Tag Archives: Attorney General William Barr

DOJ Inspector General referred Comey for prosecution but AG Barr refused to prosecute

Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz is the chief watchdog of the Department of Justice (DOJ).

Katie Pavlich reports for Townhall that on Thursday morning, August 29, 2019, DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz released an 83-page long report on fired FBI Director James Comey‘s misconduct — that Comey set a “dangerous precedent” by purposefully leaking to the media confidential FBI memos about conversations with President Trump for personal and political gain, so as to launch the Special Counsel investigation into the 2016 presidential election on then-presidential candidate Donald Trump’s alleged (but wholly without evidence) collusion with the Russians. During sworn congressional testimony in 2017, Comey himself admitted that he’d purposely leaked the confidential memos to a friend, who then gave them to the New York Times.

The IG’s report specifically addresses a number of claims made by Comey that the memos he leaked were “personal documents.” But the IG concluded the memos, which were written on an official FBI computer while Comey was working in his official capacity as FBI director, belong to the FBI. Even worse, after Comey was fired he held onto the memos, which was against FBI protocol. From the report:

We conclude that the Memos were official FBI records, rather than Comey’s personal documents.  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.

Comey told the Office of the Inspector General that he considered Memos 2 through 7 to be his personal documents, rather than official FBI records.  He said he viewed these Memos as “a personal aide-mémoire,” “  like [his] diary” or   “like [his] notes,” which contained his “recollection[s]” of his conversations with President Trump. Comey further stated that he kept Memos 2, 4, 6, and 7 in a personal safe at home because he believed the documents were personal records rather than FBI records. Comey’s characterization of the Memos as personal records finds no support in the law and is wholly incompatible with the plain language of the statutes, regulations, and policies defining Federal records, and the terms of Comey’s FBI Employment Agreement.  

We conclude that the Memos are official FBI records as defined by statute, regulations, Department and FBI policies, and Comey’s FBI Employment Agreement. Because they are official FBI records, Comey was required to handle the Memos in compliance with all applicable Department and FBI policies and the terms of his Employment Agreement.

The IG report concluded that by retaining and leaking official FBI documents, including confidential documents, James Comey  violated:

  1. The DOJ and policies pertaining to the retention, handling, and dissemination of FBI records and information; and
  2. The requirements of Comey’s FBI Employment Agreement.

In the words of the Inspector General’s report:

[A]fter 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. 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.

In a country built on the rule of law, it is of utmost importance that all FBI employees adhere to Department and FBI policies, particularly when confronted by what appear to be extraordinary circumstances or compelling personal convictions. 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.

Incredibly, despite the DOJ Inspector General’s findings, Comey will not be prosecuted.

About a month before the release of the Inspector General’s report, The Hill had reported that “Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz’s team referred Comey for possible prosecution under the classified information protection laws, but Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutors working for Attorney General William Barr reportedly have decided to decline prosecution,” ostensibly because the prosecutors “did not believe they had enough evidence of Comey’s intent to violate the law, according to multiple sources.”

A source told The Hill that prosecutors “working for” Barr were particularly concerned with one memo that Comey had leaked to a friend for publication by the media contained information that the FBI subsequently classified at the lowest level of “confidential” only after Comey had transmitted the information. And so the Attorney General’s office decided not to prosecute Comey so as not to “look petty and vindictive,”

After he learned that Attorney General Barr will not prosecute him, James Comey then completely misrepresented and twisted the Inspector General’s report into what it was not.

In a tweet on August 29, 2019, Comey crowed that the DOJ Inspector General 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. Comey accused President Trump of giving the public “bad information”. Then Comey had the chutzpah to demand “a public apology from those who defamed me” or “a quick message with a ‘sorry we lied about you’ would be nice.”

Justice really is dead in America.

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Rep. Devin Nunes is preparing criminal referrals re. FBI & FISA to Attorney General Barr

Is this another false hope?

A criminal referral or recommendation is a notice to a prosecutory body, recommending criminal investigation or prosecution of one or more entities for crimes which fall into that body’s jurisdiction.

In the U.S. federal government, agencies that investigate crimes — including the House Intelligence Committee — typically refer cases to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for prosecution at its discretion. The U.S. attorney general heads the DOJ.

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), 45, is a farmer with a Master’s degree in agriculture from Cal Poly, who became a politician. His grandparents were immigrants from the Azores, a tiny group of islands more than 800 miles off the coast of Portugal. (See “The Devin Nunes You Don’t Know“)

Nunes is that rare politician who has not sought to exploit his public office for financial gain. Unlike corrupt politicians like Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee with a 2015 net worth of $3.5 million, Nunes’ net worth in 2016 and 2015 was estimated at only $158,001. (Heavy.com)

Congressman Nunes was the chair of the House Intelligence Committee for four years until January 3, 2019. He lost the chairmanship because Americans in the 2018 midterm elections voted a Democratic majority to the House of Representatives. Since then, Nunes still serves on the committee as the senior Republican.

On January 30, 2019, during an interview on Fox News, Nunes said he plans to make criminal referrals as part of an investigation into political bias in the FBI, and that even though he is no longer chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and Democrats have taken control of the House and the committee, that won’t stop GOP investigators from making headway:

“A lot of people think just because Republicans are out of power that we are not conducting an investigation. We still are. Whether or not people will come in and interview with us, we don’t have gavels, we don’t have subpoena power. But we will still be trying to interview people and we will still be making criminal referrals.”

One person who has already been criminally referred to the Justice Department was former UK spook Christopher Steele, the  author of the fake “Russian hooker” Trump dossier. Steele was criminally referred in January 2018 by then-chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and now-committee chair Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) who succeeded Grassley.

Nunes said on January 30 that to this day Congress has not heard any updates from the DOJ on the Steele referral. Referring to Trump’s AG nominee William Barr, Nunes said it will take a new attorney general to come in and “clean” up before any real progress can be made. (Washington Examiner)

On February 14, 2019, Trump nominee William Barr succeeded Jeff Sessions as the 85th U.S. attorney general.

See Deplorable Patriot’s post, “Attorney General William Barr jumps into the fire“.

On March 1, 2019, at CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference), Nunes told OANN (0:30 mark):

“We’re still continuing to get to the bottom of what was happening to the Department of Justice and the FBI, trying to make sure that everyone there is held accountable…either through the courts or otherwise…. We’ll be making criminal referrals on a whole host of topics, most importantly probably lying and misleading Congress.”

Five days later, on March 6, 2019, Nunes once again said he’ll be making criminal referrals. He told Fox News’ Sean Hannity (0:03 mark):

We are preparing a criminal referral that we will present to the attorney general at the appropriate time…for many crimes. The obvious ones that you would know about would be lying to Congress. But we will also be looking at FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] abuse and all the other matters that we have been looking into. It will probably be one large referral….

We’re probably going to be prepared in the next two to three, four weeks — one of the things that’s coming up. So don’t mind all the shiny balls that you see running around Congress here — the so-called new investigations [by current House Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff (D-CA)]. Just ignore that.

What you should be out looking for is next week. On March 14, the federal judge down in Florida has ordered the release of depositions by Christopher Steele, who is supposedly the author of the dossier, and David Kramer, who pled the Fifth to this committee. who we know was handling and moving the dossier around to press outlets…. We [House Intelligence Commitee] had not ever interviewed Christopher Steele, and we don’t know what David Kramer would say because he pled the Fifth. So this could be critical. It may be nothing, but it could be critical for our referral. “

Note: David J. Kramer was nominated by President George W. Bush to be U.S. assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights, and labor, which he was from 2008 to January 20, 2009. Kramer is currently the senior director for human rights and human freedoms at the (John) McCain Institute, which is funded by the Saudis, Rothschilds, and George Soros. Kramer is a central player in how the fake Trump dossier made its way to the FBI in late 2016. He has invoked his Fifth Amendment right not to testify in connection with questions from the House Intelligence Committee about the anti-Trump dossier’s alleged Russian sources. (Fox News)

Sean Hannity said at the end of his interview with Rep. Nunes (2:16 mark):

“Finally, things are happening, which I’ve been telling you it will.”

Do you believe, too, that things are finally happening?

See also:

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Attorney General William Barr jumps into the fire

 

 

William Barr and Robert Mueller

When I say fire, I’m talking about The Trump/ Russia dumpster fire  investigation.   It’s like those birthday candles that you can’t just blow out.  Your going to have to get your hands dirty and more than likely get burnt.  Our new Attorney General William Barr  doesn’t appear to worry about getting his hands dirty or getting  burnt.   He jumped right into the dumpster fire.

William Barr has admitted to being “good friends” with Special Council Bob Mueller.  My first thought was “Great another swamp creature.  Then I found the following conversation between Barr and Muller.  I looks like we just might have a  real Attorney General in DC.

Barr to Mueller:
“Bob, show me the evidence and reasoning for why this investigation was started and still ongoing.”
Mueller to Barr:
“With regards to the President we have found no links or ties to any foreign entity etc”
Barr to Mueller:
“Mandate was clear – verify and investigate reports of possible foreign collusion between President & Russia.” “What justification existed to effectively launch a massive domestic / foreign surveillance campaign against the President (pres elect / president) and members of his transition / campaign team?”
Mueller to Barr:
“Steele dossier along w/ media corroboration of those findings.”
Barr to Mueller:
“Was the Steele report a ‘trusted and verified’ report per Intel to continue especially considering the funding party was the opposition party?”
Mueller to Barr:
“Those facts were never taken into consideration.” “FISC (FISA) granted authorization  to conduct based on conclusions presented.”
Barr to Mueller:
“Was FISC(FISA) made aware of all details surrounding the dossier?”
Mueller to Barr:
“No.” “We believe there was urgency placed on the authorization given the gravity and timeline of events that those involved negated to populate fully.”
Barr to Mueller:
“Why were efforts made to continue investigating the President, interrupt his official capacity in governing, if the only documents  presented was unsubstantiated and unverified?” “Why were questions and threat of subpoena communicated to the President if no factual foundation existed?”
“All charges thus far are unrelated to the original mandate – why are you still active and pursuing a crime if no verifiable evidence or evidence through discovery exists?”

bonus question

Barr to RR:

“What justification did you have to effectively expand the mandate, not report that expansion to Congress, in order to seek a crime outside of Russian collusion?” “What specific reasoning and/or facts existed to justify the appointment of a SC to begin with per the law?” “Why did you recommend to Sessions that he should recuse?” “Why wasn’t the mandate / budget and regular updates provided to Congress upon request?” “Why is everything kept confidential and under inappropriate classification?” “Was the purpose of investigating to find a crime vs investigate evidence of a crime?”

Sorry.  This is all I have on this for now.  I’m currently trying to locate the rest of both  conversations  Definitely something to talk about.  Maybe we will see justice after all.

Respectfully,

Deplorable Patriot

 

 

Please follow and like us:
error0