, , , , , , , , , ,

FBI Director Comey trying to explain Hillary Clinton

I recently addressed the Inspector General’s report in The IG’s Report: A Bigger Bucket. Since then, a great deal more information has come to light, so for your edification, gentle readers, I present this update.  I recommend you ensure you’ve taken your blood pressure meds before reading. First, to The Daily Caller, where former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell provides perspective on the Weiner/Abedin laptop:  

“They [the FBI] seized his laptop computer. It would have been bad enough if it had only had contained all his porn. But it posed a huge problem for the FBI, DOJ and Mrs. Clinton.

Comey had already exonerated Hillary of her blatant Espionage Act violations and obstruction of justice violations two months before — in time for her to wrap up the election they all expected and wanted her to win.

Peter Strzok and the Trump-hating key players in the Clinton email ‘investigation’ were already well into crafting and leaking the Trump-Russia collusion narrative.

Then, the unthinkable happened.

Only a few hours after the New York office of the FBI took possession of the Weiner laptop, on September 26, 2016, the FBI computer expert discovered it contained more than 140,000 emails involving Hillary Clinton. They were from multiple domain names: State.gov, Clintonemail.com, ClintonFoundation.org, HillaryClinton.com and Blackberry devices. The agent had what he told the inspector general was an “oh shit moment” — recognizing that he had found evidence important to the most important investigation — and he immediately reported it up the chain.

According to the inspector general’s report of June 14, specifically Chapters IX-XI, the treasure “trove” of emails covered Mrs. Clinton’s entire tenure as Secretary of State.

Remember, gentle readers, that Former FBI Director James Comey and his conspiratorial minions sat on that information, refusing to collect the laptop, for all of a month, acting only when New York City Police and New York Office FBI agents threatened to expose them.

We already knew that President Barack Obama was emailing her on her unsecure server at Clintonemail.com, and Cheryl Mills had written an email noting how ‘obvious’ it was to anyone that this was not State.gov and therefore unsecure. The president jolly-well knew it was not a secure communication as he used an alias.

This was a gargantuan problem for the FBI and for Mrs. Clinton. Other people knew about it, too.

Indeed, according to the inspector general, 39 high-ranking FBI agents knew of it, along with the New York office and people in the New York U.S. Attorney’s office. The New York FBI informed them all during a secure video-conference on September 28 — chaired by Andrew McCabe.

One agent said the announcement of finding hundreds of thousands of Clinton emails on Weiner’s laptop was ‘like dropping a bomb in the middle of the meeting.’

According to the IG’s report, virtually none of these people has been interviewed, or if so, the fact and results of those interviews are not mentioned.

‘On October 30, 2016 [9 days before the election], The Daily Caller reported that the Department of Justice had not even sought a warrant for review of the 350,000 Clinton emails.

credit: nypost

As I’ve previously noted, Comey and his co-conspirators are either incredibly incompetent or criminals.  It’s looking more and more like they’re both.  It’s revealing they are content to appear to be incompetent–something federal agents and prosecutors avoid like the plague–surely because the alternative, which could put them all in prison, is much, much worse. There were, on Weiner’s laptop, 350,000 e-mails from Hillary Clinton’s entire term as Secretary of State, e-mails which by their mere presence on an unsecured device, represent innumerable counts of federal crimes. Powell asks pertinent questions that IG Horowitz, and Senate and House members have apparently failed to ask and answer:

1. What are the names of all the people the FBI has identified as having emailed Hillary Clinton on her obvious unsecured server at Clintonemail.com? (We already know Obama emailed her on it under an alias. Which other high-ranking officials also emailed Clinton at her unsecured server? What about Robert Mueller? What about Eric Holder?

2. Did the inspector general ask Lynch about threats to NYPD to prosecute officers if they didn’t back down on exposing the email cover-up? Why not?

3. Did the FBI show Hillary the email by Cheryl Mills stating it was “obvious” Clintonemail.com was not secure?

4. Who are the three —just three— FBI agents who reviewed the Weiner laptop and conducted the miraculous de-duping and review in only a few days of 350,000 emails that covered her entire tenure as Secretary of State?

5. Who in the Department of Justice reviewed the 350,000 Clinton emails on Weiner laptop?

6. Who in Department of Justice talked to the New York office about the Weiner laptop?

7. How many classified, top-secret and even more secret chains were found from Clinton’s own production on Weiner’s laptop?

8. Who stripped the classified and confidential markings from the documents Mrs. Clinton received before sending them to her?

9. Where is Weiner’s laptop right now?

10. Who made that phone call from the Department of Justice to the New York Police Department? Exactly what was said?

Who indeed?  Competent investigators would have asked, and demanded answers to all of these questions, but only if they were seeking the truth and evidence of crimes, only if they had not determined the outcome of the investigation in advance.

Peter Strzok and Lisa Page

Byron York at The Washington Examiner provides additional background on the most damaging Peter Strzok/Lisa Page e-mail exchange:

It was the most damaging of all the damaging texts exchanged between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. On Aug. 8, 2016, in the second week of the Trump-Russia investigation on which both were working, Page texted Strzok to say, “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” Strzok responded, “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.

As I earlier wrote, Congress, and Horowitz, only got Page’s question, not Strozk’s reply.  Getting that took the resources of multiple federal agencies and many months.

At the Senate hearing Monday, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah., asked Horowitz how he got the text. The inspector general explained that the FBI first turned over tens of thousands of texts, gathered by the bureau’s internal data collection and preservation software. But then it was discovered that there was a period — roughly from mid-December 2016 to mid-May 2017 — when there were no texts at all.

That was, it hardly needs be said, an extremely important time in the Trump-Russia investigation.

York is a master of understatement.  How is it possible the FBI, an agency with significant responsibility for cybersecurity, an agency with vaunted, legendary forensic powers, could lose all of its internal communications for five months, and be unaware of it?  They couldn’t.  York goes into detail about the nearly convoluted search undertaken by Horowitz, then:

But there was something odd about it all. The Strzok ‘We’ll stop it’ text did not come from that period of time, December 2016 to May 2017, when the FBI system was not working. It came from August 2016, when the FBI system was supposedly collecting every message. That was the period of time from which the FBI originally turned over tens of thousands of Strzok-Page texts.

And yet, that one-line message — ‘We’ll stop it’ — was not turned over to the IG, and not turned over to Congress, either.

Imagine, gentle readers, any poor schlub like you or me pulling that kind of story on the FBI. They’d toss us in a federal prison and throw away the key, and rightfully so.

It’s now clear to us that the — even when the software at the FBI was collecting text messages, because the August 8th period was within the collection period, we had the incoming Page to Strzok text, we didn’t have the response,’ Horowitz told the Senate. ‘It’s now clear to us that even outside this blackout period, we’re not convinced that the FBI was collecting, for obvious reasons, 100 percent of the text messages.

Horowitz is another master of understatement, or more accurately, concealment.  Translation: obviously, the FBI was hiding evidence they knew would implicate its agents, FBI leadership, the DOJ, and even the White House.  They were obstructing justice, lying, you name it. By all means, take the link and read the whole article.

Finally, consider this from the invaluable Victor Davis Hanson at American Greatness:

Throughout Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s massive report on the Hillary Clinton email investigation are lots of strange things. One of the weirdest is the extent to which the FBI went to make up words and phrases to disguise reality.

An early draft of the 2016 FBI report on the email scandal was reportedly subjected to linguistic surgery to exonerate the former secretary of state, who at the time was the Democratic nominee for president. Clinton was originally found to be ‘grossly negligent’ in using an illegal email server. That legalistic phrase is used by prosecutors to indict for violation of laws governing the wrongful transmission of confidential government documents.

Yet the very thought of a likely President Clinton in court so worried the chief investigator, FBI Director James Comey, that he watered down ‘grossly negligent’ to the mere ‘extremely careless.

The evidence is Peter Strzok also had a hand in this.  The point was to avoid using the language of the statutes Hillary Clinton violated so Comey could avoid charging her.  To that end, he also invented an intent element.

FBI investigators also had concluded that it was ‘reasonably likely’ foreign nations had read Clinton’s unsecured emails. Comey intervened to mask such a likelihood by substituting the more neutral word ‘possible.

We now know it did happen, and Horowitz’s slight admission suggests the breaches were far worse than have yet to be reported.

According to Comey’s congressional testimony, then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch ordered him not to use the supposedly incriminating noun ‘investigation’ in connection with his investigation of the Clinton emails. Instead, she instructed Comey to use the benign-sounding ‘matter.

DOJ Civil Rights Head Vanita Gupta (L) and AG Loretta Lynch (R)
credit: nationalreviewonline

Lynch is looking, more and more, like an incompetent placeholder rather than a deeply involved mastermind.  No doubt she is aware of much of Obama’s criminality, and that of his cronies and her underlings in the DOJ, but she seems to be a simpering minion, desperate to please Obama and do his bidding.  She seems a sycophant, desperate to please Hillary Clinton so she could continue to be Attorney General in a Clinton investigation.  Could it be possible that, rather than grandchildren, was one of the topics of discussion between her and Bill Clinton during their miraculously coincidental meeting on the tarmac?  It’s equally clear she is involved in multiple crimes and cover ups.

Former President Barack Obama was found to have improperly communicated with Clinton over her illegal server while she was in a foreign country. Obama had denied that fact by falsely claiming that he never knew of her server until much later, after it was publicized.

Barack Obama wouldn’t lie, would he?  Why would he use an alias and an unsecure e-mail account to contact his Secretary of State?  The same reason Hillary set up an off the books server: to try to keep evidence of their crimes secret.

The FBI hierarchy under Comey tried to hide the embarrassing details of Obama’s conduct. As a result, the FBI deleted Obama’s name from its report. In its place, the FBI inserted the laughable ‘another senior government official’—as if the president of the United States was just another Washington grandee who had improperly communicated on an illicit email server.

Here we see the reason for much of what Comey and the various Democrat operatives at the DOJ did: they were protecting their political messiah, and not incidentally, hoping to preserve their jobs and power, and to avoid prosecution.

Is it possible the DOJ will prosecute its own, that they’ll prosecute the former President and every one of his minions that broke the law,   that they will prosecute Hillary Clinton and her minions that broke the law?  Under Donald Trump, it’s at least, for the first time in years, possible.  More to come…