but we have no
evidence that they were hacked.
All this garbage that we have heard about from reports? No. When the FBI was told her emails
were hacked and every email she received, every email she sent out--over 30,000, except for
4--over 30,000 were compromised and going to a foreign entity not Russia, and Mr. Strzok did
nothing about it.
When I started laying the groundwork pointing out the people, I am told an attorney behind
Mr. Strzok mouthed, ``Oh, my gosh,'' something like that, as I was laying the groundwork. I
don't know if she knew what I was talking about or not, but I thought I picked up just a
fleeting note of detection in Peter Strzok's eyes that he knew what I was talking about.
But, again, for my friends who are not familiar with the true rules of the House, let me
explain. In trial courts, for example, the felony court over which I was a judge, the rules of
evidence are very strict, and we protect the jury from hearing things that don't have any basis
for believability. That is why most hearsay cannot come in, but there are exceptions.
But one rule that you always find in any court, no matter how strict the rules are, the
credibility of the witness is always in evidence, always relevant, always material. The
witness' credibility is always material and relevant.
When it has been as open and everyone in our hearing room knew what has been going on for
such a prolonged period and I saw that look, that is all I could think is: I wonder if that is
the same look you gave your wife over and over when you lied to her about Lisa Page.
The credibility of a witness is always material and relevant. Mark it down.
Now, in our House hearings, the rules are not that strict. It is more in the nature of
anything that we feel may be relevant to the subject at hand. But in a hearing like today, even
things that have nothing to do--they are not germane, they are not relevant, they are not
material to what we are doing, we still have people bring in posters about something that is
not germane, not relevant, not material; and they can get away with doing it, in some cases, as
they did today, even though the rules probably could have restricted keeping some of that out.
We have very relaxed rules, so these kind of things happen.
Like I say, to yell out I am off my meds, yes, that violates the rule, but I am sure my
Democratic friend didn't realize what a rule-breaker she was as she tried to claim I was
breaking the rules, which I was not.
But what really came home, too, is, again, Inspector General Horowitz did a good job
gathering the evidence, except he refused to get the evidence that was offered to him about
Hillary Clinton's emails absolutely, unequivocally being hacked and everything over 30,000,
except for 4, going to a foreign entity not Russia.
You get the picture. The bias made a lot of difference in the outcome of the case.
Horowitz is just wrong about that. He was obviously--as I said at the hearing: So you give
us over 500 pages showing bias by the investigators on the Republican side, and since you don't
want your Democratic friends mad at you, you conclude there is no indication all of this
evidence showed any affect on the outcome.
Well, hello. When you show such hatred and animus in the mind of the lead
[*6168]
Page 6168
investigator and you show that everything that concluded from that investigation was 100
percent consistent with the bias and hatred, you don't have to have the witness agree: You are
right; you caught me. All my bias affected the outcome of my investigation.
Just like a prosecutor who puts on evidence that a guy gets in a car, drives to a bank,
pulls out a gun, holds it to the head of the teller, makes the teller give him money, and
leaves in that car, you have to prove intent, that he intended to rob the bank, but you don't
have to have evidence that the bank robber said, ``Hey, I intend to rob this bank.'' No.
When the results--and there are a lot of results--all of them are consistent with the bias
and the hatred, the disdain, the animus, then you have got at least a de facto case, certainly
one that can get past a motion for summary judgment and get to the jury and put in the hands of
the fact finder.
Again, when you have somebody who is as good at lying to folks over and over and over again
with a straight face, gets a lot of practice, and he comes before Congress--the guy is good. He
is really good.
As I told him--I think, obviously, he and his lawyer had a different opinion, but it seemed
to me it would have been more credible to come in and do what Inspector General Horowitz did,
and say: Yeah, there is a lot of bias here, no question, but I don't think it affected the
outcome.
Of course, he wasn't 100 percent sure, it didn't sound like, that it didn't affect when
Strzok decided to end the Hillary Clinton investigation and when he immediately decided to pick
up the investigation against Trump.
As I heard my friend say over and over about how Comey, of course, just really harmed the
Clinton campaign, they are ignoring something that appeared pretty clear, even without
resorting to people who have provided information about what went on.
{time} 1830
We know Hillary Clinton's emails that she claimed were missing were found on Anthony
Weiner's laptop. Maybe it was Huma Abedin, Anthony Weiner, one of their laptops. They found
those emails there.
Of course, Peter Strzok, helping the woman whom he thought ought to win 100 million to 0 for
President, wow, that was not good news for people like him who wanted to help Hillary.
They couldn't help the fact that FBI agents, when investigating something else, find all
these missing 30,000 or so emails on this laptop. And they have got the information at least
for some weeks, maybe 2, maybe 3, maybe 4. We are not sure, but they had found this
information.
So Comey was in a difficult situation. He wanted Hillary to win, no question. He did not
want Donald Trump to win. He never did like Trump, never has, apparently, things he has said
and done.
So what could he do that would cause the least amount of problems for Hillary Clinton?
There was a threat, apparently, that FBI agents were going to go public that they had found
these missing emails and that Comey was blocking reopening the investigation now that we have
all these emails. And if FBI agents, who are righteous, unlike Peter Strzok, really righteous
people--and I know a lot of them around the country. They are good, decent, upstanding,
honorable, give-their-life-for-their-country kind of people, not give their affair for
themselves but give their lives for their country. Those people have gotten a big blemish on
them because of Peter Strzok and others at the top of the Department of Justice in the last
administration, as they held over. They would never do what Peter Strzok did. They would never
do that.
So it gets a little like they erect a straw dog: You are condemning the thousands of great
FBI agents around the country.
No, I am blaming you. We know they are good, but you are not.
And that is where we have been here. This country is in a lot of trouble. But it was very
clear: Peter Strzok, intentionally and knowingly, with demonstrated prejudice, refused to
pursue the disclosed fact to him, in his presence, that a foreign entity not Russia was getting
every email that Hillary Clinton sent and received. There was classified material in there, and
there was higher than just plain classified. There was extremely sensitive information in
there."
What else did we know? Actually, if you dig what has been uncovered during the last 2 years,
Hillary Clinton had the President's Daily Briefing going to her home. And there are times that
the young man--I believe his name was Oscar Flores--who worked there, they may have tried to
get him a clearance at one time, but, apparently, from what I could read, he didn't have any
kind of clearance, yet he would print stuff off.
The President's Daily Briefing is some of the most sensitive information in the entire
United States Government, extreme sensitivity, and she violated the law by making it accessible
to people without the proper clearance and, certainly, her young man, or man, who was working
there for her.
She violated the law. It wasn't necessary that she have intent; it was just necessary that
she broke the law in that case.
I really would like to have intent be an element of most every crime that is in the Federal
law. I think it would be a good idea. But right now it is not part of the laws she broke.
Yet people like Peter Strzok covered for her. They refused to pursue the things that would
have made her guilty. They went after things to try to hurt Donald Trump.
When you look at that October press conference that Comey had, you realize, gee, what if he
had not called that press conference and you had one or more FBI agents come out and say:
``Hey, we found these emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop weeks ago, and Comey refused to reopen
the investigation''; that would have doomed her election far worse than what happened.
So what, under the circumstances, was the best thing that Comey could do for his friend
Hillary Clinton? It was to get out ahead of anybody disclosing that they had been sitting on
the thought-to-be-lost emails and say: We have got them.
Then, as I had said back at the time, well, we will find out how serious Comey is. If he
comes back within 2 or 3 days and says they have examined all 30,000 or so, whatever, of the
emails, then we will know that this was just a charade to cover for Hillary Clinton, because
they are not going to be able to adequately research all of those emails in just a matter of 2
or 3 days.
He came back very quickly, so that it would not affect the election coming up, and
announced: No. Clean bill of health. We looked at all the new evidence. Nothing was there.
Except they still didn't bother to use the information provided by the intelligence
community that was available. They didn't pick it up, didn't do anything with what was
disclosed.
I am telling you, I am very grateful we have people working in this government who want to
protect the United States and want to protect the United States' people. They don't get a lot
of credit, usually don't get any credit, but they do a good job for this country; and my head
and my heart and my salute go out to them as we deal with the mess that has been created by
those with far more selfish motives.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Congressional record
"The Brennan, Clappers, Obamas, Clintons, Comeys, Rosenstein and their many
subordinate political Mafiosi "
What is going on in the US is systematic. Assange, an investigative journalist who became
the light of truth worldwide, is under a grave danger from US' and UK' Intelligence
Communities of the non-intelligent opportunists and real traitors: https://www.rt.com/news/433783-wikileaks-assange-ecuador-uk/
Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton, who was criminally negligent with regard to the most important
classified information, has been protected by the politicking Brennan, Clapper, and Mueller:
" it was over 30,000 emails , emails that were sent through to Hillary Clinton through
the unauthorized server and unsecured server and every email she sent out.
There were highly classified -- beyond classified -- top secret-type stuff that had
gone through that server. an instruction embedded, compartmentalized data embedded in the
email server telling the server to send a copy of every email that came to Hillary Clinton
through that unauthorized server and every email that she sent out through that server, to
send it to this foreign entity that is not Russia."
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2018/07/congressional-record-transcript-on-chinagate.html
The Awan Affair, the most serious ever violation of national cybersecurity, has
demonstrated the spectacular incompetence of the CIA and FBI, which had allowed a family of
Pakistani nationals to surf congressional computers of various committees, including
Intelligence Committee, for years. None of the scoundrels had a security clearance! Their
ardent protector, Wasserman-Schultz (who threatened the DC Marschall) belongs to the
untouchables, unlike Assange:
https://www.theepochtimes.com/awan-congressional-scandal-in-spotlight-as-president-suggests-data-could-be-part-of-court-case_2500703.html
Personally I'm getting fucking sick of all this. They call the hack the
equivalent of the Cuban Missile crisis but no one in government has seen
Hillary's server. This is like Kennedy going on tv and saying 'we are going to
threaten Russia with nuclear war over Cuba. No government agency has actually
seen the photos of missiles but we are told by a credible source of the
"Americans against Russia" group that they are there'
Even NBC can't find
verbal gymnastics to dispute this.
My favorite line in the FBI IG report was when the NYPD analyst mirrored
the Weiner laptop hard drive. They opened one email at random, looked
at it and said:
Perhaps it's the Mandala effect, but I recall watching Adlai Stevenson
laying out black-and-white pictures of Soviet missiles on some military
base which he claimed was in Cuba (Cuber in Kennedy-speak). He did this
while giving a speech to the UN Security Council in October 1962 berating
the Soviet Union and Nikita Khrushchev in particular for putting missiles
in Cuba. For those too young to remember or too lazy to look it up,
Stevenson was Kennedy's Ambassador to the UN.
Are you telling me that
Stevenson lied about where the military base was? Do we owe a posthumous
apology to Nikita, who incidentally transferred political control of Crimea
from the Russian portion of the USSR to the Ukrainian portion of the USSR
(where Khrushchev was from)?
History certainly is convoluted enough; I hope it's not changing on me.
I don't think you were catching my point. I was not disputing the basis
for the Cuban Missile crisis from the US side.
My point being that we
are willing to bare our teeth and threaten Russia on the basis of a 3rd
party review of the DNC server paid for by the DNC.
If we are going to raise the Russian hack to the equivalency of
Russia placing nuclear missiles off the coast of Florida...shouldn't the
basis for this be based upon an actual government agency review of the
hack?
"... Sir, in my cynical old age, I have a hard time believing there will be any prosecution of the Deep State top echelons. The DOJ and FBI it seems are very focused on protecting their own. If Rosenstein is impeached then one could say the tide is turning. Otherwise it would appear to be more kabuki. ..."
"Former top FBI lawyer Lisa Page testified during two days of closed-door House hearings,
revealing shocking new Intel against her old bosses at the Bureau, according the well-placed
FBI sources.
Alarming new details on allegations of a bureau-wide cover up. Or should we say another
bureau-wide cover up.
The embattled Page tossed James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok and Bill Priestap among
others under the Congressional bus, alleging the upper echelon of the FBI concealed
intelligence confirming Chinese state-backed 'assets' had illegally acquired former Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton's 30,000+ "missing" emails, federal sources said.
The Russians didn't do it. The Chinese did, according to well-placed FBI sources.
And while Democratic lawmakers and the mainstream media prop up Russia as America's
boogeyman, it was the ironically Chinese who acquired Hillary's treasure trove of classified
and top secret intelligence from her home-brewed private server.
And a public revelation of that magnitude -- publicizing that a communist world power
intercepted Hillary's sensitive and top secret emails -- would have derailed Hillary Clinton's
presidential hopes. Overnight. But it didn't simply because it was concealed." True Pundit
------------
A woman scorned? Maybe, but Page has done a real job on these malefactors. And, who knows
how many other penetrations of various kinds there were in Clinton's reign as SecState?
"You mean like with a towel?" Clinton mocked a reporter with that question when asked if her
servers had been wiped clean. It is difficult to believe that there won't be prosecutions.
pl
Putin offered to allow Mueller's team to go to Russia and interrogate the suspects in the
Mueller indictment provided 1) that Russian investigators could sit in on the
interrogations, and 2) that the US would allow Russian investigators to investigate
people like Bill Browder in the US.
This would be done until the existing treaty which allows the US and Russia to
cooperate in criminal investigation cases.
Now, let's get back to the issue of this 12 alleged intelligence officers of Russia. I
don't know the full extent of the situation. But President Trump mentioned this issue. I
will look into it.
So far, I can say the following. Things that are off the top of my head. We have an
existing agreement between the United States of America and the Russian Federation, an
existing treaty that dates back to 1999. The mutual assistance on criminal cases. This
treaty is in full effect. It works quite efficiently. On average, we initiate about 100,
150 criminal cases upon request from foreign states.
For instance, the last year, there was one extradition case upon the request sent by
the United States. This treaty has specific legal procedures we can offer. The
appropriate commission headed by Special Attorney Mueller, he can use this treaty as a
solid foundation and send a formal, official request to us so that we could interrogate,
hold questioning of these individuals who he believes are privy to some
crimes. Our enforcement are perfectly able to do this questioning and send the
appropriate materials to the United States. Moreover, we can meet you halfway. We can
make another step. We can actually permit representatives of the United States, including
the members of this very commission headed by Mr. Mueller, we can let them into the
country. They can be present at questioning.
In this case, there's another condition. This kind of effort should be mutual one.
Then we would expect that the Americans would reciprocate. They would question officials,
including the officers of law enforcement and intelligence services of the United States
whom we believe have something to do with illegal actions on the territory of Russia. And
we have to request the presence of our law enforcement.
End Quote
Putin then proceeds to stick it to Hillary Clinton with the bombshell accusation that
Bill Browder - possibly with the assistance of US intelligence agencies - contributed a
whopping $400 million dollars to Clinton's election campaign!
Quote:
For instance, we can bring up Mr. Browder in this particular case. Business associates
of Mr. Browder have earned over $1.5 billion in Russia. They never paid any taxes.
Neither in Russia nor in the United States. Yet, the money escapes the country. They were
transferred to the United States. They sent huge amount of money, $400 million as a
contribution to the campaign of Hillary Clinton. [He presents no evidence to back up that
$400 million claim.] Well, that's their personal case. It might have been legal, the
contribution itself. But the way the money was earned was illegal. We have solid
reason to believe that some intelligence officers guided these transactions. [This
allegation, too, is merely an unsupported assertion here.] So we have an interest of
questioning them. That could be a first step. We can also extend it. There are many
options. They all can be found in an appropriate legal framework.
End Quote
This article mentions the above and provides background information on Browder and the
US Magnitsky Act which he finagled Congress into passing which were the original Russian
sanctions.
Despite Putin's claim that this was "off the top of his head", I'd say this was a
calculated response to the Mueller indictment as well as a calculated attack on Hillary
Clinton and the US intelligence agencies who were clearly in support of her election
campaign. Frankly, it's brilliant. It forces Mueller to "put up or shut up" just as much
as the company which challenged the previous indictment over Russian ads.
"US would allow Russian investigators to investigate people like Bill Browder in the US."
The example would be a good one, except, the US has no power to allow anybody to
investigate Bill Browder (grandson of the head of the American Communist Party, btw)
because Browder gave up his US citizenship, it is said, to avoid paying taxes
Skepticism is always prudent when it comes to any news source.
Regarding the issue of "trust"... Putin himself said that he and Trump shouldn't be
basing their discussions on trust of each other. While I trust Putin to be skillful and
strategic that doesn't mean I trust all of his words. After all, he is a politician and a
powerful leader. Respect is the key here, not trust.
From a transcript
http://time.com/5339848/don...
PUTIN (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): As to who is to be believed and to who's not to be believed,
you can trust no one if you take this.
Where did you get this idea that President Trump trusts me or I trust him? He defends
the interests of the United States of America, and I do defend the interests of the
Russian Federation.
We do have interests that are common. We are looking for points of contact. There are
issues where our postures diverge, and we are looking for ways to reconcile our
differences, how to make our effort more meaningful.
-----------------
Of course both countries spy on each other and engage in various forms of cyber
warfare, as do many other countries. It's business as usual. That's why the Mueller
investigation is bullshit. It doesn't acknowledge that most basic fact of geopolitics. It
posits Russia as the only bad actor in the relationship. I was very pleased that Trump
acknowledge that both sides created the issues the countries have with each other, though
of course the Borg and their media puppets went wild over that.
Trump and Putin both have excellent trolling skills. I very much enjoy this aspect of
the great Game!
Though perhaps Putin botched his trolling of Hillary by getting the number wrong. Or
may be he pulled a Trump maneuver and purposely gave the wrong number to force reporters
to research it and post the correction.
Let's see if "China hacked Clinton's server and got the 30,000 e-mails" goes mainstream.
This would nail the Borg dead. What has been peculiar about the last four years is that
there are concerted proxy operations to take down the Iranian and Russian governments to
get at their resources at the risk of crashing the world economy; let alone, a nuclear
war that would destroy the earth. But, nothing against China other than bleating about
freedom of passage in South China Sea. China is #2 and rising by all criteria. It is
restoring its ancient Imperial power to rule the civilized world. Europe has much more in
common with Russia. Over the centuries they keep battling the Kremlin over Crimea.
. It is difficult to believe that there won't be prosecutions.
Sir, in my cynical old age, I have a hard time believing there will be any
prosecution of the Deep State top echelons. The DOJ and FBI it seems are very focused on
protecting their own. If Rosenstein is impeached then one could say the tide is turning.
Otherwise it would appear to be more kabuki.
I don't get why President Trump does not declassify the documents that the DOJ are
withholding from Congress rather than tweet "witch hunt".
"... There was also the stunning Awan affair when a family of Pakistanis (with no security clearance) had been surfing congressional computers for years and perhaps selling the obtained classified information to the third parties. So much for the mighty mice CIA and FBI. ..."
It is hard to reconcile this, "Chinese state-backed 'assets' had illegally acquired former
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's 30,000+ "missing" emails" with that, "the US "defense"
budget is approximately 1.2 trillion dollars a year."
There was also the stunning Awan affair when a family of Pakistanis (with no security
clearance) had been surfing congressional computers for years and perhaps selling the obtained
classified information to the third parties. So much for the mighty mice CIA and FBI.
Sir;
Looks like Strzok is about to be thrown under the bus.
He and his paramour have been portrayed as enthusiastic Democrat Party partizans. Would an
operative at Strzoks' level of responsibility be able to do something as negligent as to
ignore solid evidence as this on his own?
At the least, some section of the anti espionage laws appear to have been
transgressed.
This entire 'Russia, Russia, Russia' campaign is now in criminal conspiracy territory.
I can imagine the Maoist Mandarins in Pekin chuckling as they contemplate Americas' new
"Interesting Times."
PL,
What an absolute mess.
Never suspected the Chicoms. They obviously saw the pivot to Asia as a threat and pitched
their tent with the other team (Or anybody but Clinton (ABC)).
I write a "mess" because we also have the GCHQ/Skripal/ Steele dossier angle to mash into
this story too. Crikey.
It'd make a nice John Le Carre book though.
How is Strzok still employed? Ignoring such a revelation is - at best - a display of such
monumental incompetence that he should have been cashiered long ago. Claiming not to remember
being told about this is..... well..... words fail me.
Looks like a hacking operation by China. They nailed Clinton's completely unprotected system and then inserted code that gave
them all her traffic over e-mail subsequent to that.
That included all her State Department classified traffic which she had her
staff illegally scan and insert in her private e-mail. We are talking about 30,000+ messages.
Strzok was told that by the Intelligence
Community Inspector General WHILE he was running the Clinton e-mail investigation and chose to ignore it. pl
Given the likely culprits, China made the most sense. Thanks for the confirmation!
Meanwhile, under the radar, another segment of the "Gordian knot" is getting ready to be cut.
White House Orders Direct Taliban Talks to Jump-Start Afghan Negotiations
https://www.nytimes.com/201...
The Trump administration has told its top diplomats to seek direct talks with the Taliban, a significant shift in American policy
in Afghanistan, done in the hope of jump-starting negotiations to end the 17-year war.
The Taliban have long said they will first discuss peace only with the Americans, who toppled their regime in Afghanistan in
2001. But the United States has mostly insisted that the Afghan government must take part.
The recent strategy shift, which was confirmed by several senior American and Afghan officials, is intended to bring those
two positions closer and lead to broader, formal negotiations to end the long war.
-----------------------
I am an independent. I voted for Obama twice because his opponents were so unappealing. I am starting to hate the left. I view
them and the neocon establishment behavior nothing short of treasonous.
"... When Rucker spoke with Strzok, he nodded but was remarkably uninterested in what Rucker had to say, Gohmert said. The DoJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz received a call about it four times and never returned the calls. He's the other DoJ official described as having an impeccable reputation, but he can't seem to find bias when it slaps him in the face. ..."
"... McCullough, hired during the Obama administration, told Fox News's Catherine Herridge he faced intense backlash. In a Clinton administration, he would be one of the first two fired, he was told. ..."
"... Fox News reported ..."
"... John Schindler confirmed the Fox News report. He wrote at The Observor : Discussions with Intelligence Community officials have revealed that Ms. Clinton's "unclassified" emails included Holy Grail items of American espionage. This included the true names of Central Intelligence Agency intelligence officers serving overseas under cover. Worse, some of those exposed are serving under non-official cover. ..."
Rep. Louis Gohmert, a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, said during a hearing
Thursday that a government watchdog found that nearly all of former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton's emails were sent to a foreign entity. The FBI, specifically Strzok, did not
follow-up. And, the foreign entity wasn't Russia. The Intelligence Community Inspector General
(ICIG) in 2016 Charles McCullough III found an "anomaly on Hillary Clinton's emails going
through their private server, and when they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her
emails, every single one except four, over 30,000, were going to an address that was not on the
distribution list," Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas said during a hearing with FBI
official Peter Strzok. "It was going to an unauthorized source that was a foreign
entity unrelated to Russia," he added. According to Gohmert, McCullough sent his ICIG
investigator Frank Rucker to present the findings to Strzok who remembered meeting with him but
nothing else.
Conveniently, Strzok couldn't remember what they talked about.
When Rucker spoke with Strzok, he nodded but was remarkably uninterested in what Rucker
had to say, Gohmert said. The DoJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz received a call about it
four times and never returned the calls. He's the other DoJ official described as having an
impeccable reputation, but he can't seem to find bias when it slaps him in the
face.
In January 2016, in response to an inquiry, Charles McCullough III informed the Republican
leadership on the Senate intelligence and foreign affairs committees that emails beyond the
"Top Secret" level passed through Hillary Clinton's unsecured personal server. Democrats
immediately responded by trying to intimidate McCullough.
Despicable Adam Schiff told Chris Wallace: "I think the inspector general does risk his
reputation. And once you lose that as inspector general, you're not much good to anyone. So I
think the inspector general has to be very careful here."
McCullough, hired during the Obama administration, told
Fox News's Catherine Herridge he faced intense backlash. In a Clinton administration, he
would be one of the first two fired, he was told.
Fox News reported that the emails contained "operational intelligence," which is
information about covert operations to gather intelligence as well as details about the assets
and informants working with the U.S. government.
John Schindler confirmed the Fox News report. He wrote at The Observor :
Discussions with Intelligence Community officials have revealed that Ms. Clinton's
"unclassified" emails included Holy Grail items of American espionage. This included the true
names of Central Intelligence Agency intelligence officers serving overseas under cover. Worse,
some of those exposed are serving under non-official cover.
It appears that the DoJ and FBI like to remain ignorant.
In January, 2016, Robert Gates told Hugh Hewitt that the "odds are pretty high" that Russia,
China, and Iran had compromised Hillary's home-brew server...
HILLARY CLINTON'S COMPROMISED EMAILS WERE GOING TO A FOREIGN ENTITY – NOT RUSSIA! FBI Agent Ignored Evidence Report from
Decameron
FBI Peter Strzok – the philandering FBI chief investigator who facilitated the FISA surveillance of Trump campaign officials in
2016 – has been exposed for ignoring evidence of major Clinton-related breaches of national security and has been accused of lying
about it.
Hillary Clinton's emails, "every single one except for four, over 30,000 of them, were going to an address that was not on the
distribution l ist," Texas Congressman Louis Gohmert said on Friday. And they went to "an unauthorized source that was a foreign
entity unrelated to Russia." The information came from Intelligence Community Inspector General Chuck McCullough, who sent his
investigator Frank Rucker, along with an ICIG attorney Janette McMillan, to brief Strzok.
Gohmert nailed Strozk at the open Congressional hearing on Friday the 13 th in Washington, but Strzok claimed no recollection.
Gohmert accused him of lying. Maybe Strzok's amnesia about the briefing on Hillary Clinton's email server is nothing but standard
FBI training: i.e., when in doubt, don't recall. It's far more likely that there is a campaign of deliberate obstructing justice,
selective prosecution, and political targeting by top officials embedded in the permanent bureaucracy of the Justice Department,
FBI, and broader IC. Strzok is not alone.
And what "foreign entity" got Hillary's classified emails? Trump haters in British Intelligence and those in Israel who want to
manipulate the US presidency – whatever party prevails – come to mind. Listen closely and you may hear rumors around Washington that
it was Israel, not Russia, that was the foreign power involved in approaching Trump advisers. Time to follow that thread.
Both Representatives Gohmert (TX) and Trey Gowdy (SC) did a great job trying to pierce the veil of denials. But, right after Strzok's
amnesia in Congress, the Justice Department announced the indictment of GRU members. Change of subject. The same foul stench noted
by Publius Tacitus about the GRU indictment filled Congress as Agent Strzok testified.
So, a foreign power (not Russia but "hostile" according to Gohmert) modified internal instructions in HC's server so that a blind
copy went to this other country, all 30,000 e-mails. I wonder what was different about the four that were not so copied. What
are likely countries? The UK, China and Israel would be at the top of my list
So the emails were being bcc-ed or the server was set up to copy all emails passing through it to some foreign server? I am curious
about the mechanics.
It seems that the server was the mechanism. Whether that was by physical access to the server or electronically at a distance.
Her entire system was not secure and could be easily penetrated.
As we sift through the ashes of Thursday's dumpster-fire Congressional hearing with still employed FBI agent Peter Strzok, Luke Rosiak
of the Daily Caller plucked out a key exchange between Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tx) and Strzok which revealed a yet-unknown bombshell
about the Clinton email case.
Nearly all of Hillary Clinton's emails on her homebrew server went to a foreign entity that isn't Russia. When this was discovered
by the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG), IG Chuck McCullough sent his investigator Frank Ruckner and an attorney to
notify Strzok along with three other people about the "anomaly."
Four separate attempts were also made to notify DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz to brief him on the massive security breach
, however Horowitz "never returned the call." Recall that Horowitz concluded last month that despite Strzok's extreme bias towards
Hillary Clinton and against Donald Trump - none of it translated to Strzok's work at the FBI.
In other words; Strzok, while investigating Clinton's email server, completely ignored the fact that most of Clinton's emails
were sent to a foreign entity - while IG Horowitz simply didn't want to know about it.
The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) found an "anomaly on Hillary Clinton's emails going through their private
server, and when they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her emails, every single one except four, over 30,000 ,
were going to an address that was not on the distribution list," Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas said during a hearing
with FBI official Peter Strzok. - Daily
Caller
Gohmert continued; " It was going to an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia. "
Strzok admitted to meeting with Ruckner but said he couldn't remember the "specific" content of their discussion.
"The forensic examination was done by the ICIG and they can document that," Gohmert said, "but you were given that information
and you did nothing with it ."
Meanwhile, "Mr. Horowitz got a call four times from someone wanting to brief him about this, and he never returned the call,"
Gohmert said - and Horowitz wouldn't return the call.
And while Peter Strzok couldn't remember the specifics of his meeting with the IG about the giant "foreign entity" bombshell,
he texted this to his mistress Lisa Page when the IG discovered the "(C)" classification on several of Clinton's emails - something
the FBI overlooked:
"Holy cow ... if the FBI missed this, what else was missed? Remind me to tell you to flag for Andy [redacted] emails we (actually
ICIG) found that have portion marks (C) on a couple of paras. DoJ was Very Concerned about this."
In November of 2017, IG McCullough - an Obama appointee - revealed to Fox News that
he received pushback when he tried to tell former DNI James Clapper about the foreign entity which had Clinton's emails and other
anomalies.
Instead of being embraced for trying to expose an illegal act, seven senators including Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca) wrote a letter
acusing him of politicizing the issue.
"It's absolutely irrelevant whether something is marked classified, it is the character of the information," he said.
McCullough said that from that point forward, he received only criticism and an "adversarial posture" from Congress when he
tried to rectify the situation.
"I expected to be embraced and protected," he said, adding that a Hill staffer "chided" him for failing to consider the "political
consequences" of the information he was blowing the whistle on. -
Fox News
That other Clinton whistleblower...
Meanwhile, a mostly overlooked facet of the Clinton email investigation was unearthed from the official "
FBI Vault " by Twitter researcher Katica (
@GOPPollAnalyst ) in November and updated on July 10 which somehow
never made it into the Inspector General's
report on the FBI's handling of the Clinton email investigation.
In January, 2016 a former State department official walked into the FBI with what they felt was smoking gun evidence in the Clinton
email investigation which was so sensitive he wouldn't talk about it unless it was in a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information
Facility).
Accompanying the evidence, the whistleblower wrote a letter to former FBI Director James Comey describing Hillary Clinton's mishandling
of clearly marked classified material. Comey ignored it - which led the whistleblower to file a complaint that Peter Strzok and FBI
agent Jonathan Moffa were CC'd on .
" The evidence I am providing, along with what you have already acquired, should lead to convictions for the many people involved
."
"America needs its Attorney General to show us that no employee of the United States Government is above its system of law
and justice."
"Since I am avoiding any classified information in this statement, I will not expand on this issue further in this letter.
I am prepared to discuss this issue in much greater depth in a properly secured location and with those agents having certain
TS/SCI clearances and an FBI letter showing need to know."
The whistleblower describes how there's no way Clinton couldn't have known certain emails were marked "classified."
"During the time that Hillary Rodham Clinton served as Secretary of State, the Department of State (DOS) produced a daily document
classified at the Secret level...
...Each of these daily classified documents began each paragraph with the actual classification of the information contained
in the paragraph...
...An investigation that compares the emails found on the private server or emails used by the Secretary will show the actual
classification any text which appears to be both in the Hillary emails and in the daily classified document produced by her official
office...
"Upon learning of this situation and listening to her saying that the information in these emails were not classified at the
time they were written, I make reference to the above paragraph about the daily classified document summarizing issues presented
to her on a daily basis."
The Whistleblower also goes on to explain that he couldn't find a sensitive communiqué between Clinton and the American Ambassador
in Honduras on the internal State Department archive, and suspected that it was due to being sent over her private email server.
Strzok knew that most of Hillary Clinton's emails were in the hands of a foreign entity
He also knew that a whistleblower from the State Department tried delivering significant evidence in the Clinton email investigation
which went nowhere
The FBI, and Comey in particular, ignored this whistleblower's evidence
So given that we now have at least two major bombshells that the FBI sat on, we revisit the case of CIA whistleblower Dennis Montgomery
- who similarly walked into the Washington D.C. FBI field office in 2015 with 47 hard drives and 600 million pages of information
he says proves that President Trump and others were victims of mass surveillance, according to
NewsMax .
Under grants of immunity, which I obtained through Assistant U.S. Attorney Deborah Curtis, Montgomery produced the hard drives
and later was interviewed under oath in a secure room at the FBI Field Office in the District of Columbia . There he laid out
how persons like then-businessman Donald Trump were illegally spied upon by Clapper, Brennan, and the spy agencies of the Obama
administration .
Montgomery left the NSA and CIA with 47 hard drives and over 600 million pages of information , much of which is classified,
and sought to come forward legally as a whistleblower to appropriate government entities, including congressional intelligence
committees, to expose that the spy agencies were engaged for years in systematic illegal surveillance on prominent Americans,
including the chief justice of the Supreme Court , other justices, 156 judges, prominent businessmen such as Donald Trump, and
even yours truly. Working side by side with Obama's former Director of National Intelligence (DIA), James Clapper, and Obama's
former Director of the CIA, John Brennan, Montgomery witnessed "up close and personal" this "Orwellian Big Brother" intrusion
on privacy , likely for potential coercion, blackmail or other nefarious purposes.
He even claimed that these spy agencies had manipulated voting in Florida during the 2008 presidential election , which illegal
tampering resulted in helping Obama to win the White House. -
NewsMax
In March of 2017, Montgomery and his attorney Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch traveled to D.C. to meet with House Judiciary Committee
Chairman Devin Nunes in the hopes that he would ask Comey about the evidence - only to be "blown off" by the Chairman.
It seems like we have some serious issues to revisit as a country.
I want to see that hags emails dammnit! As we dig deeper every day, the foul stench of this woman keeps popping up. I know
we have not connected Ofaggot to it YET, but we WILL!!!! There are so many complicit pieces of shit that I don't there is enough
hemp in the world to do the job!!
Frog march, trial, death!
Hang them by the neck until dead for HIGH TREASON!!!! tap, tap, tap
In March of 2017, Montgomery and his attorney Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch traveled to D.C. to meet with House Judiciary
Committee Chairman Devin Nunes in the hopes that he would ask Comey about the evidence - only to be "blown off" by the Chairman.
It seems like we have some serious issues to revisit as a country.
Armed revolts have happened for less than this kind of bullshit. It's time that the people of the USA start taking matters
of government into their own hands because the longer this kind of shit happens the more it looks like every one of those motherfuckers
in Dee See is dirty to some extent.
Oh yeah, how about we also make the use of "national security" secrecy claims that are made under false pretenses, or are made
to hide the illegal/unconstitutional actions of a person or group in government, punishable by death by firing squad??
Given they found that these emails were being sent to a server in a foreign country, I'd expect the hackers would know that
this could be found out. Thus, the hackers would have then had the emails forwarded to their server in their country. I wouldn't
be surprised that the owner of the server to which they were sent, never knew of it. My guess, considering all the circumstantial
evidence, is that it was Putin's hackers.
I've long suspected that Putin got all the emails off her server (including Bill's, Chelsea's, and possibly Clinton Foundation
officials), along with the 20 emails exchanged with Obama suspiciously using an alias, and about which he lied claiming he learned
of her server in news reports. That would be plenty for Putin to blackmail them into appeasement and flexibility. Which was exactly
what Obama and Hillary gave Putin and his allies Syria and Iran. Along with the US uranium. They had to cover it up, so Obama
could get re-elected (remember he promised Russian President Medvedev he'd "have more flexibility after the [2012] elections"
on a hot mic) and both could stay in power.
This would explain why the FBI and Strzok did nothing about the hacking of her server (it was too late to do anything about
it, other than arrest Clinton and Obama resign). And any investigation would document evidence Clinton committed a crime and potentially
leak to the press with the implication Clinton and Obama were now Putin puppets. The Democrats have an MO of claiming their political
opponents are doing exactly what the Democrats are doing.
They weren't supposed to deploy it...NSA wanted to save that puppy for a rainy day, but the beaks just couldn't help themselves.
It was too hot to use, because if you didn't make it count then the target now has the virus and can share it, tweak it and send
it back our way.
This will come out soon. Strzok was up to his ass in Stuxnet. General Cartwright was too. All this will come out. It will also
come out that this was another instance where action was taken completely without Obama's authorization or knowledge.
The phony OBL hit was another example. Obama didn't have the stones...and just told Panetta and Hillary to do whatever, he
didn't want to know or be involved. He was golfing. They snatched him off the green for that war room photo op.
"... In December, a letter from Senate Homeland Security Committee Chair Ron Johnson (R-WI) revealed that Strzok and other FBI officials effectively "decriminalized" Clinton's behavior through a series of edits to James Comey's original statement. ..."
"... The letter described how outgoing Deputy Director Andrew McCabe exchanged drafts of Comey's statement with senior FBI officials , including Strzok, Strzok's direct supervisor , E.W. "Bill" Priestap, Jonathan Moffa, and an unnamed employee from the Office of General Counsel (identified by Newsweek as DOJ Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson) - in a coordinated conspiracy among top FBI brass. ..."
"... In summary; the FBI launched an investigation into Hillary Clinton's private server, ignored evidence it may have been hacked, downgraded the language in Comey's draft to decriminalize her behavior, and then exonerated her by recommending the DOJ not prosecute. ..."
"... Meanwhile, a tip submitted by an Australian diplomat tied to a major Clinton Foundation deal launched the FBI's counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign - initially spearheaded by the same Peter Strzok who worked so hard to get Hillary off the hook. ..."
FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok reportedly ignored "an irregularity in the
metadata" indicating that Hillary Clinton's server may had been breached, while FBI top brass
made significant edits to former Director James Comey's statement specifically minimizing how
likely it was that hostile actors had gained access.
Sources told
Fox News that Strzok, who sent anti-Trump text messages that got him removed from the
ongoing Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe, was told about the metadata anomaly in
2016, but Strzok did not support a formal damage assessment. One source said: " Nothing
happened. "
In December, a letter
from Senate Homeland Security Committee Chair Ron Johnson (R-WI) revealed that Strzok and other
FBI officials effectively "decriminalized" Clinton's behavior through a series of edits to
James Comey's original statement.
The letter described how outgoing Deputy Director Andrew McCabe exchanged drafts of Comey's
statement with senior FBI officials , including Strzok, Strzok's direct supervisor , E.W. "Bill" Priestap, Jonathan
Moffa, and an unnamed employee from the Office of General Counsel (identified by Newsweek as DOJ Deputy General Counsel Trisha
Anderson) - in a coordinated conspiracy among top FBI brass.
It was already known that Strzok - who was demoted to the FBI's HR department for sending
anti-Trump text messages to his mistress -
downgraded the language describing Clinton's conduct from the criminal charge of "gross
negligence" to "extremely careless."
Notably, "Gross negligence" is a legal term of art in criminal law often associated with
recklessness. According to Black's Law Dictionary, it is defined as " A severe degree of
negligence taken as reckless disregard ," and " Blatant indifference to one's legal duty,
other's safety, or their rights ." "Extremely careless," on the other hand, is not a legal term
of art.
18 U.S. Code §
793 "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information" specifically uses the phrase
"gross negligence." Had Comey used the phrase, he would have essentially declared that Hillary
had broken the law.
In order to justify downgrading Clinton's behavior to "extremely careless," however, FBI
officials also needed to minimize the impact of her crimes. As revealed in the letter from Rep.
Johnson, the FBI downgraded the probability that Clinton's server was hacked by hostile actors
from " reasonably likely " to " possible ."
"Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained
access to Secretary Clinton's personal e-mail account," Comey said in his statement.
By doing so, the FBI downgraded Clinton's negligence - thus supporting the "extremely
careless" language.
The FBI also edited Clinton's exoneration letter to remove a reference to the "sheer volume"
of classified material on the private server, which - according to the original draft "supports
an inference that the participants were grossly negligent in their handling of that
information." Furthermore, all references to the Intelligence Community's involvement in
investigating Clinton's private email server were removed as well.
Director Comey's original statement acknowledged the FBI had worked with its partners in the
Intelligence Community to assess potential damage from Secretary Clinton's use of a private
email server. The original statement read:
W]e have done extensive work with the assistance of our colleagues elsewhere in the
Intelligence Community to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile
actors in connection with the private email operation.
In summary; the FBI launched an investigation into Hillary Clinton's private server, ignored
evidence it may have been hacked, downgraded the language in Comey's draft to decriminalize her
behavior, and then exonerated her by recommending the DOJ not prosecute.
Meanwhile, a tip submitted by an Australian diplomat tied to a major Clinton Foundation deal
launched the FBI's counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign - initially
spearheaded by the same Peter Strzok who worked so hard to get Hillary off the hook.
And Strzok still collects a taxpayer-funded paycheck.
I find this interesting (from a link in ZH article)
...
Posted by: Pft | Jul 14, 2018 4:56:10 PM | 102
(Strzok's forgetfulness about a briefing he attended on the subject of the destination
address omitted from the distribution list)
You're not the only one. And it's fascinating, in a creepy way, that the address is known
to the investigators but remains undisclosed.
"Decameron" over at SST has indulged in some speculation on the possibilities... ...
Gohmert nailed Strozk at the open Congressional hearing on Friday the 13th in Washington, but
Strzok claimed no recollection. Gohmert accused him of lying. Maybe Strzok's amnesia about
the briefing on Hillary Clinton's email server is nothing but standard FBI training: i.e.,
when in doubt, don't recall. It's far more likely that there is a campaign of deliberate
obstructing justice, selective prosecution, and political targeting by top officials embedded
in the permanent bureaucracy of the Justice Department, FBI, and broader IC. Strzok is not
alone.
And what "foreign entity" got Hillary's classified emails? Trump haters in British
Intelligence and those in Israel who want to manipulate the US presidency – whatever
party prevails – come to mind. Listen closely and you may hear rumors around Washington
that it was Israel, not Russia, that was the foreign power involved in approaching Trump
advisers. Time to follow that thread.
...
Almost as interesting as the story itself is the fact that the thread at SST is struggling
to attract comments.
"Foreign actors" obtained access to some of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's
emails -- including at least one email classified as "secret" -- according to a new memo from
two GOP-led House committees and an internal FBI email.
Fox News obtained the memo prepared by the House Judiciary and Oversight committees, which
lays out key interim findings ahead of next week's hearing with Justice Department Inspector
General Michael Horowitz. The IG, separately, is expected to release his highly anticipated
report on the Clinton email case later Thursday.
The House committees, which conducted a joint probe into decisions made by the DOJ in 2016
and 2017, addressed a range of issues in their memo including Clinton's email security.
"Documents provided to the Committees show foreign actors obtained access to some of Mrs.
Clinton's emails -- including at least one email classified 'Secret,'" the memo says, adding
that foreign actors also accessed the private accounts of some Clinton staffers.
The memo does not say who the foreign actors are, or what material was obtained, but it
notes that secret information is defined as information that, if disclosed, could "reasonably
be expected to cause serious damage to the national security."
The committees say that no one appears to have been held accountable either criminally or
administratively.
Relatedly, Fox News has obtained a May 2016 email from FBI investigator Peter Strzok -- who
also is criticized in the House memo for his anti-Trump texts with colleague Lisa Page. The
email says that "we know foreign actors obtained access" to some Clinton emails, including at
least one "secret" message "via compromises of the private email accounts" of Clinton
staffers.
"... Mr. Rucker reported to those of you, the four of you there, in the presence of the ICIG attorney, that they had found this anomaly on Hillary Clinton's emails going through her private server, and when they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her emails, every single one except for four, over 30,000 of them, were going to an address that was not on the distribution list. It was a compartmentalized bit of information that was sending it to an unauthorized source. Do you recall that? ..."
"... you thanked him, you shook his hand. The problem is it was going to an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia and from what you've said here, you did nothing more than nod and shake the man's hand when you didn't seem to be all that concerned about our national integrity of our election when it was involving Hillary Clinton. So the forensic examination was done by the ICIG -- and I can document that -- but you were given that information and you did nothing with it." ..."
Regardless of any findings re Russia- Trump -- -I would think a presidential campaign cc-ing
all of its emails to a foreign country, not Russia , needs its own investigation. As Putin
said not long ago 'maybe it was the Jews.
HILLARY CLINTON'S COMPROMISED EMAILS WERE GOING TO A FOREIGN ENTITY – NOT
RUSSIA
(excerpts)
"Hillary Clinton's emails, "every single one except for four, over 30,000 of them, were
going to an address that was not on the distribution list," Texas Congressman Louis Gohmert
said on Friday. And they went to "an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity
unrelated to Russia." The information came from Intelligence Community Inspector General
Chuck McCullough, who sent his investigator Frank Rucker, along with an ICIG attorney Janette
McMillan, to brief Strzok
And what "foreign entity" got Hillary's classified emails? Trump haters in British
Intelligence and those in Israel who want to manipulate the US presidency – whatever
party prevails – come to mind. Listen closely and you may hear rumors around Washington
that it was Israel, not Russia, that was the foreign power involved in approaching Trump
advisers. Time to follow that thread
The Gohmert/Strzok exchange:
Gohmert: You said earlier in this hearing you were concerned about a hostile
foreign power affecting the election. Do you recall the former Intelligence Community
Inspector General Chuck McCullough having an investigation into an anomaly found on Hillary
Clinton's emails?
Strzok: I do not.
Gohmert: Let me refresh your memory. The Intelligence Community Inspector General
Chuck McCullough sent his investigator Frank Rucker along with an IGIC attorney Janette
McMillan to brief you and Dean Chapelle and two other FBI personnel who I won't name at this
time, about an anomaly they had found on Hillary Clinton's emails that were going to and from
the private unauthorized server that you were supposed to be investigating?
Strzok : I remember meeting Mr. Rucker on either one or two occasions. I do not
recall the specific content or discussions.
Gohmert: Well then, I'll help you with that too then. Mr. Rucker reported to
those of you, the four of you there, in the presence of the ICIG attorney, that they had
found this anomaly on Hillary Clinton's emails going through her private server, and when
they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her emails, every single one except for
four, over 30,000 of them, were going to an address that was not on the distribution list. It
was a compartmentalized bit of information that was sending it to an unauthorized source. Do
you recall that?
Strozk: Sir, I don't.
Gohmert: He went on the explain it. And you didn't say anything.
Strzok: No.
Gohmert: you thanked him, you shook his hand. The problem is it was going to an
unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia and from what you've said
here, you did nothing more than nod and shake the man's hand when you didn't seem to be all
that concerned about our national integrity of our election when it was involving Hillary
Clinton. So the forensic examination was done by the ICIG -- and I can document that -- but
you were given that information and you did nothing with it."
I find this interesting (from a link in ZH article)
"The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) found an "anomaly on Hillary
Clinton's emails going through their private server, and when they had done the forensic
analysis, they found that her emails, every single one except four, over 30,000, were going
to an address that was not on the distribution list," Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert of
Texas said during a hearing with FBI official Peter Strzok.
"It was going to an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia,"
he added."
I guess we can count on "Cover it Up" Mueller to look into this and sit on it.
Meet Mystery FBI "Agent 5" Who Sent Anti-Trump Texts While On Clinton Taint Team
by Tyler Durden
Fri, 06/22/2018 - 21:25 32.9K SHARES
A recently unmasked FBI agent who worked on the Clinton email investigation and exchanged
anti-Trump text messages with her FBI lover and other colleagues has been pictured for the
first time by the Daily Mail .
Sally Moyer, 44, who texted 'f**k Trump,' called President Trump's voters 'retarded' and
vowed to quit 'on the spot' if he won the election , was seen leaving her home early Friday
morning wearing a floral top and dark pants.
She shook her head and declined to discuss the controversy with a DailyMail.com reporter,
and ducked quickly into her nearby car in the rain without an umbrella before driving off. -
Daily Mail
Moyer - an attorney and registered Democrat identified in the Inspector General's report as
"Agent 5" is a veritable goldmine of hate, who had been working for the FBI since at least
September of 2006.
When Moyer sent the texts, she was on the "filter team" for the Clinton email investigation
- a group of FBI officials tasked with determining whether information obtained by the FBI is
considered "privileged" or if it can be used in the investigation - also known as a taint team
.
Moyer exchanged most of the messages with another FBI agent who worked on the Clinton
investigation, identified as 'Agent 1' in the report.
Moyer and Agent 1 were in a romantic relationship at the time, and the two have since
married , according the report. Agent 1's name is being withheld. -
Daily Mail
Some of Moyer's greatest hits:
"fuck Trump"
"screw you trump"
"She [Hillary] better win... otherwise i'm gonna be walking around with both of my guns.
"
Moyer also called Ohio Trump supporters "retarded"
"Agent 1" who is now married to Moyer, referred to Hillary Clinton as "the President" after
interviewing the Democratic candidate as part of the email investigation.
Another FBI official, Kevin Clinesmith, 36, sent similar text messages. A graduate of
Georgetown Law, Clinesmith - referred to in the Inspector General's report as "Attorney 2," -
texted several colleagues lamenting the "destruction of the Republic" after former FBI Director
James Comey reopened the Clinton email investigation.
In response to a colleague asking he had changed his views on Trump, Clinesmith responded "
Hell no. Viva le resistance ," a reference to the Trump opposition movement that clamed to be
coordinating with officials inside the Trump administration.
Two high-ranking FBI officials - Peter Strzok and his mistress Lisa Page, were discovered by
the Inspector General to have sent over 50,000 text messages to each other - many of which
showed the two harbored extreme bias aginst Trump and for Hillary Clinton. Like Moyer and
"Agent 1," Strzok and Page worked on the Clinton email investigation.
Note, female plumbing and a law degree have been the only real qualifications Hillary
Clinton had. Anyone who backed such an obvious criminal and worked within the FBI has
questionable assets to be in the FBI.
They pushed Clinton on us because she was a woman and because there are hundreds, if not
hundreds of thousands of high powered hands that have been greased by her and Billy. The
server wasn't about national security.
It was about hiding dirty deals and treason. Did Hillary have a plan other than to
continue to turn the USA over to the UN and other international neofascist, socialist
organizations? We were always referred to her website for her plans. The Democratic Party no
longer cares for the Constitution. Which means they have no charter with which to order us
around.
Really need to get Mueller in front of a TV camera to explain why Strzok/Page were removed
from his investigation, but deemed not biased in the IG report. Like to see how he threads
that needle.
I'm beginning to think the IG report is intended to provide a firewall between all the
eager-to-please go-getters who stepped over the line and the upper levels of the DoJ and the
Obama White House. The theme that was leaked ahead of time was that Comey was insubordinate
and did what he wanted (looks to be partially true), gives a great background where the
higher ups can shake their heads and say 'we only wanted impartial investigations'. The
problem being Lowretta's tarmac meeting with Bill. She had to get something out of that
meeting - and nailing down what she got would really shake the house of cards. Wonder if she
suddenly had the cash for a beach front home.
Perhaps not. Loretta owes her existence to Bill, she's smart/dumb enough not to leverage
against anything he demands of her- she's seen up-close how it goes when you say "no" to the
Clintons.
The entire Clinton administration is loyal to Bill- that's his one power. I went to school
with a guy who worked in Bill's inner circle in the White House- a guy who I thought was
capable of critical thinking.... He told me Bill's charm with people was unreal- if he told
you to kill your mother to make him happy, you'd find a way to do it;
To this day, my friend still doesn't understand how, but he knows he was under that
Clinton spell. And no, his mother isn't around anymore....
After 9/11 Mueller decided to change the make up of the FBI, he wanted nerds. This was
written in many articles of how Mueller was staffing the FBI with a new FBI. Considering
Mueller's actions at the FBI, I would say he shouldn't be in charge of anything....
Old lost stories from the past are never correlated to the future events it causes. The
media refuses to tell the truth on anything. The media workers who lie are the same as the
FBI agents and the entire government that lies, it is accepted by the Deep State to lie
because they are the rulers, not congress and a president, that's for show.
Here's a good one, when Obama went to Harvard, it was a major program to bring people from
other countries and pay their way, it became Harvard's new method of operation to deflect and
to escape critical comments about Legacy, which means if a parent went to Harvard, then one
can get into Harvard ahead of everyone else. So the reason Obama will not release any data on
Harvard is because he said he was from Kenya to get in and to have his way paid because he
was considered a foreigner.
Very interesting and perceptive. I listen to talk show hosts in the independent media who
bemoan lack of accountability: "Why is nobody indicted? Why isn't [a particular sociopath] in
jail?" The answer is simple, and you just provided it.
Yes, this government is corrupt in its entirety, bloated and twisted beyond recognition.
Once an organization is hijacked by sociopaths, complete destruction is just a matter of
time, but the trouble is, unless their power is taken away, the sociopaths get to do much
more damage, as they take down everyone else with them. i know; I've witnessed in microcosm
(a medium-sized business). Small wonder that they want to disenfranchise and disempower the
electorate. Sociopaths fear a reckoning.
Will there BE a reckoning? Just look at what some of the worst scum are getting away with
over the last few decades. Does anybody seriously believe the time will come again when
crowds gather around lampstands?
USA used to be the most respectable and respected nation in the world. Talk to people
around the world now, and you find it's just an object of pity and scorn.
If the many managerial positions are assumed by individuals deprived of sufficient
abilities to feel and understand the majority of other people, and who also exhibit
deficiencies in technical imagination and practical skills - (faculties indispensable for
governing economic and political matters) - this then results in an exceptionally serious
crisis in all areas, both within the country in question and with regard to international
relations. Within, the situation becomes unbearable even for those citizens who were able
to feather their nest into a relatively comfortable modus vivendi. Outside, other societies
start to feel the pathological quality of the phenomenon quite distinctly. Such a state of
affairs cannot last long. One must then be prepared for ever more rapid changes, and also
behave with great circumspection. (2nd. ed., p. 140)
It is time for thee, LORD, to work: for they have made void thy law . Ps 119:126, KJV
"USA used to be the most respectable and respected nation in the world. Talk to people
around the world now, and you find it's just an object of pity and scorn."
The world was taught that JFK was an anomaly cancelled out by Apollo and that Korea and
Vietnam were anomalies too.
Since then we have had the obvious false flag of 9/11 and the world learned the hard way
that Korea and Vietnam were the normal and peace was the anomaly, and that Apollo was also a
pack of lies, the world has also seen the US break every agreement it ever made including big
ones like the ABM. In breaking the Iran agreement and staying in Syria the world has learned
that the US supports ISIS and cannot be trusted at any level or at any time.
Parallel to the externally visible decline of the US the infrastructure was abandoned at
the same time as it's principals and morals: Bush junior, to have had 260,000 people ar
Oroville put into danger as a dam nearly collapsed due to lack of a basic and well known low
cost venturi fix to eliminate cavitation on the spillway from eating the containment.
Added to this the US is still making bad decision after bad decision (hosting the World
cup next is the latest - that will backfire badly) as all its decision making is overtly now
taken by Israel - it's not going to end well.
We've been Tyrannically Lawless for so long that when even the most logical laws are
broken, enforcing them becomes impossible with the constant barrage of Deep State PsyOp
carried out by their Presstitute appendages.
The Criminal actions of spying, Political Persecution & Espionage carried out by
highly Compartmentalized Levels of the CIA, FBI & DOJ on a Presidential Candidate should
be indicative of the absolute, complete, open, in your Faces Tyrannical Lawlessness the
Republic and The American People find themselves in today.
The National Security Elimination Act of 2018
The United States survived quite nicely for 130+ years with neither a Criminal FBI, CIA,
IRS nor the Federal Reserve. Let's return to those better days ASAP.
Would precisely achieve that objective & more by recentrailizing the "Intelligence"
Agencies. By Elimination of rouge Criminal Agencies such as the Pure Evil War Criminal
Treasonous Seditious Psychopaths at & in the CIA.
So what Criminals at large Obama, Clapper & Lynch have done 17 days prior to former
CEO Criminal Obama leaving office was to Decentralize & weaken the NSA. As a result, Raw
Intel gathering was then regulated to the other 16 Intel Agencies.
Thus, taking Centuries Old Intelligence based on a vey stringent Centralized British
Model, De Centralized it, filling the remaining 16 Intel Agenices with potential Spies and a
Shadow Deep State Mirror Government.
And, If Obama, Lynch & Clapper all agreed 17 days out to change the surveillance
structure of the NSA. What date exectly did the changes occur in relation to the first FISA
request for the Trump Wire Taps? (We now know that the Criminal FISA requests occurred in
October 2016.)
Elimination of the Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopaths in the Deep
State & CIA.
As easily as The National Security Act was signed in 1947 it can & must be
Eliminated.
Former Secret Serviceman, Gary Byrne, who filed rico against Clinton, Soros, Brock and
others a few days ago, said it best. The secret service doesn't work to protect the
President. It works to protect the Secret Service. So does the FBI, DOJ, HUD and all the
other Federal bureaucracies. They don't work for us, they work for them. They are aiding and
abetting the theft of trillions from us, people who work for a living. No one else pays
taxes, as the rich, many who work for a living very hard (witness our President, who at age
72 can work rings around about every bureaucrat in DC), get their money from those who work
for a living, directly or indirectly.
This begs the question, why so much resistance in Trump fixing trade and immigration? We
must ask also, why is the Constitution not being taught in schools? Not just the first
amendment, but the limitations of Washington DC, which seems to get its power from the
preamble, throwing all other limitations of the DC government contained in the body of
Article 1, 2 and 3 out the window. Who gets the bill for trade imbalances? Who gets the
money? The entire economy is a balance sheet. Is there so much debt around the world that it
requires the mortgaging of every piece of real estate and improvements to support it? What
about gold and silver coin, which kept debt in check along with trade? Bank runs were really
only bad for bankers. Massive supplies of unskilled labor merely keeps those jobs cheap and
the unskilled, who develop skills never get paid. The education system is a costly farce and
over 1/2 of Americans have no business in college, or for that matter, high school after
about the 8th grade. Why is the United States being drained of its capital?
Do you think it has stopped. The career management is still in place and will not rooted
out.
The FBI, and others IRS for example), have evolved into a political strong arm agency,
with an agenda. They will shield illegal activity they fell supports their agenda. They will
use selective enforcement to stomp down their political opponents. They will use false
persecution to destroy their political opponents, including the use of false evidence, false
"professional interpretation" of data/info while on the witness stand, entrapment, special
deals for those who provide the needed testimony and so on.
As far as I'm concerned the entirety of the 17 three-letter Gestapo* (Geheime
Staatspolizei) agencies are fucking domestic enemies. It's getting close to the point where
we all just say fuck it, kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out, if that is it's his day to
give a fuck, which I hope it isn't.
*The Gestapo was modeled on the FBI, not the other way around folks.
Good point. I'd forgotten about their good buddies in the Cheka and successors, OGPU, NKVD
People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs (Narodnyi Komissariat Vnutrennikh Del) and KGB
(Komitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti).
"... "take immediate action on the Weiner laptop" ..."
"... "willing to take official action to impact a presidential candidate's electoral prospects." ..."
"... "Under these circumstances, we did not have confidence that Strzok's decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the [Hillary Clinton]-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias," ..."
"... Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! ..."
The FBI's inquiry into hundreds of thousands of emails found on a laptop belonging to former
Congressman Anthony Weiner may have been improperly shelved to focus on the agency's Russia
investigation, a DOJ report states. A review of the FBI's investigations into Hillary Clinton's
use of a private email server by the DOJ inspector general
concluded that federal investigators failed to "take immediate action on the Weiner
laptop" due in part to a decision to "prioritize" the investigation into claims
that Donald Trump " colluded" with Russia.
The FBI leadership waited nearly a month after receiving initial information about the
laptop to reopen the investigation and notifying Congress about it, the IG report
shows.
Citing text messages written by FBI agent Peter Strzok, who said in one message that he
would "stop" then-candidate Trump from being elected, the report notes that federal
investigators may have been "willing to take official action to impact a presidential
candidate's electoral prospects."
"Under these circumstances, we did not have confidence that Strzok's decision to
prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the [Hillary Clinton]-related
investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias," the report
concludes on page
329.
The contents of Weiner's laptop became the subject of widespread speculation during the
FBI's 2016 probe into Clinton's private email server and alleged mishandling of classified
data. Weiner, the now ex-husband of top Clinton aide and adviser Huma Abedin, became a person
of interest for federal investigators after it was discovered that he had sent sexually
explicit messages to a 15-year-old girl in 2016.
Weiner had resigned from Congress in 2011 after it was revealed he sent lewd photographs and
messages to women.
In September 2016, as part of the investigation into his communication with the underage
teen, an FBI agent in New York found hundreds of thousands of emails on Weiner's laptop that
were possibly relevant to the Clinton investigation.
In December 2017, it was revealed that at least
five of the emails stored on Weiner's laptop were marked "confidential" and involved
delicate talks with Middle Eastern leaders and Abedin.
Weiner is currently serving a 21-month sentence in federal prison for sending obscene
material to a minor.
The DOJ IG report also noted that then-FBI Director James Comey violated procedure in
announcing to Congress that the bureau was reopening an investigation into Clinton's emails
just days before the 2016 presidential election.
Clinton has repeatedly claimed that the
announcement contributed to her loss to Trump.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
Thursday's DOJ Inspector General report covering the
Obama DOJ/FBI conduct during the Hillary Clinton email investigation confirms a bombshell that had previously been hinted at through
WikiLeaks disclosures:
Obama lied when he said in 2015 that he learned of Hillary Clinton's private email server through a New York Times report.
Specifically, Obama told CBS News the following a March 7, 2015 report:
President Obama only learned of Hillary Clinton's private email address use for official State Department business after a
New York Times report, he told CBS News in an interview
CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante asked Mr. Obama when he learned about her private email system after
his Saturday appearance in Selma, Alabama.
' The same time everybody else learned it through news reports,' the president told Plante. -
CBS
The OIG report reveals this was a lie . A footnote on page 89 reads " President Barack Obama was one of the 13 individuals with
whom Clinton had direct contact using her clintonemail.com account "
What's more, FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok told the Inspector General that the top brass of the agency wrestled over
whether or not to include Obama's involvement in Clinton's exoneration statement - and that former FBI Director James Comey knew
Obama had lied :
"A paragraph [in Comey's "exoneration" statement] summarizing the factors that led the FBI to assess that it was possible that
hostile actors accessed Clinton's server was added, and at one point referenced Clinton's use of her private email for an exchange
with then President Obama while in the territory of a foreign adversary, " the IG report reads. " This reference later was changed
to 'another senior government official,' and ultimately was omitted ."
My recollection is that the early Comey speech drafts included references to emails that Secretary Clinton had with President
Obama and I think there was some conversation about, well do we want to be that specific? -Peter Strzok
We already knew all of this though...
In October of 2016, a round of emails released by WikiLeaks featured an email from top Clinton aide Cheryl Mills reacting Obama's
statement that he didn't know about Obama's server - writing to John Podesta "we need to clean this up - he has emails from her -
they do not say state.gov"
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest
later claimed
that Obama was simply "not aware of the details of how that email address and that server had been set up," and that "The President,
as I think many people expected, did over the course of his first several years in office exchange emails with his Secretary of State."
The
Washington Examiner , meanwhile, reported in October 2016 that FBI agents "revealed in notes from their closed investigative
file that Obama communicated with Clinton on her private server using a pseudonym . "
The ramifications of what the World is witnessing are Gargantuan to say the least.
"Clinton, Obama might have be labeled Democrat but their Foreign Policy was 100% percent neocon"
Suffice it to, say, you can add Bush Senior, Jr to you list & the last 30 years of a Globalist Foreign Policy.
We're at a National Emergency & Constitutional Crises.
"This entire case is built on a fake piece of information in the Dossier. Or multiple pieces of information in a Fake Dossier,
I should say to be more precise. Breaking yesterday, Brennan has insisted that to multiple people by the way, that he didn't know
much about the Dossier. Wait till we play this audio. Get the Chuck Todd one ready Joe."
"This is Devastating audio. But hold on a minute. Why is Brennan doing this? Because Brennan knows that the Dossier was his
case. And, the minute he admits on the record. That as a Senior Level, powerful member of the Intelligence Community. That John
Brennan started a Political Investigation based on Fake Information he may very well of known was not verified. John Brennan is
going to be in a World of trouble. So he has to run from this thing."
"Now I'll get to this Sberry piece in a second. And, why it's important. But just to show you that Brennan has run from this
Dossier. Despite the fact, we know he knew about it. And, he Lied about it. Here's him basically telling Chuck Todd....listen
to how he emphasizes on the Dossier played no role, no, no, no role, no, no, no, no, no to the Dossier. Listen to him with Chuck
Todd:"
Chuck Todd Interview 3:30 Mark. Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopath John Brennan admits the Fake Dossier
Played:
"and it did not play any role whatsoever in the Intelligence Community Assessment that was done. That was presented to then...President
Obama & President Elect Trump."
It was Brennan, Obama and Clapper. I can remember when Obama said we were going after the Russians for election interference.
It became so big, the Homeland Security director said he would have to federalize elections, then the push back-out cry from states
shut that down.
Brennan has always worked with Obama in political dirty tricks operations, Brennan worked for the Obama election campaign,
providing political intelligence.
Clapper created his own intelligence network. He conducted political dirty tricks to damage Trump before and after. The secret
wars conducted by the CIA, involved Clinton, Brennan, Clapper and Obama, I remember when Obama was asked when he was on his way
to the UN to be crowned president of the world, he said the secret wars was "smart war". Nobel Prize winning Obama, conducted
genocide smart war on the Christians of Syria, killing over 500K using Brennan CIA funded by Saudi and Qatar money. Look at what
they have done, and how the MSM spewed lies to hide and are still hiding the crimes. Ukraine, Libya, Egypt? Why?
Clinton, Brennan, Obama, Clapper is the center of the Russian collusion narrative, it's a coordinated plan to prevent Trump
from being president, and when it was known Trump would be president, to sabotage Trump by destroying the last vestige of relations
with Russia and to accuse Trump of campaign collusion with the Russians, knowingly using false information paid for by Clinton,
coordinated with operatives of MI6. Who made the contacts with MI6, and the UK GHQ, the NSA of the UK? Clapper. Also remember
McCain hand carrying the false data, the Steele Dossier to the FBI? How sick was that? McCain is lower than dog shit and can't
vote on his death bed, thus why won't he resign for health reasons to allow his vote to be used to help rebuild the nation? It's
because he's mentally ill and wants to do as much damage, working with the communist, to this nation as possible, ask anyone who
is for this nation.
The extent of the criminal activity is so great, it can't see the light of day, it would cause a civil war to take down the
last administration. The precedence for Obama crimes were Bush II crimes, it was a continuation. The Bush II imperial presidency,
created the foundation, the huge intelligence apparatus created by Bush II, the Homeland Security police state, all built by Bush
II, was expanded and used against the American people. Not the terrorist the extreme corrupt media brainwashed into everyone to
submit to the state and to give up our rights.
The reason Clapper and Brennan are giving the most delusional analysis to confuse the truth is they know they are guilty so
they must take Trump down to survive. Obama is quite because he knows he is guilty, and more questions of real crimes are coming
out. Clinton, she's taunting everyone and believes she will be able to have revenge on the American people through a long term
plan to use the Clinton Foundation billions to build her revenge socialist communist homosexual reform of the American people.
They plan on buying the government through more manipulation of the vote and political campaigns, money rules and the Clinton's
have the money to rule America.
That's where we are, the Clinton Foundation is a racketeering operation, most all of the money was acquired illegally. If it
wasn't for loans provided by the Clinton Foundation, the DNC wouldn't have been able to run the election campaign.
Have a listen to this Greg Hunter/USA Watchdog interview with Dr David Janda. He's a courageous individual and he addresses
Zero Hedge commenters specifically in parts. Here's what he says about all this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rri-Ngj8QoE
"but his name was removed from the IG report and replaced with "government agent"..."
Correction: I believe you mean Comey's exoneration speech. The IG report (which is referenced above in the article we are commenting
on) did just the opposite and clearly stated that Obama emailed the wicked wench.
"The IG report was a whitewash, nothing about clinton herself".
I'm surprised to read that here on ZH. I've not been spending much time in the comments section here lately, but hadn't realized
that things had gotten this bad. ZHers used to be more aware.
The IG was not a whitewash. It is loaded with absolute bombshells. We're talking game-changing-save-the-republic bombshells.
There are tons of findings that will likely end up in criminal charges.
But, see, that's the point. IG's do not make criminal charges. They investigate internal processes. They can share their findings
or coordinate with actual US Attorney Generals, WHOSE JOB IT IS TO MAKE CRIMINAL DETERMINATIONS!
What's nice is, is that this is exactly what is happening. Horowitz has been working side by side with Huber, who is actually
an AUSAG, and who has already convened at least one grand jury (meaning criminal charges are likely).
"no one implicated other than underlings and it's obvious that Horowitz is on the deep state team"
The key to getting kingpins is to get his underlings first and have them turn on the kingpins to save their own skin.
I disagree with your conclusions on Horowitz. I think he is exactly what his reputation says he is: a rigidly straight arrow
who is narrowly focused on his holy mission to preserve the proper procedures in his blessed Bureau of Matters. This makes him
a White Hat in this whole saga.
Sorry if I picked on you with my reply, but I just think this story is so important to get right, particularly in light of
how blatantly untruthful CNN and the MSM are being (even more blatant than normal).
When the real bombshell hits, a lot of our fellow Americans are going to be very confused as their entire worldview is shaken.
It is our job to make that as painless as possible, and setting expectations based on what is actually happening/going to happen
is a huge step towards that worthy goal.
"... On July 27, 2017 the House Judiciary Committee called on the DOJ to appoint a Special Counsel, detailing their concerns in 14 questions pertaining to "actions taken by previously public figures like Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Director James Comey, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton." ..."
"... On September 26, 2017 , The House Judiciary Committee repeated their call to the DOJ for a special counsel, pointing out that former FBI Director James Comey lied to Congress when he said that he decided not to recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton until after she was interviewed, when in fact Comey had drafted her exoneration before said interview. ..."
"... And now, the OIG report can tie all of this together - as it will solidify requests by Congressional committees, while also satisfying a legal requirement for the Department of Justice to impartially appoint a Special Counsel. ..."
"... Who cares how many task forces, special prosecutors, grand juries, commissions, or other crap they throw at this black hole of corruption? We all know the score. The best we can hope for is that the liberals and neo-cons are embarrassed enough to crawl under a rock for awhile, and it slows down implementation of their Orwellian agenda for a few years. ..."
As we reported on
Thursday , a long-awaited report by the Department of Justice's internal watchdog into the Hillary Clinton email investigation
has moved into its final phase, as the DOJ notified multiple subjects mentioned in the document that they can privately review it
by week's end, and will have a "few days" to craft any response to criticism contained within the report, according to the
Wall Street Journal .
Those invited to review the report were told they would have to sign nondisclosure agreements in order to read it , people
familiar with the matter said. They are expected to have a few days to craft a response to any criticism in the report, which
will then be incorporated in the final version to be released in coming weeks . -
WSJ
Now, journalist Paul Sperry reports that " IG Horowitz has found "reasonable grounds" for believing there has been a violation
of federal criminal law in the FBI/DOJ's handling of the Clinton investigation/s and has referred his findings of potential criminal
misconduct to Huber for possible criminal prosecution ."
Who is Huber?
As we
reported
in March , Attorney General Jeff Sessions appointed John Huber - Utah's top federal prosecutor, to be paired with IG Horowitz
to investigate the multitude of accusations of FBI misconduct surrounding the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The announcement came
one day after Inspector General Michael Horowitz confirmed that he will also be investigating allegations of FBI FISA abuse .
While Huber's appointment fell short of the second special counsel demanded by Congressional investigators and concerned citizens
alike, his appointment and subsequent pairing with Horowitz is notable - as many have pointed out that the Inspector General is significantly
limited in his abilities to investigate. Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) noted in March " the IG's office does not have authority to compel
witness interviews, including from past employees, so its investigation will be limited in scope in comparison to a Special Counsel
investigation ,"
Sessions' pairing of Horowitz with Huber keeps the investigation under the DOJ's roof and out of the hands of an independent investigator
.
***
Who is Horowitz?
In January, we profiled Michael Horowitz based on thorough research assembled by independent investigators. For those who think
the upcoming OIG report is just going to be "all part of the show" - take pause; there's a good chance this is an actual happening,
so you may want to read up on the man whose year-long investigation may lead to criminal charges against those involved.
Horowitz was appointed head of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) in April, 2012 - after the Obama administration hobbled
the OIG's investigative powers in 2011 during the "Fast and Furious" scandal. The changes forced the various Inspectors General for
all government agencies to request information while conducting investigations, as opposed to the authority to demand it. This allowed
Holder (and other agency heads) to bog down OIG requests in bureaucratic red tape, and in some cases, deny them outright.
What did Horowitz do? As one twitter commentators puts it,
he went to war ...
In March of 2015, Horowitz's office
prepared
a report for Congress titled Open and Unimplemented IG Recommendations . It laid the Obama Admin bare before Congress - illustrating
among other things how the administration was wasting tens-of-billions of dollars by ignoring the recommendations made by the OIG.
After several attempts by congress to restore the OIG's investigative powers, Rep. Jason Chaffetz successfully introduced H.R.6450
- the Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2016 - signed by a defeated lame duck President Obama into law on
December 16th, 2016 , cementing an alliance between Horrowitz and both houses of Congress .
1) Due to the Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2016, the OIG has access to all of the information that the target agency
possesses. This not only includes their internal documentation and data, but also that which the agency externally collected and
documented.
See here for a complete overview of the
OIG's new and restored powers. And while the public won't get to see classified details of the OIG report, Mr. Horowitz is also big
on public disclosure:
Horowitz's efforts to roll back Eric Holder's restrictions on the OIG sealed the working relationship between Congress and the
Inspector General's ofice, and they most certainly appear to be on the same page. Moreover, FBI Director Christopher Wray seems to
be on the same page
Which brings us back to the OIG report
expected by Congress a week from Monday.
On January 12 of last year, Inspector Horowitz announced an OIG investigation based on " requests from numerous Chairmen and Ranking
Members of Congressional oversight committees, various organizations (such as Judicial Watch?), and members of the public ."
The initial focus ranged from the FBI's handling of the Clinton email investigation, to whether or not Deputy FBI Director Andrew
McCabe should have been recused from the investigation (ostensibly over
$700,000 his wife's campaign took from Clinton crony Terry McAuliffe around the time of the email investigation), to potential
collusion with the Clinton campaign and the timing of various FOIA releases. Which brings us back to the
OIG report expected by Congress a week from
Monday.
On July 27, 2017 the House Judiciary Committee called on the DOJ to appoint a Special Counsel, detailing their concerns in
14 questions pertaining to "actions taken by previously public figures like Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Director James Comey,
and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton."
The questions range from Loretta Lynch directing Mr. Comey to mislead the American people on the nature of the Clinton investigation,
Secretary Clinton's mishandling of classified information and the (mis)handling of her email investigation by the FBI, the DOJ's
failure to empanel a grand jury to investigate Clinton, and questions about the Clinton Foundation, Uranium One, and whether the
FBI relied on the "Trump-Russia" dossier created by Fusion GPS.
On September 26, 2017 , The House Judiciary Committee repeated their call to the DOJ for a special counsel, pointing out that
former FBI Director James Comey lied to Congress when he said that he decided not to recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton
until after she was interviewed, when in fact Comey had drafted her exoneration before said interview.
And now, the OIG report can tie all of this together - as it will solidify requests by Congressional committees, while also
satisfying a legal requirement for the Department of Justice to impartially appoint a Special Counsel.
As illustrated below by TrumpSoldier , the report will go from the Office of the Inspector General to both investigative committees
of Congress, along with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and is expected within weeks .
Once congress has reviewed the OIG report, the House and Senate Judiciary Committees will use it to supplement their investigations
, which will result in hearings with the end goal of requesting or demanding a Special Counsel investigation. The DOJ can appoint
a Special Counsel at any point, or wait for Congress to demand one. If a request for a Special Counsel is ignored, Congress can pass
legislation to force an the appointment.
And while the DOJ could act on the OIG report and investigate / prosecute themselves without a Special Counsel, it is highly unlikely
that Congress would stand for that given the subjects of the investigation.
After the report's completion, the DOJ will weigh in on it. Their comments are key. As TrumpSoldier points out in his analysis,
the DOJ can take various actions regarding " Policy, personnel, procedures, and re-opening of investigations. In short, just about
everything (Immunity agreements can also be rescinded). "
Meanwhile, recent events appear to correspond with bullet points in both the original OIG investigation letter and the 7/27/2017
letter forwarded to the Inspector General:
... ... ...
With the wheels set in motion last week seemingly align with Congressional requests and the OIG mandate, and the upcoming OIG
report likely to serve as a foundational opinion, the DOJ will finally be empowered to move forward with an impartially appointed
Special Counsel.
"To save his presidency, Trump must expose a host of criminally cunning Deep State political operatives as enemies to the Constitution,
including John Brennan, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, James Comey and Robert Mueller - as well as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton."
Killing the Deep State , Dr Jerome Corsi, PhD., p xi
I've been more than upfront about my philosophy. I have said on more than one occasion that progs will rue the day they drove
a New Yorker like Trump even further to the right.
Now you see it in his actions from the judiciary to bureaucracy destruction to (pick any) and...as I often cite... some old
dead white guy once said ..."First they came for the ___ and I did not speak out. Then they came for..."
Now I advocate for progs to swim in their own deadly juices, without a moment's hesitation on my part, without any furtive
look back, without remorse or any compassion whatsover.
Forward! ...I think is what they said, welcome to the Death Star ;-)
There have been (and are) plenty on "our side"...Boehner, Cantor, McCain, Romney and the thinly disguised "social democrat"
Bill Kristol just to name several off the top of my head but the thing is, they always have to hide what they really are from
us until rooted out.
That's what I try to point out to "our friends" on the left all the time, for example, there was never any doubt that Chris
Dodd, Bwaney Fwank and Chuck Schumer were (and are) in Wall Streets back pocket. But for any prog to openly admit that is to sign
some sort of personal death warrant, to be ostracized, blacklisted and harassed out of "the liberal community" so, they bite their
tongue & say nothing...knowing what the truth really is.
Hell, they even named a "financial reform bill" after Dodd & Frank...LMAO!!!
It's just the dripping hypocrisy that gets me.
For another example, they knew what was going on with Weinstein, Lauer, Spacey, Rose etal but as long as the cash flowed and
they towed-the-prog-BS-line outwardly, they gladly looked the other way and in the end...The Oprah...gives a speech in front of
them (as they bark & clap like trained seals) about...Jim Crow?
Jim Crow?!...lol...one has nothing to do with the other Oprah! The perps & enablers are sitting right there in front of you!
"After the report's completion, the DOJ will weigh in on it. Their comments are key. As TrumpSoldier points out in his analysis,
the DOJ can take various actions regarding " Policy, personnel, procedures, and re-opening of investigations. In short, just about
everything (Immunity agreements can also be rescinded). "
Rescind Immunity, absolutely damn right, put them ALL under oath and on the stand! This is huge! Indeed this goes all the way
to the top, would like to see Obama and the 'career criminal' testify under oath explaining how their tribe conspired to frame
Trump and the American people.
Hell, put them on trial in a military court for Treason, what's the punishment for Treason these days???
Also would like to see Kerry get fried under the 'Logan Act'!
As are half of their fellow travelers in the GOP. Neocon liars. Talk small constitutional govt then vote for war. Those two
are direct opposites, war and small govt. The liars must be exposed and removed. The Never Trumpers have outed themselves but
many are hiding in plain sight proclaiming they support the President. It appears they have manipulated Trump into an aggressive
stance against Russia with their anti Russia hysteria. Time will tell. The bank and armament industries must be removed from any
kind of influence within our govt. Most of these are run by big govt collectivists aka communists/globalists.
Who cares how many task forces, special prosecutors, grand juries, commissions, or other crap they throw at this black
hole of corruption? We all know the score. The best we can hope for is that the liberals and neo-cons are embarrassed enough to
crawl under a rock for awhile, and it slows down implementation of their Orwellian agenda for a few years.
As the FBI's investigation into the Clinton Foundation pressed on during the 2016 election,
a senior official with the Obama justice department, identified as Matthew Axelrod, called
former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe - who thought the DOJ was pressuring him to shut down
the investigation, according to the recently released inspector general's (OIG) report.
The official was "very pissed off" at the FBI , the report says, and demanded to know why
the FBI was still pursuing the Clinton Foundation when the Justice Department considered the
case dormant. -
Washington Times
The OIG issued a criminal referral for McCabe based on findings that the former Deputy
Director "made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked candor - including under
oath - on multiple occasions."
McCabe authorized a self-serving leak to the New York Times claiming that the FBI had not
put the brakes on the Clinton Foundation investigation, during a period in which he was coming
under fire over a $467,500 campaign donation his wife Jill took from Clinton pal Terry
McAuliffe.
" It is bizarre -- and that word can't be used enough -- to have the Justice Department call
the FBI's deputy director and try to influence the outcome of an active corruption
investigation ," said James Wedick - a former FBI official who conducted corruption
investigations at the bureau. " They can have some input, but they shouldn't be operationally
in control like it appears they were from this call ."
Wedick said he's never fielded a call from the Justice Department about any of his cases
during his 35 years there - which suggests an attempt at interference by the Obama
administration .
As the
Washington Times Jeff Mordock points out, Although the inspector general's report did not
identify the caller, former FBI and Justice Department officials said it was Matthew Axelrod ,
who was the principal associate deputy attorney general -- the title the IG report did use.
Mr. McCabe thought the call was out of bounds.
He told the inspector general that during the Aug. 12, 2016, call the principal associate
deputy attorney general expressed concerns about FBI agents taking overt steps in the Clinton
Foundation investigation during the presidential campaign. -
Washington Times
"According to McCabe, he pushed back, asking ' are you telling me that I need to shut down a
validly predicated investigation? '" the report reads. " McCabe told us that the conversation
was 'very dramatic' and he never had a similar confrontation like the PADAG call with a
high-level department official in his entire FBI career ."
The Inspector General said in a footnote that the Justice official (identified separately as
Matthew Alexrod) agreed to the description of the call, but objected to seeing that "the Bureau
was trying to spin this conversation as some evidence of political interference, which was
totally unfair."
Axelrod quit the Justice Department on January 30, 2017, the same day his boss, Deputy AG
Sally Q. Yates was fired by President Trump for failing to defend his travel ban executive
order. He is now an attorney in the D.C. office of British law firm Linklaters LLP.
Axelrod told the New York Times he left the department earlier than planned.
" It was always anticipated that we would stay on for only a short period ," said Alexrod of
himself and Yates. "For the first week we managed, but the ban was a surprise. As soon as the
travel ban was announced there were people being detained and the department was asked to
defend the ban."
The Washington Times notes that those familiar with DOJ procedures say it is unlikely
Axelrod would have made the call to McCabe without Yates' direct approval.
"In my experience these calls are rarely made in a vacuum," said Bradley Schlozman, who
worked as counsel to the PADAG during the Bush administration. " The notion that the principle
deputy would have made such a decision and issued a directive without the knowledge and consent
of the deputy attorney general is highly unlikely ."
Given that Andrew McCabe may now be in a legal battle with the Trump DOJ, the Obama DOJ and
former FBI Director James Comey - who says McCabe never told him about the leaks which resulted
in the former Deputy Director's firing, it looks like he's really going to need that new legal
defense fund
"... "Some are asking, though, 'Why wouldn't smashing of cellphones and destruction of thousands of emails during an investigation clearly be obstruction of justice ..."
"... Although mainstream media outlets, liberal pundits, and lawmakers have been obsessing over possible obstruction of justice charges and anticipating impeachment for Trump as a result, these same individuals showed a marked lack of interest in whether or not Clinton and her team obstructed justice. ..."
"... "But if you smash your cellphone knowing that investigators want it and that they've got a subpoena for it, for example, that is a different thing and can be obstruction of justice." ..."
"... Jones followed up, asking, "The law requires intent?" ..."
Comey Claims Nobody Asked About Clinton Obstruction Before Today on Sun, 04/22/2018 - 9:27pm
From the
' you can't make this shit up ' files. Hillary had been involved in government long enough to know and understand the rules
of what she needed to do with her emails after her tenure was over. As well as the rules for handling classified information with
an email account. But I guess she thought that rules only applied to everyone else but her. And why wouldn't she think that she could
do whatever she wanted to? Because she and Bill had been getting away with doing whatever they wanted their entire political careers
with no repercussions.
Using a private email server that would be a way around the freedom of information act would have also allowed her to put her
foundation's business on it so that Chelsea and others could have access to it even though it was tied into her state department
business and the people who did didn't have the proper security clearances to read the emails. (Sydney Bluementhal) Tut, tut ..
When WTOP's Joan Jones asked former FBI Director James Comey on Wednesday if the "smashing of cellphones and destruction of
thousands of emails" during the investigation into Hillary Clinton was "obstruction of justice," Comey said that he had never
been asked that question before.
"You have raised the specter of obstruction of justice charges with the president of the United States," Jones said to Comey
concerning his new book, "A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership." The book was released earlier this week.
"Some are asking, though, 'Why wouldn't smashing of cellphones and destruction of thousands of emails during an investigation
clearly be obstruction of justice ?'" Jones asked Comey.
Comey replied, "Now that's a great question. That's the first time I've been asked that."
Although mainstream media outlets, liberal pundits, and lawmakers have been obsessing over possible obstruction of justice
charges and anticipating impeachment for Trump as a result, these same individuals showed a marked lack of interest in whether or
not Clinton and her team obstructed justice.
There's that word intent again.
"And the answer is, it would depend upon what the intent of the people doing it was," Comey said. "It's the reason I can't
say when people ask me, 'Did Donald Trump committee obstruction of justice?' My answer is, 'I don't know. It could be. It would
depend upon, is there evidence to establish that he took actions with corrupt intent ?'"
"So if you smash a cellphone, lots of people smash their cellphones so they're not resold on the secondary market and your
personal stuff ends up in somebody else's hands," Comey continued. "But if you smash your cellphone knowing that investigators
want it and that they've got a subpoena for it, for example, that is a different thing and can be obstruction of justice."
What about deleting ones emails after being told to turn them over to congress after they found out that you didn't do it when
your job was done. Is this considered obstruction of justice, James? I think that answer is yes. How about backing up your emails
on someone else's computer when some of them were found to be classified?
Jones followed up, asking, "The law requires intent?"
"Yes. It requires not just intent , but the prosecutors demonstrate corrupt intent , which is a special kind of intent
that you were taking actions with the intention of defeating and obstructing an investigation you knew was going on," Comey replied.
Did he just change the rules there? Now it's not just intent, but corrupt intent. This is exactly what Hillary
did, James! She deliberately destroyed her emails after she was told to turn them over to congress, so if you didn't have the chance
to see them l, then how do you know that the ones that she destroyed weren't classified? I would say that qualifies as intent.
But we know that you had a job to protect her from being prosecuted. This is why when the wording was changed from " grossly negligent
" to "extremely careless". you went with the new ones!
BTW, James. Why wasn't Hillary under oath when she was questioned by the other FBI agents? Why didn't you question her
or look at her other computers and cell phones she had at her home? I'd think that they might have shown you something that she didn't
want you to see? One more question, James. Did you ask the NSA to find the deleted emails that she destroyed because she said that
they were just personal ones about Chelsea's wedding? Do you really think that it took 30,000 emails to plan a wedding? Okay, one
more. Did you even think that those emails might have had something to do with her foundation that might have had some incriminating
evidence of either classified information on them or even possible proof of her "pay to play" shenanigans that she was told not to
do during her tenure as SOS? This thought never crossed your mind?
Last question I promise. Did you really do due diligence on investigating her use of her private email server or were you still
covering for her like you have been since she started getting investigated?
This amazing comment came from a person on Common Dreams. It shows the history of
One source told the news outlet that electronic records reveal that Strzok changed the language from " grossly negligent
" to " extremely careless ," scrubbing a key word that could have had legal ramifications for Clinton. An individual
who mishandled classified material could be prosecuted under federal law for "gross negligence."
What would have happened if Comey had found Hillary guilty of mishandling classified information on her private email server?
She couldn't have become president of course because her security clearances would have been revoked. This makes it kinda hard to
be one if she couldn't have access to top secret information, now wouldn't it?
Have you seen this statement by people who don't think that what Hillary did when she used her private email server was wrong
and that's why some people didn't vote for her and Trump became president because of it?
"Here was material that I knew someday, when it's declassified, and I thought that
would be decades in the future, would cause historians to wonder, "Hmm, was there some
strange business going on there? Was Loretta Lynch somehow ... carrying water for the
campaign and controlling what the FBI did?"' Comey said.
I read his narrative as presented by the Daily Mail differently. He seems to try to
explain his much criticized going public on the Clinton mail issue -- pretty unique for the
FBI to do so, no? -- was the decision based on other matters going on at the same time.
....
As I read it, he seems to claim he didn't want the FBI to be connected to the Obama-Bill
Clinton & Lynch on the tarmac conspiracy theme in the public eye. ....
It was a bizarre moment in US history anyway, from Benghazi to the Clinton mails right
into the middle of an election campaign. With one of the candidates still under
investigation.
Comey said Obama's meddling surprised him. 'He's a very smart man and a lawyer ... He
shouldn't have done it. It was inappropriate,' Comey said.
I agree.
'What I can say is the material is legitimate,' he said. 'It is real. The content is
real. Now, whether the content is true is a different question. And again, to my mind, I
believed it was not true. '
What he vaguely refers to can be related to one three categories. Matters that Juridical
Watch's FOIA efforts around the Bill Clinton - Lynch tarmac meeting hasn't brought to the
surface yet:
that said, how comes I doubt my ability in English grammar while reading the Daily Mail
article vs the linked Washington Post one. Have to take a closer look at one passage were the
use of tense puzzled me.
Let me help you with this. Democratic party advisor and former communications director for
the white house under President Clinton interviewed a man complicit in stifling the Clinton -
Hilary- email scandal by spending an hour deflecting attention from Comey' s conduct.
That truth about George's past neither lied about, they just refused to mention the
blatant conflict of interest the interviewer had hoping nobody in America would remember.
Of course it is Trump's fault for coining the phrase "fake news" and sticking that truth
on Stephanopoulos and the rest. Now they are just proving how right Trump is regarding the
American press core.
With the country's attention focused on James Comey's book publicity gala interview
with ABC at 10pm ET, the former FBI Director has thrown former President Obama and his Attorney
General Loretta Lynch under the bus, claiming they "jeopardized" the Hillary Clinton email
investigation.
Comey called out Obama and Lynch in his new book, A Higher Loyalty , set to come out on
Tuesday. In it, he defends the FBI's top brass and counterintelligence investigators charged
with probing Clinton's use of a private email server and mishandling of classified information,
reports the
Washington Examiner , which received an advanced copy.
" I never heard anyone on our team -- not one -- take a position that seemed driven by their
personal political motivations . And more than that: I never heard an argument or observation I
thought came from a political bias. Never ... Instead we debated, argued, listened, reflected,
agonized, played devil's advocate, and even found opportunities to laugh as we hashed out major
decisions .
Comey says that multiple public statements made by Obama about the investigation
"jeopardized" the credibility of the FBI investigation - seemingly absolving Clinton of any
crime before FBI investigators were able to complete their work .
" Contributing to this problem, regrettably, was President Obama . He had jeopardized the
Department of Justice's credibility in the investigation by saying in a 60 Minutes interview
on Oct. 11, 2015, that Clinton's email use was "a mistake" that had not endangered national
security," Comey writes. "Then on Fox News on April 10, 2016, he said that Clinton may have
been careless but did not do anything to intentionally harm national security, suggesting
that the case involved overclassification of material in the government."
" President Obama is a very smart man who understands the law very well . To this day, I
don't know why he spoke about the case publicly and seemed to absolve her before a final
determination was made. If the president had already decided the matter, an outside observer
could reasonably wonder, how on earth could his Department of Justice do anything other than
follow his lead." -
Washington Examiner
Of course, Comey had already begun
drafting Clinton's exoneration before even interviewing her, something which appears to
have been "forgotten" in his book.
" The truth was that the president -- as far as I knew, anyway -- he had only as much
information as anyone following it in the media . He had not been briefed on our work at all.
And if he was following the media, he knew nothing, because there had been no leaks at all up
until that point. But, his comments still set all of us up for corrosive attacks if the case
were completed with no charges brought."
"Matter" not "Investigation"
Comey also describes a September 2015 meeting with AG Lynch in which she asked him to
describe the Clinton email investigation as a "matter" instead of an investigation.
"It occurred to me in the moment that this issue of semantics was strikingly similar to the
fight the Clinton campaign had waged against The New York Times in July. Ever since then, the
Clinton team had been employing a variety of euphemisms to avoid using the word
'investigation,'" Comey writes.
" The attorney general seemed to be directing me to align with the Clinton campaign strategy
. Her "just do it" response to my question indicated that she had no legal or procedural
justification for her request, at least not one grounded in our practices or traditions.
Otherwise, I assume, she would have said so.
Comey said others present in the meeting with Lynch thought her request was odd and
political as well - including one of the DOJ's senior leaders.
" I know the FBI attendees at our meeting saw her request as overtly political when we
talked about it afterward . So did at least one of Lynch's senior leaders. George Toscas, then
the number-three person in the department's National Security Division and someone I liked,
smiled at the FBI team as we filed out, saying sarcastically, ' Well you are the Federal Bureau
of Matters ,'" Comey recalled.
That said, Comey "didn't see any instance when Attorney General Lynch interfered with the
conduct of the investigation," writing "Though I had been concerned about her direction to me
at that point, I saw no indication afterward that she had any contact with the investigators or
prosecutors on the case."
In response, Loretta Lynch promptly issued a statement in which she said that if James Comey
" had any concerns regarding the email investigation, classified or not, he had ample
opportunities to raise them with me both privately and in meetings. He never did."
"... Mild -- Hillary was warned not to use her own personal servers by her staff. She ignored them. Because of this, her emails were susceptible to hacking and, surprise, surprise, several foreign governments did hack into her data. She had classified information on those servers. That's a no-no. I think it's called "felonious dissemination of classified material". No intent is required for there to be a crime. ..."
"... Some of the crimes were that Comey drafted an exoneration letter of Hillary Clinton months before she was ever interviewed. She was also under subpoena to hand over "all" emails, but she took it upon herself to delete over 30,000 of them. These were "subpoenaed" emails. Who just takes it upon themselves to destroy subpoenaed documents? She had her hard drives destroyed. She handed over her cell phones without the SIM cards in them. ..."
"... The FBI never even forensically examined her hard drives; they left that up to Crowdstrike. Yeah, like the FBI would ever do that! ..."
Mild -- Hillary was warned not to use her own personal servers by her staff. She
ignored them. Because of this, her emails were susceptible to hacking and, surprise,
surprise, several foreign governments did hack into her data. She had classified information
on those servers. That's a no-no. I think it's called "felonious dissemination of classified
material". No intent is required for there to be a crime.
Some of the crimes were that Comey drafted an exoneration letter of Hillary Clinton
months before she was ever interviewed. She was also under subpoena to hand over "all"
emails, but she took it upon herself to delete over 30,000 of them. These were "subpoenaed"
emails. Who just takes it upon themselves to destroy subpoenaed documents? She had her hard
drives destroyed. She handed over her cell phones without the SIM cards in them.
The FBI never even forensically examined her hard drives; they left that up to
Crowdstrike. Yeah, like the FBI would ever do that!
Her husband, Bill Clinton, coincidentally (yeah, right!) meets Loretta Lynch on an Arizona
tarmac for 45 minutes. The Attorney-General of the United States, who has the wife of this
man under investigation, stops to talk with him? What? Who does that? A first year law
student wouldn't have done this. Loretta Lynch should have been fired on the spot. Instead,
she leaves the decision up to Comey. That's not Comey's job. His job is to pass on the
evidence he collects to the Attorney-General. She, or someone in her department, makes the
decision, not Comey.
I know all about addiction. It isn't pretty. A destroyer of lives. Trump's brother was an
alcoholic, I believe, who died early. He warned Trump never to smoke or drink, and Trump took
his advice. He does neither. He saw what it did to his loved one.
I'm also a great admirer of Charles Dickens, one of the greatest writers ever to live! But
even his characters are rife with repeating the same behaviors over and over again, even
destructive ones. You can't help an addict that isn't ready for your help, unless you want to
bash your head into a brick wall repeatedly. I know. I've been there and done that.
The opioid epidemic didn't just start on Trump's watch. It really got kicked into high
gear after the 2008 financial crisis. Doctors were prescribing opioids to whole towns,
thinking it was better for them to get disability than be out on the streets. Wrong move.
People are getting their hands on these pills, and then reselling them, making small
fortunes. And a lot of these opioids are being laced with Fentanyl (coming in from China).
Deadly stuff!
The country has completely lost its moral center, its communities, its sense of decency.
This has been happening for decades now. It's a great shame what has happened to a once-great
country.
The whole story of Hillary's using a personal server for all communications, including
classified material, is something I found incredibly stupid. I am a retired Radio Operator,
and worked for an MSC contracted ship for my last six years, and had "secret" clearance. Our
computer had a separate hard drive for all classified communications, that was removed after
each download/upload and stored in a safe. If I had mishandled any classified info, I have no
doubt I'd be in prison.
Hillary is even quoted as saying she thought the (c) in communications didn't refer to
"classified", but was an enumeration, although she never bothered to ask where the (a) and
(b) were.
The law requires "gross negligence" for prosecution, and Peter Strzok had it changed in
the report to "extreme carelessness". If that isn't an interference in the judicial process,
I don't know what is.
backwardsevolution , March 20, 2018 at 9:25 pm
Hi, Skip. I'm glad you followed orders and didn't end up in the brig. Hillary, on the
other hand, seems to like to ignore rules. When asked if she wiped her servers clean, she had
the gall to say, "Do you mean with a cloth?" Talk about feigning ignorance. Her life was the
government, and to think that she didn't know what "classified" meant is too much of a
stretch for anyone.
She knew exactly what she was doing. She just never dreamed that she'd get caught. She
didn't want to use the government servers because they have a back-up system, and when you're
trying to elicit money from foreign governments in exchange for favors, you don't want to be
on a system with a back-up. You want to be able to control that system yourself, as in
deleting everything. She was trying to get around future Freedom of Information requests by
having her own servers.
And that Peter Strzok, who the heck is this guy and who gave him permission to change the
wording? And he's the same guy who interviewed General Flynn. The whole thing stinks. There
is no way that Strzok would have done what he did without someone higher up telling him to.
Hillary's helpers were all given immunity before they even started talking, and apparently
they weren't interviewed separately, but all together in one room. What?
Skip, you have a nice day and don't let this stuff get you down.
The Justice Department's internal watchdog has been investigating former FBI
Deputy Director Andrew McCabe for apparently sitting on emails obtained from Anthony Weiner's
laptop, the
Washington Post 's Devlin Barrett and Karoun Demirjian reported Tuesday (of note, Barrett
was recently outed as a
potential source of FBI leaks , according to text messages between FBI employees accused of
political bias)
... ... ...
The inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, has been asking witnesses why FBI leadership seemed unwilling to move forward on
the examination of emails found on the laptop of former
congressman Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) until late October about three weeks after first being alerted to the issue, according
to these people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter.
McCabe tried to stall probe of Weiner laptop emails til after the election
McCabe's colleagues got suspicious about the delay
Comey sent 11th-hour letter that reopened the probe in order to correct for McCabe's perceived
bias
Further pointing towards evidence of political bias is an October, 2016 Wall St. Journal article
which reported that McCabe's wife received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions
from close Clinton ally, then-Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe for her failed run at VA state
legislature.
"... The FBI was investigating Secretary Clinton personally for specific statutory crimes regarding the mishandling of highly classified national security information. ..."
"... As early as 2009, the National Archives contacted the State Department regarding Clinton's violation of record-keeping procedures. This was not disclosed to the public. ..."
"... It was discovered in early 2015 that Clinton had used this private server exclusively for State Department business. Further revelations reported in the press indicated it was an insecure server prone to hacks, and the State Department IG concluded that Clinton would never have been approved for such a setup had she requested it, and failed to follow all established security and record-keeping rules. ..."
"... I agree that the FBI was "investigating" Hillary Clinton in connection with her email (in continuation of an investigation that existed before she threw her hat into the ring). I haven't heard any evidence that they were wiretapping her campaign operatives or conducting surveillance on her campaign. ..."
"... It just doesn't work, even if we assume there was no actual evidence that she did naughty things with email, which we all know she did. ..."
"It was the Clinton investigation that was made public to the electorate right before the election, right?"
Wrong on this point. The FBI was investigating Secretary Clinton personally for specific statutory crimes regarding the
mishandling of highly classified national security information.
As early as 2009, the National Archives contacted the State Department regarding Clinton's violation of record-keeping
procedures. This was not disclosed to the public.
At the end of her tenure in 2012, a FOIA request was filed seeking access to Clinton's government email correspondence. In
2013, it was reported that no records pertaining to the request could be found.
In 2014, State Department lawyers first noticed emails from Clinton's private account, while reviewing documents for the Benghazi
investigation. By the end of the year, Clinton's lawyers had negotiated handing over about half of her total email correspondence
stored on her private server.
It was discovered in early 2015 that Clinton had used this private server exclusively for State Department business. Further
revelations reported in the press indicated it was an insecure server prone to hacks, and the State Department IG concluded that
Clinton would never have been approved for such a setup had she requested it, and failed to follow all established security and
record-keeping rules.
This was all in the news well before the election, and Clinton's team slow-walked and stone-walled the entire time. To say
they were asking for a criminal investigation is an understatement.
She really only had herself to blame for all this, you know?
I appreciate your comment. I agree that the FBI was "investigating" Hillary Clinton in connection with her email (in continuation
of an investigation that existed before she threw her hat into the ring). I haven't heard any evidence that they were wiretapping
her campaign operatives or conducting surveillance on her campaign.
It just doesn't work, even if we assume there was no actual evidence that she did naughty things with email, which we all
know she did.
The point is, if you're commitment to partisan baloney allows you to squint at the Democratic Party's Putinization of the FBI,
enjoy your police state. I'm sure you'll make the enemies list sooner or later.
[I recognize people really hate Trump, and there are many legitimate reasons why he is really hateful. But are you going to
embrace police state tactics just to bring down Trump?
I think people who do are damn fools.]
Lisa Page wrote her lover Peter Strzok about the Clinton probe: Obama 'wants to know everything we're doing'
Obama had said he could 'guarantee' he wouldn't interfere and there would be 'no political influence' in the FBI investigation
The September 2, 2016 text message was among more 50,000 texts the pair sent during a two-year extramarital affair
Page was an FBI lawyer, and Strzok was a leading investigator on both the Clinton probe and the more recent Trump-Russia investigation
Strzok, though expected to be nonpartisan, also called Trump 'a f***ing idiot' and texted Page about a cryptic 'insurance
policy' against a Trump presidency
'NEW FBI TEXTS ARE BOMBSHELLS!' President Trump tweeted on Wednesday
An FBI lawyer wrote in a text to her lover in late 2016 that then-president
Barack Obama wanted updates on the
Hillary Clinton email investigation.
Two months before the presidential election, Lisa Page wrote to fellow FBI official Peter Strzok that she was working on a memo
for then-FBI director James Comey because Obama 'wants to know everything we're doing.'
Obama had said five months earlier during a Fox News Channel interview that he could 'guarantee' he wouldn't interfere with that
investigation.
'I do not talk to the attorney general about pending investigations. I do not talk to FBI directors about pending investigations.
We have a strict line,' he said on April 10, 2016.
'I guarantee it. I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department or
the FBI, not just in this case but in any case. Full stop. Period,' he said.' --> --> -->
The September 2, 2016 text message was among more 50,000 texts the pair sent during a two-year extramarital affair.
Fox News was first to report on the latest batch, which is to be released by Republicans on the Senate Homeland Security Committee.
The committee members will soon publish a report titled 'The Clinton Email Scandal and the FBI's Investigation of it.'
President Donald Trump tweeted on Wednesday: 'NEW FBI TEXTS ARE BOMBSHELLS!'
Comey testified to Congress in June 2017: 'As FBI director I interacted with President Obama. I spoke only twice in three years,
and didn't document it.'
He didn't address possible memos or other written reports he may have sent to the Obama White House.
But Comey did document his 2017 meetings with President Donald Trump, he said, because he feared Trump would interfere with the
Russia probe.
Strzok was the lead investigator on the probe examining Clinton's illicit use of a private email server to handle her official
State Department messages while she was America's top diplomat.
He was later a member of special counsel Robert Mueller's team investigating alleged links betwen Donald Trump's presidential
campaign and Russia.
Comey was to give Obama an update on the Clinton email investigation before the 2016 election, according to Page; he testified
before Congress in 2017 that he only spoke to Obama twice as FBI director – but didn't mention whether he had sent him written reports
Comey announced in July 2016 that he had cleared Clinton of criminal wrongdoing in the email probe, saying that 'we did not find
clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information.'
On October 28, 2016, Comey said in a letter to Congress that the FBI was reviewing new emails related to Clinton's tenure as secretary
of State.
That revelation threw the presidential election into chaos.
On November 6, 2016, Comey told lawmakers that a review of those newly discovered emails had not altered the agency's view that
Clinton should not face criminal charges.
The text messages between Page and Strzok that emerged earlier showed their hatred for Donald Trump.
In August 2016 Strzok wrote to her that he wanted to believe 'that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take
that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40.' --> --> -->
It's unclear what that 'insurance policy' was, but the Justice Department was at the time debating an approach to a federal court
for a surveillance warrant against Trump adviser Carter Page.
Strzok was elevated to overseeing the Trump Russia probe a month earlier.
In a text sent on October 20, 2016, Strzok called the Republican presidential nominee a 'f***ing idiot.'
On Election Day, Page wrote to him: 'OMG THIS IS F***ING TERRIFYING.'
Strzok replied, 'Omg, I am so depressed.'
Five days later, Page texted him again: 'I bought all the president's men. Figure I need to brush up on watergate.'
New text messages between FBI lovers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page have now been made public, and,
as The
Duran's Alex Christoforou notes , the big reveal is that then-POTUS Barack Obama appears to be in the loop, on the whole 'destroy
Trump' insurance plan hatched by upper management at the FBI.
Page wrote to Strzok on Sept. 2, 2016 about prepping Comey because "potus wants to know everything we're doing." Senate investigators
told Fox News this text raises questions about Obama's personal involvement in the Clinton email investigation.
...Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., along with majority staff from the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee,
is releasing the texts, along with a report titled, "The Clinton Email Scandal and the FBI's Investigation of it."
The newly uncovered texts reveal a bit more about the timing of the discovery of "hundreds of thousands" of emails on former
congressman Anthony Weiner's laptop, ultimately leading to Comey's infamous letter to Congress just days before the 2016 presidential
election.
On Sept. 28, 2016 Strzok wrote to Page, "Got called up to Andy's [McCabe] earlier.. hundreds of thousands of emails turned
over by Weiner's atty to sdny [Southern District of New York], includes a ton of material from spouse [Huma Abedin]. Sending team
up tomorrow to review this will never end." Senate investigators told Fox News this text message raises questions about when FBI
officials learned of emails relevant to the Hillary Clinton email investigation on the laptop belonging to Weiner, the husband
to Clinton aide Huma Abedin.
It was a full month later, on Oct. 28, 2016 when Comey informed Congress that, "Due to recent developments," the FBI was reopening
its Clinton email investigation.
"In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation.
I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday " Comey said at the time.
The question becomes why Comey was only informed by his investigative team on Oct. 27, if the Clinton emails on Weiner's laptop
were discovered by Sept. 28, at the latest.
The point of this is IF phone numbers and addresses got leaked, can other contents, like some of the compromising emails not
find their way to the surface as well, or any other sensitive material stored there...? Was this leak a warning or a prelude to
something bigger coming...?
Hey stupid fuck...this is no longer about who did or did not win the election.
This is about the FBI knowingly using false evidence to try and take down a legally elected president...and now we are learning
that it was endorsed not just by the Hillary campaign but now Obama apparently wanted to be kept in the know.
If this does not literally make you shake with anger or fear that our democracy has been 100% compromised simply because its
the 'red team' being targeted, then please just hop a fucking boat now to some shithole country that the liberals love so much
and get that much needed dose of reality about what this means.
Actually shivura has a point. I have always wondered why did Comey make reopening HRC's investigation public even as they made
sure the investigations did not go anywhere. It is not as if they were driven to uphold propriety in all of their other actions.
Why break so many rules in trying to save her and get her elected, and then inform everyone just before the elections that Weiner's
laptop had HRC emails. It adds sleaze to the mix, and to HRC by association. You can argue that HRC needs no help in that department,
but I am sure some people had a visceral reaction of revulsion on hearing HRC emails were on the laptop with other stuff.
Clinton spent about 1.1 BILLION dollars, had FISA Title 1 surveillance on Trump, full deep sate, globalist, swamp, backing,
was given debate questions in advance, full support of entire main stream media, election rigging in her favor and she STILL LOST?
The first time I knew Obama was directly involved was when it was discovered, thanks to wikileaks, Obama was sending emails
through Clinton's home server USING AN ALIAS. They all knew she was breaking the law, yet they protected her from prosecution
and then colluded to get her elected, using scores of illegal activities to do it. This is so bad they might not be able to do
anything about it, as it encompasses so many deep state agencies and actors. There may not be enough loyal Americans in DC to
uphold the law.
They apparently don't. Hearing from William Binney about how the technical means works means it is a system nearly impossible
to prevent abuses. Mr. Trump: Tear down the Utah data center.
I had suspected that the tarmac meeting was Lynch unmasking Seth Rich to the Clinton's. This revelation about a SC nomination
doesn't preclude that she fingered Rich. Somebody did, and he was 'made an example of'.
Looks like the trap has snapped shut and many conspirators are caught including Obama. Is there now any doubt that the elimination
of 4th amendment protections after 9/11 has been a disaster?
"It was set up by the FBI and when they realized how totally illegal it was they just handed it over to Clapper and Brennan.
.. Barry Oked The scam transfer, I suspect so that he could use it too.
It was/is used for one thing. .. To build blackmail 'Control Files' on thousands if not millions of Americans. ... An Extortion
Tool. .. NOTHING legal about it."
You've just explained in two sentences the entire Criminal, Treasonous, Seditious Intelligence Operation of our lifetime. Same
spying tactics used decades by MI6 / British Intelligence. Only difference being, it's the first of its kind "Information Highway"
Spy Ring utilizing an expanded Surveillance Infrastructure.
This entire Criminal Deep State Intelligence Operation was data mining formuling the first of its kind Parallel Construction
Case consisting of a Criminal Deep State CIA, FBI, DOJ Scripted False Narrative / PsyOp With the objective ousting a sitting President
via a soft coup.
Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Psychopath at Large George Bush Jr. instituted the Criminal Surveillance infrastructure.
Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopath at Large Barack Obama expanded it exponentially.
However, Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopaths Obama, Clinton, their minions Brennan & Clapper along with
GCHQ used the intelligence apparatus to go after their political enemies.
Well, we're getting some transparency with the release of the new batch of texts. We weren't supposed to, but we have. "Transparency"
advocates will take our small victories when/where we get them.
Key point to me: Some people at least are circling around the bigger bombshell story - the effort to protect Hillary from the
"email server story." The story (for me) is NOT that the Russian government somehow "colluded" with the Trump campaign to get
Trump elected. It is instead that members of the "Deep State" colluded with one another to make sure Hillary got elected.
I think the MSM has been pushing the "Russiagate" angle to keep attention off the real story. That is, the press "colluded"
with those who worked so hard to get Hillary elected.
Now, we'll the press belatedly do its job and give the "Watergate treatment" to this real story? Eight ball says, "No way,
Jose."
" House Republicans are demanding to know why Justice Department officials entered into a
pair of "side agreement" with Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson -- two of Hillary Clinton's
top former aides who went on to become her personal attorneys during the FBI's email
investigation -- that allowed law enforcement agents to destroy their laptops after searching
their hard drives for evidence. "
In a letter from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte to Attorney General
Loretta Lynch on Monday, Goodlatte questioned why the destruction of the laptops used to sort
Clinton's emails was included in immunity deals that already protected Mills and Samuelson
from prosecution based on the records recovered from their computers.
it shoudl be apparent that female libtard socialist demoNrat lawyers think that they can
gain immunity from any FBI probe - dildo shaped or otherwise.
Jesus Christ. You Trumptard circus clowns just won't give up.
Go on, indulge me. Tell who and when these plotters are going to prison?
The comedy value listening to you retards giving so many wrong predictions is worth
reading ZH, just by itself.
Obummer, Killary et al are never going to see judgment. Never. Stop the fucking delusions
and projection. It's gone past being funny, worthy of ridicule. It's becoming obsessive to
the point of sounding foolish.
The big players won't go down. I do suspect that Strzok just may be indicted for
conspiracy. Could even rise a little higher. There's almost no doubt that the Obama "legacy"
will definitely get a good shellacking.
I agree we are at war with a 5th column. This much as been clear since 1913 and I would
argue going back before the Napoleonic wars.
The problem as is usually in these dire times is the chronic inability for so many people
to identify the real enemy.
Cunt's like Obummer are merely conduits and facilitators for the 5th column to work
through.
My anger is way past Obummer and Trump. These cunts have senior managers they report to.
It is the rooting out of that upper management and above that needs to take place.
"It was the Clinton investigation that was made public to the electorate right before the
election, right?"
Wrong on this point. The FBI was investigating Secretary Clinton personally for specific
statutory crimes regarding the mishandling of highly classified national security
information.
As early as 2009, the National Archives contacted the State Department regarding Clinton's
violation of record-keeping procedures. This was not disclosed to the public.
At the end of her tenure in 2012, a FOIA request was filed seeking access to Clinton's
government email correspondence. In 2013, it was reported that no records pertaining to the
request could be found.
In 2014, State Department lawyers first noticed emails from Clinton's private account,
while reviewing documents for the Benghazi investigation. By the end of the year, Clinton's
lawyers had negotiated handing over about half of her total email correspondence stored on
her private server.
It was discovered in early 2015 that Clinton had used this private server exclusively for
State Department business. Further revelations reported in the press indicated it was an
insecure server prone to hacks, and the State Department IG concluded that Clinton would
never have been approved for such a setup had she requested it, and failed to follow all
established security and record-keeping rules.
This was all in the news well before the election, and Clinton's team slow-walked and
stone-walled the entire time. To say they were asking for a criminal investigation is an
understatement.
She really only had herself to blame for all this, you know?
"... I think the MSM has been pushing the "Russiagate" angle to keep attention off the real story. That is, the press "colluded" with those who worked so hard to get Hillary elected. ..."
"... Yes, makes sense. When pressed against the wall the best tactic is to create chaos. Create friction between two polarized sides and keep driving that wedge into the middle to drive them further apart. ..."
"... Chaos is the ultimate distraction. War is the ultimate chaos. We are at war. However they want you to believe that the enemy is a left or right ideology. It is not. The enemy is lawlessness, and those who seem to be above the law. The Deep State is the enemy. ..."
Well, we're getting some transparency with the release of the new batch of texts. We weren't supposed to, but we have. "Transparency"
advocates will take our small victories when/where we get them.
Key point to me: Some people at least are circling around the bigger bombshell story - the effort to protect Hillary from the
"email server story." The story (for me) is NOT that the Russian government somehow "colluded" with the Trump campaign to get
Trump elected. It is instead that members of the "Deep State" colluded with one another to make sure Hillary got elected.
I think the MSM has been pushing the "Russiagate" angle to keep attention off the real story. That is, the press "colluded"
with those who worked so hard to get Hillary elected.
Now, we'll the press belatedly do its job and give the "Watergate treatment" to this real story? Eight ball says, "No way,
Jose."
Yes, makes sense. When pressed against the wall the best tactic
is to create chaos. Create friction between two polarized sides and
keep driving that wedge into the middle to drive them further apart.
Chaos is the ultimate distraction. War is the ultimate chaos. We
are at war. However they want you to believe that the enemy is a
left or right ideology. It is not. The enemy is lawlessness, and
those who seem to be above the law. The Deep State is the enemy.
Don't fall for the left or right fight. We all have much more in
common than that which might set us apart.
It is chaos they want. In order to reset things under a new
order.
Centralization is the real issue and problem. Centralized
organizations are fragile and easy to co-opt. Distributed systems
are very difficult to take over. The U.S. constitution was
originally set up as a distributed system of systems with each
contributing to the larger system as a whole. The system as a
whole was only supposed to serve those that were part of the
system, not directing them. However it no longer functions in
this manner as the Federal system has long since been co-oped and
has taken over via. a command control / director function of the
whole. Originally it was set up to be only a check in the balance
of the whole feedback loop system, and a small but important one
at that. The Federal entity was originally set up only to ensure
that each state followed the U.S. constitution that they agreed
upon. Each state in the U.S. still has it's own constitution.
Each state can still choose at any point to secede from the U.S.
if the people within that state choose to do so.
If you want to take something over, the most efficient way is
to centralize the power structure then co-opt the exec. functions.
The CIA has long since perfected the subversion tactics to do
just this.
It is not uncommon for secret societies to have higher orders
within those societies. The masonic order has served as a
template for many other secret societies to include most
college fraternities. Every mason is a member of the blue
lodge, but every mason is not a York Rite or Scottish Rite Shriner.
Within the CIA there may very well be another
organization that none of us have ever heard of that runs the
show. Like any other organization, it must have a mechanism
for pulling in new members to replace the elders when they die
off.
Are we going to get a smoking memo on the FBI's investigation of Hillary's email?
Remember,
none of this would be happening without her private server and mishandled classified info.
Her candidacy should have been ended early on. The FBI's investigation seemed nonstandard to
say the least.
Much of what followed may be doubling down on and covering up earlier crimes.
p-brane
1 year ago
It
sounds like they are conversing with a computer generated voice program like Satnav. I keep expecting her to say
"OVERLOAD.... OVERLOAD... NEED TO REBOOT... MAKE A LEFT AT THE NEXT STREET... MAKE A RIGHT AT THE NEXT CORNER... and then a
bunch of smoke comes out of her ears and she shuts down...
51
Woyam Chny
1 year ago
Loretta Lynch dwells in the deepest part of the swamp where the water is most stagnant and foul!
149
Mylan Miller
1 year ago
This woman just makes her self look stupid, she cant even answer the simplest question. She is making her self
look real guilty or dumb! She didn't get the job for her intelligence she is there because she is a willing sheep.
"... This is HUGE. And it shows that the FBI and DOJ cannot be trusted to return documents. They cannot be trusted to redact properly. In fact, I hate to say this, but they simply cannot be trusted. The top ends – anybody involved with this stuff – needs to be replaced with people who actually follow rules. And that doesn't even get to "spirit of the law", which has to be a really difficult concept for these people. ..."
"... The more i see these texts, the more I think the "insurance policy" is a cya program designed to protect Strozk from being the fall guy in the e-mail investigation. ..."
"... Peter Strozk is President of AFGRO, a CIA front National Security non profit Agency To Facilitate The Growth Of Rural Organizations, Afgro 410 Sugar Pine Drive, Pinehurst, NC 28374 NC 1986-06 $0 http://www.nonprofitfacts.com/VA/Agency-To-Facilitate-The-Growth-Of-Rural-Organizations.html#similarList_a ..."
"... How do the bad guys react to that? Panic, increase texts, comms with each other. Do you think they are being surveilled at this point? The memo serves the purpose of beating the bushes to move the prey into the open. We will get there. ..."
"... I'm sure Jim, Trisha, Dave and Mike all appreciate you mentioning them in this text, and how they are conspiring to hide themselves and their evil deeds from the light. Thanks, Peter! ..."
"... "The 302's are the specific FBI forms used to document interviews/interrogations. They detail questions asked and answers given as well as who was present during the interview." ..."
What FBI Agent Peter Strzok is admitting in the September 10th text message, is that there are details within the interview of
Hillary Clinton that he (and others) intentionally withheld from the September 2nd, 2016, release.
Specifically, evidence withheld in the 302's would be some of the FBI questions and some of the Hillary Clinton answers to those
questions. In essence, the FBI held back actually releasing the full account of the interview.
According to the Strzok text message, the reason for withholding some of the details of the Hillary Clinton interview is because
there are "very INFLAMMATORY things" within it; and once congress finds out what was withheld the details will "absolutely
inflame" them.
Peter Strzok then goes on to say when/if the full FOIA is released, presumably post-election, Jim, Trisha, Dave and Mike are going
to have to figure out how to deal with the discrepancy:
"I'm sure Jim and Trisha and Dave and Mike are all considering how things like that will play out as they talk among themselves."
"Jim" is likely James Baker , the Chief Legal Counsel for FBI Director James Comey .
"Trish" is likely Trisha Beth Anderson , Office of Legal Counsel for the FBI. [Anderson was hired for the DOJ, by AG Eric Holder,
from Eric Holder's law firm.]
"Dave" and "Mike" currently remain unknown.
So it would appear, James Baker and Trisha Anderson, the legal advisers at the top of the FBI leadership apparatus, were both
aware the September 2nd, 2016, FOIA release was manipulated to conceal part of Hillary Clinton's questions and answers.
Perhaps now we can better understand the importance of this specific text message as it
was released by House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte.
This message by Strzok shows a team of FBI officials intentionally conspiring to withhold "inflammatory" Clinton investigation
evidence, from congress. And the decision-making goes directly to the very top leadership within the FBI.
... ... ...
Peter Strzok justifies his knowledge of the intentionally withheld 302 interview material by claiming: "because they weren't relevant
to understanding the focus of the investigation". However, to evaluate the filter this investigative team are applying we only need
to look at the wording of
their public release which accompanied the material:
Today the FBI is releasing a summary of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's July 2, 2016 interview with the FBI concerning
allegations that classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on a personal e-mail server she used during her tenure.
(
link )
They felt obligated only to release information about "classified" or "improperly stored or transmitted" information. That's a
rather disingenuous investigation.
There's no mention of any FBI intent to investigate action or conduct undertaken by Hillary Clinton or her team to hide the use
of classified or improperly stored information; or any intent to look at a cover-up, scrubbing, or conduct that happened AFTER it
was discovered that she unlawfully used a personal e-mail server during her tenure.
We can see from the wording of the FBI public release, and the overlay of the text message from interviewer Peter Strzok, a deliberate
effort to inquire into only the surface issues of classified information transmission and storage. There was no investigative intent
to go beyond that, and no information released, intentionally, that might disclose any larger issues.
If the FBI was legitimately conducting an investigation, and providing the subsequent evidence from within that investigation,
the FOIA would include all material relevant to the investigation, which would include all 302 (essentially Q&A) pages. However,
the set of questions and answers the FBI released on Sept. 2nd 2016 was not the full set of Questions and Answers. They withheld
something, likely "inflammatory", per FBI Agent Strzok. FBI Agent Peter Strzok is outlining in this text message a deliberate intent
to shape the Clinton interview, and then a deliberative process of filtering out only those aspects of the interview that would support
their pre-determined outcome, delivered only days later.
Additionally, FBI Agent Strzok is admitting that a group of FBI officials including himself, James Baker, Trisha Anderson, Lisa
Page, and likely others (McCabe, Comey) conspired together to intentionally withhold information -derived from this interview- from
congress and the American people.
Being briefed on how to handle classified material
How many times she used her authority to designate items classified
Any briefing on how to handle very top-secret "Special Access Program" material
How to select a target for a drone strike
How the data from her mobile devices was destroyed when she switched devices
The number of times her staff was given a secure phone
Why she didn't get a secure Blackberry
Receiving any emails she thought should not be on the private system
Did not remember giving staff direction to create private email account
Getting guidance from state on email policy
Who had access to her Blackberry account
The process for deleting her emails
Ever getting a message that her storage was almost full
Anyone besides Huma Abedin being offered an account on the private server
Being sent information on state government private emails being hacked
Receiving cable on State Dept personnel securing personal email accounts
Receiving cable on Bryan Pagliano upgrading her server
Using an iPad mini
An Oct. 13, 2012, email on Egypt with Clinton pal Sidney Blumenthal
Jacob Sullivan using personal email
State Department protocol for confirming classified information in media reports
Every briefing she received after suffering concussions
Being notified of a FOIA request on Dec. 11, 2012
Being read out of her clearance
Any further access to her private email account from her State Department tenure after switching to her HRC office.com account.
Secretary Clinton could not recall when she received her security clearance or whether it was carried over from her time in the
Senate. She also could not recall any briefing or training by the State Department "related to the retention of federal records or
the handling of classified information."
Secretary Clinton said she was briefed on Special Access Programs -- the top-level classification of U.S. intelligence -- but
could not recall the specific training or briefings on how to handle that information. Additional discoveries from September 2016:
DISCOVERY ONE : Clinton Deleted Her Private Email Archive "A Few Weeks After The New York Times Disclosed" The
Private Server. Viser Tweet: "A few weeks after the NYT disclosed that Hillary Clinton had a private email account, her archive inbox
was deleted." ( Twitter.com , 9/2/16)
DISCOVERY TWO : Clinton Did Not Know The (C) Mark Meant Classified And Did Not "Pay Attention To Diff Classification Levels."
Seitz-Wald Tweet: "Clinton said she didn't know what (c) mark meant, didn't pay attn to diff classification levels, treated all srsly."
( Twitter.com , 9/2/16)
DISCOVERY THREE : "There Were 17,448 Work-Related Emails That Clinton Didn't Turn Over To The State Inspector General."
( Twitter.com , 9/2/16)
DISCOVERY FOUR : As Secretary Of State Clinton "Had 13 Mobile Devices And 5 iPads" With Her Private Email. Viser Tweet:
"Hillary Clinton, who said she had her private email for convenience, had 13 mobile devices and 5 iPads, according to FBI." (
Twitter.com , 9/2/16)
DISCOVERY FIVE : Clinton's Lawyers Could Not Locate The Mobile Devices With Her Email Address.. Viser Tweet: 'FBI found
13 total mobile devices associated with Clinton's 2 phone numbers. Her lawyers couldn't locate the devices" (
Twitter.com , 9/2/16)
DISCOVERY SIX : "The FBI Determined That Clinton Brought Her Blackberry Into A Secure Area At State, Which Is Prohibited."
( Twitter.com , 9/2/16)
DISCOVERY SEVEN : Clinton's Email Archive Was Transferred Onto A Personal Gmail Address To Help Archive The Records. Zapotosky
Tweet: "In 2014, in an effort to transfer an archive of Clinton emails from a laptop onto a server, someone used a personal Gmail
address to help" ( Twitter.com , 9/2/16)
DISCOVERY EIGHT : Clinton Deleted Her Emails Because She Thought "She Didn't Need Them Anymore." Cilizza Tweet: 'Clinton
told the FBI she deleted her emails because she didn't need them anymore not to avoid FOIA"(
Twitter.com , 9/2/16)
DISCOVERY NINE : Someone Tried To Hack Into Clinton's iCloud Account. Viser Tweet: "The FBI found that someone was trying
to hack into Hillary Clinton's iCloud account. They were unsuccessful." (
Twitter.com , 9/2/16)
DISCOVERY TEN : "Hillary Clinton Sent Out An Email To All State Employees Warning Them Against Using Personal Email Addresses."
( Twitter.com , 9/2/16)
BONUS DISCOVERY : "The Phrase 'Could Not Recall' Or 'Did Not Recall' Appears 27 Times In Hillary Clinton FBI Interview
Transcript." ( Twitter.com , 9/2/16)
Sundance broke the case. This is it. They FORMED the response to hide ALL THAT WAS NEEDED TO BE HIDDEN. And they didn't just wheedle
around the edge of responsiveness (which is utterly repellent but "legal") – they actually over-specified their response (a form
of weaponized bullsh*tting) to NOT RETURN RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS.
This is HUGE. And it shows that the FBI and DOJ cannot be trusted to return documents. They cannot be trusted to redact
properly. In fact, I hate to say this, but they simply cannot be trusted. The top ends – anybody involved with this stuff – needs
to be replaced with people who actually follow rules. And that doesn't even get to "spirit of the law", which has to be a really
difficult concept for these people.
The Clinton email investigation in my mind is far more important than even the Foundation because it ties it right back to BHO
and the 20 emails he has held onto because he claimed Executive Privilege. The fact that his POS Library will not have any paper
archives tells me they cannot ever have them seen by the public. The problem for both POS is that the case has been reopened with
a review occurring by the current head of the DOJ and FBI and if any charges are brought forward, Barry's Executive Privilege
goes out the window. Love the fact Don Jr. is pushing it!
"Wow. This is all so evil and corrupt. I am afraid that normal people who have not been following this closely as we all have
will just not believe it because it is so so bad."
__________________
They won't have a choice, it will be a paradigm-shifting event (like DJT winning the election was).
They will not be able to 'avoid' the 'reality' because that reality will impact and influence everything going forward. The
only way to remain in denial will be to hide on an island, like a Japanese soldier from WWII apparently did for quite a while
after the war ended.
Very, very few people will be able to take that route
For those who desperately don't want to believe the plain truth about these horrifically evil people they have looked up to
for so long, it may seem like the therapy treatment in A Clockwork Orange (sans Ludwig Von Bethoven's Ninth symphony),
but believe it they will!
This is exactly right. And this is just the FBI. We also know the State Department was corrupt and intertwined in protecting Clinton
and the assets of the Clinton Foundation. These employees are repugnant, and so are the media who covered for all of this mess.
Maybe, though, this is now breaking through -- between the online diligence of Sundance, WikiLeaks, the never-give-up heroes
at Judicial Watch, President Trump and his Cabinet, and every patriotic commenter/blogger/reporter, certain folks in Congress
now seem to be getting this message.
HRC is clearly not as ignorant as her I-don't-remember responses indicate. She knew nearly everything that needed to be destroyed,
and she was clearly able to remember a comprehensive attorney provided list of items not to remember during her interview.
I just realized something today. We see the bizarre hypocrisy in the CIC Forum meltdown that Hillary had, where Matt Lauer
says "So judgment is key." and Hillary responds "Temperament and judgment." – POINTEDLY – but THEN she goes into a jaw-dropping
rant about Lauer behind the scenes, even calling Donna Brazile a "buffalo". The absolute opposite of a "good" temperament.
However, that hypocrisy is FULLY intended. She is FIXING stuff with lies. It's what she does. Do what she wants, toward a hidden
goal, and fix it with lies.
She is NOT ignorant – EVEN of her own faults, flaws, and dangers. She KNOWS she is everything she accuses Trump of falsely.
Think how evil that is. It is EYES WIDE OPEN evil. Not delusional. She knows exactly what she's doing.
Cookstoves again, but this revelation is interesting. Cookstoves initiative wasn't even launched yet! So, what was she up to in
Jakarta? "One former Diplomatic Security agent, for example, told FBI investigators that Clinton "blatantly" disregarded State
Department security protocols while she was secretary of state. The former agent alleged that Clinton would ride to foreign diplomatic
functions with top aide Huma Abedin, instead of the local ambassador, which the agent said violated normal procedure and embarrassed
and insulted the ambassadors.
The former agent also said that on an early 2009 trip to Jakarta, Indonesia, Clinton insisted on visiting a troubled area to
promote a clean-cookstoves initiative, despite a request from Diplomatic Security that the visit be scrapped for safety concerns.
The agent said Diplomatic Security officials thought the trip placed staff, security and even reporters in danger, all for a photo
opportunity "for her election campaign." https://www.pressherald.com/2016/10/17/fbi-pressured-to-change-classification-of-about-email/
But a case case can even be made for intent- strong enough it should have been brought before a grand jury. Hillary was told she
shouldn't have a classified blackberry like Obama, emails about just remove the headers, destroying emails, not following state
dept policy and procedures, having the maid go in the scif all sorts of evidence of intent.
The FBI narrowed the investigation such that the handling classified material was never investigated. That's a favorite trick
of investigators – narrow what is being investigated to particular issues.
Katica's stuff was the beginning of sunlight on what the FBI was intentionally missing, with "Stonetear". This showed that the
Clinton people were engaged in altering evidence, which is SUPPOSED to be a big deal. Then add ALL the likely culprits getting
immunity, but NOTHING that would be worth immunity coming out. The whole thing is a beautiful logic exercise in letting her off.
It's designed opaqueness. If they basically make it impossible for any straight line to make it through all their small wickets
of "allowed" evidence, in the end NOTHING GETS THROUGH.
The rules about "no public charges near an election" is clearly a weaponized fallacy. THAT must end. It's very, very obvious
how the subverting forces used that one. Again – they fight the sunlight. Darkness is their primary weapon.
Latest over on Yo Who is that state dept (and perhaps other) employees are in "career purgatory" in positions they aren't suited
for. I commented that is definitely an interesting way of putting it. Like Bruce, Nellie, Peter (how's that HR working for you?).
I think you raised the idea in an earlier post that maybe these two were not having an affair. Maybe, maybe not. But, thinking
about these I suspect some of these on Strozk. He knew this was an FBI phone and these would be archived. These messages were part
of his insurance policy. I suspect he planted information in various spots implicating higher ups. Why else would he send a text
like this. If he was having an affair, why wouldn't he just tell Lisa Page this when they get together. Digging in to this text alone
develops a trail to very specific information and actions. He is saying they intentionally withheld information, establishing intent
for the parties involved.
The more i see these texts, the more I think the "insurance policy" is a cya program designed to protect Strozk from being the
fall guy in the e-mail investigation. If trump wins, he knows that all the info about how they manipulated the e-mail investigation
is going to come out. I dont know if this insurance policy was just a set of passive crumbs, or involved the active use of the dossier.
The dossier could just be the leverage used against trump to get him to overlook all the illegal surveillance and drop everything.
Interesting. Even if he just did it subconsciously, I think you're right. If Hillary wins, the "inflammatory" text doesn't matter.
If Trump wins, it shows "redeeming consciousness of guilt", where he is essentially proving it wasn't his idea.
That's why I keep going back to this being the possible reason they are still on the payroll. The government white hats
have much more leverage over current employees than they do over former employees.
Niagra Frontier: But Page and Strzok (why couldn't his name be Smith so I don't have to keep looking it up) .would know
that it is easier to control them if they stay employed and would want out unless they were given something, immunity,
perhaps. Right? As far as covering your a.. in the emails, absolutely. Most white collar career people know how to cover
themselves in emails and especially lawyers-those in the public arena and in politics. It's a given.
Last Night if I read you right you were picking up on something I think you described it as the Texts almost having a Psy-Ops
feel to it (please correct me if i misinterpret). Perhaps No Ones premise is what you were picking up on the bread crumb feel
of it.
One other possibility that plays in to that theory is Strzok reassuring Page that no one can get the text messages, thereby
giving the breadcrumbs more value.
Another possibility since I believe we have only seen her listed as outbox is that he took defensive measures and she did
not or screwed it up
I hope for once the Clinton "patsies" 1. remain alive and 2. roll over on the Queen.
Seth Richards deserved better, but should have also known better than to work for the Clinton Cartel.
Thank you. I'm glad I saw your comment. I thought the style and wording of Strozk's text is unnatural, as if he's deliberately
leaving clues/evidence or, as you said, cya.
I' m wondering why only the texts between Deep Strozk and Page are being released. What triggered that investigation into them
in the first place? You don't blindly look at FBI agents phones.
"FISA" is a JOKE employed to pacify the sheeples. All that is needed is access to a NSA "inquiry" terminal. Contractors, like
Snowden, and Feral Gov. employees can then retrieve any digital data ever transmitted by whatever mean on anyone, no warrant,
no Fisa, no nothing. Over 100,000 people have this access. Welcome to the USSA, Comrades. ( No disrespect to Russia intended)
Here's a snippet from the text messages that I haven't seen addressed anywhere. Strzok was instructed by Bill to send 2 of his best
agents to work on the Hillary/email investigation. Strozk is worried that the DOJ will have more power and that no one will be there
to guide the investigation in a desired direction. He doesn't like the idea of Laufman (DOJ) "inserting himself" into the investigation.
He tells Page that "..he [BillPreistap?] didn't mean "best" in terms of agents "but what the best outcome" will be.
To me, Strozk
is saying here that Bill Priestap wanted Strzok to work toward the exoneration of HRC. To do this, Strzok thinks he needs to be there,
too, either as one of the two agents or alongside the 2 agents representing the FBI. But that would mean 3 agents, instead of the
usual 2. Page says that they shouldn't go full bore and tells Strzok to insist on having only 2 agents.
She then reminds him that
a future President HRC won't remember or care which side was more heavily stacked. In other words, all that mattered to any of these
people-including HRC -- was bringing a desired outcome.
From reading these texts several times, it is obvious to me that Peter Strzok had been tasked with making sure that HRC skated.
I think someone offered him some kind of future reward -- probably a career promotion on top of the promotion/position his wife received
at SEC.
He expressed a desire to Page to receive credit and recognition for various things. While discussing the option of joining
Mueller's team, he expressed dismay that he wouldn't be receiving any promotions from "Dad" -- whoever that is/was.
In other words, there
was nothing in it for HIM and besides, there was "no there, there." In 2016, he knew his superiors (Priestap, McCabe, and probably
Comey) also wanted to exonerate Clinton.
He was frustrated because they weren't letting him in on their decisions and yet they expected
him to do the dirty work behind the scenes. He knew as early as February 2016 that he was the one who stood to lose the most if their
shenanigans didn't work out-if HRC wasn't exonerated. But it didn't stop with her exoneration because in order to claim his (or their)
promised reward and keep their corruption hidden, they then had to make sure she won the election.
They had to destroy Donald Trump.
When that didn't work, they used their insurance policy (the dossier). The Russia investigation and Sessions' recusal has provided
cover and bought them time to destroy evidence, etc. I am encouraged by the fact that neither of them were enthusiastic about working
for Mueller. It implies that Mueller might not be a black hat. So far, nothing in the texts tells me that Strzok and Page considered
Mueller to be a member of "their team."
The fate and direction of our whole country was subjected to the selfish goals of a few unelected, ambitious bureaucrats. That's
just scary. It was God's hand that brought the election of POTUS Trump in spite of all of their tricks.
I hope Peter Strzok is indicted and that he squeals to high heaven. He can be depended on to serve his own best interests -- in all
situations. That's why they chose him. They saw he was willing to do anything for power and prestige. And he would have gotten it,
too, if it hadn't been for those damn Trump supporters.
He's more like a key anchor point to a very large evil web. He was a precisely placed anchor long ago!!
He has always manipulated every situation or events, to what he wanted. He became a true narcissist that thought he was untouchable.
Texting openly for years with no issues.
Truthfilter said. "From reading these texts several times, it is obvious to me that Peter Strzok had been tasked with making sure
that HRC skated. "
IMO, the plan from the beginning was to keep this firewalled within the FBI, giving distance from DOJ (Lynch), and thus Obama.
Strzok's angst about DOJ interlopers is probably due to his fears about them being straight shooters, and not part of the Hillary
exonerators.
From the start, I've opined that Strzok was Hillary's embed who had great intimidating influence over Priestap and Comey, both
of which seem to be regular career climbers rather than hot-to-trot pusshats or lackeys of the Clintons. I think that some posters
are reading the texts, but misreading Strzok's actual mentality.
I'm not convinced that Strzok is a driver, but it's an interesting angle, and I'll take that under consideration. I see him
more from my old role – a tool to be used. A tool with a will of its own, and a bit too much awareness, and thus a bit of a
danger.
I agree that they're trying to make it LOOK like DOJ isn't fixing it, but they are – we know.
I've seen how this works in my own end of the swamp – FAKE INDEPENDENCE. Basically create a group tasked with a choice where
the outcome is pre-determined, then pass off the result as even-handed, fair, open-minded, independent, etc. In those scenarios
the pattern of individuals and layers is the same – signal cooperation up and in to the core, but signal fairness, party line,
and fake independence downward and outward. Then rig the process in every way you can, using individuals who have LEARNED and
been TRAINED to play the game.
I agree that Strzok is probably a Canklebot, but the place is so highly politicized, that real and fake political leanings
are hard to tell apart. He will also signal differently to different people – maze of mirrors.
I think the bottom line is that they all have their agendas, they all "feel" their independence, but it is the masterful
rigging of social processes which insures the outcome. They are FISH IN A NET. They see bits and pieces of the net and other
disturbances of their world, and act in predictable manners to insure an outcome.
One HAS to look BIG to see the operation. Small details matter to SPOT the bigger unseen things.
DOJ will look innocent outward, but there will be games to insure the outcome. SOME people will sense those games, some
will not, and the latter are fairly useless, to they tend to be task-fulfillers and not deciders. Some will signal the games
openly, but they're risky and better those who will "read between the lines" upward and take part in the games without the
need to speak of them, or who can speak in deflections which are mutually intelligible. CODE. There will be lots of autonomously
arranged code, just like AI creates (since there is no AI, basically – just "I").
This is why they have Trisha B. in the mix. She will be a sharpie who plays the games without a word and without even breaking
her smile, and will not get caught. You can bet that she is keeping DOJ in the loop on how this is going, and they are making
sure that the net leads to the desired catch.
Somebody has to be keeping Hillary aware, however – I think you're absolutely right about that. And I am betting on a woman.
At the bottom of Obama scandals is always racial loyalty and trust. At the bottom of Hillary scandals is sex loyalty and trust.
Just the way it is. Hillary pays men with money, women with power.
These two are my absolutely, positively "MUST HAVES" in terms of perp walks/prison sentences. #1 and #2, respectively,
on my list of people I want to see publicly humiliated and wearing orange jumpsuits.
You KNOW they're controlling this. Holder was very, very artful in having TWO "can we talk?" minions running this show.
And the media KNEW how critical it was to get Crooked Loretta in power. The bigs at Chicago Tribune were the ones sitting
on the Loretta story and broke it to scoop Taitz (under surveillance, surely) when she found it. Then later they hid
the Chicago connections by saying it was USA Today that broke it. ALL those little lies point right back to the truth.
Rigging the AG has been the most masterful yet ESSENTIAL things the other side has done – the greatest flaw in our governmental
system, and the one the bads go for EVERY TIME. But they also know how to weaponize it against the goods, as they did
with Nixon. Br'er Sessions was BRILLIANT to recuse. He spotted the GREATER outside game they were playing. Not recusing
would lead to a Watergate. Now THEY'RE holding the Watergate.
"Strzok's angst about DOJ interlopers is probably due to his fears about them being straight shooters, and not part of the
Hillary exonerators. "
This article on hildabeast in Sept /16 indicates the opposite, the DOJ set the tone of the investigation. The FBI followed
them off the cliff .. Zero is the maestro.
What I meant was that the top dogs in the DOJ were corrupt, but that Strzok was not confident about the cooperation of the
layers below them.
Read my post again. My assumption is that the Lynch was evil, but that the FBI had to guarantee that Lynch was walled
off from any further investigation. Thus, Comey's explanation about having the buck stop in his shop.
Strzok changed the language that Comey originally had, however. That reflects on the relative mindsets and influence
they had in this mind-blowing scandal.
FOX is beginning to sound like they doing some protection work and yeah that text didn't really mean that kinda stuff. We are watching
the Gowdy principle beginning at the only media that has covered any of this. Then again Lachlan Murdoch takes over ..
The implications here are staggering. It means these people completely misled Congress, quite possibly for YEARS. There was
no oversight. And it got so bad, they actually neutered the OIG. So THAT means all the documents – all the redactions – all
the stuff Congress got – it can't be trusted. Anything turned over by either the Clinton or Obama administrations is potentially
BOGUS and/or INCOMPLETE.
It is ONLY because we have gotten the "Stupid Party" FULLY in control of both the White House (with competent anti-Establishment
leadership) and Congress, that we can now see how much bamboozling went on.
Now you know why the smirking Sally Yates spewed out 58 PAGES on why her division had NO oversight from anyone. An entity
unto themselves -- I want to see her and Farkas in dirty orange jumpsuits and shower sandals -- -
All of the criminals are still in positions to remove evidence. I would like to think Wray and Sessions have a handle on everything
but i will believe it when i see it. Strzok would have been fired on the spot at any job. Surely government employees can be fired
for less than making a non politically correct comment.
Even with Sessions and Wray in charge Congress is still having a hard time getting documents from the them. Why is that? Im frustrated
about it and im watching cable news. Makes it worse.
Wray and Sessions (swamp dwellers for most of their careers) are in complete denial about the rampant corruption in their organizations.
This denial is paralyzing them. Sessions yesterday said he'd do everything possible to eliminate the bias in DOJ. Bias Jeff,
seriously? How about the criminality? He just doesn't get it.
Yes. I read this morning that the FBI still has Obama's guy in charge of handling FOIA's. No wonder the FBI is still stonewalling.
I've been on the fence about Wray, but that news pops the black hat on him for me. Maybe future events will have me swapping
it out for a white hat, but I can only judge the evidence I can see.
Do you know where you found that? We were researching a PDF folder the other night that was found in an FBI site. It was
a search for Trump. They were mostly compiled within the time frame that Rogers had announced the shenanigans to the FISC
and when Nellie Ohr got her HAM radio.
I still wonder if these played cover for legal FOIA's but illegal searches?
I believe you are wrong. All critical evidence was already obtained by the OIG investigations. That's why the "missing" texts
were "found" so quickly. They live in a padded room now.
He is also a lawyer who once had his own law firm working with defendants.
"Just prior to re-joining the Justice Department, Laufman operated his own white collar defense law firm and was a
partner at the New York City-based law firm, Kelley Drye."
Why would Strzok outline his and others criminal activity in texts to Lisa Page? Why would he write into a permanent record such
self-incriminating evidence? Is he stupid? This makes no sense to me.
You need to read Sundance more. This is a staged roll out of information leading up to the IG report. With each leak, bad guys
respond and move revealing even more. We need to be patient which is hard to say as I am one of CTH's resident pessimists.
We will get there.
Plus we don't want to step all over PT's big speech.
I am not trying to keep up anymore. The U.S.Gov't is corrupt from top to bottom. Line the 100,000 or so Obama appointees and shoot
them all yesterday. This proves that elections do not matter. If any one here thinks that Sundance will change the way the criminals
do business then you are sadly mistaken. There will never be a trial for anyone above PFC or Cpl.
Peter Strzok is probably being paid at least $164,200.00 + while assigned to HR. What is he doing to earn this? Reporting to the
office daily? Sweeping the floor? What could he be trusted to do? The list must be really short.
Classified documents apparently can be declassified by Julian Assange, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden .. Or subcontractors
with names like Rainbow Sparkles, Sunshine Crackers.
DNC emails can be hacked by ???? and published by Julian Assange. The public reads them only if they are stolen by unknown(s)
and released on the Internet. All murky and elusive without details again. But hey, at least we got to read them!
The classified documents by Obama on his PDB that were sent to 30 people and then shared with the press. We can't see them
..Because, muh CLASSIFIED, unless they are stolen by ?????(someone or something) and distributed by whatever means happen to
be available
Yet, WE, the American people have to beg to see a memorandum written by a Congressman ..because of the sensitivity of the
matter ..classified ..mumble, mumble, mumble.
The American people (the ones that pick up the tab) must go thru several processes (because CLASSIFIED) and years of waiting,
just to be allowed to see the sh*t these morons have pulled.
Due to "the sensitivity of the matter" appears to be subjective, eh?
The memo will eventually come out. It served a purpose to say we have this memo that reveals all. You know how bad the info
is because only a handful of dems actually went to read it. They need deniability.
How do the bad guys react to that? Panic, increase texts, comms with each other. Do you think they are being surveilled
at this point? The memo serves the purpose of beating the bushes to move the prey into the open. We will get there.
Nixon resigned because of an attempt to cover up something he didn't command or know about.
Hillary has been corrupt since '70. She's been doing and covering up since '70. The term "arkancide" was coined to describe
what happens to people who cross the Clintons.
In a fair world, Nixon would have not resigned and Hillary would have fried in an electric chair for the death of Vince
Foster.
Strzok: "I'm sure Jim and Trisha and Dave and Mike are all considering how things like that play out as they talk amongst themselves."
________________
I'm sure Jim, Trisha, Dave and Mike all appreciate you mentioning them in this text, and how they are conspiring to hide
themselves and their evil deeds from the light. Thanks, Peter!
Is Peter purposefully fingering all around him that have involvement, leading up to Barry? This is a strange example of an
office relationship. More like business passion, planned.
"The 302's are the specific FBI forms used to document interviews/interrogations. They detail questions asked and answers given
as well as who was present during the interview."
___________________
We have had tape recorders for what, nearly a hundred years now?
And we have had commercial videotape recorders for nearly 60 years (since 1959).
So what is the point of a "302", except for the FIB to misrepresent, to their own benefit, what transpired in an interview
with a suspect?
Important
to forward Sundance's work product within your own circle of influence, along with all other forums in which you're tuned in.
Grow new branches and spread the fruit of CTH labors.
DETESTATION: Obama, Jarrett, Brennan -- pure evil and the masterminds of spying on their opponents. From the outside, Hillary
had a parallel operation going in concert. All of them satanic without a shred of morals whatsoever.
HATRED: Lynch for being a willing tool and knowledgable about most of it. McCabe, a lowlife bribe taker. Strzok, one that
didn't need bribes to fix every Hillary problem that arose; was quite willing to let a private outfit call the shots on the
hacks, and had his finger in everything else. Page was his eager co-conspirator and also a pusshat cultist who couldn't wait
for the glass-ceiling to break. Fie on all of them.
DISGUST: Comey and Priestap. Ultimate civil service careerists, wormy or weaselly enough to drift with whichever the political
winds blew. Deferred to the blacker of the black hats, even though their instincts about Hillary's criminality had a solid
legal basis. In the end, they caved and groveled for the benefit of their own bureaucratic futures. Not that bright, either.
"Additionally, FBI Agent Strzok is admitting that a group of FBI officials including himself, James Baker, Trisha Anderson,
Lisa Page, and likely others (McCabe, Comey) conspired together to intentionally withhold information -derived from this interview-
from congress and the American people."
_____________________
I'm beginning to suspect that maybe these people aren't exactly on the up-and-up
"Since Thursday night we've been combing the FBI files to figure out exactly what FBI Agent Peter Strzok was referencing in
one of the most recently released text messages."
IMO the inflammatory thing that they weren't releasing on September 2, 2016 I think comes down to what was released in the
9/23/2016 release (the Huma Abedin interview the Obama pseudonym) where Abedin was shown the June 28, 2012 email from the pseudonymous
sender. Hilary Clinton arrived in St. Petersburg on June 28, 2012.
How secure was that email chain? Were the blackberries left on the plane? That kind of thing. Even though it seems Abedin
couldn't figure out the pseudonymous sender was based on the content, I'm sure those with intelligence backgrounds could based
on content of the "Re: Congratulations" if the devices weren't secure.
FBI Comey testifies again as a result of the recent document releases from the FBI. He
appears much more defensive than I have ever seen him before. Ratcliffe is brutal. Issa catches
Comey in a lie about the immunity agreements.
Jordan, Chaffetz, and Gowdy once again just can't
believe how an indictment wasn't warranted.
Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch knew well in advance of FBI Director James Comey's
2016 press conference that he would recommend against charging Hillary Clinton, according to
information turned over to the Senate Homeland Security Committee on Friday.
The revelation was included in 384 pages of text messages exchanged between FBI officials
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, and it significantly diminishes the credibility of Lynch's earlier
commitment to accept Comey's recommendation -- a commitment she made under the pretense that
the two were not coordinating with each other.
And it gets worse. Comey and Lynch reportedly knew that Clinton would never face charges
even before the FBI conducted its three-hour interview with Clinton, which was supposedly meant
to gather more information into her mishandling of classified information.
So much for the director of CIA personal email security ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... A schoolboy hacker impersonated a CIA director to gain access to top secret military reports, a court heard yesterday. Kane Gamble was just 15 when he posed as CIA chief John Brennan from his Leicestershire home, even taking control of his wife's iPad. The teenager gained access to passwords, personal information, security details, contacts lists and sensitive documents about operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. ..."
"... Mr Lloyd-Jones said: 'He told a journalist, "It all started by me getting more and more annoyed at how corrupt and cold-blooded the US government are. So I decided to do something about it".' ..."
A schoolboy hacker impersonated a CIA director to gain access to top secret military
reports, a court heard yesterday. Kane Gamble was just 15 when he posed as CIA chief John Brennan from his Leicestershire
home, even taking control of his wife's iPad. The teenager gained access to passwords, personal information, security details, contacts
lists and sensitive documents about operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Gamble, who founded the pro-Palestinian group 'Crackas With Attitude', taunted the security
service on Twitter about his successes.
During the attacks, which spanned from June 2015 to February 2016, he made hoax calls to Mr
Brennan's family home and took control of his wife's iPad.
His other targets included former deputy director of the FBI Mark Giuliano, secretary of
Homeland Security Jeh Johnson and James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence under
Obama.
He used the phone numbers he obtained to call and taunt his victims and their families, and
take control of their devices.
Gamble, who is autistic, boasted about targeting Mr Clapper's email account and said:
'That's where the juicy s*** is'.
He also pretended to be Mr Clapper to phone communications company Verizon and set up
call-forwarding to divert calls to the Free Palestine movement.
Gamble used Clapper's email to message other officials.
While speaking to an accomplice, he said: 'This email of Clapper's is very useful to fool
these r****d into thinking I'm him. I can't wait lmao [sic].'
He also boasted about carrying out 'the best breach ever' after accessing an FBI database to
get the names of 1,000 staff, including the officer responsible for the controversial shooting
of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.
The information Gamble collected was later used to carry out a 'swatting' attack on John
Holdren, a science and technology adviser to President Barack Obama.
Gamble made a hoax call to Massachusetts police, resulting in armed officers being sent to
the aide's family home.
The information Gamble collected was later used to carry out a 'swatting' attack on John
Holdren, a science and technology adviser to President Barack Obama
+3
The information Gamble collected was later used to carry out a 'swatting' attack on John
Holdren, a science and technology adviser to President Barack Obama
In the days before his arrest Gamble accessed the Department of Justice network using
compromised details he gained from a former employee.
He gathered documents and information relating to offshore drilling rig Deepwater Horizon
and details of more than 9,000 DHA officers and 20,000 FBI members of staff.
These details were posted online with the messages 'This is Free Palestine' and 'Long live
Palestine.'
The Department of Homeland Security spent 40,000 dollars to resolve the problem and suffered
'substantial reputational damage', the court heard.
Gamble was arrested in February 2016 at his council home in Coalville, near Leicester, at
the request of the FBI after he hacked into the Department of Justice network.
Last October, Gamble, of Linford Crescent, Coalville, pleaded guilty at Leicester Crown
Court to eight charges of performing a function with intent to secure unauthorised access to
computers and two charges of unauthorised modification of computer material.
Prosecutor John Lloyd-Jones QC told a sentencing hearing at the Old Bailey: 'Kane Gamble
gained access to the communications accounts of some very high-ranking US intelligence
officials and government employees.
'The group incorrectly have been referred to as hackers. The group in fact used something
known as social engineering, which involves socially manipulating people - call centres or help
desks - into performing acts or divulging confidential information.'
'The group frequently bragged on social media and subjected the victims to online harassment
and abuse.'
The court heard Gamble 'felt particularly strongly' about US backed Israeli violence on
Palestinians, the shooting of black people by US police, racist violence by the KKK and the
bombing of civilians in Iraq and Syria.
Mr Justice Haddon-Cave described Gamble's activity as 'torture in the general sense - he got
these people in control and played with them to make their lives difficult'.
Gamble was allowed to sit next to his mother behind his barrister rather than the dock when
he appeared at the Old Bailey dressed in a dark blue coat.
Gamble also used an anonymous Twitter profile to talk to journalists.
Mr Lloyd-Jones said: 'He told a journalist, "It all started by me getting more and more
annoyed at how corrupt and cold-blooded the US government are. So I decided to do something
about it".'
He is due to be sentenced at the Old Bailey at a later date.
Pargolfer, Billericay, United Kingdom, 2 days ago
Does this not show, that the higher up you are the more you think you are too important to
be hacked? If a 15 year old could do this, how safe is American security? I think you had
better hire him.
oscartheone, London, United Kingdom, 2 days ago
In fact what he actually did was to gain access to the CIA directors hotmail account and
ex po se d the fact the director of the CIA was using hotmail to email top secret documents.
The travesty being it should be the director of the CIA on trial, not Gamble
steviewunda, Warrington, United Kingdom, 2 days ago
Some state he should be given a job, but then others would do outrageous things to put on
their CV for a job in intelligence. We can't be seen to encourage this despicable behaviour,
for any reason.
Villain1874, Villain Park, United Kingdom, 2 days ago
This will either ruin him or make him, if hes smart (which looks that way) he will use his
talents for the better if hes arrogant and tries this again U.S and U.K authorities will
destroy him before he knows whats hit him...
stc6, Stratford upon Avon, United Kingdom, 2 days ago
A talented kid! We should put him to good use but keep him on a tight leash!
CallMeDave, Bury, United Kingdom, 2 days ago
And right this minute the CIA are trying to link him to Russia.
Del, AEglesburgh, United Kingdom, 2 days ago
A lot of suggestions here to employ him. Yes appears to be a clever chap and probably
could do a good job, but he has acted in a criminal manner with intent to cause harm. He's
done this from his house, what damage could he do if employed by a Gov't agency? Temptation
would be too great.
erict, ipswich, United Kingdom, 2 days ago
Well this goes to show intelligent the US homeland security the NSA and the FBI are I'am
surprised the haven't put sanction's on Liestershire Iexpect those who work at HCHQ are
laughing their head's off,
Bad new for "Crooked" Hillary and her sidekick Huma Abedin, as it appears that the
Department of Justice has reopened the investigation into Clinton's use of a private
server.
This follows the release of new evidence showing that Abedin mishandled classified
information.
Fox News' Tucker Carlson details how Abedin could be in legal trouble as Judicial Watch
reveals at least 18 classified emails in the 798 documents recently produced by the State
Department in the Hillary Clinton email probe were found on estranged pedophile husband Anthony
Weiner's laptop.
Huma Abedin forwarded sensitive State Department emails, including passwords to government
systems, to her personal Yahoo email account before
every single Yahoo account was hacked, a Daily Caller News Foundation analysis of emails
released as part of a lawsuit brought by Judicial Watch shows.
Abedin, the top aide to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, used her insecure
personal email provider to conduct sensitive work. This guarantees that an account with
high-level correspondence in Clinton's State Department was impacted by one or more of a series
of breaches -- at least one of which was perpetrated by a "state-sponsored actor."
... ... ...
A separate hack in 2013 compromised three billion accounts across multiple
Yahoo properties, and the culprit is still unclear. "All Yahoo user accounts were affected by
the August 2013 theft," the company said in a statement.
Abedin, Clinton's deputy chief of staff,
regularly forwarded work emails to her personal [email protected] address. "She would
use these accounts if her (State) account was down or if she needed to print an email or
document. Abedin further explained that it was difficult to print from the DoS system so she
routinely forwarded emails to her non-DoS accounts so she could more easily print," an FBI
report says.
Abedin sent
passwords for her government laptop to her Yahoo account on Aug. 24, 2009, an email
released by the State Department in September 2017 shows.
Long-time Clinton confidante Sid
Blumenthal sent Clinton an email in July 2009 with the subject line: "Important. Not for
circulation.
You only . Sid." The message began "CONFIDENTIAL Re: Moscow Summit." Abedin forwarded the
email to her Yahoo address, potentially making it visible to hackers.
The email was deemed too sensitive to release to the public and was redacted before being
published pursuant to the Judicial Watch lawsuit. The released copy says "Classified by DAS/
A/GIS, DoS on 10/30/2015 Class: Confidential." The unredacted portion reads: "I have heard
authoritatively from Bill Drozdiak, who is in Berlin . We should expect that the Germans and
Russians will now cut their own separate deals on energy, regional security, etc."
The three email accounts Abedin used were [email protected], [email protected], and
[email protected]. Though the emails released by the State Department partially redact
personal email addresses, the Yahoo emails are displayed as humamabedin[redacted].
Clinton
forwarded Abedin an email titled "Ambassadors" in March 2009 from Denis McDonough, who served
as foreign policy adviser to former President Barack Obama's campaign and later as White House
chief of staff. The email was heavily redacted before being released to the public.
Stuart Delery, chief of staff to the deputy attorney general, sent a draft memo titled
"PA/PLO
Memo" in May 2009, seemingly referring to two Palestinian groups. The content was withheld
from the public with large letters spelling "Page Denied." Abedin forwarded it to her Yahoo
account.
Abedin routed sensitive information through Yahoo
multiple times, such as notes on a call with the U.N. secretary-general, according to
messages released under the lawsuit. Contemporaneous news reports documented the security
weaknesses of Yahoo while Abedin continued to use it. Credentials to 450,000 Yahoo accounts had
been posted online, a July 2012 CNN
article reported.
Five days later , Abedin forwarded sensitive information to her personal Yahoo email.
Abedin received an email "with the subject 'Re: your yahoo acct.' Abedin did not recall the
email and provided that despite the content of the email she was not sure that her email
account had ever been compromised," on Aug. 16, 2010, an
FBI report says.
The FBI also asked her about sending other sensitive information to Yahoo. "Abedin was shown
an email dated October 4, 2009 with the subject 'Fwd: US interest in Pak Paper 10-04' which
Abedin received from [redacted] and then forwarded to her Yahoo email account . At the time of
the email, [redacted] worked for Richard Holbrooke who was the Special Representative for
Afghanistan and Pakistan (SRAP). Abedin was unaware of the classification of the document and
stated that she did not make judgments on the classification of materials that she received,"
the report said.
Wednesday on Fox News Channel's "Fox & Friends" former Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT)
said the deep state was "very real."
Co-host Steve Doocy said, "Today is going to be a big day because Devin Nunes has subpoenaed
a bunch of records from the Department of Justice, We will find out exactly how many of them
show up and how many of them are blacked out. John Solomon has some good reporting over at The
Hill where they revealed yesterday that there is written evidence that apparently the FBI
believed that laws were broken regarding the Hillary Clinton email scandal. And it looks like
that the IT guy covered things up when he -- even though they were subpoenaing the email
records -- he went and BleachBit it or whatever he did to it to destroy the hard drive."
Chaffetz said, "There was hammers, there was BleachBit. When you listen to James Comey back
in July of 2016, you really thought that she was actually to get indicted. But this is a closed
case. So there no reason why the Department of Justice should hold back any documents from the
Congress."
Doocy asked, "Well, then why are they?"
Chaffetz answered, "Well, the key you that you need to listen for today is, I guarantee you,
the Department of Justice will tout how many documents they are turning over. The question that
Trey Gowdy always asked, which is the right one, is what percentage of the documents? Because,
if you want 100 percent of the truth on a closed case, then turn over all the documents. But I
don't think they're going to do it. They've been asking for these documents under subpoena
since August, and they still haven't gotten them."
Doocy asked, "Is it the deep state?"
Chaffetz said, "It is the deep state. I was a little skeptical of what does that mean, but
I'm telling you, having lived through it, it is very real."
Looks like this became high stake game bewrrn various faction in Intelligence agencies and
the Department of Defense again... It is unclear why NSA hiding this emails -- they definitely
intercepted them all.
Notable quotes:
"... Notably, lawmakers on the House Judiciary Committee who attended a Dec. 21 closed-door briefing by FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe say the bureau official confirmed that the investigation and charging decisions were controlled by a small group in Washington headquarters rather the normal process of allowing field offices to investigate possible criminality in their localities. ..."
"... A House GOP lawmaker told The Hill his staff also has identified at least a dozen interviews that were conducted after the drafting effort began , including of some figures who would have key information about intent or possible destruction of evidence. ..."
"... Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley's (R-Iowa) staff has a higher number: 17 witnesses including Clinton were interviewed after the decision was already made. ..."
"... "Making a conclusion before you interview key fact witnesses and the subject herself violates the very premise of good investigation. You don't lock into a theory until you have the facts. Here the evidence that isn't public yet shows they locked into the theory and then edited out the facts that contradicted it," the GOP lawmaker said, speaking only on condition of anonymity because the documents are not yet authorized for release. ..."
"... The deletion occurred on the same day Clinton's former chief of staff and her lawyer had a call with the computer firm that handled the erasure using an anti-recovery software called BleachBit, Grassley said. ..."
In what could be a major black eye for the deep state and yet another nail in the Clinton
legacy coffin,
The Hill's John Solomon reports that Republicans on key congressional committees say they
have uncovered new irregularities and contradictions inside the FBI's probe of Hillary
Clinton's email server.
"This was an effort to pre-bake the cake, pre-bake the outcome," said Rep. Matt Gaetz
(R-Fla.), a House Judiciary Committee member who attended the McCabe briefing before the
holidays.
"Hillary Clinton obviously benefited from people taking actions to ensure she wasn't held
accountable."
In what appears to be clear evidence confirming previous fears of favoritism and
prejudice within the FBI,
lawmakers and investigators told Solomon at The Hill that, for the first time,
investigators say they have secured written evidence that the FBI believed there was evidence
that some laws were broken when the former secretary of State and her top aides transmitted
classified information through her insecure private email server.
That evidence includes passages in FBI documents stating the "sheer volume" of classified
information that flowed through Clinton's insecure emails was proof of criminality as well as
an admission of false statements by one key witness in the case , the investigators said.
The name of the witness is redacted from the FBI documents but lawmakers said he was an
employee of a computer firm that helped maintain her personal server after she left office as
America's top diplomat and who belatedly admitted he had permanently erased an archive of her
messages in 2015 after they had been subpoenaed by Congress.
The investigators also confirmed that the FBI began drafting a statement exonerating
Clinton of any crimes while evidence responsive to subpoenas was still outstanding and before
agents had interviewed more than a dozen key witnesses.
Those witnesses included Clinton and the computer firm employee who permanently erased her
email archives just days after the emails were subpoenaed by Congress, the investigators
said.
Notably, lawmakers on the House Judiciary Committee who attended a Dec. 21 closed-door
briefing by FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe say the bureau official confirmed that the
investigation and charging decisions were controlled by a small group in Washington
headquarters rather the normal process of allowing field offices to investigate possible
criminality in their localities.
The top Democrat on the panel even acknowledged the FBI's handling of the case was unique,
but, of course, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y) argued Republicans are politicizing their own
panel's work.
Rep. Gaetz said he has growing questions about the role the Obama Justice Department played
in the case.
"I think we have more questions than answers based on what we've learned," Gaetz said.
A House GOP lawmaker
told The Hill his staff also has identified at least a dozen interviews that were conducted
after the drafting effort began , including of some figures who would have key information
about intent or possible destruction of evidence.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley's (R-Iowa) staff has a higher number: 17
witnesses including Clinton were interviewed after the decision was already made.
"Making a conclusion before you interview key fact witnesses and the subject herself
violates the very premise of good investigation. You don't lock into a theory until you have
the facts. Here the evidence that isn't public yet shows they locked into the theory and then
edited out the facts that contradicted it," the GOP lawmaker said, speaking only on condition
of anonymity because the documents are not yet authorized for release.
The longtime Senate chairman went to the Senate floor before the holidays to raise another
concern: the FBI did not pursue criminal charges when Clinton's email archives were permanently
deleted from her private server days after a subpoena for them was issued by a congressional
committee investigating the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi.
The deletion occurred on the same day Clinton's former chief of staff and her lawyer had a
call with the computer firm that handled the erasure using an anti-recovery software called
BleachBit, Grassley said.
"You have a conference call with Secretary Clinton's attorneys on March 31, 2015, and on
that very same day her emails are deleted by someone who was on that conference call using
special BleachBit software," Grassley said. "The emails were State Department records under
subpoena by Congress.
"What did the FBI do to investigate this apparent obstruction?" Grassley asked. "According
to affidavits filed in federal court -- absolutely nothing. The FBI focused only on the
handling of classified information."
As The Hill notes, both parties are likely to learn more in the first quarter of 2018 when
the Justice Department inspector general is expected to release initial findings in what has
become a wide-ranging probe into the FBI's handling of the Clinton email case as well as
whether agents and supervisors had political connections, ethical conflicts or biases that
affected their work.
While the resistance tries to switch the narrative to Papadopoulos, and away from Page and
the Trump Dossier, it is becoming clearer and clearer where the real corruption was all the
time.
The minimum requirement to be found guilty of mishandling of States Secrets is Gross
Negligence. It's why Criminals at Large Comey, Muellar &
Strzok changed the language in their report.
An earlier draft included tougher language describing Clinton as "grossly negligent."
Comey then used a softer tone, saying Clinton was "extremely careless" in her use of private
emails. According to federal law, "gross negligence" in handling the nation's intelligence is
a felony.
"If the government puts into your hand for safe keeping [the] state's secrets and you
failed to keep them safe by intentionally exposing them or grossly negligently exposing them,
you can be prosecuted," Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano said during
an interview with FOX Business' Stuart Varney.
According to kimdotcom, and i think Snowden, all they have to do is open up a program
called xkeyscore and type in her email address. They will all be there.
Set aside for a moment that most/all of the suspect emails are on Weiner's infamous
laptop.
When Killary wrote those emails, she didn't write them to herself. She was writing them to
members of her staff and to others within the administration. The fact that she had her
private server wiped (with a cloth) doesn't mean they have been eliminated.
There's no need to ping the NSA. All of those emails are available on servers of her email
recipients, most of whom are government employees. Simply subpoena this evidence on State
Dept. servers, all of which are backed up. It's not that hard.
Weiner's laptop seems to be the only possible wildcard, or so it was thought. Otherwise,
we know HRC's people took steps to physically destroy all devices that may have possibly
recorded email traffic. I don't think we can expect any of the rest of HRC's people are as
reckless as Weiner. And none of those people would dare blackmail her or intentionally expose
her because they all know good and well that the Clintons kill their enemies.
I told you guys that federal investigations take time, and that you won't see any apparent
movement until they are ready to make arrests.
Happened to a friend of a friend. Ran a meat market that was fraudulently trading food
stamps for cash. One day they showed up to find the door had been kicked down and the place
had been raided. They got arrested. Turned out he had been under investigation for THREE
FUCKING YEARS. Had him so dead to rights he didn't bother with an attorney. Plead guilty and
they went easy on him.
"The investigators also confirmed that the FBI began drafting a statement exonerating
Clinton of any crimes while evidence responsive to subpoenas was still outstanding and before
agents had interviewed more than a dozen key witnesses."
Lock her up, fire Jeff Sessions, let justice be done tho' the heavens fall.
Hillary broke the law. Comey even knew it and said so until his "gross negligence"
(criminal charges warranted) was changed to "extremely careless" (no criminal charges
warranted) by Clinton supporter Strzok. So do something about it Red Team that controls both
Houses, the Presidency, and the DOJ.
One big fucking yawn. Yet another ZH story regarding Killary and FBI impropriety.
Killary is immune. Given the treasonous cunts residing on Capitol Hill and the
institutions tasked with bringing her to just being exposed as thoroughly corrupted.
I'd say drop the whining and make peace with this fact. Those at the top of the FBI are
also immune. The whole system is rotten.
those deleted emails (scrubbed, like, with a cloth) no doubt contaned details of
pornography/pedophilia, the wishes of the muslim brotherhood to pilfer tax payer money and
lump sum contributions to the CF/CGI in exchange for multiple repayments of US tax payer
funds via "executive orders" from Obama or DoS favors for a bunch of things.
dot.........dot.........dot
the clintons were running a racket at federal level - siphoning money to and from moslems
for arms/influence, coordinated by the activities of abedin and the awan brothers, protected
by obama's "equal opportunity" witches cabal of pink hat wearers, peple of color with lower
iq'spromoted way above their ability, capped off by concealing the activities of child sex
perverts on epsteins islands and weiners computers and the murders of people like Seth
Rich.
Most grow impatient with you sir. They do not consider that the entire Justice Dept and
FBI are stacked with what are called "our greatest legal minds" and "most highly experienced
investigators". Some of us understand that it takes a little time to build your case and
overcome such a deck stacked against you.
LOCK COMEY and McCabe and Peter STOKE?? What ever his name and OHR and Lisa Page and
CLINTON AND HUMA UP - along with Podesta brothers. Then add Frank Guistra and Ian Telfer -
the Canadian money men. ALL CORRUPT
Then go after Loretta Lynch and Susan Rice and LOCK them UP
Wow. FBI does a reverse autopsy, determining the cause of death prior to an investigation
of evidence. There ought to be one count of obstruction of justice for every missing email.
Gross negligence, dereliction of duty, espionage, treason, throw the book at it.
More and more evidence piles up. More and more statements from Republicans. Will there be
any charges? Will anything at all happen? No. And that, my friends, is what is actually baked
into the cake.
This article merely confirms what everybody already knew. Ok, so now it's time to turn the
tables and investigate all these bitchezz with interrogations under hot lights.
I'm positive Most realize the important thing is the continued delegitimization of the FBI
and Justice Department at the top and the obvious fact these are the exact people who started
the Russia collusion garbage. I don't care if Crooked,Huma,Comey.Lynch or the rest go to
jail, I do care that showing this blatant abuse of power is something many of us have wanted
to expose irrefutably once and for all. It goes on every day and every damn Way..Senator
Stevens of Alaska or Bundy ...every damn day
Benjamin Wittes, Comey's worshipful sycophant, wrote this back in May 2016 about candidate
Trump. The operation was already underway.
"The soft spot, the least tyrant-proof part of the government, is the U.S. Department of
Justice and the larger law enforcement and regulatory apparatus of the United States
government. The first reason you should fear a Donald Trump presidency is what he would do to
the ordinary enforcement functions of the federal government , not the most extraordinary
ones. . . .
"A prosecutor -- and by extension, a tyrant president who directs that prosecutor -- can
harass or target almost anyone, and he can often do so without violating any law. He doesn't
actually need to indict the person, though that can be fun. He needs only open an
investigation; that alone can be ruinous. The standards for doing so, criminal predication,
are not high. And the fabric of American federal law -- criminal and civil law alike -- is so
vast that a huge number of people and institutions of consequence are ripe for some sort of
meddling from authorities."
It you need to read a singe article analyzing current anti-Russian hysteria in the USA this in the one you should read. This is
an excellent article Simply great !!! And as of December 2017 it represents the perfect summary of Russiagate, Hillary defeat and, Neo-McCarthyism
campaign launched as a method of hiding the crisis of neoliberalism revealed by Presidential elections. It also suggest that growing
jingoism of both Parties (return to Madeleine Albright's 'indispensable nation' bulling. Both Trump and Albright assume that the
United States should be able to do as it pleases in the international arena) and loss of the confidence and paranoia of the US
neoliberal elite.
It contain many important observation which in my view perfectly catch the complexity of the current Us political landscape.
Bravo to Jackson Lears !!!
Notable quotes:
"... Neoliberals celebrate market utility as the sole criterion of worth; interventionists exalt military adventure abroad as a means of fighting evil in order to secure global progress ..."
"... Sanders is a social democrat and Trump a demagogic mountebank, but their campaigns underscored a widespread repudiation of the Washington consensus. For about a week after the election, pundits discussed the possibility of a more capacious Democratic strategy. It appeared that the party might learn something from Clinton's defeat. Then everything changed. ..."
"... A story that had circulated during the campaign without much effect resurfaced: it involved the charge that Russian operatives had hacked into the servers of the Democratic National Committee, revealing embarrassing emails that damaged Clinton's chances. With stunning speed, a new centrist-liberal orthodoxy came into being, enveloping the major media and the bipartisan Washington establishment. This secular religion has attracted hordes of converts in the first year of the Trump presidency. In its capacity to exclude dissent, it is like no other formation of mass opinion in my adult life, though it recalls a few dim childhood memories of anti-communist hysteria during the early 1950s. ..."
"... The centrepiece of the faith, based on the hacking charge, is the belief that Vladimir Putin orchestrated an attack on American democracy by ordering his minions to interfere in the election on behalf of Trump. The story became gospel with breathtaking suddenness and completeness. Doubters are perceived as heretics and as apologists for Trump and Putin, the evil twins and co-conspirators behind this attack on American democracy. ..."
"... Like any orthodoxy worth its salt, the religion of the Russian hack depends not on evidence but on ex cathedra pronouncements on the part of authoritative institutions and their overlords. Its scriptural foundation is a confused and largely fact-free 'assessment' produced last January by a small number of 'hand-picked' analysts – as James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, described them – from the CIA, the FBI and the NSA. ..."
"... It is not the first time the intelligence agencies have played this role. When I hear the Intelligence Community Assessment cited as a reliable source, I always recall the part played by the New York Times in legitimating CIA reports of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's putative weapons of mass destruction, not to mention the long history of disinformation (a.k.a. 'fake news') as a tactic for advancing one administration or another's political agenda. Once again, the established press is legitimating pronouncements made by the Church Fathers of the national security state. Clapper is among the most vigorous of these. He perjured himself before Congress in 2013, when he denied that the NSA had 'wittingly' spied on Americans – a lie for which he has never been held to account. ..."
"... In May 2017, he told NBC's Chuck Todd that the Russians were highly likely to have colluded with Trump's campaign because they are 'almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favour, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique'. The current orthodoxy exempts the Church Fathers from standards imposed on ordinary people, and condemns Russians – above all Putin – as uniquely, 'almost genetically' diabolical. ..."
"... It's hard for me to understand how the Democratic Party, which once felt scepticism towards the intelligence agencies, can now embrace the CIA and the FBI as sources of incontrovertible truth. One possible explanation is that Trump's election has created a permanent emergency in the liberal imagination, based on the belief that the threat he poses is unique and unprecedented. It's true that Trump's menace is viscerally real. But the menace posed by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney was equally real. ..."
"... Trump is committed to continuing his predecessors' lavish funding of the already bloated Defence Department, and his Fortress America is a blustering, undisciplined version of Madeleine Albright's 'indispensable nation'. Both Trump and Albright assume that the United States should be able to do as it pleases in the international arena: Trump because it's the greatest country in the world, Albright because it's an exceptional force for global good. ..."
"... Besides Trump's supposed uniqueness, there are two other assumptions behind the furore in Washington: the first is that the Russian hack unquestionably occurred, and the second is that the Russians are our implacable enemies. ..."
"... So far, after months of 'bombshells' that turn out to be duds, there is still no actual evidence for the claim that the Kremlin ordered interference in the American election. Meanwhile serious doubts have surfaced about the technical basis for the hacking claims. Independent observers have argued it is more likely that the emails were leaked from inside, not hacked from outside. On this front, the most persuasive case was made by a group called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, former employees of the US intelligence agencies who distinguished themselves in 2003 by debunking Colin Powell's claim that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, hours after Powell had presented his pseudo-evidence at the UN. ..."
"... The crucial issue here and elsewhere is the exclusion from public discussion of any critical perspectives on the orthodox narrative, even the perspectives of people with professional credentials and a solid track record. ..."
"... Sceptical voices, such as those of the VIPS, have been drowned out by a din of disinformation. Flagrantly false stories, like the Washington Post report that the Russians had hacked into the Vermont electrical grid, are published, then retracted 24 hours later. Sometimes – like the stories about Russian interference in the French and German elections – they are not retracted even after they have been discredited. These stories have been thoroughly debunked by French and German intelligence services but continue to hover, poisoning the atmosphere, confusing debate. ..."
"... The consequence is a spreading confusion that envelops everything. Epistemological nihilism looms, but some people and institutions have more power than others to define what constitutes an agreed-on reality. ..."
"... More genuine insurgencies are in the making, which confront corporate power and connect domestic with foreign policy, but they face an uphill battle against the entrenched money and power of the Democratic leadership – the likes of Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, the Clintons and the DNC. Russiagate offers Democratic elites a way to promote party unity against Trump-Putin, while the DNC purges Sanders's supporters. ..."
"... Fusion GPS eventually produced the trash, a lurid account written by the former British MI6 intelligence agent Christopher Steele, based on hearsay purchased from anonymous Russian sources. Amid prostitutes and golden showers, a story emerged: the Russian government had been blackmailing and bribing Donald Trump for years, on the assumption that he would become president some day and serve the Kremlin's interests. In this fantastic tale, Putin becomes a preternaturally prescient schemer. Like other accusations of collusion, this one has become vaguer over time, adding to the murky atmosphere without ever providing any evidence. ..."
"... Yet the FBI apparently took the Steele dossier seriously enough to include a summary of it in a secret appendix to the Intelligence Community Assessment. Two weeks before the inauguration, James Comey, the director of the FBI, described the dossier to Trump. After Comey's briefing was leaked to the press, the website Buzzfeed published the dossier in full, producing hilarity and hysteria in the Washington establishment. ..."
"... The Steele dossier inhabits a shadowy realm where ideology and intelligence, disinformation and revelation overlap. It is the antechamber to the wider system of epistemological nihilism created by various rival factions in the intelligence community: the 'tree of smoke' that, for the novelist Denis Johnson, symbolised CIA operations in Vietnam. ..."
"... Yet the Democratic Party has now embarked on a full-scale rehabilitation of the intelligence community – or at least the part of it that supports the notion of Russian hacking. (We can be sure there is disagreement behind the scenes.) And it is not only the Democratic establishment that is embracing the deep state. Some of the party's base, believing Trump and Putin to be joined at the hip, has taken to ranting about 'treason' like a reconstituted John Birch Society. ..."
"... The Democratic Party has now developed a new outlook on the world, a more ambitious partnership between liberal humanitarian interventionists and neoconservative militarists than existed under the cautious Obama. This may be the most disastrous consequence for the Democratic Party of the new anti-Russian orthodoxy: the loss of the opportunity to formulate a more humane and coherent foreign policy. The obsession with Putin has erased any possibility of complexity from the Democratic world picture, creating a void quickly filled by the monochrome fantasies of Hillary Clinton and her exceptionalist allies. ..."
"... For people like Max Boot and Robert Kagan, war is a desirable state of affairs, especially when viewed from the comfort of their keyboards, and the rest of the world – apart from a few bad guys – is filled with populations who want to build societies just like ours: pluralistic, democratic and open for business. This view is difficult to challenge when it cloaks itself in humanitarian sentiment. There is horrific suffering in the world; the US has abundant resources to help relieve it; the moral imperative is clear. There are endless forms of international engagement that do not involve military intervention. But it is the path taken by US policy often enough that one may suspect humanitarian rhetoric is nothing more than window-dressing for a more mundane geopolitics – one that defines the national interest as global and virtually limitless. ..."
"... The prospect of impeaching Trump and removing him from office by convicting him of collusion with Russia has created an atmosphere of almost giddy anticipation among leading Democrats, allowing them to forget that the rest of the Republican Party is composed of many politicians far more skilful in Washington's ways than their president will ever be. ..."
"... They are posing an overdue challenge to the long con of neoliberalism, and the technocratic arrogance that led to Clinton's defeat in Rust Belt states. Recognising that the current leadership will not bring about significant change, they are seeking funding from outside the DNC. ..."
"... Democrat leaders have persuaded themselves (and much of their base) that all the republic needs is a restoration of the status quo ante Trump. They remain oblivious to popular impatience with familiar formulas. ..."
"... Democratic insurgents are also developing a populist critique of the imperial hubris that has sponsored multiple failed crusades, extorted disproportionate sacrifice from the working class and provoked support for Trump, who presented himself (however misleadingly) as an opponent of open-ended interventionism. On foreign policy, the insurgents face an even more entrenched opposition than on domestic policy: a bipartisan consensus aflame with outrage at the threat to democracy supposedly posed by Russian hacking. Still, they may have found a tactical way forward, by focusing on the unequal burden borne by the poor and working class in the promotion and maintenance of American empire. ..."
"... This approach animates Autopsy: The Democratic Party in Crisis, a 33-page document whose authors include Norman Solomon, founder of the web-based insurgent lobby RootsAction.org. 'The Democratic Party's claims of fighting for "working families" have been undermined by its refusal to directly challenge corporate power, enabling Trump to masquerade as a champion of the people,' Autopsy announces. ..."
"... Clinton's record of uncritical commitment to military intervention allowed Trump to have it both ways, playing to jingoist resentment while posing as an opponent of protracted and pointless war. ..."
"... If the insurgent movements within the Democratic Party begin to formulate an intelligent foreign policy critique, a re-examination may finally occur. And the world may come into sharper focus as a place where American power, like American virtue, is limited. For this Democrat, that is an outcome devoutly to be wished. It's a long shot, but there is something happening out there. ..."
American politics have rarely presented a more disheartening spectacle. The repellent and dangerous antics of Donald Trump are
troubling enough, but so is the Democratic Party leadership's failure to take in the significance of the 2016 election campaign.
Bernie Sanders's challenge to Hillary Clinton, combined with Trump's triumph, revealed the breadth of popular anger at politics as
usual – the blend of neoliberal domestic policy and interventionist foreign policy that constitutes consensus in Washington.
Neoliberals celebrate market utility as the sole criterion of worth; interventionists exalt military adventure abroad as a means
of fighting evil in order to secure global progress . Both agendas have proved calamitous for most Americans. Many registered
their disaffection in 2016. Sanders is a social democrat and Trump a demagogic mountebank, but their campaigns underscored a
widespread repudiation of the Washington consensus. For about a week after the election, pundits discussed the possibility of a more
capacious Democratic strategy. It appeared that the party might learn something from Clinton's defeat. Then everything changed.
"... Most of the emails were heavily redacted because they contained classified material -- but one that was sent on Nov. 25 2010 was addressed to "Anthony Campaign," an apparent address belonging to Weiner. ..."
"... The message contained a list of talking points for then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was prepping to make a call to Prince Saud of Saudi Arabia to warn him about sensitive documents that had been given to WikiLeaks by then-Army intelligence officer Bradley Manning. ..."
Most of the emails were heavily redacted because they contained classified
material -- but one that was sent on Nov. 25 2010 was addressed to "Anthony Campaign," an
apparent address belonging to Weiner.
The message contained a list of talking points for
then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was prepping to make a call to Prince Saud of
Saudi Arabia to warn him about sensitive documents that had been given to WikiLeaks by
then-Army intelligence officer Bradley Manning.
A
confidential document found on Anthony Weiner's laptop reveals that the United States
Embassy in Stockholm, Sweden expressed concerns in 2010 that WikiLeaks would release classified
US documents related to Sweden ahead of the September 19 Swedish election, tipping the vote
towards the Pirate Party. The subject of the cable reads " Wikileaks: The Pirate Party's White
Horse Into Sweden's Parliament? "
On June 29, 2010 a US diplomat met with three members of the Pirate Party - which is
described in the cable as a "mixture between communism and libertarianism," yet whose members
are "well-salaried professionals, independent from the party for income." Two of the "pirates,"
according to the report, were active in the "youth branch of the conservative party currently
leading government ."
The Embassy cable notes the " grim electoral outlook for Pirates " - as confirmed by a
Pirate party member interviewed by the US diplomat, "Unless WikiLeaks Saves the Day."
Two weeks after the cable was sent, an arrest warrant was issued for WikiLeaks founder
Julian Assange on sexual assault allegations - which was dropped, then re-issued, then revoked
again by Swedish authorities in August 2015 when they dropped their case against him.
The emergence of this confidential document ( found on Anthony Weiner's laptop and sent
while his wife, Huma Abedin, was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff ),
is disturbing - as it potentially implicates the Obama administration in a conspiracy to
silence Julian Assange while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State - not to mention that it
could be the smoking gun in yet another clear case of mishandled information found on
imprisoned sexual deviant Anthony Weiner's laptop the FBI's
Peter Strzok and crew must have somehow overlooked.
A brief timeline of events:
On August 20, 2010, the Swedish Prosecutor's Office issued an arrest warrant for Julian Assange over a rape
allegation - two weeks after the US Embassy met with the Pirate party and had concerns over
Assange leaking US secrets. The net day, Swedish cancelled the warrant. "I don't think there
is reason to suspect that he has committed rape," says one of Stockholm's chief prosecutors,
Eva Finne. Swedish prosecutors did however continue to investigate a separate allegation of
molestation, though they felt it was not a serious enough crime for an arrest warrant.
On September 1, 2010, Swedish Director of Prosecution, Marianne Ny, reopened the rape
investigation against Assange.
On November 18, 2010, Stockholm District Court approved a detention request for Mr.
Assange, who had traveled to London. Two days later, Swedish police issued an international
arrest warrant. On December 8, 2010, Assange is taken into British custody and taken to an
extradition hearing . Eight days later, Assange posts bail and walks free in London until May
30, 2012 when the UK Supreme Court rules that he should be extradited to Sweden.
August 16, 2012, Assange begins his asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy in London - where he
has remained for over five years.
In February, 2016, a UN panel found Assange to be
detained unlawfully in the Ecuadorian embassy.
In May, 2017, Swedish authorities once again dropped their case against Julian Assange,
with his Swedish lawyer Per Samuelsson told Swedish media "It is a total victory for Julian
Assange," adding "He is free to leave the embassy whenever he wants."
Unfortunately, that's not going to be quite so easy for the time being - as Assange faces
immediate arrest by the UK for skipping bail in his extradition hearing. Moreover, in April of
this year, CNN and the Washington Post
simultaneously reported that Attorney General Jeff Sessions' DOJ has prepared criminal charges
against Assange over 2010 leaks of diplomatic cables and military documents.
While the DOJ seems intent on locking Assange up, the WikiLeaks founder has also received
tremendous support from certain members of congress.
As we
reported last week , Congressman Dana Rohrabacher travelled to London in August with
journalist Charles Johnson for a meeting with Assange, where Rohrabacher said the WikiLeaks
founder offered "firsthand" information proving that the Trump campaign did not collude with
Russia, and which would refute the Russian hacking theory .
Rohrabacher brought that message back to Trump's Chief of Staff, John Kelly, to propose a
deal. In exchange for a presidential pardon, Assange would share evidence that would refute the
Russian hacking theory by proving they weren't the source of the emails, according to the
WSJ .
However - when Trump was asked in late September about the Assange proposal, he responded
that he'd "never heard" of it , causing Rohrabacher to unleash on John Kelly, who he blamed for
blocking the proposal from reaching the President. Rohrabacher told the
Daily Caller :
"I think the president's answer indicates that there is a wall around him that is being
created by people who do not want to expose this fraud that there was collusion between our
intelligence community and the leaders of the Democratic Party," Rohrabacher told The Daily
Caller Tuesday in a phone interview.
" This would have to be a cooperative effort between his own staff and the leadership in
the intelligence communities to try to prevent the president from making the decision as to
whether or not he wants to take the steps necessary to expose this horrendous lie that was
shoved down the American people's throats so incredibly earlier this year," Rohrabacher
said.
Contributing to the notion of deep-state interference, CIA director Mike Pompeo referred to
WikiLeaks as a "
hostile intelligence service " in April, calling Julian Assange "a fraud, a coward hiding
behind a screen" for exposing information about democratic governments rather than
authoritarian regimes. This quite the ironic statement, considering Pompeo used leaked emails
from WikiLeaks as proof "the fix was in" against President Trump.
So - while the Swedish authorities have dropped their case against Assange, and the UN says
he's been unlawfully detailed - the UK insists on arresting Assange the moment he steps outside
the Ecuadorian embassy for jumping bail on the dropped charges, and the US Department of
Justice is reportedly prepared to slap criminal charges on Assange.
Perhaps the establishment is still a bit miffed that the "white wizard" showed the world
what's really underneath the pantsuit, which despite the constant rhetoric of the past year is
what ultimately cost Hillary - and so many of her charitable friends - the election.
How Strzok could miss those? They were available to him since 2016.
Notable quotes:
"... As you may recall, the discovery of these emails on Weiner's computer is what prompted Comey to re-open the Hillary Clinton email investigation roughly 1 week prior to the election, a decision which the Hillary camp insists is the reason why they lost the White House. ..."
"... Large portions of the 2,800 page release were redacted prior to release by the State Department. ..."
"... In at least two instances, Abedin directly forwarded Anthony Weiner official conversations - one of which included Hillary Clinton and senior advisor Jake Sullivan with subject "Lavrov" - referring to Russia's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sergey Lavrov. The email discusses an official response by a "quartet" of envoys (The US, EU, UN, and Russia) over Israel's announced changes to its Gaza policy, ending a contentious blockade. ..."
"... In a statement issued Friday, Judicial watch called the release a "major victory," adding "After years of hard work in federal court, Judicial Watch has forced the State Department to finally allow Americans to see these public documents. It will be in keeping with our past experience that Abedin's emails on Weiner's laptop will include classified and other sensitive materials. That these government docs were on Anthony Weiner's laptop dramatically illustrates the need for the Justice Department to finally do a serious investigation of Hillary Clinton's and Huma Abedin's obvious violations of law." ..."
"... Really, is anyone surprised that there were classified emails on Huma Abedin or Anthony Weiner's laptop? ..."
"... The surprise is that it was confiscated back in October 2016 and it took 14 months to reveal that at least 5 emails were classified as confidential. Apparently there were 2800 such emails, an average of 7 per day every day, or 10 per day using 5 day workweeks. Although these 2800 were released, this evidently is a subset of "tens of thousands" of email reported last year to be on that laptop. ..."
"... "Fitton also commented that it's 'outrageous' that Clinton and Abedin 'walked out of the State Department with classified documents and the Obama FBI and DOJ didn't do a thing about it.' " And so far, neither has Jeff Sessions. Get after him, Donald!!!! ..."
"... The lunacy of all of this is that it is taking private groups and citizen journalists to pull out the information that one would think the DOJ would have been interested in months ago. And it means that organizations like Judicial Watch and citizen journalists like George Webb and others are limited to using civil courts because they are not federal prosecutors. ..."
"... Hillary, Huma, et al exchanging classified emails on unsecured servers and computers was a big nothing burger according to Andy and friends at the FBI. ..."
As you may recall, the discovery of these emails on Weiner's computer is what
prompted Comey to re-open the Hillary Clinton email investigation roughly 1 week prior to the election, a decision which the
Hillary camp insists is the reason why they lost the White House.
Of course, while the Hillary campaign attempted to dismiss the emails as just another 'nothing burger', the
Daily
Mail reports that an initial review of the 2,800 documents dumped by the State Department reveal at least 5 emails classified
at the 'confidential level,' the third most sensitive level the U.S. government uses.
The classified emails date from 2010-2012, and concern discussions with Middle East leaders, including those from the United Arab
Emirates, Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and Hamas - which was
declared a terrorist organization by the European Court of Justice in July. Large portions of the 2,800 page release were redacted
prior to release by the State Department.
According to the
Daily
Mail , three of the emails were sent either to or from an address called "BBB Backup," which one email identifies as a backup
of a Blackberry Bold 9700 - presumably belonging to Abedin.
As a civilian, Weiner - though once a congressman, was unlikely to have possessed the proper clearance to view or store the classified
documents on his laptop .
A sample of the documents can be seen below, first, a "Call Sheet" prepared for Hillary's discussion with Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu:
And another update regarding "Hamas-PLO Talks":
In at least two instances, Abedin directly forwarded Anthony Weiner official conversations - one of which included Hillary Clinton
and senior advisor Jake Sullivan with subject "Lavrov" - referring to Russia's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sergey Lavrov. The email
discusses an official response by a "quartet" of envoys (The US, EU, UN, and Russia) over
Israel's announced
changes to its Gaza policy, ending a contentious blockade.
One wonders why Anthony Weiner would need to know about this?
Abedin also forwarded Weiner an email discussion
from July 22, 2012 which had previously been released by WikiLeaks - which included the Ambassador to Senegal, Mushingi Tulinabo.
While the contents of the email are redacted, Senegal had elected a new President
earlier that month . Of note, the Clinton Foundation
has supported or been involved in several projects in the country.
In a statement issued Friday, Judicial watch called the release a "major victory," adding "After years of hard work in federal
court, Judicial Watch has forced the State Department to finally allow Americans to see these public documents. It will be in keeping
with our past experience that Abedin's emails on Weiner's laptop will include classified and other sensitive materials. That these
government docs were on Anthony Weiner's laptop dramatically illustrates the need for the Justice Department to finally do a serious
investigation of Hillary Clinton's and Huma Abedin's obvious violations of law."
Fitton also commented that it's 'outrageous' that Clinton and Abedin 'walked out of the State Department with classified documents
and the Obama FBI and DOJ didn't do a thing about it.'
Not surprisingly, Abedin was spotted heading into the Hillary Clinton offices in midtown Manhattan earlier today just a few hours
before the release of the 2,800 emails. Seems you're never too old to be called into the Principal's office...
We're confident this will all be promptly dismissed by Hillary as just another effort to "criminalize behavior that is normal
"because what government employee hasn't shared classified materials with their convicted pedophile husband? Certainly, just another
boring day in Washington... Tags Politics
Really, is anyone surprised that there were classified emails on Huma Abedin or Anthony Weiner's laptop?
The surprise is that it was confiscated back in October 2016 and it took 14 months to reveal that at least 5 emails were classified
as confidential. Apparently there were 2800 such emails, an average of 7 per day every day, or 10 per day using 5 day workweeks.
Although these 2800 were released, this evidently is a subset of "tens of thousands" of email reported last year to be on that
laptop.
It's been reported on an other site that the Awan trial, which had been postponed until Jan 8th, is now erased from all federal
court dockets. No one knows the significance of this, whether it means the "fix" is in or they are turning state's evidence on
Hillary, etc? I hope it's the latter but knowing Sessions and the rest of the fucking corrupt pieces of shit in the DOJ and FBI,
I fear these assholes are being let off the hook.
"Fitton also commented that it's 'outrageous' that Clinton and Abedin 'walked out of the State Department with classified documents
and the Obama FBI and DOJ didn't do a thing about it.' " And so far, neither has Jeff Sessions. Get after him, Donald!!!!
The lunacy of all of this is that it is taking private groups and citizen journalists to pull out the information that one
would think the DOJ would have been interested in months ago. And it means that organizations like Judicial Watch and citizen journalists like George Webb and others are limited to using
civil courts because they are not federal prosecutors. The question is why are those who are being paid with our tax dollars to
enforce the law in criminal courts expending so much effort to avoid doing that job.
Ultimately, President Trump has to answer that question because this is now coming out on his watch.
Ya, its pretty infuriating. Trumps been in office for a year. Sessions, at least on paper, is in charge of the DOJ. The FBI
works for him too. Why isn't anything being done about this?
I wonder, will Abedin be the fall girl for the Clintons? "It was all her fault! She took the emails without me knowing it!" Her being "called into the principal's office" is also telling. Instructions on what to say.
I am curious as to what assurances we have that there weren't actually another 100 emails that didn't just magically disappear?
We've given these alphabet agencies years to "redact" sensitive material, how do we know that the "smoking gun" emails weren't
redacted entirely?
DNC doing actual opposition research by paying actual Russians for information is perfectly acceptable. Trump team allegedly doing opposition research by speaking with Russians is a criminal offence. That seems reasonable.
Hillary, Huma, et al exchanging classified emails on unsecured servers and computers was a big nothing burger according to
Andy and friends at the FBI.
I was searching for a word to describe our media and Federal law enforcement who are both impervious to truth and justice.
It led me to wondering if the Devil permits truth to penetrate in Hell and decided that the condemned there hear more of it that
Americans do today. You'd have to go back to NAZI Germany or Stalinist Russia for a comparison of how little we're told was true.
Don't believe me? We're mushrooms, kept in a dark cave and fed a steady diet of bullshit. We're GOOD mushrooms. A bumper crop
this year.
The emails were discovered on Anthony's laptop by NYPD when they were investigating the pervert's connection to the child in
North Carolina. The laptop was turned over to the FBI. If you want to say the FBI discovered the emails, that takes the credit
away from the NYPD. Comey reopened the Hillary investigation because NYPD kept copies.
" [A]n initial review of the 2,800 documents dumped by the State Department reveal at least 5 emails classified at the 'confidential
level,' the third most sensitive level the U.S. government uses. "
While I'm for anything and everything that harms the Clinton family and its cohort, let me point out that the 'confidential
level' security classification, in addition to being the third most sensitive level of security classification is also also the
very lowest level of security classification.
One would hope (in vain I've recently concluded) that ZH would make some small attempt to not slant its 'news' coverage with
such erroneous and inflammatory 'reporting'. I thought we had decided to leave fear mongering and lying to the mainstream media.
I suppose I was wrong.
"... Even though the FISA warrant targeting Page is classified and the FBI and DOJ have resisted informing Congress about it, some of its contents were illegally and selectively leaked to the Washington Post in April 2017 by sources described as "law enforcement and other U.S. officials." According to the Post: ..."
"... Among other things, the application cited contacts that he had with a Russian intelligence operative in New York City in 2013, officials said. Those contacts had earlier surfaced in a federal espionage case brought by the Justice Department against the intelligence operative and two other Russian agents. In addition, the application said Page had other contacts with Russian operatives that have not been publicly disclosed, officials said. ..."
"... I've emphasized that last portion because it strongly implies that the FISA application included information from the Steele dossier. ..."
"... Do not be confused by the fact that, by the time of this Post report, the Steele-dossier allegations had already been disclosed to the public by BuzzFeed (in January 2017). The Post story is talking about what the DOJ and FBI put in the FISA application back in September 2016. At that time, the meetings alleged in the dossier had not been publicly disclosed. ..."
"... given that Page has not been accused of a crime, and that the DOJ and FBI would have to have alleged some potential criminal activity to justify a FISA warrant targeting the former U.S. naval intelligence officer, it certainly seems likely that the Steele dossier was the source of this allegation. ..."
"... In conclusion, while there is a dearth of evidence to date that the Trump campaign colluded in Russia's cyber -spionage attack on the 2016 election, there is abundant evidence that the Obama administration colluded with the Clinton campaign to use the Steele dossier as a vehicle for court-authorized monitoring of the Trump campaign -- and to fuel a pre-election media narrative that U.S. intelligence agencies believed Trump was scheming with Russia to lift sanctions if he were elected president. Congress should continue pressing for answers, and President Trump should order the Justice Department and FBI to cooperate rather than -- what's the word? -- resist. ..."
"... The "insurance policy" is either an assassination plot, coup d'etat or other forcible method of removing Trump from office (25th Amendment). Period. ..."
"... Clinton was supposed to win and all the corruption was to remain hidden. They are scambling to hide all this crap because shit is about to hit the fan. ..."
"... Think there is much more than just this one piece but yes, she and they were so arrogant they didn't bother to even try to win. They were entitled. And maybe this New Year will illustrate just how dangerously close they brought us to the edge. ..."
"... These fucks destroyed the rule of law when they decided to selectively enforce it when politically convenient. And when they conspired to take advantage of legal processes to overthrow the elected government. ..."
"... They really can't answer the question WHAT besides the Dossier could be the reason for this witch hunt. Crooked obviously knew of Dossier because in the debates she called my man " Putin's Puppet"....This is incompetency and politics that calls into question everything these people did..It's embarrasing and criminal. ..."
According to the now-infamous text message sent by FBI agent Peter Strzok to his paramour,
FBI lawyer Lisa Page, it was in McCabe's office that top FBI counterintelligence officials
discussed what they saw as the frightening possibility of a Trump presidency.
That was during the stretch run of the 2016 campaign, no more than a couple of weeks after
they started receiving the Steele dossier -- the Clinton campaign's opposition-research
reports, written by former British spy Christopher Steele, about Trump's purportedly
conspiratorial relationship with Vladimir Putin's regime in Russia.
Was it the Steele dossier that so frightened the FBI? I think so.
There is a great deal of information to follow. But let's cut to the chase: The Obama-era
FBI and Justice Department had great faith in Steele because he had previously collaborated
with the bureau on a big case. Plus, Steele was working on the Trump-Russia project with the
wife of a top Obama Justice Department official, who was personally briefed by Steele. The
upper ranks of the FBI and DOJ strongly preferred Trump's opponent, Hillary Clinton, to the
point of overlooking significant evidence of her felony misconduct, even as they turned up the
heat on Trump. In sum, the FBI and DOJ were predisposed to believe the allegations in Steele's
dossier. Because of their confidence in Steele, because they were predisposed to believe his
scandalous claims about Donald Trump, they made grossly inadequate efforts to verify his
claims. Contrary to what I hoped would be the case, I've come to believe Steele's claims were
used to obtain FISA surveillance authority for an investigation of Trump.
There were layers of insulation between the Clinton campaign and Steele -- the campaign and
the Democratic party retained a law firm, which contracted with Fusion GPS, which in turn hired
the former spy. At some point, though, perhaps early on, the FBI and DOJ learned that the
dossier was actually a partisan opposition-research product. By then, they were dug in. No one,
after all, would be any the wiser: Hillary would coast to victory, so Democrats would continue
running the government; FISA materials are highly classified, so they'd be kept under wraps.
Just as it had been with the Obama-era's Fast and Furious and IRS scandals, any malfeasance
would remain hidden.
The best laid schemes . . . gang aft agley.
Why It Matters
Strzok's text about the meeting in McCabe's office is dated August 16, 2016. As we'll see,
the date is important. According to Agent Strzok, with Election Day less than three months
away, Page, the bureau lawyer, weighed in on Trump's bid: "There's no way he gets elected."
Strzok, however, believed that even if a Trump victory was the longest of long shots, the FBI
"can't take that risk." He insisted that the bureau had no choice but to proceed with a plan to
undermine Trump's candidacy: "It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die
before you're 40."
The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that, "according to people familiar with his
account," Strzok meant that it was imperative that the FBI "aggressively investigate
allegations of collusion between Donald Trump's campaign and Russia." In laughable strawman
fashion, the "people familiar with his account" assure the Journal that Strzok "didn't intend
to suggest a secret plan to harm the candidate." Of course, no sensible person suspects that
the FBI was plotting Trump's assassination; the suspicion is that, motivated by partisanship
and spurred by shoddy information that it failed to verify, the FBI exploited its
counterintelligence powers in hopes of derailing Trump's presidential run.
But what were these "allegations of collusion between Donald Trump's campaign and Russia"
that the FBI decided to "aggressively investigate"? The Journal doesn't say. Were they the
allegations in the Steele dossier? That is a question I asked in last weekend's column. It is a
question that was pressed by Chairman Devin Nunes (R., Calif.) and Republican members of the
House Intelligence Committee at Tuesday's sealed hearing. As I explained in the column, the
question is critical for three reasons:
(1) The Steele dossier was a Clinton campaign product. If it was used by the FBI and the
Obama Justice Department to obtain a FISA warrant, that would mean law-enforcement agencies
controlled by a Democratic president fed the FISA court political campaign material produced
by the Democratic candidate whom the president had endorsed to succeed him. Partisan claims
of egregious scheming with an adversarial foreign power would have been presented to the
court with the FBI's imprimatur, as if they were drawn from refined U.S. intelligence
reporting. The objective would have been to spy on the opposition Republican campaign.
(2) In June of this year, former FBI director James Comey testified that the dossier was
"salacious and unverified." While still director, Comey had described the dossier the same
way when he briefed President-elect Trump on it in January 2017. If the dossier was still
unverified as late as mid 2017, its allegations could not possibly have been verified months
earlier, in the late summer or early autumn of 2016, when it appears that the FBI and DOJ
used them in an application to the FISA court.
(3) The dossier appears to contain misinformation. Knowing he was a spy-for-hire trusted
by Americans, Steele's Russian-regime sources had reason to believe that misinformation could
be passed into the stream of U.S. intelligence and that it would be acted on -- and leaked --
as if it were true, to America's detriment. This would sow discord in our political system.
If the FBI and DOJ relied on the dossier, it likely means they were played by the Putin
regime.
How Could Something Like This Happen?
We do not have public confirmation that the dossier was, in fact, used by the bureau and the
Justice Department to obtain the FISA warrant. Publicly, FBI and DOJ officials have thwarted
the Congress with twaddle about protecting both intelligence sources and an internal
inspector-general probe. Of course, Congress, which established and funds the DOJ and FBI, has
the necessary security clearances to review classified information, has jurisdiction over the
secret FISA court, and has independent constitutional authority to examine the activities of
legislatively created executive agencies.
In any event, important reporting by Fox News' James Rosen regarding Tuesday's hearing
indicates that the FBI did, in fact, credit the contents of the dossier. It appears, however,
that the bureau corroborated few of Steele's claims, and at an absurdly high level of
generality -- along the lines of: You tell me person A went to place X and committed a crime; I
corroborate only that A went to X and blithely assume that because you were right about the
travel, you must be right about the crime.
Here, the FBI was able to verify Steele's claim that Carter Page, a very loosely connected
Trump-campaign adviser, had gone to Russia. This was not exactly meticulous gumshoe
corroboration: Page told many people he was going to Russia, saw many people while there, and
gave a speech at a prominent Moscow venue. Having verified only the travel information, the FBI
appears to have credited the claims of Steele's anonymous Russian sources that Page carried out
nigh-treasonous activities while in Russia.
How could something like this happen? Well, the FBI and DOJ liked and trusted Steele, for
what seem to be good reasons. As the Washington Post has reported, the former MI-6 agent's
private intelligence firm, Orbis, was retained by England's main soccer federation to
investigate corruption at FIFA, the international soccer organization that had snubbed British
bids to host the World Cup. In 2010, Steele delivered key information to the FBI's
organized-crime liaison in Europe. This helped the bureau build the Obama Justice Department's
most celebrated racketeering prosecution: the indictment of numerous FIFA officials and other
corporate executives. Announcing the first wave of charges in May 2015, Attorney General
Loretta Lynch made a point of thanking the investigators' "international partners" for their
"outstanding assistance."
At the time, Bruce Ohr was the Obama Justice Department's point man for "Transnational
Organized Crime and International Affairs," having been DOJ's long-serving chief of the
Organized Crime and Racketeering Section. He also wore a second, top-echelon DOJ hat: associate
deputy attorney general. That made him a key adviser to the deputy attorney general, Sally
Yates (who later, as acting attorney general, was fired for insubordinately refusing to enforce
President Trump's so-called travel ban). In the chain of command, the FBI reports to the DAG's
office.
To do the Trump-Russia research, Steele had been retained by the research firm Fusion GPS
(which, to repeat, had been hired by lawyers for the Clinton campaign and the DNC). Fusion GPS
was run by its founder, former Wall Street Journal investigative journalist Glenn Simpson.
Bruce Ohr's wife, Nellie, a Russia scholar, worked for Simpson at Fusion. The Ohrs and Simpson
appear to be longtime acquaintances, dating back to when Simpson was a senior fellow at the
International Assessment and Strategy Center. In 2010, all three participated in a two-day
conference on international organized crime, sponsored by the National Institute of Justice
(see conference schedule and participant list, pp. 27 -- 30). In connection with the Clinton
campaign's Trump-Russia project, Fusion's Nellie Ohr collaborated with Steele and Simpson, and
DOJ's Bruce Ohr met personally with Steele and Simpson.
Manifestly, the DOJ and FBI were favorably disposed toward Steele and Fusion GPS. I suspect
that these good, productive prior relationships with the dossier's source led the investigators
to be less exacting about corroborating the dossier's claims.
But that is just the beginning of the bias story.
At a high level, the DOJ and FBI were in the tank for Hillary Clinton. In July 2016, shortly
before Steele's reports started floating in, the FBI and DOJ announced that no charges would be
brought against Mrs. Clinton despite damning evidence that she mishandled classified
information, destroyed government files, obstructed congressional investigations, and lied to
investigators. The irregularities in the Clinton-emails investigation are legion: President
Obama making it clear in public statements that he did not want Clinton charged; the FBI,
shortly afterwards, drafting an exoneration of Clinton months before the investigation ended
and central witnesses, including Clinton herself, were interviewed; investigators failing to
use the grand jury to compel the production of key evidence; the DOJ restricting FBI agents in
their lines of inquiry and examination of evidence; the granting of immunity to suspects who in
any other case would be pressured to plead guilty and cooperate against more-culpable suspects;
the distorting of criminal statutes to avoid applying them to Clinton; the sulfurous tarmac
meeting between Attorney General Lynch and former President Clinton shortly before Mrs. Clinton
was given a peremptory interview -- right before then -- FBI director Comey announced that she
would not be charged.
The blatant preference for Clinton over Trump smacked of politics and self-interest. Deputy
FBI director McCabe's wife had run for the Virginia state legislature as a Democrat, and her
(unsuccessful) campaign was lavishly funded by groups tied to Clinton insider Terry McAuliffe.
Agent Strzok told FBI lawyer Page that Trump was an "idiot" and that "Hillary should win 100
million to 0." Page agreed that Trump was "a loathsome human." A Clinton win would likely mean
Lynch -- originally raised to prominence when President Bill Clinton appointed her to a coveted
U.S. attorney slot -- would remain attorney general. Yates would be waiting in the wings.
The prior relationships of trust with the source; the investment in Clinton; the certitude
that Clinton would win and deserved to win, signified by the mulish determination that she not
be charged in the emails investigation; the sheer contempt for Trump. This concatenation led
the FBI and DOJ to believe Steele -- to want to believe his melodramatic account of
Trump-Russia corruption. For the faithful, it was a story too good to check.
The DOJ and FBI, having dropped a criminal investigation that undeniably established Hillary
Clinton's national-security recklessness, managed simultaneously to convince themselves that
Donald Trump was too much of a national-security risk to be president.
The Timeline
As I noted in last weekend's column, reports are that the FBI and DOJ obtained a FISA
warrant targeting Carter Page (no relation to Lisa Page). For a time, Page was tangentially
tied to the Trump campaign as a foreign-policy adviser -- he barely knew Trump. The warrant was
reportedly obtained after the Trump campaign and Page had largely severed ties in early August
2016. We do not know exactly when the FISA warrant was granted, but the New York Times and the
Washington Post have reported, citing U.S. government sources, that this occurred in September
2016 (see here, here, and here). Further, the DOJ and FBI reportedly persuaded the FISA court
to extend the surveillance after the first warrant's 90-day period lapsed -- meaning the spying
continued into Trump's presidency.
The FBI and DOJ would have submitted the FISA application to the court shortly before the
warrant was issued. In the days-to-weeks prior to petitioning the court, the FISA application
would have been subjected to internal review at the FBI -- raising the possibility that FBI
lawyer Page was in the loop reviewing the investigative work of Agent Strzok, with whom she was
having an extramarital affair. There would also have been review at the Justice Department --
federal law requires that the attorney general approve every application to the FISA court.
Presumably, these internal reviews would have occurred in mid-to-late August -- around the
time of the meeting in McCabe's office referred to in Strzok's text. Thus, we need to
understand the relevant events before and after mid-to-late August. Here is a timeline.
June 2016
In June 2016, Steele began to generate the reports that collectively are known as the
"dossier."
In the initial report, dated June 20, 2016, Steele alleged that Putin's regime had been
"cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years." (Steele's reports conform
to the FBI and intelligence-agency reporting practice of rendering names of interest in
capital letters.) The Kremlin was said to have significant blackmail material that could be
used against Trump.
In mid-to-late June 2016, according to Politico, Carter Page asked J. D. Gordon, his
supervisor on the Trump campaign's National Security Advisory Committee, for permission to go
on a trip to Russia in early July. Gordon advised against it. Page then sent an email to
Corey Lewandowski, who was Trump's campaign manager until June 20, and Hope Hicks, the Trump
campaign spokeswoman, seeking permission to go on the trip. Word came back to Page by email
that he could go, but only in his private capacity, not as a representative of the Trump
campaign. Lewandowski says he has never met Carter Page.
July 2016
Page, a top-of-the-class graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy with various other academic
distinctions, traveled to Moscow for a three-day trip, the centerpiece of which was a July 7
commencement address at the New Economic School (the same institution at which President
Obama gave a commencement address on July 7, 2009). The New York Times has reported, based on
leaks from "current and former law enforcement and intelligence officials," that Page's July
trip to Moscow "was a catalyst for the F.B.I. investigation into connections between Russia
and President Trump's campaign." The Times does not say what information the FBI had received
that made the Moscow trip such a "catalyst."
Was it the Steele dossier?
Well, on July 19, Steele reported that, while in Moscow, Page had held secret meetings
with two top Putin confederates, Igor Sechin and Igor Diveykin. Steele claimed to have been
informed by "a Russian source close to" Sechin, the president of Russia's energy conglomerate
Rosneft, that Sechin had floated to Page the possibility of "US-Russia energy co-operation"
in exchange for the "lifting of western sanctions against Russia over Ukraine." Page was said
to have reacted "positively" but in a manner that was "non-committal."
Another source, apparently Russian, told Steele that "an official close to" Putin chief of
staff Sergei Ivanov had confided to "a compatriot" that Igor Diveykin (of the "Internal
Political Department" of Putin's Presidential Administration) had also met with Page in
Moscow. (Note the dizzying multiple-hearsay basis of this information.) Diveykin is said to
have told Page that the regime had "a dossier of 'kompromat'" -- compromising information --
on Hillary Clinton that it would consider releasing to Trump's "campaign team." Diveykin
further "hinted (or indicated more strongly) that the Russian leadership also had 'kompromat'
on TRUMP which the latter should bear in mind in his dealings with them."
The hacked DNC emails were first released on July 22, shortly before the Democratic
National Convention, which ran from July 25 through 28.
In "late July 2016," Steele claimed to have been told by an "ethnic Russian close
associate of . . . TRUMP" that there was a "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation"
between "them" (apparently meaning Trump's inner circle) and "the Russian leadership." The
conspiracy was said to be "managed on the TRUMP side by the Republican candidate's campaign
manager, Paul MANAFORT, who was using foreign policy adviser, Carter PAGE, and others as
intermediaries."
The same source claimed that the Russian regime had been behind the leak of DNC emails "to
the WikiLeaks platform," an operation the source maintained "had been conducted with the full
knowledge and support of TRUMP and senior members of his campaign team." As a quid pro quo,
"the TRUMP team" was said to have agreed (a) "to sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine as
a campaign issue," and (b) to raise the failure of NATO nations to meet their defense
commitments as a distraction from Russian aggression in Ukraine, "a priority for PUTIN who
needed to cauterise the subject."
Late July to Early August 2016
The Washington Post has reported that Steele's reports were first transmitted "by an
intermediary" to the FBI and other U.S. intelligence officials after the Democratic National
Convention (which, to repeat, ended on July 28). The intermediary is not identified. We do
not know if it was Fusion, though that seems likely given that Fusion shared its work with
government and non-government entities. Steele himself is also said to have contacted "a
friend in the FBI" about his research after the Democratic convention. As we've seen, Steele
made bureau friends during the FIFA investigation.
August 2016
On August 11, as recounted in the aforementioned Wall Street Journal report, FBI agent
Strzok texted the following message to FBI lawyer Page: "OMG I CANNOT BELIEVE WE ARE
SERIOUSLY LOOKING AT THESE ALLEGATIONS AND THE PERVASIVE CONNECTIONS." The Journal does not
elaborate on what "allegations" Strzok was referring to, or the source of those
allegations.
On August 15, Strzok texted Page about the meeting in deputy FBI director McCabe's office
at which it was discussed that the bureau "can't take that risk" of a Trump presidency and
needed something akin to an "insurance policy" even though Trump's election was thought
highly unlikely.
September 2016
Reporting indicates that sometime in September 2016, the DOJ and FBI applied to the FISA
court for a warrant to surveil Carter Page, and that the warrant was granted.
Interestingly, on September 23, 2016, Yahoo's Michael Isikoff reported on leaks he had
received that the U.S. government was conducting an intelligence investigation to determine
whether Carter Page, as a Trump adviser, had opened up a private communications channel with
such "senior Russian officials" as Igor Sechin and Igor Diveykin to discuss lifting economic
sanctions if Trump became president.
It is now known that Isikoff's main source for the story was Fusion's Glenn Simpson.
Isikoff's report is rife with allegations found in the dossier, although the dossier is not
referred to as such; it is described as "intelligence reports" that "U.S. officials" were
actively investigating -- i.e., Steele's reports were described in a way that would lead
readers to assume they were official U.S. intelligence reports. But there clearly was
official American government involvement: Isikoff's story asserts that U.S. officials were
briefing members of Congress about these allegations that Page was meeting with Kremlin
officials on Trump's behalf. The story elaborated that "questions about Page come amid
mounting concerns within the U.S. intelligence community about Russian cyberattacks on the
Democratic National Committee." Those would be the cyberattacks alleged -- in the dossier on
which Congress was being briefed -- to be the result of a Trump-Russia conspiracy in which
Page was complicit.
Isikoff obviously checked with his government sources to verify what Simpson had told him
about the ongoing investigation that was based on these "intelligence reports." His story
recounts that "a senior U.S. law enforcement official" confirmed that Page's alleged contacts
with Russian officials were "on our radar screen. . . . It's being looked at."
Final Points to Consider
After his naval career, Page worked in investing, including several years at Merrill Lynch
in Moscow. As my column last weekend detailed, he has been an apologist for the Russian regime,
championing appeasement for the sake of better U.S. -- Russia relations. Page has acknowledged
that, during his brief trip to Moscow in July 2016, he ran into some Russian government
officials, among many old Russian friends and acquaintances. Yet he vehemently denies meeting
with Sechin and Diveykin. (While Sechin's name is well known to investors in the Russian energy
sector, Page says that he has never met him and that he had never even heard Diveykin's name
until the Steele dossier was publicized in early 2017.)
Furthermore, Page denies even knowing Paul Manafort, much less being used by Manafort as an
intermediary between the Trump campaign and Russia. Page has filed a federal defamation lawsuit
against the press outlets that published the dossier, has denied the dossier allegations in FBI
interviews, and has reportedly testified before the grand jury in Robert Mueller's
special-counsel investigation.
Even though the FISA warrant targeting Page is classified and the FBI and DOJ have resisted
informing Congress about it, some of its contents were illegally and selectively leaked to the
Washington Post in April 2017 by sources described as "law enforcement and other U.S.
officials." According to the Post:
The government's application for the surveillance order targeting Page included a lengthy
declaration that laid out investigators' basis for believing that Page was an agent of the
Russian government and knowingly engaged in clandestine intelligence activities on behalf of
Moscow, officials said.
Among other things, the application cited contacts that he had with a Russian intelligence
operative in New York City in 2013, officials said. Those contacts had earlier surfaced in a
federal espionage case brought by the Justice Department against the intelligence operative
and two other Russian agents. In addition, the application said Page had other contacts with
Russian operatives that have not been publicly disclosed, officials said.
I've emphasized that last portion because it strongly implies that the FISA application
included information from the Steele dossier. That is, when the Post speaks of Page's purported
"other contacts with Russian operatives that have not been publicly disclosed," this is very
likely a reference to the meetings with Sechin and Diveykin that Page denies having had -- the
meetings described in the dossier. Do not be confused by the fact that, by the time of this
Post report, the Steele-dossier allegations had already been disclosed to the public by BuzzFeed (in January 2017). The Post story is talking about what the DOJ and FBI put in the
FISA application back in September 2016. At that time, the meetings alleged in the dossier had
not been publicly disclosed.
Two final points.
First : The FISA application's reliance on 2013 events as a basis for suspicion in 2016
that Page was a foreign agent of Russia is curious. The 2013 investigation involved Russian
intelligence operatives who were trying to recruit business people, such as Page, as sources
-- i.e., Page was being approached by Russia, not acting on Russia's behalf. In the 2013
investigation, Page met with a Russian agent, whom he apparently did not realize was an
agent. They met at an energy symposium in New York and Page did networking-type things:
exchanging contact information and providing his jejune assessment of the energy sector's
prospects. The Russian agent described Page as an "idiot" in a recorded conversation.
According to Page, he cooperated with the FBI and helped prosecutors in the case against one
of the suspects -- claims that the government could easily disprove if he is lying.
Second : In reporting on the FISA warrant that targeted Page, the Washington Post
asserted that "an application for electronic surveillance under [FISA] need not show evidence
of a crime." That is not accurate.
Under federal surveillance law (sec. 1801 of Title 50, U.S. Code), the probable-cause
showing the government must make to prove that a person is an agent of a foreign power is
different for Americans than for aliens. If the alleged agent is an alien, section 1801(b)(1)
applies, and this means that no crime need be established; the government need only show that
the target is acting on behalf of a foreign power in the sense of abetting its clandestine
anti-American activities.
By contrast, if the alleged agent is an American citizen, such as Page, section 1801(b)(2)
applies: The government must show not only that the person is engaged in clandestine activities
on behalf of a foreign power but also that these activities
(1) "involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United
States";
(2) involve the preparation for or commission of sabotage or international
terrorism;
(3) involve using a false identity to enter or operate in the United States on behalf of
a foreign power; or (4) involve conspiring with or aiding and abetting another person in the
commission of these criminal activities.
All of these involve evidence of a crime.
The only known suspicions about Page that have potential criminal implications are the
allegations in the dossier, which potentially include hacking, bribery, fraud, and racketeering
-- if Russia were formally considered an enemy of the United States, they would include
treason. The FBI always has information we do not know about. But given that Page has not been
accused of a crime, and that the DOJ and FBI would have to have alleged some potential criminal
activity to justify a FISA warrant targeting the former U.S. naval intelligence officer, it
certainly seems likely that the Steele dossier was the source of this allegation.
In conclusion, while there is a dearth of evidence to date that the Trump campaign colluded
in Russia's cyber -spionage attack on the 2016 election, there is abundant evidence that the
Obama administration colluded with the Clinton campaign to use the Steele dossier as a vehicle
for court-authorized monitoring of the Trump campaign -- and to fuel a pre-election media
narrative that U.S. intelligence agencies believed Trump was scheming with Russia to lift
sanctions if he were elected president. Congress should continue pressing for answers, and
President Trump should order the Justice Department and FBI to cooperate rather than -- what's
the word? -- resist.
No way the "insurance policy" was this .... dossier. It had made the rounds for almost a
year by then. It was a TOOL for then present-day activities (campaign propaganda and
obtaining FISA warrants). Everyone knew it was floating around by then.
An insurance policy is something that activates based on a completely unexpected
contingency- premature death. Does it seem to you that a bogus report that had been rattling
around doing it's intended work for almost six months is that thing? Sure as shit doesn't
sound like that to me.
The "insurance policy" is either an assassination plot, coup d'etat or other forcible
method of removing Trump from office (25th Amendment). Period.
Could the FBI be that broke, that persuasive, that wreckless? I suspect it is mainly at
the top politically appointed positions that take us down that road? Trouble is they take the
full agency along with them. Congress has implicit responsibility here also.
This will take
some serious unwinding to officially expose the truth that many know exist. Attaching names
to these truths is the hard part. As painful as it may be a Watergate style investigation is
in order. Justice must be served to demonstrate unacceptable, illegal, nation harming
activity is not tolerated at any level. Without it we have reached moral nihilism.
Other
They must have thought Trump had a chance or why would they bother? Maybe not so sure of
Hillary after all? Something don't add up with the surity of a Clinton presidency?
"On August 15, Strzok texted Page about the meeting in deputy FBI director McCabe's office at
which it was discussed that the bureau "can't take that risk" of a Trump presidency
......."
"At some point, though, perhaps early on, the FBI and DOJ learned that the dossier was
actually a partisan opposition-research product. By then, they were dug in. No one, after
all, would be any the wiser: Hillary would coast to victory, so Democrats would continue
running the government; FISA materials are highly classified, so they'd be kept under wraps.
Just as it had been with the Obama-era's Fast and Furious and IRS scandals, any malfeasance
would remain hidden."
This is the entirety of the scandal. I've been saying it all along. ...Clinton was
supposed to win and all the corruption was to remain hidden. They are scambling to hide all
this crap because shit is about to hit the fan.
Think there is much more than just this one piece but yes, she and they were so arrogant
they didn't bother to even try to win. They were entitled. And maybe this New Year will
illustrate just how dangerously close they brought us to the edge.
We do have things to be grateful for this evening though and just ZH itself has provided
us with a space to vent, to cry, to laugh and now maybe to hope.
Merry Christmas to each and every one here - unseen but cared for friends.
But here's the good news: Rosenstein, Wray and reportedly McCabe have all declined to
answer if the golden shower dossier was used in the FISA warrant for surveillance of Carter
Page, and/or Manafort. If the dossier WAS the reason and is now discredited oppo-research,
then in all likelihood we're looking at huge FBI violation of due process, and a 'fruit of
the poisoned tree' instance. That means that any evidence which could be used against Trump
which originated from this surveillance would be thrown out of court. The FBI must know
this.
These fucks destroyed the rule of law when they decided to selectively enforce it when
politically convenient. And when they conspired to take advantage of legal processes to
overthrow the elected government.
Reasoned article and McCarthy is a former Federal Prosecutor using what is recognized as
standard operating procedures in these cases to figure this out. I've come to the same
conclusion months back. He obviously has a reputation and can't just sling it... They really
can't answer the question WHAT besides the Dossier could be the reason for this witch hunt.
Crooked obviously knew of Dossier because in the debates she called my man " Putin's
Puppet"....This is incompetency and politics that calls into question everything these people did..It's embarrasing and criminal.
The question is when does Opposition Research cross the line and become criminal conduct.
Notable quotes:
"... By now, most Americans paying attention have heard about Peter Strzok, one of the FBI's lead investigators on the Hillary Clinton email case and the Trump – Russia collusion probe. Strzok was second-in-command of counterintelligence at the FBI. He, single-handedly, put a dark cloud over the integrity of the two investigations when it was recently disclosed that he had exchanged thousands of politically-charged text messages with his mistress, Lisa Page, a senior FBI attorney. The couple used FBI-supplied cell phones to transmit and receive the text messages ..."
By now, most Americans paying attention have heard about Peter Strzok, one of the FBI's
lead investigators on the Hillary Clinton email case and the Trump – Russia collusion
probe. Strzok was second-in-command of counterintelligence at the FBI. He, single-handedly, put
a dark cloud over the integrity of the two investigations when it was recently disclosed that
he had exchanged thousands of politically-charged text messages with his mistress, Lisa Page, a
senior FBI attorney. The couple used FBI-supplied cell phones to transmit and receive the text
messages . The House Judiciary Committee requested copies of all the text messages from
the Department of Justice but only received a small fraction of them.
Numerous text messages show, in explicit detail, that Strzok and Page were big fans of
Hillary Clinton during the time she was being investigated for violations of the Espionage Act
and while she was campaigning to be president of the U.S. The messages also show the utter
contempt they had for Clinton's opponent, Donald Trump.
When Robert Mueller, special prosecutor in the Trump – Russia collusion investigation,
learned about the existence of these text messages last July, he removed Peter Strzok from his
team of investigators. Strzok was re-assigned to the FBI's human resources department and is
still on the payroll.
After the name of FBI agent Peter Strzok catapulted above the fold, we learned more about
his wide-ranging assignments at the FBI.
Two months prior to then FBI Director, James Comey's formal exoneration of Hillary Clinton,
Strzok edited Comey's draft exoneration letter and suggested key changes that watered down the
allegations against her.
Strzok was present at the FBI's interview with Hillary Clinton on July 2, 2016. Clinton
wasn't put under oath prior to her questioning nor was the proceeding recorded, making the
softball interrogation a farce.
Strzok also interviewed Clinton associates, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Miller, the previous
month. These interrogations have been roundly criticized by legal authorities as nothing more
than a charade because it is unheard of to have two potential witnesses present at the same
interview.
Strzok was selected to be a key investigator on Mueller's team looking into potential
collusion between President Trump and Russia. He participated in the interview of Michael
Flynn, President Trump's short-lived National Security Advisor, who has pleaded guilty to lying
to the FBI and is now cooperating with the Mueller probe.
Strzok is suspected of being responsible for using an unverified dossier to obtain a FISA
warrant in order to spy on President Trump's campaign.
In one particularly disturbing text message Strzok refers to an insurance policy of some kind
if Trump should be elected, which could be the genesis of the current Trump – Russia
collusion probe, which is yet to yield any hard evidence of collusion.
Apparently, super-agent Peter Strzok was a very busy man at the Bureau and the go-to guy on
high-profile cases involving political figures.
A senior investigator, who expresses extreme opinions about politicians while he is
investigating them, degrades his ability to be objective. One would have to be in deep denial
to believe that Strzok's political sentiments didn't influence his handling of the Clinton
case. Strzok's kid glove treatment of Clinton and her aides during their interviews and his
edits of Comey's draft exoneration document are completely consistent with his favorable
political view of Clinton.
It boggles the mind to think that senior FBI officials, like Strzok and Page, would be
foolish enough to leave an electronic trail of their political proclivities. It is a gross
understatement to say that they should have known better. Apparently, they and others in the
Department of Justice never thought such conflicts of interest would ever be exposed because
they were thoroughly convinced Hillary Clinton would be the next president and their next boss.
They committed the mortal sin of presumption and are suffering the consequences. Presumption
coupled with a monumental lack of discretion increases the chances that a scandal will ensue
and that's exactly what happened in this case.
Although Peter Strzok was highly regarded within the Bureau, no one ever heard of him until
he became an overnight media sensation along with his paramour, Lisa Page. As damning as the
flurry of text messages is to the probity of high-profile criminal investigations, it may only
be the beginning salvo in a barrage of shattering revelations because there are thousands of
his text messages that haven't been released yet. The small fraction that have been submitted
to congress were partially redacted. Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, is also
seeking Strzok's text messages under the Freedom of Information Act. And the House Judiciary
Committee intends to subpoena Strzok to testify under oath.
The DOJ and the FBI have studiously resisted requests for information by claiming the matter
is still under investigation or would compromise intelligence methods and sources, if the
records were released. They say Justice Department Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, is
reviewing the FBI's handling of investigations relating to the presidential election.
Therefore, DOJ officials say congress will have to wait until the IG's review is finished,
giving the IG precedence over congressional oversight. The extreme reluctance of the DOJ and
the FBI to be forthcoming seems to be motivated by a sense of self-preservation more than
anything else given the can of worms Strzok's text messages has opened. This thing could easily
metastasize into a mega-scandal that undermines our justice system at its core.
At the center of this escalating controversy is Mr. Strzok, who is a veritable one-man band.
As the FBI's lead investigator, the guy was all over the place. When James Comey sought input
on the draft Clinton exoneration letter, he solicited and accepted Strzok's recommendations.
Strzok responded with a now-infamous turn-of-phrase. He suggested that Comey change "grossly
negligent" to "extremely careless" when describing Clinton's handling of classified
information. Strzok also watered down Comey's statement that it's "reasonably likely that
hostile actors gained access to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private email
account." Strzok thought it would be less harmful to say "possible" than "reasonably likely"
when characterizing our enemies' potential access to hacked classified information.
Despite being indiscrete with his political views, Peter Strzok appears to be a very bright
individual whose counsel was avidly sought and valued by the top echelon of the FBI. In this
respect, he was a lot like Mark Fuhrman, who was the most alert detective on the OJ Simpson
case, seemingly everywhere at the crime scenes. Ultimately, Fuhrman was accused of being
prejudiced against blacks and decided to take the Fifth during the Simpson trial. Strzok may
face a similar fate, except his biases run toward politics.
Like Forrest Gump, the slow-witted protagonist in the eponymous Academy Award winning film,
Strzok was everywhere at defining points in the high-profile FBI investigations of a sitting
president and a would-be president. Unlike Forrest Gump, however, Strzok is anything but
slow-witted. Unfortunately, he let his political predilections affect his law enforcement
duties, which is anathema to the bedrock principle of equal justice under the law.
If the bulk of Strzok's text messages, when released, show that the FBI associates with whom
he communicated had a similar rabid disdain or excessive adoration for those they were
investigating, then the cases they were involved with would be tainted and compromised. And the
premier investigatory body in the world will be derided as the Federal Bureau of
Indiscretion.
Honest rank-and-file FBI agents deserve better. They shouldn't have to report to corrupt
leaders who play politics and sully the Bureau's reputation. If FBI agents see something, they
should say something. The evidence and only the evidence should dictate how the law is applied.
To do otherwise is a travesty of justice.
"... "The FBI is out of control. It is stunning that the FBI 'found' these Clinton-Lynch tarmac records only after we caught the
agency hiding them in another lawsuit," stated Judicial Watch Tom Fitton. "Judicial Watch will continue to press for answers about the
FBI's document games in court. In the meantime, the FBI should stop the stonewall and release these new records immediately." ..."
"... This case has also forced the FBI to release to the public the FBI's Clinton investigative file, although more than half of
the records remain withheld. The FBI has also told Judicial Watch that it anticipates completing the processing of these materials by
July 2018. ..."
"... There is significant controversy about whether the FBI and Obama Justice Department investigation gave Clinton and other witnesses
and potential targets preferential treatment. ..."
"... So what say you? Will Judicial Watch finally manage to release documents that expose collusion between a former U.S. President,
the FBI and the sitting Attorney General to cover-up a massive Clinton scandal or will they simply release more heavily redacted documents
that tell us precisely nothing. We'll let you know on Thursday ..."
"... Get rid of all alphabet agencies. Judicial watch can replace the eff bee eye ..."
"... They certainly don't give off the dashing, danger seeking, savior-faire, panache vibe that the Alinsky press so luuuv's to
talk about, like with "former British spies" delivering the fake goods but ...when it comes right down to it... ..."
"... I highly recommend making charitable contributions to Judicial Watch. Freedom isn't free, and JW is helping, a whole lot more
than the MSM which isn't doing its job very well. But Kudos to the reporter who spotted Clinton and Lynch on the tarmac in Phoenix!
..."
"... I think it's foolish for JW to claim victory before seeing the documents. How would it have hurt to just wait a couple of days
before coming out with this story? If this turns out to be a nothing burger it just strengthens Clinton and makes JW look stupid. ..."
After originally being told by the FBI there were no documents to produce in response to their July 2016 FOIA request, Judicial
Watch's Tom Fitton was subsequently told in October 2017 that the FBI had simply overlooked 30 pages worth of relevant docs... 30
pages which Fitton now says will mark the "beginning of the end" of the DOJ's "cover-up" when they're released this Thursday.
FBI Hid Clinton/Lynch Tarmac Meeting Records. But the cover-up begins to end -- thanks to @JudicialWatch -- the day after tomorrow.
@RealDonaldTrump needs to clean house at FBI/DOJ.
Of course, Fitton expressed his frustration with the botched FOIA response back in October after describing the FBI as "out of
control" and saying it's " stunning that the FBI 'found' these Clinton-Lynch tarmac records only after we caught the agency hiding
them in another lawsuit." Per
Judicial Watch :
"The FBI is out of control. It is stunning that the FBI 'found' these Clinton-Lynch tarmac records only after we caught
the agency hiding them in another lawsuit," stated Judicial Watch Tom Fitton. "Judicial Watch will continue to press for answers
about the FBI's document games in court. In the meantime, the FBI should stop the stonewall and release these new records immediately."
This case has also forced the FBI to release to the public the FBI's Clinton investigative file, although more than half of
the records remain withheld. The FBI has also told Judicial Watch that it anticipates completing the processing of these materials
by July 2018.
There is significant controversy about whether the FBI and Obama Justice Department investigation gave Clinton and other witnesses
and potential targets preferential treatment.
So what say you? Will Judicial Watch finally manage to release documents that expose collusion between a former U.S. President,
the FBI and the sitting Attorney General to cover-up a massive Clinton scandal or will they simply release more heavily redacted
documents that tell us precisely nothing. We'll let you know on Thursday.
They certainly don't give off the dashing, danger seeking, savior-faire, panache vibe that the Alinsky press so luuuv's
to talk about, like with "former British spies" delivering the fake goods but ...when it comes right down to it...
"Do you want 10yrs of ass pounding prison with a guy named Daisy we know or do you want to give up the goods we can prove you
have?"
...even Grand Inquisitor Mueller will buckle and sob like a pussyhat wearing feminist on inauguration day 2017.
Loyalty only goes as far as the last check with them and the money's running out ;-)
I highly recommend making charitable contributions to Judicial Watch. Freedom isn't free, and JW is helping, a whole lot
more than the MSM which isn't doing its job very well. But Kudos to the reporter who spotted Clinton and Lynch on the tarmac in
Phoenix!
One wonders how the Clinton's found out about Lynch being there, as it certainly wasn't a coincidence.
I think it's foolish for JW to claim victory before seeing the documents. How would it have hurt to just wait a couple
of days before coming out with this story? If this turns out to be a nothing burger it just strengthens Clinton and makes JW look
stupid.
"... The pressure this time emanated from a federal lawsuit that brought the documents to light. Specifically, the lawsuit was filed
by Judicial Watch to determine exactly when FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe recused himself from the Clinton email investigation,
which was codenamed "Mid Year." McCabe was forced to step aside due to questions about a possible conflict of interest involving hundreds
of thousands of dollars of money that flowed to his wife's political campaign from a Clinton ally. ..."
"... The newly disclosed documents, presented in their entirety below, reveal that McCabe did not recuse himself from the long-running
investigation until Nov. 1, 2016, just six days before the probe was officially ended and eight days before Trump defeated Clinton in
one of the greatest upset victories in modern presidential politics. ..."
"... After months of inexplicable delays, the chairman of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees, Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and
Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), announced a joint investigation into how the Justice Department handled last year's investigation into Hillary
Clinton's private email server. The Senate Judiciary Committee had announced its own investigation weeks earlier. ..."
"... The bureau's decision to release the documents is a sign that new FBI Director Chris Wray, is attempting to build his own relationship
with Congress amid multiple oversight investigations. ..."
In September, Comey, - much like Hillary's former IT consultant Paul Combetta who admitted to deleting Hillary's emails despite
the existence of a Congressional subpoena - had his very own "oh shit" moment when a witness confirmed during Congressional testimony
that Comey started drafting his letter excusing Clinton months before the investigation was finished. Since then, the bureau has
decided to begin turning over all documents requested by Congress, including memos pertaining to the infamous 'Trump dossier' after
initially resisting a subpoena from the House Intel committee.
... ... ...
The pressure this time emanated from a federal lawsuit that brought the documents to light. Specifically, the lawsuit was filed
by Judicial Watch to determine exactly when FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe recused himself from the Clinton email investigation,
which was codenamed "Mid Year." McCabe was forced to step aside due to questions about a possible conflict of interest involving
hundreds of thousands of dollars of money that flowed to his wife's political campaign from a Clinton ally.
On Friday, Bloomberg
reported that in their quest to discover the the FBI Deputy Director may know, Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee
threatened to subpoena McCabe next week unless he agrees to appear before their panel.
They intend on pressing McCabe on topics including his role in the FBI's investigation into former White House National Security
Advisor Michael Flynn, said the official, who asked not to be identified discussing the members' plans. Interest in McCabe goes beyond
Flynn, however, the official said.
McCabe's role in the Clinton probe is especially conflicted: last October,
the WSJ reported
that the political organization of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, an influential Democrat with longstanding ties to Bill and Hillary
Clinton, gave nearly $500,000 to the election campaign of McCabe's wife, shortly before he helped oversee the FBI "investigation"
into Clinton's email use.
Campaign finance records show Mr. McAuliffe's political-action committee donated $467,500 to the 2015 state Senate campaign of
Dr. Jill McCabe, who is married to Andrew McCabe, now the deputy director of the FBI.
The Virginia Democratic Party, over which Mr. McAuliffe exerts considerable control, donated an additional $207,788 worth of support
to Dr. McCabe's campaign in the form of mailers, according to the records. That adds up to slightly more than $675,000 to her candidacy
from entities either directly under Mr. McAuliffe's control or strongly influenced by him. The figure represents more than a third
of all the campaign funds Dr. McCabe raised in the effort.
The newly disclosed documents, presented in their entirety below, reveal that McCabe did not recuse himself from the long-running
investigation until Nov. 1, 2016, just six days before the probe was officially ended and eight days before Trump defeated Clinton
in one of the greatest upset victories in modern presidential politics.
After months of inexplicable delays, the chairman of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees, Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and
Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), announced a joint investigation into how the Justice Department handled last year's investigation into Hillary
Clinton's private email server. The Senate Judiciary Committee had announced its own investigation weeks earlier.
The bureau's decision to release the documents is a sign that new FBI Director Chris Wray, is attempting to build his own
relationship with Congress amid multiple oversight investigations.
If Sessions appoints a special prosecutor for Uranium-1, on the basis that all that lovely yellow cake has left the country
for parts unknown, contravening guarantees made to Congress (the FBI informant hopefully this week is key), obviously there is
no link to Hillary that could affect Sessions recusal - because the MSM have been telling us ad infinitum there is nothing to
see there...
Sessions and his recusal are then out of the frame, and the SP can go down every fucking rabbit hole he chooses (same as Mueller
is doing). If, perchance, they lead him to the doors of the Clinton Foundation, or God forbid, the scroat herself, that is fuck
all to do with the AG.
In order to have zero influence in the control of the evidence from hereon in, McCabe and Rosenstein (and likely many of their
Obama placeholder deputies in the FBI and DoJ) need to be removed immediately.
The evidence is all on the Weiner laptop, and on all the Awan laptops and desktops. But they do have to actually look at them....
Looks like Sessions is being skunked and humiliated by the DoJ permanent staff who always adored Hillary and Obama, and still
do.
FBI officials declined to comment. "We don't have any information for you," spokeswoman Carol Cratty told The Hill.
That is not acceptable spokeswoman Carol Cratty. You are a servant to the people and answer to us! Now get your ass in gear
and bring out the information or you will also be charged with obstruction of justice.
Sessions is a spinless douche bag. He recused himself from Clinton fountion because he said something negative about the candidate
and it might hurt his objectivity? What a coward this guy is, he wants nothing to do with prosecuting Clinton. Fire this pussy
already Trump!!
My guess is TPTB are seeing their stories are becoming so fantastic and hard to believe they're straining their last tiny threads
of credulity so they're trying to placate with these batches of files.. The lovely and charming mrs. chunga likes to watch the
weather report in the morning. She normally has the discipline to not get too fired up about fake news because she's convinced
it's all fake but this AM she was livid.
The little fake news pinhead said Trump was fleeing the country because he was in grave danger of Mueller and the Russian collusion
business was closing in on him. He said the Uranium One thing had been "thouroughly debunked". No mention of Brazile. No mention
of Warren.
Then some tribe guy legal expert came on and said Sessions was again in Trump's dog house and any attempt to push him around
was a desperate diversion tactic and the "Murikan people want Mueller to continue without interference. LoL!
My theory is Comey re-opened the investigation when the Weiner laptop popped up. Then it was closed 8 days later after it had
positively been secured and everyone who'd seen it was sufficiently threatened and/or killed by federal black hats.
FBI Turns Over Hundreds Of Pages Of New Clinton Probe Documents
My response: IT IS ABOUT TIME!!!! What an absolute screwed up mess this whole CLINTON episode has become.
IF YOU WANT IT REALLY SCREWED UP, JUST LET THE MARXIST PROGRESS LIBERAL LAWYERS AND JUDGES GET INVOLVED.
AG Jeff Sessions really needs to step up to the bar here or GET THE HELL OUT!!!!
By the way, AG Sessions better make RICE, LOIS LERNER (IRS), HOLDER, LYNCH and OBAMA a key focus in the weeks ahead. These
people are corrupt to the core.
Yes I mean both of them. McAuliffe too. McAuliffe is the one who stood down the Virginia police and is responsible for all
the mayhem in Charlottesville.
Go to jail Terry you corrupt son of a b****. Terry was on the board of the Clinton Foundation.
And while we're at it there's Tim Kaine former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, which apparently was bankrupt
enough for Hillary Clinton to take over with some of her ill-gotten gains to guarantee herself the Democratic nomination and steal
the nomination from Bernie Sanders. And we can see how corrupt the DNC is can't we?
So we can dump Kaine because he had to know about uranium one. He had to know about the Perkins Coie pissgate "dossier". He
is thick in this too.
Smashed hard drives, deleted emails, pleading the 5th, immunity deals. This is politics at the highest level. No one goes to
jail that is or was in a position of power and spotlight. It's a failure of government and a failure of justice. All it does is
what the left wants - divide and conquer.
As a reminder, all the data to date suggests that Hillary broke the following 11 US CODES. I provided the links for your convenience.
HRC needs to immediately be apprehended, Arrested, Indicted, Enprisoned, Tried, Convicted & Executed.
CEO aka "President" TRUMP was indeed correct when he said: "FBI Director Comey was the best thing that ever happened to Hillary
Clinton in that he gave her a free pass for many bad deeds!"
18 USC Sec. 2384?TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE?PART I - CRIMES?CHAPTER 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE
ACTIVITIES http://trac.syr.edu/laws/18/18USC02384.html
18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their
enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or
shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of
holding any office under the United States. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381
The Preponderance of Evidence suggests that she broke these Laws, Knowingly, Willfully and Repeatedly. This pattern indicates
a habitual/career Criminal, who belongs in Federal Prison awaiting Trail for Treason, Sedition, Crimes Against Humanity & Crimes
Against The American People.
**Side Note**
Mueller, Comey, Obama, Lynch, Jarrett, Clapper, Brennan, Wasserman-Shultz are not immune from the above charges.
Comey is actually a politician. And he definitely wanted to keep Russiagate hot, and probably was
instrumental in creating it ... As this situation suits him political desire for higher autonomy from
Justice Department
Notable quotes:
"... James Comey asserted in his extraordinary testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee that the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is authorized to override Justice Department oversight procedures, a questionable claim which if true would raise serious questions about long-standing rules aimed at preventing abuses by federal law enforcement officials. ..."
"... The former head of the FBI told the Senate panel that he believed he had received a direction from the president in February that the FBI end its investigation of Michael Flynn's alleged involvement with Russia -- a direction with which he and his kitchen-cabinet of "FBI senior leadership" unilaterally decided not to comply. The Comey cabinet then decided that it would not report the receipt of this direction to Attorney General Jeff Sessions or any other Justice Department superior. ..."
"... Rosenstein criticized Comey's decision to act without consultation from the Department of Justice as usurping the Attorney General's authority and an attempt to "supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department. Comey had violated a "well-established process" for how to deal with situations where to Attorney General faces a conflict of interest, according to Rosenstein. ..."
"... "The Director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General's authority on July 5, 2016," Rosenstein wrote. "The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department . ..."
"... Comey's assertion that the FBI can override standard protocols could endanger that independence, according to a former high-ranking federal law enforcement official. ..."
"... "Mr. Comey is describing an FBI director who essentially answers to no one. But the police powers of the government are awesome and often abused, and the only way to prevent or correct abuses is to report to elected officials who are accountable to voters. A director must resist intervention to obstruct an investigation, but he and the agency must be politically accountable or risk becoming the FBI of J. Edgar Hoover," the Wall Street Journal wrote . ..."
"... A 2005 report from the FBI's Office of Inspector General on the Department of Justice's guidelines for FBI investigations stated, "Attorneys General and FBI leadership have uniformly agreed that the Attorney General Guidelines are necessary and desirable, and they have referred to the FBI's adherence to the Attorney General Guidelines as the reason why the FBI should not be subjected to a general legislative charter or to statutory control over the exercise of some of its most intrusive authorities. " ..."
James Comey asserted in his extraordinary testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee
that the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is authorized to override Justice Department
oversight procedures, a questionable claim which if true would raise serious questions about long-standing
rules aimed at preventing abuses by federal law enforcement officials.
The former head of the FBI told the Senate panel that he believed he had received a direction
from the president in February that the FBI end its investigation of Michael Flynn's alleged involvement
with Russia -- a direction with which he and his kitchen-cabinet of "FBI senior leadership" unilaterally
decided not to comply. The Comey cabinet then decided that it would not report the receipt of this
direction to Attorney General Jeff Sessions or any other Justice Department superior.
The group decided that it could override standard FBI protocol and possibly legal obligations
to report the incident because of its expectations that Sessions would recuse himself from the Russia
matter, although that recusal would not come until weeks later. The Comey cabinet also decided that
it wasn't obligated to approach the acting Deputy Attorney General because he would likely be replaced
soon.
"We concluded it made little sense to report it to Attorney General Sessions, who we expected
would likely recuse himself from involvement in Russia-related investigations. (He did so two weeks
later.) The Deputy Attorney General's role was then filled in an acting capacity by a United States
Attorney, who would also not be long in the role," Comey said. "After discussing the matter, we decided
to keep it very closely held, resolving to figure out what to do with it down the road as our investigation
progressed."
According to three different former federal law enforcement officials, who spoke on the condition
of anonymity, there is no precedent for the director of the FBI to refuse to inform a Deputy Attorney
General of a matter because of his or her "acting" status nor to use the expectation of a recusal
as a basis for withholding information.
"This is an extraordinary usurpation of power. Not something you'd expect from the supposedly
by-the-books guys at the top of the FBI," one of those officials told Breitbart News.
The closest precedent to the Comey cabinet's decision to conceal information from Justice Department
superiors is likely Comey's widely criticized earlier decision to go public about the investigation
of Hillary Clinton's emails. That decision received a sharp rebuke in the May 9 memo by Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein that formed the basis for Comey's firing by Trump.
Rosenstein criticized Comey's decision to act without consultation from the Department of
Justice as usurping the Attorney General's authority and an attempt to "supplant federal prosecutors
and assume command of the Justice Department. Comey had violated a "well-established process" for
how to deal with situations where to Attorney General faces a conflict of interest, according to
Rosenstein.
"The Director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General's authority on July 5, 2016," Rosenstein
wrote. "The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed attorney General Loretta
Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and
assume command of the Justice Department . There is a well-established process for other
officials to step in when a conflict requires the recusal of the Attorney General. On July 5, however,
the Director announced his own conclusions about the nation's most sensitive criminal investigation,
without the authorization of duly appointed Justice Department leaders."
Comey's testimony on Thursday seemed to double-down on this defense, which amounts to a claim
that the FBI's top agents can act outside of the ordinary processes intended to establish oversight
and accountability at the nation's top law enforcement agency.
The FBI's adherence to Department of Justice guidelines and instructions from Attorneys General
has been a centerpiece of its ongoing independence, often cited by officials as a reason why the
FBI does not need a general legislative charter that would restrict or control by statute its authority.
Comey's assertion that the FBI can override standard protocols could endanger that independence,
according to a former high-ranking federal law enforcement official.
"He's not only put the credibility of the bureau in doubt, he's now putting the entire basis for
our independence in jeopardy," the official said.
The official pointed to an editorial in the Wall Street Journal as explaining the dangers of an
FBI that decides not to inform the Department of Justice of its activities.
"Mr. Comey is describing an FBI director who essentially answers to no one. But the police
powers of the government are awesome and often abused, and the only way to prevent or correct abuses
is to report to elected officials who are accountable to voters. A director must resist intervention
to obstruct an investigation, but he and the agency must be politically accountable or risk becoming
the FBI of J. Edgar Hoover," the
Wall Street
Journal wrote .
A 2005 report from the FBI's
Office of Inspector General on the Department of Justice's guidelines for FBI investigations stated,
"Attorneys General and FBI leadership have uniformly agreed that the Attorney General Guidelines
are necessary and desirable, and they have referred to the FBI's adherence to the Attorney General
Guidelines as the reason why the FBI should not be subjected to a general legislative charter or
to statutory control over the exercise of some of its most intrusive authorities. "
Why they decided to resume investigation now ? What new facts were uncovered? What hidden storm
hit "deep state" so the for stability they need to sacrifice Hillary Clinton
How this correlates with the discovery that DNC paid for Steele dossier? Judging from
John Sipher a is
a former member of the CIA's Senior Intelligence Service attempt
to defend Steele dossier in his
Slate article (Sept, 2017), just a month before current revelations. As retied CIA agents
usually avoid public spotlight it might well be that he was "adviced" to write his
evaluation and, if this is the case, then CIA and may be personally Brennan were also involved
in "Steele dossier" fiasco.
Notable quotes:
"... The ousted FBI director James Comey and the former attorney general Loretta Lynch spoke at length to Congress about that investigation last year, and it is the subject of a continuing review by the justice department's inspector general. ..."
"... Nunes has separately signed off on subpoenas that sought the banking records of Fusion GPS, the political research company behind a dossier of allegations about Trump's connections to Russia. A lawyer for the company said in a statement Tuesday the subpoena was "overly broad" and without any legitimate purposes ..."
The Republican leaders of the House judiciary and oversight panels said in a statement they were
opening investigations into the FBI's handling of the Clinton email investigation and the decision
not to prosecute her – the subject of hours-long congressional hearings last year.
The Republican chairman of the House intelligence committee, Devin Nunes, also announced a separate
investigation into a uranium deal brokered during Barack Obama's tenure as president.
The House judiciary committee chairman, Robert Goodlatte of Virginia, and the oversight committee
chairman, Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, said the inquiry would be aimed at the
FBI and its decisions in the Clinton investigation . The ousted FBI director James Comey
and the former attorney general Loretta Lynch spoke at length to Congress about that investigation
last year, and it is the subject of a continuing review by the justice department's inspector general.
The two panels have declined to investigate Russia's interference in the 2016 elections, leaving
those inquiries to Senate committees and the House intelligence committee.
Nunes has separately signed off on subpoenas that sought the banking records of Fusion GPS,
the political research company behind a dossier of allegations about Trump's connections to Russia.
A lawyer for the company said in a statement Tuesday the subpoena was "overly broad" and without
any legitimate purposes.
NEW YORK ! It seemed as if Anthony Weiner had hit rock bottom when he resigned from Congress
in 2011.
"Bye-bye, pervert!" one heckler shouted as the Democrat quit amid revelations that he had
sent graphic pictures of himself to women on social media. Time has shown his self-destructive
drama had only just begun.
Weiner, 53, is set to be sentenced Monday for sending obscene material to a 15-year-old girl
in a case that may have also have played a role in costing Hillary Clinton ! former boss of
Weiner's wife, Huma Abedin ! the presidential election.
Federal prosecutors have asked for a sentence of slightly more than two years behind bars
because of the seriousness of the crime, in which Weiner sent adult porn to the girl and got
her to take her clothes off for him on Skype.
"The defendant did far more than exchange typed words on a lifeless cellphone screen with a
faceless stranger," prosecutors wrote to the judge. "Transmitting obscenity to a minor to
induce her to engage in sexually explicit conduct by video chat and photo ! is far from mere
'sexting.'"
Although Hillary Clinton has blamed numerous factors and people for her loss to Donald Trump in
last year's election, no one has received as much blame as the Russian government. In an effort to
avoid blaming the candidate herself by turning the election results into a national scandal, accusations
of Kremlin-directed meddling soon surfaced. While such accusations have largely been discredited
by both
computer analysts and
award-winning journalists like Seymour Hersh, they continue to be repeated as the
investigation into Donald Trump's alleged collusion with the Russian government picks up steam.
However,
newly released Clinton emails suggest that that the former secretary of state's disdain for the
Russian government is a relatively new development. The emails, obtained by conservative watchdog
group Judicial Watch, show that the Russian government was included in invitations to exclusive Clinton
Foundation galas that began less than two months after Clinton became the top official at the U.S.
State Department.
In March of 2009, Amitabh Desai, then-Clinton Foundation director of foreign policy, sent invitations
to numerous world leaders, which included Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, then-Russian President
Dmitry Medvedev, and former President of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev. Desai's emails were
cc'd to Assistant Secretary of State Andrew Shapiro and later forwarded to top Clinton aide Jake
Sullivan.
The Clinton Foundation's activities during Hillary's tenure as secretary of state have been central
to the accusations that the Clinton family used their "charitable" foundation as a means of enriching
themselves via a massive "Pay to Play" scheme. Emails leaked by Wikileaks, particularly
the Podesta emails , offered
ample evidence connecting foreign donations to the Clintons and their foundation with preferential
treatment by the U.S. State Department.
"... However, one senior NSA official, now retired, recalled the kerfuffle with Team Clinton in early 2009 about Blackberrys. "It was the usual Clinton prima donna stuff," he explained, "the whole 'rules are for other people' act that I remembered from the '90s." Why Ms. Clinton would not simply check her personal email on an office computer, like every other government employee less senior than the president, seems a germane question, given what a major scandal email-gate turned out to be. "What did she not want put on a government system, where security people might see it?" the former NSA official asked, adding, "I wonder now, and I sure wish I'd asked about it back in 2009." ..."
"... one of the most controversial of Ms. Clinton's emails released by the State Department under judicial order was one sent on June 8, 2011, to the Secretary of State by Sidney Blumenthal, Ms. Clinton's unsavory friend and confidant who was running a private intelligence service for Ms. Clinton. This email contains an amazingly detailed assessment of events in Sudan, specifically a coup being plotted by top generals in that war-torn country. Mr. Blumenthal's information came from a top-ranking source with direct access to Sudan's top military and intelligence officials, and recounted a high-level meeting that had taken place only 24 hours before. ..."
"... Mr. Blumenthal, a private citizen who had enjoyed no access to U.S. intelligence for over a decade when he sent that email, somehow got hold of SIGINT about the Sudanese leadership and managed to send it, via open, unclassified email, to his friend Ms. Clinton only one day later. ..."
"... Specifically, this information was illegally lifted from four different NSA reports, all of them classified "Top Secret / Special Intelligence." Worse, at least one of those reports was issued under the GAMMA compartment, which is an NSA handling caveat that is applied to extraordinarily sensitive information (for instance, decrypted conversations between top foreign leadership, as this was). GAMMA is properly viewed as a SIGINT Special Access Program, or SAP, several of which from the CIA Ms. Clinton compromised in another series of her "unclassified" emails. ..."
"... Suspicion naturally falls on Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA senior official who was Mr. Blumenthal's intelligence fixer, his supplier of juicy spy gossip, who conveniently died last August before email-gate became front-page news. However, he, too, had left federal service years before and should not have had any access to current NSA reports. ..."
"... How did nobody on Secretary Clinton's staff notice that this highly detailed reporting looked exactly like SIGINT from the NSA? Last, why did the State Department see fit to release this email, unredacted, to the public? ..."
Mar 18, 2016
The documents
, though redacted, detail a bureaucratic showdown between Ms. Clinton and NSA at the outset of
her tenure at Foggy Bottom. The new secretary of state, who had gotten "hooked" on her
Blackberry during her failed 2008 presidential bid, according to a top State Department
security official, wanted to use that Blackberry anywhere she went.
That, however, was impossible, since Secretary Clinton's main office space at Foggy Bottom
was actually a Secure Compartment Information Facility, called a SCIF (pronounced "skiff") by
insiders. A SCIF is required for handling any Top Secret-plus information. In most Washington,
D.C., offices with a SCIF, which has to be certified as fully secure from human or technical
penetration, that's where you check Top-Secret email, read intelligence reports and conduct
classified meetings that must be held inside such protected spaces.
But personal electronic devices!your cellphone, your Blackberry!can never be brought into a
SCIF. They represent a serious technical threat that is actually employed by many intelligence
agencies worldwide. Though few Americans realize it, taking remote control over a handheld
device, then using it to record conversations, is surprisingly easy for any competent spy
service. Your smartphone is a sophisticated surveillance device!on you, the user!that also
happens to provide phone service and Internet access.
As a result, your phone and your Blackberry always need to be locked up before you enter any
SCIF. Taking such items into one represents a serious security violation. And Ms. Clinton and
her staff really hated that. Not even one month into the new administration in early 2009, Ms.
Clinton and her inner circle were chafing under these rules. They were accustomed to having
their personal Blackberrys with them at all times, checking and sending emails nonstop, and
that was simply impossible in a SCIF like their new office.
This resulted in a February 2009 request by Secretary Clinton to the NSA, whose Information
Assurance Directorate (IAD for short: see here for an
explanation of Agency organization) secures the sensitive communications of many U.S.
government entities, from Top-Secret computer networks, to White House communications, to the
classified codes that control our nuclear weapons.
The contents of Sid Blumenthal's June 8, 2011, email to Hillary Clinton!to her personal,
unclassified account!were based on highly sensitive NSA information.
IAD had recently created a special,
custom-made secure Blackberry for Barack Obama, another technology addict. Now Ms. Clinton
wanted one for herself. However, making the new president's personal Blackberry had been a
time-consuming and expensive exercise. The NSA was not inclined to provide Secretary Clinton
with one of her own simply for her convenience: there had to be clearly demonstrated need.
And that seemed dubious to IAD since there was no problem with Ms. Clinton checking her
personal email inside her office SCIF. Hers, like most, had open (i.e. unclassified) computer
terminals connected to the Internet, and the secretary of state could log into her own email
anytime she wanted to right from her desk.
But she did not want to. Ms. Clinton only checked her personal email on her Blackberry: she
did not want to sit down at a computer terminal. As a result, the NSA informed Secretary
Clinton in early 2009 that they could not help her. When Team Clinton kept pressing the point,
"We were politely told to shut up and color" by IAD,
explained the state security official.
The State Department has not released the full document trail here, so the complete story
remains unknown to the public. However, one senior NSA official, now retired, recalled the
kerfuffle with Team Clinton in early 2009 about Blackberrys. "It was the usual Clinton prima
donna stuff," he explained, "the whole 'rules are for other people' act that I remembered from
the '90s." Why Ms. Clinton would not simply check her personal email on an office computer,
like every other government employee less senior than the president, seems a germane question,
given what a major scandal email-gate turned out to be. "What did she not want put on a
government system, where security people might see it?" the former NSA official asked, adding,
"I wonder now, and I sure wish I'd asked about it back in 2009."
He's not the only NSA affiliate with pointed questions about what Hillary Clinton and her
staff at Foggy Bottom were really up to!and why they went to such trouble to circumvent federal
laws about the use of IT systems and the handling of classified information. This has come to a
head thanks to Team Clinton's gross mishandling of highly classified NSA intelligence.
As I
explained in this column in January, one of the most controversial of Ms. Clinton's
emails released by the State Department under judicial order was one sent on June 8, 2011, to
the Secretary of State by Sidney Blumenthal, Ms. Clinton's unsavory
friend and confidant who was running a private intelligence service for Ms. Clinton. This email
contains an amazingly detailed assessment of events in Sudan, specifically a coup being plotted
by top generals in that war-torn country. Mr. Blumenthal's information came from a top-ranking
source with direct access to Sudan's top military and intelligence officials, and recounted a
high-level meeting that had taken place only 24 hours before.
To anybody familiar with intelligence reporting, this unmistakably signals intelligence,
termed SIGINT in the trade. In other words, Mr. Blumenthal, a private citizen who had
enjoyed no access to U.S. intelligence for over a decade when he sent that email, somehow got
hold of SIGINT about the Sudanese leadership and managed to send it, via open, unclassified
email, to his friend Ms. Clinton only one day later.
NSA officials were appalled by the State Department's release of this email, since it bore
all the hallmarks of Agency reporting. Back in early January when I reported this , I was
confident that Mr. Blumenthal's information came from highly classified NSA sources, based on
my years of reading and writing such reports myself, and one veteran agency official told me it
was NSA information with "at least 90 percent confidence."
Now, over two months later, I can confirm that the contents of Sid Blumenthal's June 8,
2011, email to Hillary Clinton, sent to her personal, unclassified account, were indeed based
on highly sensitive NSA information. The agency investigated this compromise and determined
that Mr. Blumenthal's highly detailed account of Sudanese goings-on, including the retelling of
high-level conversations in that country, was indeed derived from NSA intelligence.
Specifically, this information was illegally lifted from four different NSA reports, all
of them classified "Top Secret / Special Intelligence." Worse, at least one of those reports
was issued under the GAMMA compartment, which is an NSA handling caveat that is
applied to extraordinarily sensitive information (for instance, decrypted conversations between
top foreign leadership, as this was). GAMMA is properly viewed as a SIGINT Special Access
Program, or SAP, several of which from the CIA Ms. Clinton compromised in another
series of her "unclassified" emails.
Currently serving NSA officials have told me they have no doubt that Mr. Blumenthal's
information came from their reports. "It's word-for-word, verbatim copying," one of them
explained. "In one case, an entire paragraph was lifted from an NSA report" that was classified
Top Secret / Special Intelligence.
How Mr. Blumenthal got his hands on this information is the key question, and there's no
firm answer yet. The fact that he was able to take four separate highly classified NSA
reports!none of which he was supposed to have any access to!and pass the details of them to
Hillary Clinton via email only hours after NSA released them in Top Secret / Special
Intelligence channels indicates something highly unusual, as well as illegal, was going on.
Suspicion naturally falls on Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA senior official who was
Mr. Blumenthal's intelligence fixer, his supplier of juicy spy gossip, who
conveniently died last August before email-gate became front-page news. However, he, too,
had left federal service years before and should not have had any access to current NSA
reports.
There are many questions here about what Hillary Clinton and her staff at Foggy Bottom were
up to, including Sidney Blumenthal, an integral member of the Clinton organization, despite his
lack of any government position. How Mr. Blumenthal got hold of this Top Secret-plus reporting
is only the first question. Why he chose to email it to Ms. Clinton in open channels is another
question. So is: How did nobody on Secretary Clinton's staff notice that this highly
detailed reporting looked exactly like SIGINT from the NSA? Last, why did the State Department
see fit to release this email, unredacted, to the public?
These are the questions being asked by officials at the NSA and the FBI right now. All of
them merit serious examination. Their answers may determine the political fate of Hillary
Clinton!and who gets elected our next president in November.
"... Days earlier, the financier from suburban Lake Forest gave an interview to the Journal about his quest, and it published stories about his efforts beginning in late June. The Journal also reported it had seen emails written by Smith showing his team considered retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, then a top adviser to Republican Donald Trump's campaign, as an ally. Flynn briefly was President Trump's national security adviser and resigned after it was determined he had failed to disclose contacts with Russia. ..."
"... The Journal stories said it was on Labor Day weekend in 2016 that Smith had assembled a team to acquire emails the team theorized might have been stolen from the private server Clinton had used while secretary of state. Smith's focus was the more than 30,000 emails Clinton said she deleted because they related to personal matters. A huge cache of other Clinton emails were made public. ..."
"... Smith told the Journal he believed the missing emails might have had been obtained by Russian hackers. He also said he thought the correspondence related to Clinton's official duties. He told the Journal he worked independently and was not part of the Trump campaign. He also told the Journal he and his team found five groups of hackers - two of them Russian groups - who claimed to have Clinton's missing emails. ..."
"... Investigations into any possible links between the Russian government and people associated with Trump's presidential campaign now are underway in Congress and by former FBI chief Robert Mueller. He is acting as a special counsel for the Department of Justice. Mueller spokesman Peter Carr declined to comment on the Journal's stories on Smith or his death. Washington attorney Robert Kelner, who represents Flynn, had no comment on Thursday. ..."
"... Smith's death occurred at the Aspen Suites in Rochester, records show. They list the cause of death as "asphyxiation due to displacement of oxygen in confined space with helium." ..."
"... The employee, who spoke on the condition he not be identified because of the sensitive nature of Smith's death, described the tank as being similar in size to a propane tank on a gas grill. He did not recall seeing a bag that Smith would have placed over his head. He said the coroner and police were there and that he "didn't do a lot of looking around." ..."
"... Peter Smith wrote two blog posts dated the day before he was found dead. One challenged U.S. intelligence agency findings that Russia interfered with the 2016 election. Another post predicted: "As attention turns to international affairs, as it will shortly, the Russian interference story will die of its own weight." ..."
A Republican donor and operative from Chicago's North Shore who said he had
tried to obtain Hillary Clinton's missing emails from Russian hackers killed himself in a
Minnesota hotel room days after talking to The Wall Street Journal about his efforts, public
records show.
In a room at a Rochester hotel used almost exclusively by Mayo Clinic patients and
relatives, Peter W. Smith, 81, left a carefully prepared file of documents, which includes a
statement police called a suicide note in which he said he was in ill health and a life
insurance policy was expiring.
Days earlier, the financier from suburban Lake Forest gave an interview to the Journal
about his quest, and it published stories about his efforts beginning in late June. The Journal
also reported it had seen emails written by Smith showing his team considered retired Lt. Gen.
Michael Flynn, then a top adviser to Republican Donald Trump's campaign, as an ally. Flynn
briefly was President Trump's national security adviser and resigned after it was determined he
had failed to disclose contacts with Russia.
At the time, the newspaper reported Smith's May 14 death came about 10 days after he granted
the interview. Mystery shrouded how and where he had died, but the lead reporter on the stories
said on a podcast he had no reason to believe the death was the result of foul play and that
Smith likely had died of natural causes.
However, the Chicago Tribune obtained a Minnesota state death record filed in Olmsted County
that says Smith committed suicide in a hotel near the Mayo Clinic at 1:17 p.m. on Sunday, May
14. He was found with a bag over his head with a source of helium attached. A medical
examiner's report gives the same account, without specifying the time, and a report from
Rochester police further details his suicide.
In the note recovered by police, Smith apologized to authorities and said that "NO FOUL PLAY
WHATSOEVER" was involved in his death. He wrote that he was taking his own life because of a
"RECENT BAD TURN IN HEALTH SINCE JANUARY, 2017" and timing related "TO LIFE INSURANCE OF $5
MILLION EXPIRING."
One of Smith's former employees told the Tribune he thought the elderly man had gone to the
famed clinic to be treated for a heart condition. Mayo spokeswoman Ginger Plumbo said Thursday
she could not confirm Smith had been a patient, citing medical privacy laws.
The Journal stories said it was on Labor Day weekend in 2016 that Smith had assembled a
team to acquire emails the team theorized might have been stolen from the private server
Clinton had used while secretary of state. Smith's focus was the more than 30,000 emails
Clinton said she deleted because they related to personal matters. A huge cache of other
Clinton emails were made public.
Smith told the Journal he believed the missing emails might have had been obtained by
Russian hackers. He also said he thought the correspondence related to Clinton's official
duties. He told the Journal he worked independently and was not part of the Trump campaign. He
also told the Journal he and his team found five groups of hackers - two of them Russian groups
- who claimed to have Clinton's missing emails.
Smith had a history of doing opposition research, the formal term for unflattering
information that political operatives dig up about rival candidates.
For years, Democratic President Bill Clinton was Smith's target. The wealthy businessman had
a hand in exposing the "Troopergate" allegations about Bill Clinton's sex life. And he
discussed financing a probe of a 1969 trip Bill Clinton had taken while in college to the
Soviet Union, according to Salon magazine.
Investigations into any possible links between the Russian government and people
associated with Trump's presidential campaign now are underway in Congress and by former FBI
chief Robert Mueller. He is acting as a special counsel for the Department of Justice. Mueller
spokesman Peter Carr declined to comment on the Journal's stories on Smith or his death.
Washington attorney Robert Kelner, who represents Flynn, had no comment on Thursday.
Smith's death occurred at the Aspen Suites in Rochester, records show. They list the
cause of death as "asphyxiation due to displacement of oxygen in confined space with
helium."
Rochester Police Chief Roger Peterson on Wednesday called his manner of death "unusual," but
a funeral home worker said he'd seen it before.
An employee with Rochester Cremation Services, the funeral home that responded to the hotel,
said he helped remove Smith's body from his room and recalled seeing a tank.
The employee, who spoke on the condition he not be identified because of the sensitive
nature of Smith's death, described the tank as being similar in size to a propane tank on a gas
grill. He did not recall seeing a bag that Smith would have placed over his head. He said the
coroner and police were there and that he "didn't do a lot of looking around."
"When I got there and saw the tank, I thought, 'I've seen this before,' and was able to put
two and two together," the employee said.
An autopsy was conducted, according to the death record. The Southern Minnesota Regional
Medical Examiner's Office declined a Tribune request for the autopsy report and released
limited information about Smith's death.
The Final Exit Network, a Florida-based nonprofit, provides information and support to
people who suffer from a terminal illness and want to kill themselves.
Fran Schindler, a volunteer with the group, noted that the best-selling book Final Exit,
written by Derek Humphry in 1991 and revised several times since, explains in detail the helium
gas method.
"Many people obtain that information from his book," Schindler said. "It's a method that has
been around for many years and is well known."
Smith's remains were cremated in Minnesota, the records said. He was married to Janet L.
Smith and had three children and three grandchildren, according to his obituary. Tribune calls
to family members were not returned.
His obituary
said Smith was involved in public affairs for more than 60 years and it heralded him as a
"quietly generous champion of efforts to ensure a more economically and politically secure
world." Smith led private equity firms in corporate acquisitions and venture investments for
more than 40 years. Earlier, he worked with DigaComm, LLC, from 1997 to 2014 and as the
president of Peter W. Smith & Company, Inc. from 1975 to 1997. Prior to that, he was a
senior officer of Field Enterprises, Inc., a firm that owned the Chicago Sun-Times then and was
held by the Marshall Field family, his obituary said.
A private family memorial was planned, the obituary said. Friends posted online tributes to
Smith after his death. One was from his former employee, Jonathan Safron, 26, who lives in
Chicago's Loop and worked for Smith for about two years.
Safron, in an interview, said he was working for a tutoring firm when Smith became his
client. His job entailed teaching Smith how to use a MacBook, Safron said. At the time Smith
was living in a condominium atop the Four Seasons Hotel Chicago. Safron said Smith later
employed him at Corporate Venture Alliances, a private investment firm that Smith ran, first
out of the same condo and later from an office in the Hancock Building.
Safron, who said he had a low-level job with the Illinois Republican Party in 2014, said he
had no knowledge of Smith's bid to find hackers who could locate emails missing from Clinton's
service as secretary of state. In his online tribute to his former employer, he called Smith
the "best boss I could ever ask for ... a mentor, friend and model human being."
Safron said he worked part-time for Smith, putting in about 15 hours a week. But the two
grew close, often having lunch together at a favorite Smith spot: the Oak Tree Restaurant &
Bakery Chicago on North Michigan Ave. He called Smith a serious man who was "upbeat,"
"cosmopolitan" and "larger than life." He was aware Smith was in declining health, saying the
older man sometimes had difficulty breathing and told work colleagues he had heart problems.
Weeks before he took his life, he had become fatigued walking down about four or five flights
of stairs during a Hancock Building fire drill and later emailed Safron saying he was "dizzy,"
he said.
Smith's last will and testament, signed last Feb. 21, is seven pages long and on file in
Probate Court in Lake County. The will gives his wife his interest in their residential
property and his tangible personal property and says remaining assets should be placed into two
trusts.
He was born Feb. 23, 1936, in Portland, Maine, according to the death record.
His late father, Waldo Sterling Smith, was a manufacturer's representative for women's
apparel firms, representing them in department stores in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont,
according to the father's 2002 obituary. The elder Smith died at age 92 in St. Augustine, Fla.,
and his obit noted that he had been active in St. Johns County, Fla. Republican affairs and
with a local Methodist church
Peter Smith wrote two blog posts dated the day before he was found dead. One challenged
U.S. intelligence agency findings that Russia interfered with the 2016 election. Another post
predicted: "As attention turns to international affairs, as it will shortly, the Russian
interference story will die of its own weight."
Skiba reported from Washington, Heinzmann reported from Rochester and Lighty from
Chicago. Lauren Rosenblatt of the Tribune Washington Bureau and Dan Moran of the Lake County
News-Sun contributed to this story.
"... The fact that the Hersh piece was published in one of Germany's ueber-establishment organs, Die Welt, is significant. It means that Germany is no longer on board, and I don't see Macron, though he is an empty suit, doing a 180 like some fear, since he takes many of his orders from Merkel. ..."
exiled off mainstreet | Jun 27, 2017 10:33:18 AM |
25
I go along with comments 14 and 15 and see it actually as a response intended to defend
against the inference from the Hersh piece that Trump revealed himself to be a moron for
succumbing despite the evidence to media propaganda.
I think that the problem is that Trump
is less than fully in control of elements of his government, possibly even Spicer, as evidenced
by the failure to inform the state dept, military and others of the statement, which may
not have been fully vetted. I wouldn't be surprised if Spicer's time as press secretary
is limited.
The fact that the Hersh piece was published in one of Germany's ueber-establishment organs,
Die Welt, is significant. It means that Germany is no longer on board, and I don't see Macron,
though he is an empty suit, doing a 180 like some fear, since he takes many of his orders
from Merkel.
It is seriously disconcerting that the neocons still seem to be able to rule
the roost. If any "chemical" attack occurs within a few days or longer away, it will be
extremely suspect. Meanwhile, the Russia conspiracy stories in the US seem to be in the
early stages of blowing up, with a CNN official being exposed as admitting it was all propaganda,
and Loretta Lynch, the ex-Justice Minister, appearing to be becoming a target based on her defence of the Harpy from criminal liability for the email server during the 2016 campaign.
In light of these facts, I think the whole thing more likely shows weakness and disarray,
not a serious conspiratorial threat of armageddon, though it could end up blowing up in
that direction.
"When you have a former head of the FBI, a deeply respected person"
That's funny. Can you spell 9/11. He served as President George W. Bush's deputy attorney general
(D.A.G.), in the aftermath of 9/11. So he is the the one who got Saudi officials off the hook.
Former Democratic Sen. Bob Graham, who in 2002 chaired the congressional Joint Inquiry into
9/11, maintains the FBI is covering up a Saudi support cell in Sarasota for the hijackers.
He says the al-Hijjis' "urgent" pre-9/11 exit suggests "someone may have tipped them off" about
the coming attacks.
Graham has been working with a 14-member group in Congress to urge President Obama to declassify
28 pages of the final report of his inquiry which were originally redacted, wholesale, by President
George W. Bush.
"The 28 pages primarily relate to who financed 9/11, and they point a very strong finger
at Saudi Arabia as being the principal financier," he said, adding, "I am speaking of the kingdom,"
or government, of Saudi Arabia, not just wealthy individual Saudi donors.
Sources who have read the censored Saudi section say it cites CIA and FBI case files that
directly implicate officials of the Saudi Embassy in Washington and its consulate in Los Angeles
in the attacks - which, if true, would make 9/11 not just an act of terrorism, but an act of
war by a foreign government.
– From the New York Post article: How the FBI is Whitewashing the Saudi Connection to 9/11
Was Comey's "second thought" announcement after Hillary email investigation a naked political
gambit?
And what about his very strange announcement about Wiener computer containing Hillary classified
emails?
"... It had shown staggering incompetence and arrogance of Hillary and her close circle. You can argue about the level of criminality, but it is impossible to argue about staggering level of incompetence and arrogance. "Bathroom server" was essentially "shadow IT" installed by Hillary for her nefarious purpose to hide transactions benefitting Clinton foundation and generally to remain out of control, while in government. ..."
"... All-in-all vividly demonstrated that Obama administration as whole was a dysfunctional mess with corruption and clique infighting inside major departments (Meeting of Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch; Comey granting immunity to everybody, suppressing the investigation and then having the second thoughts; Obama greed after he left the office). ..."
I disagree. It
had shown staggering incompetence and arrogance of Hillary
and her close circle. You can argue about the level of
criminality, but it is impossible to argue about
staggering level of incompetence and arrogance. "Bathroom
server" was essentially "shadow IT" installed by Hillary
for her nefarious purpose to hide transactions benefitting
Clinton foundation and generally to remain out of control,
while in government.
Attempts to suppress investigation now also can be
proved. Much better then Trump collision with Russians.
All-in-all vividly demonstrated that Obama
administration as whole was a dysfunctional mess with
corruption and clique infighting inside major departments
(Meeting of Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch; Comey granting
immunity to everybody, suppressing the investigation and
then having the second thoughts; Obama greed after he left
the office).
If this was a big nothing, then dementia is not a
problem :-)
"I disagree. It had shown staggering incompetence and
arrogance of Hillary and her close circle. yo can argue
about the level of criminality, but it is impossible to
argue about staggering level of incompetence and
arrogance."
OK, Clinton was not 1000% perfect.
So, that justifies giving the job to Trump because 5%
competency from a man is better than a 98% competent
woman?
Only men are allowed to be both arrogant and
incompetent!
The USA opened this can of works with Flame and Stixnet. Now it needs to face consequences of its
reckless actions.
Both Hillary staff and DNC staff behaves like complete idiots, taking into account the level of
mayhem the USA caused in other countries, including Russia. Blowback eventually came and bite their
ass. In addition Hillary "private" staff was definitely incompetent.
Notable quotes:
"... The validity of outrage anyway vis-a-vis the Russians, is, to some extent, misplaced ( ..everyone's doin' it aren't they? For starters, recall the Time cover of' '96: ..."
Incessantly reporting 24/7 on whether the Russians did it or not doesn't take into account the
critical failure by a leading political party of the "free world" – a nation supposedly at the forefront
of technology – to appropriately secure their digital communications along with those of a potential
POTUS.
This is a question of how US government, or a potential one, works, and how it should work in
the future.
The validity of outrage anyway vis-a-vis the Russians, is, to some extent, misplaced ( ..everyone's
doin' it aren't they? For starters, recall the Time cover of' '96:
"... Comey admitted to orchestrating leaks from the investigation to the media using a network of friends. Reponse was swift on social media: ..."
"... Senator Risch questioned Comey about the Times, asking "So the American people can understand this, that report by the New York Times was not true, is that a fair statement?" "It was not true," Comey said. "Again, all of you know this, maybe the American people don't. The challenge - I'm not picking on reporters about writing stories about classified information [the challenge is] that people talking about it often don't really now what's going on and those of us who actually know what's going on are not talking about it." ..."
"... Comey discussed the involvement of President Obama's Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, in the investigation of Hillary Clinton. He stated that Lynch made an odd request for how the FBI investigation should be described. "At one point the attorney general had directed me not to call it investigation, but instead to call it a matter, which concerned and confused me," Comey said. ..."
One thing is for sure, Comey's testimony was anything but boring. 1) Trump was not under investigation by the FBI
When questioned by Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), Comey answered that President Donald Trump was not under investigation by the FBI.
It was also revealed that congressional leaders had previously been briefed on this fact.
This morning Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton joined
Breitbart News Daily and predicted this fact. Fitton called allegations against Trump "gossip" and "a nothing burger."
2) James Comey leaked documents to the media
Comey admitted to orchestrating leaks from the investigation to the media using a network of friends. Reponse was swift on
social media:
Senators should ask Comey the name of the Columbia professor and then subpoena the memos from him.
President Trump's personal lawyer, Marc Kasowitz, issued a
blistering statement after the hearing on the subject of Comey's leaks.
3) The obstruction of justice case against Trump just went up in smoke
Senator James Risch (R-ID) questioned Comey early in the hearing about the possibility of obstruction of justice regarding the
investigation of General Michael Flynn. Risch repeatedly questioned Comey about the exact wording used by President Trump to him
in private, which Comey recorded in his
much-discussed memo .
The exchange leaves Democrat's hopes of impeachment for obstruction of justice considerably dimmed:
Comey : I mean, it's the President of the United States with me alone, saying, "I hope this." I took it as this is what he
wants me to do. I didn't obey that, but that's the way I took it.
Risch : You may have taken it as a direction, but that's not what he said.
Risch : He said, "I hope."
Comey : Those are exact words, correct.
Risch : You don't know of anyone that's been charged for hoping something?
Comey : I don't, as I sit here.
Risch : Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
4) Comey says the New York Times published fake news
James Comey had a
few things to say about the reporting of the New York Times which reported on collusion between the Trump campaign and
Russia.
Senator Risch questioned Comey about the Times, asking "So the American people can understand this, that report by the
New York Times was not true, is that a fair statement?" "It was not true," Comey said. "Again, all of you know this, maybe the American people don't. The challenge - I'm not picking
on reporters about writing stories about classified information [the challenge is] that people talking about it often don't really
now what's going on and those of us who actually know what's going on are not talking about it."
5) Loretta Lynch meddled in the Clinton investigation
Comey
discussed the involvement of President Obama's Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, in the investigation of Hillary Clinton. He stated
that Lynch made an odd request for how the FBI investigation should be described. "At one point the attorney general had directed me not to call it investigation, but instead to call it a matter, which concerned
and confused me," Comey said.
Comey added that Lynch's
infamous tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton during the campaign was the reason he decided to make a statement when the decision
was made not to prosecute Hillary Clinton.
"In a ultimately conclusive way, that was the thing that capped it for me, that I had to do something separately to protect the
credibility of the investigation, which meant both the FBI and the Justice Department," Comey said.
6) James Comey sounds like every disgruntled former employee ever
Comey had quite a bit to say about his firing, which leaves him looking like a
disgruntled former
employee . Comey accused President Trump and his administration of lying about him, and "defaming him and more importantly the
FBI."
Comey also explained that his discomfort with the President and the belief that Trump would lie about him led to the creation
of his memo on the meeting. "I was honestly concerned that he might lie about the nature of our meeting, so I thought it really important
to document," Comey said. "I knew there might come a day when I might need a record of what happened not only to defend myself but
to protect the FBI."
... ... ...
Colin Madine is a contributor and editor at Breitbart News and can be reached at [email protected]
So, "While Trump had done nothing illegal in requesting Comey to drop the investigation, there
is still the question of 'political interference' and the optics.".
"... I posted 99% anti-Hillary material. It consisted mostly of newspaper articles about many issues, ranging from her support for a right wing coup in Honduras that resulted in an escalation of violence, to her massive pay to play at the State Dept, to her disastrous regime change attempts in Libya and Syria (not to mention her support for the coup in Ukraine and the installation of a Neo Nazi regime). There were also many articles about her numerous campaign promise betrayals, such as her support for bad trade deals with Colombia, South Korea, and Singapore, despite her promises to oppose these (her change of position re: Colombia was after getting a $10 million donation). These articles were all from mainstream sources, including The Nation, The Hill, even the NYT. ..."
"... The thing is, Hillary was so corrupt and her judgment and actions so bad, that there was a seemingly never-ending wealth of bad things to post about her. It wasn't fake news, it was the actual historical record of her dastardly deeds. It wasn't just I who did this. This is what folks on FB and other social media sites did throughout. She probably would refer to what we all posted as "fake news" because she psychopathically denies the truth on a continual basis. ..."
"... Keep in mind that I had not mentioned where I'd gotten my information; I simply said I had done broad research of St. Hillary's history and found it bore little to no resemblance to what the media said about her. ..."
"... When I patiently explained this (and added my journalist's credentials), the attack-cultist then switched to their second favorite: I support Trump, and am guilty of his election. I don't know how long she kept on posting her foam-mouthed mantras, because I departed using my standard response: I no longer engage in battles of facts with unarmed opponents. ..."
Lots of people, including myself, created FB accounts solely to post material related to the
2016 Democratic Primary and the election. I have just under 5,000 friends on FB, all of whom are
"friends in Bernie."
I posted 99% anti-Hillary material. It consisted mostly of newspaper articles about many issues,
ranging from her support for a right wing coup in Honduras that resulted in an escalation of violence,
to her massive pay to play at the State Dept, to her disastrous regime change attempts in Libya
and Syria (not to mention her support for the coup in Ukraine and the installation of a Neo Nazi
regime). There were also many articles about her numerous campaign promise betrayals, such as
her support for bad trade deals with Colombia, South Korea, and Singapore, despite her promises
to oppose these (her change of position re: Colombia was after getting a $10 million donation).
These articles were all from mainstream sources, including The Nation, The Hill, even the NYT.
The thing is, Hillary was so corrupt and her judgment and actions so bad, that there was
a seemingly never-ending wealth of bad things to post about her. It wasn't fake news, it was the
actual historical record of her dastardly deeds. It wasn't just I who did this. This is what folks
on FB and other social media sites did throughout. She probably would refer to what we all posted
as "fake news" because she psychopathically denies the truth on a continual basis.
It consisted mostly of newspaper articles about many issues, ranging from her support for
a right wing coup in Honduras that resulted in an escalation of violence, to her massive pay
to play at the State Dept, to her disastrous regime change attempts in Libya and Syria (not
to mention her support for the coup in Ukraine and the installation of a Neo Nazi regime).
Funny you should mention. I responded to yet another episode of Russian hysteria yesterday
and was immediately attacked by a Clinton cultist. Understand, this woman had no idea who I am
and clearly didn't bother to find out. I said something against St. Hillary, and was therefore
the enemy. Of course, the basis of her attack was that my sources of information were all "fake
news."
Keep in mind that I had not mentioned where I'd gotten my information; I simply said I
had done broad research of St. Hillary's history and found it bore little to no resemblance to
what the media said about her.
When I patiently explained this (and added my journalist's credentials), the attack-cultist
then switched to their second favorite: I support Trump, and am guilty of his election. I don't
know how long she kept on posting her foam-mouthed mantras, because I departed using my standard
response: I no longer engage in battles of facts with unarmed opponents.
"... A few days before his firing, Mr. Comey reportedly had asked for still more resources to hunt the Russian bear. Pundit piranhas swarmed to charge Mr. Trump with trying to thwart the investigation into how the Russians supposedly "interfered" to help him win the election. ..."
"... Truth is, President Trump had ample reason to be fed up with Mr. Comey, in part for his lack of enthusiasm to investigate actual, provable crimes related to "Russia-gate" -- like leaking information from highly sensitive intercepted communications to precipitate the demise of Trump aide Michael Flynn ..."
"... we suspect Mr. Comey already knows who was responsible.) ..."
"... In contrast, Mr. Comey evinced strong determination to chase after ties between Russia and the Trump campaign until the cows came home. In the meantime, the investigation (already underway for 10 months) would itself cast doubt on the legitimacy of Mr. Trump's presidency and put the kibosh on plans to forge a more workable relationship with Russia -- a win-win for the establishment and the FBI/CIA/NSA "Deep State"; a lose-lose for the president. ..."
"... So far, it has been all smoke and mirrors with no chargeable offenses and not a scintilla of convincing evidence of Russian "meddling" in the election. The oft-cited, but evidence-free, CIA/FBI/NSA report of Jan. 6, crafted by "hand-picked" analysts, according to then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper , is of a piece with the "high-confidence," but fraudulent, National Intelligence Estimate 15 years ago about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. ..."
"... On March 31, 2017, WikiLeaks released original CIA documents - ignored by mainstream media - showing that the agency had created a program allowing it to break into computers and servers and make it look like others did it by leaving telltale signs like Cyrillic markings, ..."
"... It is altogether possible that the hacking attributed to Russia was actually one of several "active measures" undertaken by a cabal consisting of the CIA, FBI, NSA and Mr. Clapper - the same agencies responsible for the lame, evidence-free memorandum of Jan. 6. ..."
"... Mr. Comey displayed considerable discomfort on March 20, explaining to the House Intelligence Committee why the FBI did not insist on getting physical access to the Democratic National Committee computers in order to do its own proper forensics, but chose to rely on the those done by DNC contractor Crowdstrike. Could this be explained by Mr. Comey's fear that FBI technicians not fully briefed on CIA/NSA/FBI Deep State programs might uncover a lot more than he wanted? Did this play a role in Mr. Trump's firing of Mr. Comey? ..."
"... President Trump has entered into a high-stakes gamble in confronting the Deep State and its media allies over the evidence-free accusations of his colluding with Russia. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, publicly warned him of the risk earlier this year. "You take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you," ..."
Donald Trump
said he had fired FBI
Director James
Comey over "this Russia thing, with Trump and Russia." The president labeled it a "made-up story" and, by all appearances, he
is mostly correct.
A few days before his firing, Mr. Comey reportedly had asked for still more resources to hunt the Russian bear. Pundit piranhas
swarmed to charge Mr. Trump with trying to thwart the investigation into how the Russians supposedly "interfered" to help him win
the election.
But can that commentary bear close scrutiny, or is it the "
phony narrative "
Senate
Republican Whip John Cornyn of Texas claims it to be? Mr. Cornyn has quipped that, if impeding the investigation was Mr. Trump's
aim, "This strikes me as a lousy way to do it. All it does is heighten the attention given to the issue."
Truth is, President Trump had ample reason to be fed up with Mr. Comey, in part for his lack of enthusiasm to investigate
actual, provable crimes related to "Russia-gate" -- like leaking information from highly sensitive intercepted communications to
precipitate the demise of Trump aide
Michael
Flynn . Mr. Flynn was caught "red-handed," so to speak, talking with Russia's ambassador last December. (In our experience,
finding the culprit for that leak should not be very difficult; we suspect Mr. Comey already knows who was responsible.)
In contrast, Mr. Comey evinced strong determination to chase after ties between Russia and the Trump campaign until the cows
came home. In the meantime, the investigation (already
underway for 10 months)
would itself cast doubt on the legitimacy of Mr. Trump's presidency and put the kibosh on plans to forge a more workable relationship
with Russia -- a win-win for the establishment and the FBI/CIA/NSA "Deep State"; a lose-lose for the president.
So far, it has been all smoke and mirrors with no chargeable offenses and not a scintilla of convincing evidence of Russian
"meddling" in the election. The oft-cited, but evidence-free, CIA/FBI/NSA report of Jan. 6, crafted by "hand-picked" analysts, according
to then-Director of National Intelligence James
Clapper , is of a piece with the "high-confidence," but fraudulent, National Intelligence Estimate 15 years ago about weapons
of mass destruction in Iraq.
But what about "Russia hacking," the centerpiece of accusations of Kremlin "interference" to help Mr.Trump?
On March 31, 2017,
WikiLeaks released original CIA documents - ignored by mainstream media - showing that the agency had created a program allowing
it to break into computers and servers and make it look like others did it by leaving telltale signs like Cyrillic markings,
for example. The capabilities shown in what WikiLeaks calls the "Vault 7"
trove of CIA documents required the creation of hundreds of millions of lines of source code. At $25 per line of code, that amounts
to about $2.5 billion for each 100 million code lines. But the Deep State has that kind of money and would probably consider the
expenditure a good return on investment for "proving" the Russians hacked.
It is altogether possible that the hacking attributed to Russia was actually one of several "active measures" undertaken by
a cabal consisting of the CIA, FBI, NSA and Mr. Clapper - the same agencies responsible for the lame, evidence-free memorandum of
Jan. 6.
Mr. Comey displayed considerable discomfort on March 20, explaining to the House Intelligence Committee why the FBI did not
insist on getting physical access to the Democratic National Committee computers in order to do its own proper forensics, but chose
to rely on the those done by DNC contractor Crowdstrike. Could this be explained by Mr. Comey's fear that FBI technicians not fully
briefed on CIA/NSA/FBI Deep State programs might uncover a lot more than he wanted? Did this play a role in Mr. Trump's firing of
Mr. Comey?
President Trump has entered into a high-stakes gamble in confronting the Deep State and its media allies over the evidence-free
accusations of his colluding with Russia. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, publicly warned him of the
risk earlier this year. "You take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you," Mr.
Schumer told MSNBC's
Rachel
Maddow on Jan. 3.
If Mr. Trump continues to "take on" the Deep State, he will be fighting uphill, whether he's in the right or not. It is far from
certain he will prevail.
Ray McGovern ([email protected]) was a CIA analyst for 27 years; he briefed the president's daily brief one-on-one to
President Reagan's most senior national security officials from 1981-85. William Binney ([email protected]) worked for
NSA for 36 years, retiring in 2001 as the technical director of world military and geopolitical analysis and reporting; he created
many of the collection systems still used by NSA.
The public owes a tremendous debt of gratitude to both Mr. McGovern and Mr. Binney, who are substantial individuals with sterling
reputations, for putting themselves forward and informing the public of the crimes that are taking place in DC behind closed doors.
The fact that paid shills and trolls would make the effort to post content free criticisms of this article only serves to underline
the article's importance to a thoughtful reader. The people who sponsor these posters obviously have complete contempt for the
public. However, each day, thanks to articles like this and the idiotic attempts to criticize them, more and more people are becoming
aware of the fraud that is DC.
"... Ray suggests that Brennan and also Comey may been at the center of a "Deep State" combined CIA-NSA-FBI cabal working to discredit the Trump candidacy and delegitimize his presidency. Brennan in particular was uniquely well placed to fabricate the Russian hacker narrative that has been fully embraced by Congress and the media even though no actual evidence supporting that claim has yet been produced. As WikiLeaks has now revealed that the CIA had the technical ability to hack into sites surreptitiously while leaving behind footprints that would attribute the hack to someone else, including the Russians, it does not take much imagination to consider that the alleged trail to Moscow might have been fabricated. If that is so, this false intelligence has in turn proven to be of immense value to those seeking to present "proof" that the Russian government handed the presidency to Donald Trump. ..."
"... Robert Parry asked in an article on May 10 th whether we are seeing is "Watergate redux or 'Deep State' coup?" and then followed up with a second Piece "The 'Soft Coup' of Russia-gate" on the 13 th . In other words, is this all a cover-up of wrongdoing by the White House akin to President Richard Nixon's firing of Watergate independent special prosecutor Archibald Cox and the resignations of both the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General or is it something quite different, an undermining of an elected president who has not actually committed any "high crimes and misdemeanors" to force his removal from office. ..."
"... Parry sees the three key players in the scheme as John Brennan of CIA, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and James Comey of the FBI. Comey's role in the "coup" was key as it consisted of using his office to undercut both Hillary Clinton and Trump, neither of whom was seen as a truly suitable candidate by the Deep State. He speculates that a broken election might well have resulted in a vote in the House of Representatives to elect the new president, a process that might have produced a Colin Powell presidency as Powell actually received three votes in the Electoral College and therefore was an acceptable candidate under the rules governing the electoral process. ..."
"... Yes, the scheme is bizarre, but Parry carefully documents how Russiagate has developed and how the national security and intelligence organs have been key players as it moved along, often working by leaking classified information. ..."
"... anyone even vaguely connected with Trump who also had contact with Russia or Russians has been regarded as a potential traitor. Carter Page, for example, who was investigated under a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant, was under suspicion because he made a speech in Moscow which was mildly critical of the west's interaction with Russia after the fall of communism. ..."
"... Parry's point is that there is a growing Washington consensus that consists of traditional liberals and progressives as well as Democratic globalist interventionists and neoconservatives who believe that Donald Trump must be removed from office no matter what it takes. ..."
"... The interventionists and neocons in particular already control most of the foreign policy mechanisms but they continue to see Trump as a possible impediment to their plans for aggressive action against a host of enemies, most particularly Russia. ..."
"... Ray has been strongly critical of the current foreign policy, most particularly of the expansion of various wars, claims of Damascus's use of chemical weapons, and the cruise missile attack on Syria. Robert in his latest article describes Trump as narcissistic and politically incompetent. But their legitimate concerns are that we are moving in a direction that is far more dangerous than Trump. A soft coup engineered by the national security and intelligence agencies would be far more dangerous to our democracy than anything Donald Trump can do. ..."
"... Brennan is a particularly unsavory character. There has been some baying-at-the-moon speculation that he is a Moslem convert! ..."
"... The coup, if successful, would probably mean the end of what would traditionally be considered to be a republican form of government in the US and its replacement by a deep state dictatorship. ..."
"... The USA is not different from other western countries, such as GB, France, Austria, Italy, Greece, Netherlands. In each of these countries the battle is going on between the establishment, and those who want to rid themselves of this establishment. ..."
"... The battle is between trying to dominate the world, neoliberalism, destruction of nation states, power of money, on the one hand, and nationalism, more or less certain jobs, rejection of wars, power of governments, on the other hand. ..."
"... What is amazing is that Mr Giraldi still believes the USA is a democracy. Maybe if one compares it with China. Anyway, "a soft coup" has already happened in you history -- Kennedy's assassination by the deep state- and life just went on in the "greatest democracy" in the earth. ..."
"... Perhaps this is the indication of where Trump and DOJ are going: Monday during the 10 p.m. ET news broadcast on Fox's Washington, D.C. affiliate WTTG, correspondent Marina Marraco said an investigation by former D.C. homicide detective Rod Wheeler found that the now-deceased Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich had been emailing with WikiLeaks. ..."
"... Despite the TV image, it is rare for a CEO to outright sack one of his top executives. The story of dinners where Comey made his pitch to stay rings true to what I have seen in real life. Trump probably asked Comey if he wouldn't be happier returning to private business where he made a boatload more money, and Comey, drunk on the power of high public office just wouldn't pull the trigger for him. ..."
"... Having just noticed the latest by-line in Antiwar.com, I am forced to raise the question we should all be asking ourselves "Was it Russia or was it .. Seth Rich ? " ..."
"... If there was indeed a "soft coup" in our country, did it not occur at the DNC convention when our back room oligarchs decided to "putsch" Bernie Sanders out of the race, and gift the nomination to Hillary ? ..."
"... Was it not Bernie Sanders who was igniting the young progressive liberal base by the tens of millions ? Was it not Bernie who was gaining enormous momentum as the race for the nomination went on ? Was it not Bernie's "message" that began to ring true for so many voters across the country ? ..."
"... The homicide detective hired by the family , also pointed out, after doing some rudimentary due diligence, that word had come down through the DC mayor's office to stymie its own detectives in the murder investigation of Mr. Rich. Strange thing, especially when we are dealing with a homicide .No, Mr Giraldi ? If the Seth Rich murder was a "botched robbery" as is claimed, why won't the DC police release Seth's laptop computer to his family ? ..."
"... I would be very interested in your take on the latest impeachable "scandal", that Trump revealed unrevealable top secrets to Lavrov and Kislyak during their recent White House meeting. Among other things, how would the Washington Post know the specifics of the Trump-Lavrov conversation? Is the White House bugged? And if an intelligence source was somehow really compromised, is advertising that fact in the Washington Post (presumably on the front page) really the wisest course? ..."
"... "A soft coup engineered by the national security and intelligence agencies would be far more dangerous to our democracy than anything Donald Trump can do." Until further notice, that is absolutely correct. It needs to be recalled – ad nauseam – that Russia-gate, or whatever rubbish its called, is a LIE. There is NO, repeat NO evidence of ANY wrong-doing by Trump re the Russians. The MSM & various elements of the "establishment" should suicide NOW from pure SHAME. ..."
"... Trump was right in firing Comey. An open ended investigation that hasn't yielded a scintilla of evidence of collusion with Russia after one year is not acceptable. Such an investigation would not have been tolerated if the target was a Marxist mulatto by the name of Barack Hussein Obama. Blacks would have rioted in response while the media cheered them on. ..."
"... If there's a Constitutional crisis then it's that the deep state apparatus in the form of the various alphabet soup intelligence agencies have the power to plot a coup against a duly elected president. They need to be stripped of much of their power and reformed but it's probably already too late for that. ..."
"... I thought since Trump went from advocating a humble, non-interventionist foreign policy to loud and proud neo-conservative (in less than 100 days) that that would buy him protection from deep state machinations and endear him to the corrupt Washington, D.C. establishment. ..."
"... The only thing I can think of is that even though Trump's picking up where Dubya and Obama left off on foreign policy, the deep state knows that Trump can be totally unpredictable and change on a dime. So he could go off the establishment reservation at a moment's notice which makes them apoplectic. Hence, their attempts to get him out of the way and install someone more pliant and predictable like Tom Pence. ..."
"... Deepstate has been sustaining and expanding its conspiracies for 100 years. (There is always a 'deep state' of some kind, but the current well-organized structure was created by Wilson.) A conspiracy AGAINST Deepstate is hard to sustain because Deepstate owns and monitors all public communications. ..."
"... While the collusion story is an obvious canard there is another level to this "Russian thing" which may prove to be extremely damaging to Trump. And that is Trump's participation in a money-laundering operation with the Russo-jewish mafia going back decades. ..."
"... The money-laundering angle is already all over the Web (ex. google: Bayrock Trump) and, one must assume, in the hands of various intelligence agencies. .This may be the basis for Trump's increasingly frantic attempts to shut down the "Russian thing" investigation.(Comey firing??) ..."
"... I don't think, however, the notion of the "establishment" is a problem in itself. Our country has always had powerful elites, so have many other countries. The problem which presents itself today is our elites seem determined to perpetuate endless wars that cost obscene amounts of money, and do not seem to produce positive results in any of the places the wars are being fought. ..."
"... The short answer is yes! March 31, 2017 The Surveillance State Behind Russia-Gate. Although many details are still hazy because of secrecy – and further befogged by politics – it appears House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes was informed last week about invasive electronic surveillance of senior U.S. government officials and, in turn, passed that information onto President Trump. ..."
"... The people pushing the big lie about Trump and Russia are legion. And they are not stupid. They are evil. They are the same people who are preparing a preemptive nuclear attack against Russia and China. They are the globalists who would institute a universal Feudalism from which there would be no escape. I have no further use for Trump. But his enemies remain enemies of the people. ..."
And what if there really is a conspiracy against Donald Trump being orchestrated within the various
national security agencies that are part of the United States government? The president has been
complaining for months about damaging leaks emanating from the intelligence community and the failure
of Congress to pay any attention to the illegal dissemination of classified information. It is quite
possible that Trump has become aware that there is actually something going on and that something
just might be a conspiracy to delegitimize and somehow remove him from office.
President Trump has also been insisting that the "Russian thing" is a made-up story, a view that
I happen to agree with. I recently produced
my own analysis of the possibility that there is in progress a soft, or stealth or silent coup,
call it what you will, underway directed against the president and that, if it exists, it is being
directed by former senior officials from the Obama White House. Indeed, it is quite plausible to
suggest that it was orchestrated within the Obama White House itself before the government changed
hands at the inauguration on January 20 th . In line with that thinking, some observers
are now suggesting that Comey might well have been party to the conspiracy and his dismissal would
have been perfectly justified based on his demonstrated interference in both the electoral process
and in his broadening of the acceptable role of his own Bureau, which Trump has described as "showboating."
Two well-informed observers of the situation have recently joined in the discussion, Robert Parry
of Consortiumnews and former CIA senior analyst Ray McGovern of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals
for Sanity. McGovern has noted, as have I, that there is one individual who has been curiously absent
from the list of former officials who have been called in to testify before the Senate Intelligence
Committee. That is ex-CIA Director John Brennan, who many have long considered an extreme Obama/Hillary
Clinton loyalist long rumored to be at the center of the information damaging to Team Trump sent
to Washington by friendly intelligence services, including the British.
Ray
suggests that
Brennan and also Comey may been at the center of a "Deep State" combined CIA-NSA-FBI
cabal working to discredit the Trump candidacy and delegitimize his presidency. Brennan in particular
was uniquely well placed to fabricate the Russian hacker narrative that has been fully embraced by
Congress and the media even though no actual evidence supporting that claim has yet been produced.
As WikiLeaks has now revealed that the CIA had the technical ability to hack into sites surreptitiously
while leaving behind footprints that would attribute the hack to someone else, including the Russians,
it does not take much imagination to consider that the alleged trail to Moscow might have been fabricated.
If that is so, this false intelligence has in turn proven to be of immense value to those seeking
to present "proof" that the Russian government handed the presidency to Donald Trump.
Robert Parry asked in an article on May 10 th whether we are seeing is
"Watergate redux or 'Deep State' coup?"
and then followed up with a second Piece
"The
'Soft Coup' of Russia-gate" on the 13 th . In other words, is this all a cover-up
of wrongdoing by the White House akin to President Richard Nixon's firing of Watergate independent
special prosecutor Archibald Cox and the resignations of both the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney
General or is it something quite different, an undermining of an elected president who has not actually
committed any "high crimes and misdemeanors" to force his removal from office.
Like Parry, I
am reluctant to embrace conspiracy theories, in my case largely because I believe a conspiracy is
awfully hard to sustain. The federal government leaks like a sieve and if more than two conspirators
ever meet in the CIA basement it would seem to me their discussion would become public knowledge
within forty-eight hours, but perhaps what we are seeing here is less a formal arrangement than a
group of individuals who are loosely connected while driven by a common objective.
Parry sees the three key players in the scheme as John Brennan of CIA, Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper and James Comey of the FBI. Comey's role in the "coup" was key as it consisted
of using his office to undercut both Hillary Clinton and Trump, neither of whom was seen as a truly
suitable candidate by the Deep State. He speculates that a broken election might well have resulted
in a vote in the House of Representatives to elect the new president, a process that might have produced
a Colin Powell presidency as Powell actually received three votes in the Electoral College and therefore
was an acceptable candidate under the rules governing the electoral process.
Yes, the scheme is bizarre, but Parry carefully documents how Russiagate has developed and how
the national security and intelligence organs have been key players as it moved along, often working
by leaking classified information. And President Barack Obama was likely the initiator, notably so
when he de facto authorized the wide distribution of raw intelligence on Trump and the Russians through
executive order. Parry notes, as would I, that to date no actual evidence has been presented to support
allegations that Russia sought to influence the U.S. election and/or that Trump associates were somehow coopted by Moscow's intelligence services as part of the process. Nevertheless,
anyone even vaguely
connected with Trump who also had contact with Russia or Russians has been regarded as a potential
traitor. Carter Page, for example, who was investigated under a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act warrant, was under suspicion because he made a speech in Moscow which was mildly critical of
the west's interaction with Russia after the fall of communism.
Parry's point is that there is a growing Washington consensus that consists of traditional
liberals and progressives as well as Democratic globalist interventionists and neoconservatives who
believe that Donald Trump must be removed from office no matter what it takes.
The interventionists and neocons in particular already control most of the foreign policy
mechanisms but they continue to see Trump as a possible impediment to their plans for aggressive
action against a host of enemies, most particularly Russia. As they are desirous of bringing
down Trump "legally" through either impeachment or Article 25 of the Constitution which permits removal
for incapacity, it might be termed a constitutional coup, though the other labels cited above also
fit.
The rationale Trump haters have fabricated is simple: the president and his team colluded with
the Russians to rig the 2016 election in his favor, which, if true, would provide grounds for impeachment.
The driving force, in terms of the argument being made, is that removing Trump must be done "for
the good of the country" and to "correct a mistake made by the American voters."
The mainstream media is completely on board of the process, including the outlets that flatter themselves
by describing their national stature, most notably the New York Times and Washington Post.
So what is to be done? For starters, until Donald Trump has unambiguously broken a law the critics
should take a valium and relax. He is an elected president and his predecessors George W. Bush and
Barack Obama certainly did plenty of things that in retrospect do not bear much scrutiny. Folks like
Ray McGovern and Robert Parry should be listened to even when
If you are in IT and are not familiar with Archibald Putt, I suggest you stop reading this blog post, RIGHT NOW, and go buy the book Putt's Law and the Successful Technocrat. How to Win in the Information Age . Putt's Law , for short, is a combination of Dilbert and The Mythical Man-Month . It shows you exactly how managers of technologists think, how they got to where they are, and how they stay there. Just like Dilbert, you'll initially laugh, then you'll cry, because you'll realize just how true Putt's Law really is. But, unlike Dilbert, whose technologist-fans tend to have a revulsion for management, Putt tries to show the technologist how to become one of the despised. Now granted, not all of us technologists have a desire to be management, it is still useful to "know one's enemy."
