, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Imagine, gentle readers, you are under investigation by the FBI. Further imagine they seek some months of your e-mail correspondence, which you were obligated to preserve. Now imagine you tell them “Oh, those months? Computer glitch. They weren’t saved. Sorry.” Tell me, gentle readers, how many think the FBI would reply: “That’s OK. These things happen. Sorry to have bothered you”? Consider this from Byron York at The Washington Examiner:

Investigators in both House and Senate were stunned late Friday when, receiving a batch of newly-released texts between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, they also received notice from the bureau that the FBI ‘failed to preserve’ Strzok-Page messages from December 14, 2016 through May 17, 2017.

Given the amount of texting that went on between Strzok and Page, who were having an extramarital affair, that probably meant thousands of missing documents.

Peter Strzok and Lisa Page

Strzok, a former high-ranking counter intelligence agent, and Page, a high-ranking FBI lawyer (many FBI agents are lawyers), apparently had daily direct contact with Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe. Strzok was also directly involved in the Hillary Clinton Investigation—in FBI speak the “mid year exam”—and also the Mueller investigation before his embarrassing—to put it mildly—e-mails to Page went public. Not only did they reveal their affair, not only did they reveal not only grotesque bias against candidate and President Trump, but arguably a conspiracy at the highest levels of the FBI and DOJ not only to deny Trump the presidency, but to overthrow the lawful result of the election and destroy his presidency. Strzok was reassigned to Human Resources, though Page apparently has not suffered a similar fate. But not to worry, gentle readers, I’m sure it’s all innocent and a mere coincidence. The FBI, however, won’t comment on whether anyone else’s e-mails were affected. But just for the sake of argument, what was going on during that five-month e-mail blackout?

A number of critical events in the Trump-Russia affair occurred between December 2016 and May 2017, including:

* Conversations between Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

* The completion and publication of the intelligence community assessment of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

* The briefing in which FBI director James Comey told President-elect Donald Trump about the Trump dossier.

* The president’s inauguration.

* The nomination and confirmation of new Justice Department leadership.

* Flynn’s interview with the FBI (conducted by Strzok).

* Comey’s assurances to Trump that he, Trump, was not under investigation.

* A variety of revelations, mostly in the Washington Post and New York Times, about various Trump figures under investigation.

* Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ recusal from the Russia probe.

* The firing of top Obama Justice Department holdover Sally Yates.

* Trump’s tweet alleging he was wiretapped.

* Trump’s firing of Comey.

* And, finally, on May 17, 2017 — the final day of the missing texts — the appointment of Trump-Russia special prosecutor Robert Mueller.

Strzok and Page had a lot to talk about.

York is a master of understatement. Consider this example of the kinds of things Strzok and Page were saying to each other:

In the newly-released texts, Strzok and Page discussed Trump winning the Republican presidential nomination, which they said would create ‘pressure’ on the FBI to quickly finish up the Hillary Clinton email investigation, known inside the bureau as the ‘midyear exam,’ or MYE.

‘And holy shit Cruz just dropped out of the race,’ Page texted Strzok on May 4, 2016. ‘It’s going to be a Clinton Trump race. Unbelievable.’

‘What?!?!??’ responded Strzok.

‘You heard it right my friend,’ said Page.

‘I saw Trump won, figured it would be a bit,’ Strzok said. ‘Now the pressure really starts to finish MYE.’

‘It sure does,’ Page responded.

Earlier, in February 2016, Page texted Strzok that candidate Trump ‘simply can not be president.

Andrew McCabe
credit: foxiness

Remember these are people working in the highest levels of the FBI and DOJ. Their e-mails routinely speak of their apparently daily access to Deputy Director McCabe, who has suddenly developed a pressing need to retire, and other top-ranking officials. Why would they need to bring the MYE to a rapid conclusion? They needed to exonerate Hillary Clinton as quickly as possible. They had to help elect her at all costs.

Underlying all the questions is a diminished level of trust between some quarters of Congress and the FBI.

‘Very suspicious,’ said one investigator about the news. ‘Hard to believe,’ said another.

When asked to rate his trust of the FBI on a scale from 1 to 10, the investigator quickly answered, ‘Zero.

No kidding. Another bizarre and profoundly disturbing issue, about which the Congress is informed, is the Strzok/Page e-mails made mention of a “secret society” in the FBI, presumably established for the destruction of candidate/president Trump, in other words, for manipulating the election, for the destruction of the rule of law. This “secret society” may have been an “in” reference to something innocuous, but considering the lover’s other communications, it suggests a distinctly sinister meaning.

Remember too, the timing involved in all this. From the “accidental” meeting of then AG Loretta Lynch with Former President Bill Clinton, where they supposedly chatted about their grandchildren until Former FBI Director James Comey publically exonerated Hillary Clinton, only a week passed, as “Fuzzy Slippers” at Legal Insurrection, notes:

The chronology:

* June 29th:  Tarmac summit

* July 1st: Lynch announces she’ll abide by FBI recommendation

* July 1st: FBI agents [Strzok and Page] mock Lynch announcement in texts, stating she already knows the outcome

* July 5th: Comey statement recommending no charges in Hillary email investigation, prefaces statement with assertion that there was no coordination with DOJ and that they do not know what he was about to recommend.

If the revelation that Lynch likely knew in advance that Comey would recommend no charges was in the text messages the FBI didn’t lose, what on earth could be in the ones they did?

Keep in mind Hillary Clinton was not interviewed by the FBI until July 2, yet Strzok, who actually interviewed her, knew she was not going to be charged before that interview. No law enforcement officer would be able to determine the outcome of a case without interviewing the target of the investigation, and even then, it would almost certainly take weeks, if not months, particularly in a case of such complexity and importance, to complete the investigation. Of course, if the FBI knew the outcome before the interview, as seems to be the case, all that boring, tedious investigative work could be omitted, as it apparently was, but that’s not surprising. Virtually everything the FBI did in investigating this case was apparently the opposite of professional practice. Clinton’s interview was a formality. Does anyone believe she didn’t know she would be exonerated even as she sat down for her interview with Strzok, one of her best and most dedicated cheerleaders?

Most likely the “lost” information contained direct links to the highest-level people in the FBI and DOJ, including Comey, Rod Rosenstein, and likely Democrat, perhaps even some Republican, politicians plotting to keep Trump from being elected and plotting against the peaceful transfer of power, against our constitutional Republic. Considering the depth and detail of what the already released Strzok/Page emails have revealed, what else could it be? Actual e-mail exchanges between Strzok, Hillary Clinton, Human Abedin or Cheryl Mills? Perhaps exchanges with the Horndog-In-Chief himself, Bubba Clinton? It’s always possible, of course, there was even more egregious criminal activity to cover—such as secret societies–but let’s stick, for the moment, with the more mundane possibilities.

For a reminder of the kinds of things Strzok and Page were saying, let’s visit Scott Johnson at Powerline:

The conversations between Ms. Page and Mr. Strzok also appear to suggest that then-Attorney General Lynch was aware that Director Comey would not recommend criminal charges in the Clinton investigation prior to Attorney General Lynch’s announcement that she would accept whatever recommendation the FBI made. On July 1, 2016—the same day as Attorney General Lynch’s announcement, but before the FBI had interviewed Secretary Clinton and before Director Comey had announced his recommendation—Ms. Page and Mr. Strzok exchanged the following messages:

“Mr. Strzok: Holy cow….nyt breaking Apuzzo, Lync [sic] will accept whatever rec D and career prosecutors make. No political appointee input.

Strzok is referring to AG Lynch; “rec” is “recommendation”, and “D” is presumably the FBI Director, James Comey.  

Mr. Strzok: Lynch. Timing not great, but whatever. Wonder if that’s why the no coordination language added.

Ms. Page: No way. This is a purposeful leak following the airplane snafu.

Mr. Strzok: Timing looks like hell. Will appear to be choreographed. All major news networks literally leading with ‘AG to accept FBI D’s recommendation.’

Ms. Page: Yeah, that is awful timing. Nothing we can do about it.

Mr. Strzok: What I meant was, did DOJ tell us yesterday they were doing this, so D added that language.

Mr. Strzok: Yep. I told Bill the same thing. Delaying just makes it worse.

Ms. Page: And yes. I think we had some warning of it. I know they sent some statement to rybicki, bc he called andy.

Ms. Page: And yeah, it’s a real profile in couragw [sic], since she knows no charges will be brought.

“She,” given the context, is AG Lynch. Strzok and Page are saying even as Lynch was saying for public consumption, she would accept the recommendation on charging Hillary Clinton, she knew Clinton would not be charged. Remember that then-FBI Director Comey testified before Congress, and told the American people, no one knew what his recommendation would be. One presumes she knew this long before. There was no way she or Barack Obama would allow Clinton to face criminal charges, regardless of her crimes.

In addition, the text messages appear to suggest that Ms. Page and Mr. Strzok used non-FBI-issued devices to discuss FBI business. For example, in April 2016, Ms. Page texted Mr. Strzok, ‘so look, you say we text on that phone when we talk about hillary [sic.] because it can’t be traced, you were just venting [because] you feel bad that you’re gone so much but it can’t be helped right now.’ Mr. Strzok replied, ‘Right. But did you say anything other than work? I did, [redacted].’ In addition, Ms. Page and Mr. Strzok reference several times about emailing each other on Gmail.

And what of the FBI’s IT people? Saving e-mails is not only standard protocol, it’s legally mandated, something all government agencies have a daily duty to ensure. The FBI’s e-mail wasn’t working for five months and they didn’t notice? They have no means to recover supposedly lost e-mails? Apparently domestic and international cyber criminals have far less to fear from the FBI than anyone imagined.

credit: minutemanproject.com

The evidence Barack Obama weaponized every agency of the federal government, including the IRS, EPA, FBI, DOJ, NSA, and likely every other intelligence agency, against his political enemies continues to grow by the day. The missing five months of e-mails are almost certainly an attempt to protect higher-ranking officials, likely including Democrat politicians. It’s also likely an attempt to protect high-ranking Never-Trump Republicans, in effect, the Deep State.

Stephen Green at PJ Media suggests another possibility: 

The thing is, you’re not supposed to believe it [the lost five months of e-mails]. No one is — not in any meaningful sense.

Maybe I’m just getting paranoid, but today’s limp excuse is so lame that it almost seems as though there must be something more sinister going on here than simply failing to comply with a congressional investigation.

What the FBI is doing is demonstrating its political power — baring its fangs, if you will — by showing in the most obviously unbelievable way that it will do what it please. The FBI wants the people who count to understand that the Bureau cannot and will not be held accountable. [skip]

I get that kind of vibe, albeit on a much less murderous scale, from today’s FBI. The FBI didn’t come up with a lame excuse because that’s all they could come up with. They came up with a lame excuse because they think that’s all they need.

And unless Congress steps up, they’ll be right.

Under the Obamites, any federal employee acting at the behest of Mr. Obama and his minions was immune from prosecution, a state of grace they believed would continue under a Clinton presidency, so they stonewalled, lied, cheated, brutalized honest Americans, abused their power, and damaged our republic. Imagine being a member of the FBI: who is going to arrest them for any crime they commit? Who is going to prosecute them when the DOJ is as corrupt and criminal as they are? They did it because they could get away with it. Perhaps they still believe they can, or perhaps they’ve just gotten lazy. They think they don’t have to explain themselves, or if they do, no one is going to do anything about it, so they can say anything they like.

Every American must be able to believe, without doubt, that the FBI speaks honestly. When an FBI agent—every agent—presents evidence, that evidence is untainted and nothing is hidden. When an FBI agent investigates a case, they will uniformly enforce the law, not impose a political philosophy—any political philosophy. When a FBI administrator speaks before Congress, they are telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

But most FBI employees are honest! They don’t like this any more than honest Americans! Yeah? How can anyone tell whether they’re dealing with an honest agent or one of their corrupt brethren? Ask to check their e-mails? I can think of no better time for the FBI, one and all, to prove it. They can arrest their fellow employees and their bosses if they’re committing crimes. Perhaps some are working behind the scenes to restore integrity to the agency, but “behind the scenes” lacks a certain–honesty, these days.

One thing is certain: the FBI’s reputation for non-partisan enforcement of the rule of law, and for unimpeachable integrity has been utterly destroyed. Foreign intelligence agencies, if they don’t already, will think it open season on America. Wholesale firing and prosecution of any and everyone involved—in and out of the FBI–will only begin the process of rebuilding that absolutely necessary reputation, a process that will take many years, and may never completely restore it. By adopting progressive ideology and violating their oaths to enforce the law and protect the Constitution, Peter Strzok, and a great many others, have done more damage to our nation than our enemies could have ever hoped to accomplish, and in a far shorter time.