James Comey January 12th (2017) “Tri-Fecta” | John Solomon

(Eye on the bouncing ball… don’t lose track of this story over time)

I have been busy and so I cannot post here or at my Rumble (https://tinyurl.com/t2yuse3k​) as often as I would like. But I wanted to post a truncated and reshuffled appearance of John Solomon on the Sean Hannity Radio Show. The most important portion is the January 12th, 2017, mention of James Comey self-refuting actions/intel briefings (Mark: 0.00 to 2:53​).

I include some extra content after this, enjoy.

 

More Declassified Documents Showing Democrats Love Hoaxes

RPT’s Comment’s After Article

Government Agent Whose Altered Email Enabled the Russia Hoax Won’t Spend a Day in Jail or Pay Any Fine

The Russia hoax undermined a duly elected president and continues to divide the nation. But one of the key figures who abused the trust of the people will not face prison time, reports Fox News.

Former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith was sentenced to 12 months probation and 400 hours of community service Friday after pleading guilty to making a false statement in the first criminal case arising from Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe.

That false statement had major consequences. The altered email cast suspicion on Page and thereby Trump, and created a false justification to wiretap Page.

[….]

What about the abuse of trust, the destruction of the FBI’s reputation, undermining the FISA court system, and the Russia hoax Clinesmith enabled and which still infects millions of American minds to this day?

“Altering the email has forever changed the course of my life,” Clinesmith said. “I have lost the means to provide for my growing familylost the ability to give back to my nationthe shame and remorse will stay with me forever.”

The Trump presidency was not allowed to get off to anything like a normal start and was undermined by this case for most of its four years. Trump never truly overcame it despite being exonerated by the Mueller report, which found no American anywhere colluded with the Russians to impact the 2016 election.

Politico reports the prosecutors wanted Clinesmith to spend time in jail.

While prosecutors urged the judge to send Clinesmith to prison to send a message to others in government not to try something similar, Boasberg said he believed that message had already been sent.

Another message has been sent. Clinesmith will be the only Russia hoax figure prosecuted and he need not worry. Some left-wing foundation will give him a do-nothing job before long. Or CNN or MSNBC will give him an on-air analyst role.

(PJ-MEDIA)

POLITICO noted the judge saying “he believed that message had already been sent.” I doubt anyone in my own family — bedsides me and my boys and wife — knows that the Russian Collusion case has been shown to be a hoax. These are like retractions in a paper… front-page headlines splash the New York Times or the Washington Post, and then a month later a retraction is given on D3… which no one sees… so they think the headlines are still true. Trump was correct when referring to it as a witch hunt.

With declassified documents supporting the years of hard work by JOHN SOLOMON, CHUCK ROSS, SARA A. CARTER, or MOLLIE HEMINGWAY. Authors putting out excellent books like:

Recent declassified documents do not add information to the issue, they merely show that the above authors of books and columns to be 100% vindicated!

People making decisions based off of the NYTs, CNN, NPR, ABC, NBC, CBS, Washington Post, MSNBC, and the like… were LIED to for 3-years. The result?

  • Gallup Poll Shows 78% Of Democrats Mistakenly Believe Russia Changed Election Results

Not one intelligence agency or even Obama’s head of the Homeland Security Dept has supported that. I bet a lot of people (I would say almost all except for my sons) know the following:

  • President Donald Trump rejects the narrative that Russia wanted him to win. USA Today examined each of the 3,517 Facebook ads bought by the Russian-based Internet Research Agency, the company that employed 12 of the 13 Russians indicted by special counsel Robert Mueller for interfering with the 2016 election. It turns out only about 100 of its ads explicitly endorsed Trump or opposed Hillary Clinton. Most of the fake ads focused on racial division, with many of the ads attempting to exploit what Russia perceives, or wants America to perceive, as severe racial tension between blacks and whites…. [RPT addition: about 50 were pro-Hillary]

Democrats and “Republicans” just continue to believe nonsense based on some late-night talk show comedians and CNN/NPR. (I say “Republicans” because many who claim to be “Reagan Republicans” would today think his favorite publication [HUMAM EVENTS] is for white supremacists.) The L.A. Times use to carry columns by Dennis Prager and other conservative thinkers. No more are they carried by the paper.

Frankly, it’s sad. And dangerous… they are ripe to believe BIG LIES about Republicans and Trump.

  • Poll: 61 Percent of Democrats Say Republicans Are ‘Racist,’ ‘Bigoted,’ ‘Sexist’ (2016)
  • 49% of Democrats think Trump voters are racist…. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of self-described political liberals believe those who vote for Trump are racist. (2019)
  • 86% of Democrats think Trump is a racist

How do you make headway with these corporate news feeders of CNN/MSNBC?? I imagine Trump gaining in almost every major demographic means nothing to them? Trump gained more in these categories than in 2016…

  • Male Hispanics;
  • Female Hispanics;
  • Male Blacks;
  • Female Blacks;
  • Female Whites.

The only category he lost numbers in since 2016 were white males. Like I say, Trump needs to go back to racism school. But the tactics of the Left have not changed a bit… just more people truly believe it. And they expect us to be civil, and unite — exactly when did Democrats practice the “civility” to which they wish to return?….

  • When Barry Goldwater accepted the 1964 Republican nomination, California’s Democratic Gov. Pat Brown said, “The stench of fascism is in the air.”
  • Former Rep. William Clay Sr., D-Mo., said President Ronald Reagan was “trying to replace the Bill of Rights with fascist precepts lifted verbatim from ‘Mein Kampf.'”
  • Coretta Scott King, in 1980, said, “I am scared that if Ronald Reagan gets into office, we are going to see more of the Ku Klux Klan and a resurgence of the Nazi Party.”
  • After Republicans took control of the House in the mid-’90s, Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., compared the newly conservative-majority House to “the Duma and the Reichstag,” referring to the legislature set up by Czar Nicholas II of Russia and the parliament of the German Weimar Republic that brought Hitler to power.
  • About President George Herbert Walker Bush, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., said: “I believe (Bush) is a racist for many, many reasons. … (He’s) a mean-spirited man who has no care or concern about what happens to the African American community. … I truly believe that.”
  • About the Republican-controlled House, longtime Harlem Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel, in 1994, said: “It’s not ‘s—-‘ or ‘n——-‘ anymore. (Republicans) say, ‘Let’s cut taxes.'” A decade later, Rangel said, “George (W.) Bush is our Bull Connor,” referring to the Birmingham, Alabama, Democrat segregationist superintendent of public safety who sicced dogs and turned fire hoses on civil rights workers.
  • Donna Brazile, Al Gore’s presidential campaign manager, in 1999, said: Republicans have a “white boy attitude, (which means) ‘I must exclude, denigrate and leave behind.’ They don’t see it or think about it. It’s a culture.” The following year, Brazile said: “The Republicans bring out Colin Powell and (Rep.) J.C. Watts, (R-Okla.), because they have no program, no policy.They’d rather take pictures with Black children than feed them.”
  • About President George W. Bush, former Vice President Al Gore said: “(Bush’s) executive branch has made it a practice to try and control and intimidate news organizations, from PBS to CBS to Newsweek. And every day, they unleash squadrons of digital brownshirts to harass and hector any journalist who is critical of the President.” Digital “brownshirts”?
  • About George W. Bush, George Soros, the billionaire Democratic donor, said: “The Bush administration and the Nazi and communist regimes all engaged in the politics of fear. … Indeed, the Bush administration has been able to improve on the techniques used by the Nazi and communist propaganda machines.”
  • Former NAACP Chairman Julian Bond, in a 2006 speech at historically Black Fayetteville State University said, “The Republican Party would have the American flag and the swastika flying side by side.”
  • Former Gov. Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee in 2005, described the contest between Democrats and Republicans as “a struggle between good and evil. And we’re the good.” Three years later, Dean referred to the GOP as “the white party.”
  • After Hurricane Katrina, Democratic Missouri Senate candidate Claire McCaskill said George W. Bush “let people die on rooftops in New Orleans because they were poor and because they were Black.”
  • Feminist superlawyer Gloria Allred, in 2001, referred to Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice as “Uncle Tom types.”
  • Then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, in 2006, said, “The (Republican-controlled) House of Representatives has been run like a plantation. And you know what I’m talking about.”
  • Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democratic National Committee chairwoman in 2011, said “Republicans want to literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws.”……

I bet almost all of my family believes Trump mocked a disabled man’s handicap; think that when he said “there are fine people on both sides” he was saying there were “fine Nazis or white supremacists;” or think that racists and white supremacists have voted Republican in general; or that the bodies natural defenses in immunity are non-existent and only “vaccines” can bring immunity.

These are dangerous lies to believe.

Here is more regarding the latest declassified documents… one of the biggest lies the media has pushed in it’s life

The First Trump Declassified “Russia Document” Christopher Steele’s 2017 Confession To The FBI — Steele told FBI he leaked Russia collusion story to help Clinton and Great Britain, and was connected to his primary dossier source by former NSC staffer and impeachment witness Fiona Hill. (JUST THE NEWS)

….The FBI report of an interview agents conducted with Steele in September 2017, nearly a year after he had been terminated as an informant, provided explosive information about his motives in working simultaneously for the FBI and the opposition research firm for Clinton’s campaign. The document was obtained by Just the News and at times reads like a confession from the now-infamous former MI6 agent and author of the anti-Trump dossier.

Steele told agents that then-FBI Director James Comey’s decision to reopen the Clinton email investigation in fall of 2016 became his tipping point for leaking the anti-Trump collusion research that his company Orbis Intelligence had gathered and given to the FBI.

“STEELE explained that as the election season went on, they as a company were riding two horses — their client and the FBI — and after FBI Director James Comey’s reopening of the Hillary Clinton investigation, they had to pick one horse and chose the business client relationship over the relationship with the FBI,” the interview report stated.

“They followed what their client wanted, and they spoke to the press,” the report noted.

You can read the full interview report here.

You can read the notes of the interview here,

Steele and his partner Christopher Burrows even suggested the FBI deserved some of the blame for the decision to leak to the news media and Sen. John McCain’s office.

“STEELE and BURROWS described the overall situation as being one where it was ‘your [FBI] fault’ and ‘our fault,'” the memo reported, adding that Burrows was also upset the FBI had not paid Steele for his anti-Trump work.

The two British citizens told the FBI that concerns about the impact of a Trump presidency also motivated them…..

Mainstream Media before Trump was President and immediately when he set foot into the Oval Office was creating false stories about him. For instance, MLK’s Bust story an hour after Trump was elected: “On the evening of January 20, TIME White House correspondent Zeke Miller incorrectly reported that the bust of Martin Luther King Jr. had been removed from the Oval Office.” Most major news outlets carried it right away, and this was the beginning of 16 fake stories by early February that people ate up: Hence #FakeNews

The same people lapped up the phony Russia investigation, helping push the false narrative of Democrats for almost 3-years:

DECLASSIFIED DOCS

People who believed in this stuff and made decisions based on it ARE the problem with our body-politic. More than Trump. Spreading lies that were bigger than Obama’s Iran Deal thingy and bigger than any Trump lie. Seditious lies cooked up by Hillary in 2016.

Some Commentary On General Flynn (Plus: Transcripts Released)

UPDATES NEAR BOTTOM — JUMP

Michael Flynn did not commit a crime and they knew it.

Michael Flynn fiasco exposes left’s dirty tactics.

Comey’s investigation found no collusion from anyone associated with Trump.

Adam Schiff was forced to release some documents that he had hoped wouldn’t be released — because — he knew they undermined his MANY public statements that there was evidence of Russian collusion between the Trump Campaign and Russia. WEASEL ZIPPERS has a good “overnight thread” which this is adapted from:


TRANSCRIPTS


  • Hillary Clinton’s campaign chair John Podesta told House Intel in 2017: “I have no specific facts or information relating to conversations that may have been had between people from the Trump campaign and either Assange or representatives of the Russian Gov’t”
  • Ben Rhodes when asked whether he had evidence of collusion, conspiracy, coordination bewtween Trump campaign and Russia: “I saw indications of potential coordination, but I did not see, you know, the specific evidence of the actions of the Trump campaign”
  • Former AG Loretta Lynch was asked whether she had evidence of collusion, coordination or conspiracy. She said that she did “not recall that being briefed up to me.” “I can’t say that it existed or not”
  • Ambassador Rice when asked whether she had evidence of collusion, conspiracy, coordination: “I don’t recall intel or evidence to that effect”
  • Samantha Power, when asked if she had evidence of collusion, coordination, conspiracy between Trump campaign and & Russians: “I am not in possession of anything – I am not in possession and didn’t read or absorb information that came from out of the intelligence community”

And we shouldn’t forget James Clapper:

Yet time after time the above went on to the MSM shows and said different. The new acting DNI threatened Adam Schiff if he wasn’t going to release these interviews, he would. Schifty didn’t want them released because everyone would see they had nada as far as evidence for the Russian Collusion Hoax: https://intelligence.house.gov/russiainvestigation/

Breaking: Rick Grenell Delivers SECOND SET OF DOCUMENTS to DOJ in Satchel — may be released tomorrow:

Trey Gowdy weighs in on the FBI (ouch!): Former congressman and Fox News contributor, Trey Gowdy, weighs in on the Department of Justice’s decision to drop Michael Flynn charges.


UPDATED FUN


The ex CIA Chief briefed the Obama White House that the “Russian Collusion” was the brain child of Hillary Clinton (NEW YORK POST):

Ratcliffe disclosed the information in a letter published by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) just hours before Trump debates Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, who was vice president at the time.

Clinton’s alleged July 2016 plot would tar Trump by “tying him to [Russian President Vladimir] Putin and the Russians’ hacking of the Democratic National Committee,” Ratcliffe wrote Graham, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Handwritten notes by then-CIA Director John Brennan, who now is a fiery anti-Trump commentator, say that Brennan briefed Obama on “alleged approval by Hillary Clinton on July 26, 2016 of a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisors to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services.”

The FBI opened its investigation of possible Trump-Russia collusion on July 31, 2016 — five days after Clinton allegedly hatched the plan — premised on Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos allegedly telling an Australian diplomat that Russia had damaging information on Clinton, the 2016 Democratic nominee.

It’s unclear when Obama was briefed or if Biden was informed. It’s also unclear which Clinton foreign policy aide allegedly proposed the idea….

The WASHINGTON EXAMINER discusses John Brennan’s worry over Durham’s investigation:

Brennan has sought to pin questions about the discredited dossier on the FBI, which used it to obtain a FISA to wiretap Page.

“There were things in that dossier that made me wonder whether they were, in fact, accurate and true,” he said in February 2018. He also said that “it was up to the FBI to see whether or not they could verify any of it.”

Durham is looking into how the dossier was used in the 2017 assessment, why former FBI Director James Comey and his deputy, Andrew McCabe, insisted on it being part of the assessment, how allegations from the dossier ended up in an appendix of the assessment, and whether Brennan made misleading assertions about the research’s use. The top federal prosecutor in Connecticut is also reportedly reviewing Brennan’s handling of a secret source said to be close to the Kremlin and working to find out what role that person’s information played in the assessment.

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, a Republican, has pinned the blame on Brennan. In March of last year, he tweeted, “A high-level source tells me it was Brennan who insisted that the unverified and fake Steele dossier be included in the Intelligence Report.”

Watergate sleuth Bob Woodward, who has a book coming out next month, said in April 2019, “I think it was the CIA pushing this.”

To that last point by Woodward I excerpted… here is a good story about the CIA head and his obsession with Trump (note: I do not support most of what Zero Hedge writes, this is just a pretty decent post on the topic): “Ex-CIA Chief and “Russian Collusion” liar John Brennan urges palace coup against Trump so he doesn’t ‘declassify everything‘”

Just two examples of what an “under oath” session can do to a person:




RHODES

“Russia attacked our democracy. Trump campaign sought its help, had many contacts with Russians, lied about it and obstructed the investigation into it. Several senior Trump associates were convicted of crimes. Trump would have been indicted if he wasn’t President. Not complicated.” – Ben Rhodes

“I saw indications of potential coordination, but I did not see, you know, the specific evidence of the actions of the Trump campaign” – Ben Rhodes




CLAPPER

“What was the Trump campaign doing the same time was essentially aiding and abetting the Russians.” Clapper stated that the Russia investigation had surpassed that of Watergate, referencing the break-in at Democratic National Committee headquarters in 1972 that led to the resignation of former President Richard Nixon. “I think if you compare the two that Watergate pales, really, in my view, compared to what we’re confronting now,” Clapper told reporters during a trip to Australia.

In December of 2017, Clapper was asked by CNN’s Jim Sciutto about the difference between Trump’s criticism of Russia as a rival power and his praise for Russian President Vladimir Putin after the Russian leader foiled a terror attack using CIA intelligence. “I think that this past weekend is illustrative of what a great case officer Vladimir Putin is,” Clapper said. “He knows how to handle an asset and that’s what he’s doing with the president,” he said. Sciutto asked Clapper to reiterate his statement, to confirm whether he was indeed calling the American president an “asset” of Russia. “That’s the appearance to me,” Clapper said. “He’s a [former] KGB officer. That’s what they do. They recruit assets.”

➤ “I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/ conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.” – James Clapper under oath

 

Democrat Shenanigans (Conservative Media’s Windfall)

In a conversation on FACEBOOK I said the following for a point #2 out of three… I thought it worthwhile to pass along as a point others can use it in conversation:


More Facebook Meanderings


SECOND. This is the entire issue regarding our Intelligence agencies… They abused the FISA Court warrant process. I was told that the Steele Dossier was only a small part of the warrant. For two years by Brennan, Clapper, Comey, McCabe, Rosenstein, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NPR, etc-etc. (BTW, the names represent Intel, the CIA, and the FBI). Turns out it was literally the only thing use as John Solomon, Kimberly Strassel, Sara Carter, Sean Hannity, Mollie Hemingway, Chuck Ross, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, etc — said.

The funny thing about this is for two years I have said that there will be some RICH people out of this. I have said for two years Flynn’s case will be ultimately thrown out. Carter Page is already setting up a large lawsuit.

(Here is a quick excerpt from a previous Facebook discussion)

Just a quick note here. The four U.S. citizens spied on by the government we’ll have a great case to make in court to sue set government (during the whole Russian Collusion conspiracy against Trump). So not only did the original investigation cost many millions of dollars, it is possible that many millions more is going to be doled out.

NowAdam Schiff has himself (against proper procedure) gone and gotten metadata from phone companies and then matched it up with journalist an opposing political persons phones. Without a warrant. I assume another criminal case will start around this And, much like the other case millions of dollars may be doled out to these individuals who had their metadata illegally seized by the government.

BY THE WAY, you can read here “Democrats” when I say government. Ultimately all the taxpayers will have to — and have paid for it. But these incurred cost come by way of Democrats alone. (As well as never Trumper’s)

(I also noted two-years ago that if police were to fraudulently come into a home using fake warrants, when the judge found out the case was based on them, would vacate the original warrants and throw the entire case before the court out…. So too Barr may descend the original warrants which would mean all the cases based on them would be overturned. So whether one thought that Manafort was a dirty SOB and deserved jail. It wouldn’t matter.)

NOW, the general public has seen Fox News as the only news org showing what the IG REPORT said, alongside the rest of the names I named. Much like the dirty warrants overturning cases (even if people are truly dirty)… So too has the Left emboldened media people they dispose as being the only truth tellers on important issues — at least in a growing segment of the public.

In other words, not only did Democrats with TDS reelect Trump. They increased the audience to sources of news they despise [who were correct in their summation of the whole “FISA/Russia” thing].

Here are some posts of mine detailing the failure of our “Intel community” (like the Intel community should be spying on an American candidate and later a President, rather than giving him defensive briefings)

MSM Told Us The FISA Warrants Were Good for 2-Years

Via ACE OF SPADES: The Media Told You For Two Years That Everything About the FISA Was Perfect and Beautiful: The Supercut IG Michael Horowitz’s testimony erases Democratic talking points about the FBI’s handling of the outset of the sprawling Russia investigation.

Lindsey Graham and IG Horowitz

This first video is the opening statement by Sen. Graham. And it is important because he details the bias of agents and others involved in the case against Trump and his campaign:

What followed by Lindsey Graham was an excellent Q&A, which I detail a few parts of:

Here is the transcript of a few spots:

  • Sen. Graham (2:58): “There are five people in that interview, right?”
  • IG Horowitz (3:01): “Correct”

[….]

  • Sen. Graham (3:09): “Did they have a duty to report to their supervisors and eventually to the court this [ex]sculpatory information?”
  • IG Horowitz (3:16): “Absolutely”
  • Sen. Graham (3:17): “They did not”
  • IG Horowitz (3:18): “They did not”
  • Sen. Graham (3:19): “Why”
  • IG Horowitz (3:20): “That’s the question, um, I can’t specifically answer for you”
  • Sen. Graham (3:25): “Can you it wasn’t because of political bias?”
  • IG Horowitz (3:28): “On decisions regarding those FISA matters, I do not know their state of mind at this point.”

[….]

  • Sen. Graham (11:33): “Would you have submitted the warrant application as a lawyer?”
  • IG Horowitz (11:38): “Let me put it this way, I would not have submitted the one the put in… no doubt about it it had no business going in with that…” (audio trail off, Sen. Graham continues)
  • Sen. Graham (11:45): “So what I want you to know is that in January 2017 the whole foundation for surveilling Carter Page collapses. Exculpatory information is ignored. They lie to the [FISA] court about what the interview was all about – is that a fair summary so far?…”
  • IG Horowitz (12:05): “Um… I’ll ahh… they certainly misled the… [stammering] … it was misleading to the [FISA] court.”
  • Sen. Graham (12:12): “Okay. Fair enough. And in January – about six months later – when they find more information that could be helpful to Mr. Page, they lie about it. You feel like MR. Page was fairly treated by the Department of Justice and the FBI?”
  • IG Horowitz (12:27): “Um… I don’t think the Department of Justice fairly treated these FISAs, and he was on the receiving end of them.”
  • Sen. Graham (12:32): “You would not want to be on the receiving end of this, would you?”
  • IG Horowitz (12:35): “I would not want agents or anybody failing to put forward all the information their obligated to tell the [FISA] court…”

Graham’s closing statement as well is worth while:

BONUS ~ TED CRUZ:

BONUS ~ THE FIVE

Gregg Jarrett Documents 6-Lies To The FISA Court

Gregg Jarrett filled in for Sean Hannity on Friday (11-27-19) and discussed aspects of the FISA Warrants I am sure many do not know. All of this can be found in his book, “Witch Hunt: The Story of the Greatest Mass Delusion in American Political History“.

I add a quote from HotAir (just pass the 8-minute mark) discussing the New York Times saying the Steele Dossier is garbage and probably Russian propaganda. But this is after two years of them using it as “Gospel Truth” – here is that and a couple other noteworth articles:

  • NY Times: Say, This Steele Dossier Appears To Be False (And Maybe Was A Russian Disinformation Effort) (HOT AIR)
  • If This New York Times Reporter Suspected the Dossier Was a Fraud Why Is He Only Reporting on It Now (RED STATE)
  • NYT Finally Acknowledges That Steele Dossier Might Not Be That Factual (DAILY WIRE)
  • WTF MSM!? NY Times Admits the Dossier May Have Been a Russian Disinformation Operation (THE BLAZE)

At any rate, this is a great pre-cursor to the December 9th IG Report… which will be followed up by clarifications from Durham, surely.

Comey’s Tarnished Image – IG REPORT

  • “The lion’s share of the Inspector General’s investigation deals with lying to the FISA court in order to gain a wiretap warrant to spy on a former associate of President Donald Trump, Carter Page…James Comey is one of the individuals who signed off on a FISA warrant and concealing evidence and deceiving the judges. That’s — according to my count — six different potential felonies.” — Gregg Jarrett

Here is Comey’s Tweets HOTAIR focuses on:

And here is HOTAIR’S EXCELLENT response:

Ahem. The report does say that Comey didn’t leak his memos directly to the media. However, Horowitz describes how Comey used a cutout to achieve the same thing, a point which Comey had already admitted in public testimony:

At the time, the OIG also was aware of Comey’s June 8, 2017 congressional testimony that he had authorized a friend (who was also one of his personal attorneys) to provide the contents of Memo 4 — which did not contain any classified information — to a reporter for The New York Times. The focus of the OIG’s investigation was to determine whether Comey violated Department or FBI policies, or the terms of his FBI Employment Agreement, in his handling of the Memos during and after his tenure as FBI Director. The OIG’s investigation included review of the Memos as well as numerous additional documents, emails, and news articles; and forensic analysis of certain computer systems. As part of this investigation, the OIG also interviewed 17 witnesses, including former Director Comey and Daniel Richman, the individual who, at Comey’s request, shared the contents of one of the Memos with a reporter for The New York Times.

Emphasis mine. This can literally be found on Page 1 of the report. Comey is parsing out his vindication on the thin edge that the memo he directed Richman to leak to the Times didn’t have classified material in it, but as Horowitz points out, Memo 4 was designated “For Official Use Only.” This is what Comey’s claiming as vindication:

Comey instructed Richman to share the contents of Memo 4, but not the Memo itself, with a specific reporter for The New York Times. Comey did not seek FBI authorization before providing the contents of Memo 4, through Richman, to a reporter. As noted above, the FBI later marked Memo 4 “For Official Use Only” and determined that it did not contain classified information. We found no evidence that Comey or his attorneys released any of the classified information contained in any of the Memos to members of the media.

Why did Comey direct Richman to leak Memo 4? Politics:

Comey sends a digital photograph of Memo 4 (describing the meeting in which Comey wrote that President Trump made the statement about “letting Flynn go”) to Richman via text message from Comey’s personal phone. Comey asks Richman to share the contents, but not the Memo itself, with a specific reporter for The New York Times. Comey’s stated purpose is to cause the appointment of a Special Counsel to ensure that any tape recordings that may exist of his conversations with President Trump are not destroyed. Richman conveys the substance of Memo 4 to the reporter.

Horowitz makes specific mention of Comey, Richman, and Memo 4 in his conclusion. It’s clear that Horowitz doesn’t see the lack of classification as any sort of vindication for Comey:

However, after his removal as FBI Director two months later, Comey provided a copy of Memo 4, which Comey had kept without authorization, to Richman with instructions to share the contents with a reporter for The New York Times. Memo 4 included information that was related to both the FBI’s ongoing investigation of Flynn and, by Comey’s own account, information that he believed and alleged constituted evidence of an attempt to obstruct the ongoing Flynn investigation; later that same day, The New York Times published an article about Memo 4 entitled, “Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation.”

The responsibility to protect sensitive law enforcement information falls in large part to the employees of the FBI who have access to it through their daily duties. On occasion, some of these employees may disagree with decisions by prosecutors, judges, or higher ranking FBI and Department officials about the actions to take or not take in criminal and counterintelligence matters. They may even, in some situations, distrust the legitimacy of those supervisory, prosecutorial, or judicial decisions. But even when these employees believe that their most strongly-held personal convictions might be served by an unauthorized disclosure, the FBI depends on them not to disclose sensitive information.

Former Director Comey failed to live up to this responsibility. By not safeguarding sensitive information obtained during the course of his FBI employment, and by using it to create public pressure for official action, Comey set a dangerous example for the over 35,000 current FBI employees—and the many thousands more former FBI employees—who similarly have access to or knowledge of non-public information.

You’d better believe an apology is owed, but it’s not owed to Comey. It’s owed from Comey. Clearly, we will wait a very long time to hear it.

Update: Maybe Comey should check in with his town hall partners at CNN before demanding apologies. They read the report and don’t seem to think it’s very vindicate-y:

LEGAL INSURRECTION chimes in with similar warnings by Horowitz to Comey:

The IG found “no evidence” that Comey or his lawyers provided the media with classified information.

However, the IG “concluded that Comey’s retention, handling, and dissemination of certain Memos violated Department and FBI policies, and his FBI Employment Agreement.”

[….]

Horowitz wrote (emphasis mine):

The responsibility to protect sensitive law enforcement information falls in large part to the employees of the FBI who have access to it through their daily duties.On occasion, some of these employees may disagree with decisions by prosecutors, judges, or higher ranking FBI and Department officials about the actions to take or not take in criminal and counterintelligence matters. They may even, in some situations, distrust the legitimacy of those supervisory, prosecutorial, or judicial decisions. But even when these employees believe that their most strongly-held personal convictions might be served by an unauthorized disclosure, the FBI depends on them not to disclose sensitive information.

Former Director Comey failed to live up to this responsibility. By not safeguarding sensitive information obtained during the course of his FBI employment, and by using it to create public pressure for official action, Comey set a dangerous example for the over 35,000 current FBI employees—and the many thousands more former FBI employees—who similarly have access to or knowledge of non-public information. Comey said he was compelled to take these actions “if I love this country…and I love the Department of Justice, and I love the FBI.” However, were current or former FBI employees to follow the former Director’s example and disclose sensitive information in service of their own strongly held personal convictions, the FBI would be unable to dispatch its law enforcement duties properly, as Comey himself noted in his March 20, 2017 congressional testimony. Comey expressed a similar concern to President Trump, according to Memo 4, in discussing leaks of FBI information, telling Trump that the FBI’s ability to conduct its work is compromised “if people run around telling the press what we do.” This is no doubt part of the reason why Comey’s closest advisors used the words “surprised,” “stunned,” “shocked,” and “disappointment” to describe their reactions to learning what Comey had done.

Horowitz stressed that FBI employees must “adhere to Department and FBI policies,” especially when they come across “extraordinary circumstances or compelling personal convictions.”

The IG criticized Comey for not using the “several other lawful options available to him to advocate for the appointment of a Special Counsel.” He told the IG office that a Special Counsel “was his goal in making the disclosure.”

Horowitz reminded Comey:

What was not permitted was the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive investigative information, obtained during the course of FBI employment, in order to achieve a personally desired outcome……

FOX NEWS lists some of the “infractions specifically:

  • “Comey did not seek authorization from the FBI before providing Memos 2, 4, 6, and 7 to his attorneys.” (page 2)
  • “Comey did not seek FBI authorization before providing the contents of Memo 4, through Richman, to a reporter.” (page 2)
  • “As described in this report, we conclude that Comey’s retention, handling, and dissemination of certain Memos violated Department and FBI policies, and his FBI Employment Agreement.” (page 3)
  • “Comey told the OIG that he did not notify anyone at the FBI that he was going to share these Memos with anyone, and did not seek authorization from the FBI prior to emailing these four Memos to Fitzgerald.” (page 38)
  • “Accordingly, Comey stated that he did not notify anyone at the FBI that he was going to share the contents of the Memo 4 with Richman or the media, and that he did not seek authorization from FBI to provide Memo 4 to Richman.” (page 40)
  • “Accordingly, after his removal as FBI Director, Comey violated applicable policies and his Employment Agreement by failing to either surrender his copies of Memos 2, 4, 6, and 7 to the FBI or seek authorization to retain them; by releasing official FBI information and records to third parties without authorization; and by failing to immediately alert the FBI about his disclosures to his personal attorneys once he became aware in June 2017 that Memo 2 contained six words (four of which were names of foreign countries mentioned by the President) that the FBI had determined were classified at the ‘CONFIDENTIAL’ level.” (page 52)
  • “Despite knowledge that Memo 3 contained classified information, Comey did not appropriately mark Memo 3 with classification banners, portion markings, or a classification authority block. By failing to do so, Comey violated Executive Order 13526 and Intelligence Community, Department, and FBI policies governing marking of classified information.” (page 53)
  • “Comey’s actions with respect to the Memos violated Department and FBI policies concerning the retention, handling, and dissemination of FBI records and information, and violated the requirements of Comey’s FBI Employment Agreement.” (page 54)
  • “Comey violated Department and FBI policies, and the terms of his FBI Employment Agreement, by retaining copies of Memos 2, 4, 6, and 7 after he was removed as Director, regardless of each Memo’s classification level.” (page 55)
  • “As a departing FBI employee, Comey was required to relinquish any official documents in his possession and to seek specific authorization from the FBI in order to personally retain any FBI documents. Comey failed to comply with these requirements.” (page 55)
  • “As the FBI Director and Head of a Department Component, Comey was required to apply for and obtain authorization from the Assistant Attorney General for Administration to retain any FBI records after his removal. Comey violated these Department and FBI policies by failing to surrender his copies of Memos 2, 4, 6, and 7 upon being removed as FBI Director and by failing to seek authorization to retain them.” (page 55)
  • “Comey violated FBI policies and the requirements of his FBI Employment Agreement when he sent a copy of Memo 4 to Richman with instructions to provide the contents to a reporter, and when he transmitted copies of Memos 2, 4, 6, and a redacted version of 7 to his three attorneys.” (page 56)
  • “Comey violated FBI policy and the requirements of his FBI Employment Agreement when he chose this path.” (page 56)
  • “Comey was not authorized to disclose the statements he attributed to President Trump in Memo 4, which Comey viewed as evidence of an alleged attempt to obstruct the Flynn investigation and which were relevant to the ongoing Flynn investigation.” (page 56)
  • “Rather than continuing to safeguard such evidence, Comey unilaterally and without authorization disclosed it to all.” (page 56)
  • “However, Comey’s own, personal conception of what was necessary was not an appropriate basis for ignoring the policies and agreements governing the use of FBI records, especially given the other lawful and appropriate actions he could have taken to achieve his desired end.” (page 57)
  • “The unauthorized disclosure of this information—information that Comey knew only by virtue of his position as FBI Director—violated the terms of his FBI Employment Agreement and the FBI’s Prepublication Review Policy.” (page 57)
  • “However, Comey was not authorized to provide these Memos to his attorneys without prior approval from or coordination with the FBI.” (page 58)
  • “By providing Memos 2, 4, 6, and 7 to his attorneys without seeking FBI approval, Comey took for himself the ‘carte blanche authority’ expressly denied by the courts, in clear violation of the FBI’s Prepublication Review Policy and the requirements of Comey’s FBI Employment Agreement. As a result, Comey not only disclosed sensitive law enforcement information to his personal counsel but also a small amount of information contained in Memo 2 that the FBI subsequently determined was classified at the ‘CONFIDENTIAL’ level.” (page 58)
  • “Once he knew that the FBI had classified portions of Memo 2, Comey failed to immediately notify the FBI that he had previously given Memo 2 to his attorneys.” (page 59)
  • “The FBI’s Safeguarding Classified National Security Information Policy Guide clearly states that ‘[a]ny person who has knowledge that classified information has been or may have been lost, compromised, or disclosed to an unauthorized person must immediately report the circumstances to his or her security office.’ Comey violated this requirement by failing to immediately inform the FBI that he provided Memo 2 to his attorneys.” (page 59)
  • “By not immediately reporting that he had provided Memo 2 to his attorneys when Comey first learned that the FBI had designated a small portion of Memo 2 as classified at the ‘CONFIDENTIAL’ level, Comey violated FBI policy.” (page 59)
  • “However, after his removal as FBI Director two months later, Comey provided a copy of Memo 4, which Comey had kept without authorization, to Richman with instructions to share the contents with a reporter for The New York Times.” (page 60)
  • “But even when these employees believe that their most strongly-held personal convictions might be served by an unauthorized disclosure, the FBI depends on them not to disclose sensitive information. Former Director Comey failed to live up to this responsibility.” (page 60)
  • “We have previously faulted Comey for acting unilaterally and inconsistent with Department policy. Comey’s unauthorized disclosure of sensitive law enforcement information about the Flynn investigation merits similar criticism.” (page 61)
  • “Comey had several other lawful options available to him to advocate for the appointment of a Special Counsel, which he told us was his goal in making the disclosure. What was not permitted was the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive investigative information, obtained during the course of FBI employment, in order to achieve a personally desired outcome.” (page 61)

Here is my RPT Page’s Facebook post with the above info:

James Comey Is A Felon! Period

This is an excerpt from Gregg Jarrett’s book, The Russia Hoax: The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump (hardcover | paperback). It is merely for showing that Comey broke the law. This breaking of the law by Comey — unlike the “witch hunt” against our President — is clearly explicit and in violation of law. Enjoy:


QUOTE


COMEY’S THEFT OF GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS

For years, James Comey carefully cultivated a public portrait of himself as a grown-up Boy Scout—honest and morally straight. The truth is quite different. His actions belie the virtuous image he sought. It was all an illusion designed to mask the kind of conduct that most people find reprehensible. The record shows that he was less than honest, engaged in acts of questionable legality, and abused his power to further his ambitions.

One of the more stunning moments during Comey’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee in June 2017 occurred when he confessed that he deliberately leaked to “a friend” the contents of the presidential memorandums memorializing his conversations with Trump.59 He directed that friend, Daniel Richman of Columbia Law School, to leak the information to the New York Times with the objective that it would trigger the appointment of a special counsel to investigate the man who had just fired him. It was a devious scheme, to be sure. Comey knew the media would be more than willing to trash Trump by contorting the memos’ contents and misconstruing the law to accuse the president of obstruction of justice. Journalists and pundits did not disappoint.

The opening sentence in the Times story on May 16, 2017, did not recite facts derived from the memos, but drew an unsupported conclusion that “President Trump asked the FBI director, James Comey, to shut down the federal investigation into Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, in an Oval Office meeting in February.”60 Ipso facto, obstruction. The headline was nearly identical to the first line. Thus, anyone who did not read past the title of the story or the opening sentence was led to believe that Trump had probably committed a crime.

Of course, this is not what happened in the February meeting, according to Comey, who testified on June 8 about his conversation with Trump, narrating the encounter from his memos. Indeed, at the congressional hearing, Comey specifically quoted Trump’s vague comments about Flynn as “hoping” he would be cleared.61 That is not the same thing as “asking to shut down” an investigation, as the Times would have its readers believe. The Times story went on to raise the specter of obstruction and, sure enough, the next day Comey’s longtime friend and ally Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel. For the fired FBI director, it was mission accomplished. His media leak achieved his desired purpose.

In defense of his actions, Comey offered an explanation that was, in equal parts, erroneous and obtuse. He claimed that the seven presidential memos he took with him when he was fired were his personal property. If he believed that, he is not much of a lawyer. The FBI’s policy manual states quite clearly that documents or records generated during official duties are government property.62 The FBI Employment Agreement, to which Comey was bound, mandates that “all information acquired by me in connection with my official duties remain the property of the United States of America.”63

Under both the Federal Records Act and the Privacy Act, any document or record composed by government employees during the course and scope of their employment is not the property of the person who authored the document, but the property of the government.64 This is especially true if the material was prepared on a government-owned computer and written during the normal work hours while the employee is on the job performing the duties of his job, as was the case with Comey’s presidential memos. His discussions with the president arose directly from his position as head of the FBI. These records laws apply to classified and unclassified documents alike. Furthermore, in his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 8, 2017, Comey admitted that he wrote the memos so that they could be “discuss(ed) within the FBI and the government.”65 This is an admission that these documents were not his personal property. Records that are composed for government use are automatically government property.

The fact that Comey did not want to leak the memos himself, but chose a conduit or middleman to do so covertly at his behest, is substantial proof that he knew what he was doing was wrong and illegal. By using a third-party to do the dirty work, Comey was trying to circumvent the law to insulate himself from criminality. He failed.

18 U.S.C. 641 makes it a felony punishable by up to ten years in prison to give someone outside of government an unclassified, but protected, record without authorization:

Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any recordof the United States or of any department or agency thereofshall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years.66

This is precisely what Comey appeared to have done “converting” to his own use and in conveying to his friend, without authorization, his presidential memos which were government records.

Having been fired, Comey stole government records with the intent to leak them for his benefit. In an obvious act of retribution, he wanted the documents to inculpate Trump in a special counsel investigation and, he hoped, generate a criminal charge of obstruction of justice. This scheme to benefit himself and harm the president also may have violated at least two federal regulations, including this one identified in the Code of Federal Regulations:

An employee shall not engage in a financial transaction using nonpublic information, nor allow the improper use of nonpublic information to further his own private interest or that of another, whether through advice or recommendation, or by knowing unauthorized disclosure.67

Under the law, it does not matter that Comey was an ex-employee when he leaked the documents because he maintained custody of them when he was still employed, then took them out of the FBI building to use for his own devices. This was a direct violation of FBI regulations which state, “FBI personnel must surrender all materials in their possession that contain FBI information upon FBI demand or upon separation from the FBI.”68 Comey did not do this. He converted government property to his own use, then disseminated it to the public.

Comey must have known that he was likely breaking several laws and committing felonies. As FBI director, he was legally obligated to adhere to the bureau’s standard nondisclosure contract in which all personnel promise not to disclose the very type of records and information Comey leaked. The agreement specifically warned that employees are subject to “criminal sanctionsand personal liability in a civil action at law and the disgorging of any profits arising from any unauthorized publication or disclosure.”69 Separation upon termination did not render the contract null and void. It was a binding, enforceable, and actionable contract regardless of job status. Under the terms, Comey agreed he could be sued and face criminal prosecution. Since his firing, Comey published a book quoting from the memos he filched. This enabled him to profit handsomely from his wrongful actions, pocketing millions of dollars. If the FBI contract were to be enforced, Comey could—and should—lose earnings derived therefrom.

The Comey-composed memos themselves recited discussions with the president that were both privileged and contained information involving an ongoing FBI investigation into Flynn’s contacts with Russia. This means Comey appeared to have broken yet another law, punishable by up to ten years in prison. 18 U.S.C. 793 makes it a crime to “willfully communicate or transmit national defense information,” even though it is not necessarily classified when written.70 While the full contents of the partially redacted memos made public so far do not deal directly with national defense matters, the overall Flynn investigation did.

Comey’s chicanery was laid bare in his congressional testimony when he told the Senate Intelligence Committee that he deliberately wrote some of his memos as “unclassified” documents. Making them classified, he told the committee, “would tangle them up.”71 In other words, he manipulated the classification system to exploit the political damage his documents might cause, while concomitantly attempting to shield himself from criminal charges. But this may be a moot point if any of the seven memos Comey took with him contained classified information, regardless of how he might have labeled them or, more aptly, mislabeled them. Under law, the content dictates classification, not the markings.

Sometime in late 2017 or early 2018, the FBI advised the Senate Judiciary Committee that the majority of the memos were, in fact, “classified.”72 Chairman Charles Grassley, one of the few people who gained access to the memos, revealed that four of them were “marked classified at the ‘Secret’ or ‘Confidential’ levels,” a fact that was confirmed when the memos were released.73 Richman told Fox News that he received four of the seven memos.74 This means that Comey appears to have given his “friend” at least one “classified” document.

Giving “classified” records to an unauthorized person and/or storing them in an unsecured venue constitutes several felonies—the same crimes Hillary Clinton surely committed. For example, 18 U.S.C. 1924 states as follows:

Whoever, being an officer, employee of the United Statesbecomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both!75

Comey appears to have done this. He admitted he knowingly removed presidential memos without authority from FBI headquarters, kept them in what must have been an unauthorized location, then conveyed at least four of them to his “friend,” Richman. As director of the FBI, he knew that at least some of their contents were both privileged and might well be classified. It would be folly for Comey to argue they were not classified since the FBI insists they are. If Comey deliberately mismarked them, he cannot use his own wrongful act to insulate himself from criminal prosecution.

In the alternative, let’s assume for the sake of argument that Comey’s handling of the documents was “grossly negligent,” instead of “knowing” or “intentional.” That would be the same crime for which Clinton should have been charged, 18 U.S.C. 793(f).76 The irony is lost on no one. Comey appears to have committed the identical felony as Clinton, and it was Comey who contorted the law to absolve her of this crime, as explained in chapter 2.

But the story of Comey’s machinations does not end there. Days after the presidential memos were released to the public, it was learned that Richman had worked for Comey at the FBI as an unpaid “special government employee.”77 Comey concealed this important information from Congress during his June 2017 testimony, later dismissing this fact as “irrelevant.”78 Moreover, Comey failed to disclose that another person, Patrick Fitzgerald, also reportedly received memos.79 Fitzgerald is a former U.S. Attorney and special counsel who, like Richman, is a friend of Comey. Both Richman and Fitzgerald have since been hired by Comey as his lawyers.80 And so, too, has another lawyer, David Kelly, to whom Comey gave one or more memos.81 This means that the fired director can invoke the attorney-client privilege to try to protect some or all of their communications about the memos.

The FBI was sufficiently concerned about Comey’s dissemination of classified information that agents conducted a search of Richman’s office to retrieve documents and contain the leak.82 It is unknown whether the same “spillage clean-up” occurred at Fitz gerald’s office and, perhaps, Kelly’s, as well. These corrective actions by the FBI suggest that classified information may well have been shared by Comey in violation of federal law.

When Comey was questioned by senators in a June 2017 hear­ing before the Intelligence Committee, he omitted these relevant and important details in his answers about his leak of the memos. Under 18 U.S.C. 1001, it is a crime to give false or misleading statements in a legislative proceeding.”83 Concealing material facts” in response to questions under oath before Congress would constitute misleading statements in violation of that statute.

Congress has been investigating Comey for a series of other suspected deceptions made during testimony before various congressional committees. In one instance, he told the House Judiciary Committee, under oath, that he decided not to refer criminal prosecution of Clinton only after she was interviewed.84 Yet, documents uncovered later indicated he made the decision well before the interview.85

Comey insisted that Loretta Lynch, the attorney general, never knew of his decision to clear Clinton in advance of his public announcement.86 Yet, text messages exchanged between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page suggested that Lynch had been apprised in advance.87 Comey also testified that, while FBI director, he never authorized leaks to the media about the two presidential candidates.88 Yet, a subsequent statement by his deputy director, Andrew McCabe, appeared to contradict Comey.89

Finally, the Senate Judiciary Committee sent a letter to the Justice Department’s inspector general accusing Comey of “apparent material discrepancies” in his testimony about the FISA warrant applications, asking whether this was “a deliberate attempt to mislead.”90

There is substantial evidence that Comey did not tell the truth on several occasions and may have violated numerous federal statutes governing the theft of government documents, including classified material. He may also have obstructed justice in the Hillary Clinton email case and violated the law by deceiving the FISA court in a warrant to spy on an American citizen.

Days after Comey published his book and commenced his publicity tour, it was learned that the inspector general at the De­partment of Justice was investigating whether Comey mishandled classified information contained in the presidential memos he gave to his “friend” that was then leaked to the media.91 If he broke the law, he should be held accountable.

Former independent counsel and U.S. Attorney Joe diGenova was blunt in his assessment of Comey:

I don’t think there’s any doubt that Comey committed multiple crimes. If the Justice Department wants to pursue them vigorously and fairly like they would with any other citizen, he should be indicted for his false testimony on Capitol Hill and for his obstruction of an investigation.92

Far from the image of an honest and honorable Boy Scout, the evidence is compelling that James Comey sought to mislead, deflect, and deceive. He also appears to have abused the powers of his office to exact punishment on the president who fired him. His plan to convert presidential memos for his own use, then leak them to the media to damage Trump suggests a willingness to defy rules, regulations, and federal laws with impunity.

Perhaps Comey felt he could get away with it because he successfully engineered the appointment of his close friend Robert Mueller as special counsel to pursue potential charges against the president.


FOOTNOTES (I removed the URLS, they did not translate well with my OCR program)


59. Politico Staff, “Full Text: James Comey Testimony Transcript on Trump and Russia,” pp. 32 and 33, Politico, June 8, 2017.

60. Michael S. Schmidt, “Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation,” New York Times, May 16, 2017.

61. James B. Comey, “Statement for the Record,” Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, p. 5, June 8, 2017; Politico Staff, “Full Text: James Comey Testimony Transcript on Trump and Russia,” Politico, June 8, 2017.

62. Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Manual of Investigative Operations and Guidelines (MIOG),” available at …

63. FBI Employment Agreement, Including Provisions and Prohibited Disclosures, FD-291, available at …

64. 44 U.S.C. 3101, “Records Management by Agency Heads, General Duties”; 5 U.S.C. 552a, “Records Maintained on Individuals”; 28 U.S.C. 1732, “Record Made in Regular Course of Business.”

65. Politico Staff, “Full Text: James Comey Testimony Transcript on Trump and Russia,” Politico, 16, June 8, 2017; available at …

66. 18 U.S.C. 641, “Public Money, Property or Records.”

67. 5 C.F.R. 2635.703, “Use of Nonpublic Information”; 29 C.F.R. 71.14, “Use of Non Public Information.”

68. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Records Management Division, 0792PG, p. 1, June 4, 2015.

69. FBI Employment Agreement, Including Provisions and Prohibited Disclosures, FD-291, available at …

70. 18 U.S.C. 793, “Gathering, Transmitting or Losing Defense Information.”

71. Politico Staff, “Full Text: James Comey Testimony Transcript on Trump and Russia.”

72. Letter from Charles E. Grassley, chairman of Committee on the Judiciary Committee, to Rod J. Rosenstein, deputy attorney general, January 3, 2018, available at …

73. Ibid.

74. Brooke Singman, “Comey Memos Reportedly Had Classified Info,” Fox News, July 10, 2017.

75. 18 U.S.C. 1924, “Unauthorized Removal and Retention of Classified Documents or Material.”

76. 18 U.S.C. 793(f), “Gathering, Transmitting or Losing Defense Information.”

77. Catherine Herridge, Pamela K. Browne, and Cyd Upson, “Comey Memos Shared More Broadly Than Previously Thought,” Fox News, April 25, 2018.

78. Transcript of “James Comey on Clinton Probe, Russia Investigation,” Fox News, “Special Report With Bret Baier.” April 26, 2018, available at …

79. Catherine Herridge, Pamela K. Browne, and Cyd Upson, “Comey Memos Shared More Broadly Than Previously Thought.”

80. Ibid.; Sean Davis, “Comey ‘Friend’ Who Leaked FBI Memos Now Claims to Be His Attorney,” Federalist, January 23, 2018.

81. Transcript of “James Comey on Clinton Probe, Russia Investigation,” Fox News, “Special Report With Bret Baier.” April 26, 2018; available at …

82. Michael D. Shear and Nicholas Fandos, “GOP Push on Comey Files May Have Backfired,” New York Times, April 21, 2018.

83. United States Code, 18 U.S.C. 1001, “Statements or Entries Generally.”

84. Hearing Before the Committee on the Judiciary, “Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,” Testimony of James B. Comey, September 28, 2016, available at …

85. Senate Judiciary Committee letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray, August 30, 2017, available at …

86. Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal Email System, FBI National Press Office, July 5, 2016.

87. Brooke Singman, Alex Pappas, and Jake Gibson, “More Than 50,000 Texts Exchanged Between FBI Officials Strzok and Page, Sessions Says,” Fox News, January 22, 2018.

88. Washington Post Staff, “Read Full Testimony of FBI Director James Comey in Which He Discusses Clinton Email Investigation.”

89. CNN Staff, “Read: Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s Statement on His Firing,” CNN, March 17, 2018, available at ….

90. Letter from Sen. Charles E. Grassley and Sen. Lindsey 0. Graham, Judiciary Committee, to Michael Horowitz, Inspector General, Department of Justice, February 28, 2018, available at ….

91. Byron Tau and Aruna Viswanatha, “Justice Department Watchdog Probes Comey Memos Over Classified Information,” Wall Street Journal, April 20, 2018.

92. Interview with Joseph diGenova, former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia and former independent counsel, January 26, 2018.

  • Gregg Jarrett, The Russia Hoax: The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump (New York, NY: Broadside Books, 2018), 244-254, 325-327.

 

I Remember… (UPDATED)

After a decade of justice denied — under Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, John Brennan, James Comey, and others — BILL WHITTLE thinks he now detects a whiff of fear among those in that cabal. Former CIA Director John Brennan, usually a cool calculating man, seems frightened about the probe into how the Russia collusion investigation began.

On my RPT-FACEBOOK PAGE, I post many articles I read in full or in part during the week. Here is a “dump” of MANY of them (from newest to oldest):


ARTICLE DUMP


By issuing putatively national injunctions, Attorney General William Barr said in a May 21 speech to the American Law Institute: “One judge can, in effect, cancel the policy with the stroke of the pen. No official in the United States government [rightly] can exercise that kind of nationwide power, with the sole exception of the president. And the Constitution subjects him to nationwide election, among other constitutional checks, as a prerequisite to wielding that power.”

Fear of Barr (Strassel)

HUGH HEWITT reads Kimberly Strassel’s column, earlier today:

A little POWRLINE intro please: The Democrats’ hysteria over Attorney General William Barr is directly proportional to their fear of the damage they fear he might do, Kim Strassel explains in her Wall Street Journal Potomac Watch column HERE:

The only thing uglier than an angry Washington is a fearful Washington. And fear is what’s driving this week’s blitzkrieg of Attorney General William Barr.

Mr. Barr tolerantly sat through hours of Democratic insults at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday. His reward for his patience was to be labeled, in the space of a news cycle, a lawbreaking, dishonest, obstructing hack. Speaker Nancy Pelosi publicly accused Mr. Barr of lying to Congress, which, she added, is “considered a crime.” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler said he will move to hold Mr. Barr in contempt unless the attorney general acquiesces to the unprecedented demand that he submit to cross-examination by committee staff attorneys. James Comey, former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, lamented that Donald Trump had “eaten” Mr. Barr’s “soul.” Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren demands the attorney general resign. California Rep. Eric Swalwell wants him impeached.

These attacks aren’t about special counsel Robert Mueller, his report or even the surreal debate over Mr. Barr’s first letter describing the report. The attorney general delivered the transparency Democrats demanded: He quickly released a lightly redacted report, which portrayed the president in a negative light. What do Democrats have to object to?

Some of this is frustration. Democrats foolishly invested two years of political capital in the idea that Mr. Mueller would prove President Trump had colluded with Russia, and Mr. Mueller left them empty-handed. Some of it is personal. Democrats resent that Mr. Barr won’t cower or apologize for doing his job. Some is bitterness that Mr. Barr is performing like a real attorney general, making the call against obstruction-of-justice charges rather than sitting back and letting Democrats have their fun with Mr. Mueller’s obstruction innuendo.

But most of it is likely fear. Mr. Barr made real news in that Senate hearing, and while the press didn’t notice, Democrats did. The attorney general said he’d already assigned people at the Justice Department to assist his investigation of the origins of the Trump-Russia probe. He said his review would be far-reaching—that he was obtaining details from congressional investigations, from the ongoing probe by the department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, and even from Mr. Mueller’s work. Mr. Barr said the investigation wouldn’t focus only on the fall 2016 justifications for secret surveillance warrants against Trump team members but would go back months earlier.

He also said he’d focus on the infamous “dossier” concocted by opposition-research firm Fusion GPS and British former spy Christopher Steele, on which the FBI relied so heavily in its probe. Mr. Barr acknowledged his concern that the dossier itself could be Russian disinformation, a possibility he described as not “entirely speculative.” He also revealed that the department has “multiple criminal leak investigations under way” into the disclosure of classified details about the Trump-Russia investigation.

Do not underestimate how many powerful people in Washington have something to lose from Mr. Barr’s probe. Among them: Former and current leaders of the law-enforcement and intelligence communities. The Democratic Party pooh-bahs who paid a foreign national (Mr. Steele) to collect information from Russians and deliver it to the FBI. The government officials who misused their positions to target a presidential campaign. The leakers. The media. More than reputations are at risk. Revelations could lead to lawsuits, formal disciplinary actions, lost jobs, even criminal prosecution.

The attacks on Mr. Barr are first and foremost an effort to force him out, to prevent this information from coming to light until Democrats can retake the White House in 2020. As a fallback, the coordinated campaign works as a pre-emptive smear, diminishing the credibility of his ultimate findings by priming the public to view him as a partisan.

That’s why Mr. Barr isn’t alone in getting slimed. Natasha Bertrand at Politico last month penned a hit piece on the respected Mr. Horowitz. It’s clear the inspector general is asking the right questions. The Politico article acknowledges he’s homing in on Mr. Steele’s “credibility” and the dossier’s “veracity”—then goes on to provide a defense of Mr. Steele and his dossier, while quoting unnamed sources who deride the “quality” of the Horowitz probe, and (hilariously) claim the long-tenured inspector general is not “well-versed” in core Justice Department functions.

“We have to stop using the criminal-justice process as a political weapon,” Mr. Barr said Wednesday. The line didn’t get much notice, but that worthy goal increasingly looks to be a reason Mr. Barr accepted this unpleasant job. Stopping this abuse requires understanding how it started. The liberal establishment, including journalists friendly with it, doesn’t want that to happen, and so has made it a mission to destroy Mr. Barr. The attorney general seems to know what he’s up against, and remains undeterred. That’s the sort of steely will necessary to right the ship at the Justice Department and the FBI.