Tag Archives: FBI Director James Comey

Hillary Clinton claims she won the presidency in 2016; teases she’ll run again

Hillary Clinton, Hunter College commencement speech, May 29, 2019

That woman has no shame.

In the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton lost the electoral vote by a wide 304–227 margin. She then blamed and trashed Americans who had not voted for her, calling them “deplorables,” racists, woman-haters (“misogynists”), and white nationalists.

2016 election voting precincts map

Aided and abetted by then-FBI Director James Comey’s refusal to investigate or indict her, Hillary also continues to deny she had violated the law when, as Obama’s secretary of state, she ILLEGALLY used a non-State Department personal email server to receive and transmit emails and documents, some of which were classified.

On Tuesday, October 8, during an interview on PBS News Hour, Hillary falsely claimed she’d won the 2016 presidential election and repeatedly teased that she may run again in 2020.

Hillary made that preposterous claim in response to host Judy Woodruff quoting President Trump’s tweet earlier that day. Trump wrote:

“I think that crooked Hillary Clinton should try to enter the race to try and steal it away from uber-left Elizabeth Warren. Only one condition: The crooked one must explain all of her high crimes and misdemeanors, including how and why she deleted 33,000 e-mails.”

Hillary replied:

“You know, it truly is remarkable how obsessed he remains with me. But this latest tweet is so typical of him. Nothing has been more examined and looked at than my e-mails. We all know that. So maybe there does need to be a rematch. Obviously, I can beat him again. But, just seriously, I don’t understand, I don’t think anybody understands what motivates him.”

Clinton later responded to Trump’s tweet directly with this tweet:

Ryan Saavedra of Daily Wire reminds us that during the first 2016 presidential debate, Hillary had grandly proclaimed she would “respect” and “honor” the outcome of the election because “To say that you won’t respect the results of the election, that is a direct threat to our democracy.” She said: “Well, I support our democracy. And sometimes you win and sometimes you lose, but I certainly will support the outcome of this election.”

According to Saavedra, “Despite teasing otherwise, those close to Clinton claim that she is not going to run in 2020.” Former Hillary campaign strategist Adrienne Elrod told The Hill on Monday:

“It’s silly. It’s a pipe dream. I mean, look, she’s made it very clear that after this last run she’s done. It’s time for new faces to come in. To be honest with you, I don’t know that a run this time around would yield a first- or second-place finish. I think there’s a lot of new people in the party who are stepping forward. I think we’ve got a very deep bench of strong candidates, and she knows this. I would advise against her running, not because I don’t think she’s qualified. Of course, she is, but I think that she knows it’s time for faces and new leadership to step forward.”

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

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
 

Not a joke: Cybersecurity company FireEye invites Hillary Clinton to speak on cyber defense

Useful idiots (definition): People who are unwitting propagandists for a cause, the goals of which they are not fully aware, and who are used cynically by the leaders of the cause.

In the case of a publicly-traded, Silicon Valley cybersecurity company called FireEye, they aren’t just useful idiots, they are plain idiots.

While she was secretary of state in the Obama administration, instead of using the State Department’s secure server for her email, Hillary Clinton used an illegal private server in her basement for her email, including sending and receiving classified material. Her people also tried to conceal evidence by scrubbing the private server. When asked about that, Hillary feigned innocence, saying she didn’t know what it meant to “wipe” a server: “What, like with a cloth or something? I don’t know how it works digitally at all.” (Fox News)

Hillary should have been indicted and jailed, but before the FBI even opened an investigation of her illegal private server, she was exonerated by corrupt FBI director James Comey.

And yet cybersecurity company FireEye has seen fit to invite Hillary Clinton to deliver the keynote speech at the 2019 Cyber Defense Summit, October 9-10, in Washington, DC.

FireEye made the announcement in a tweet on May 30, 2019:

We are pleased to announce that Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will be a featured keynote at our in October! Secretary Clinton will engage in an intimate Q&A keynote discussion with Kevin Mandia.

On its website, FireEye touts the Cyber Defense Summit as an opportunity for executives and security practitioners to hear “informative and insightful keynotes from industry thought leaders,” “share best practices, learn about the latest advancements, and enhance your cyber preparedness,” and learn how to “mitigate, detect, and respond to cyber attacks.”

FireEye’s tweet rightly received these incredulous responses on Twitter:

“HAHAHAHAHAHAHA”

“This is a parody, right?”

“Is this satire”

“Is this a bad joke??? Unbelievable…”

“Are you trying to become the biggest joke in the industry?”

“Congratulations! You are now the laughingstock of the entire industry!”

“The irony is unreal. Or is this a summit about how not to practice cyber security?”

“Is this the ? paid to speak about cyber security. Thanks for the laugh today”

“Are you giving out swag bags with smash blackberries, hammer, Mini servers and bleach bit?”

“Let me guess, John Podesta wasn’t available to talk about the importance of easy to remember passwords”

“I want to learn how to make emails go missing and how to properly smash a hard drive. When do tickets go on sale?”

“I would like to register for the breakout session on how to efficiently delete 33K emails. If full, sign me up instead for the session on how to safely handle BleachBit.”

“America is assuming either u don’t know/don’t care that allowed foreign governments to hack her private server with TS info. Way to reward a person that allowed Rone, Bub, Stevens and Smith to be killed and lie about it to America & in the Faces of their Families”

“Very poor business decision. You alienate half due to politics then the rest based on the fact you actually believe she is qualified. How can anyone recommend or use or based on their belief that her cyber awareness and actions were appropriate?

FireEye is the same company that the Clinton Foundation in 2016 hired to investigate a possible data breach. The company found that no files from the foundation had leaked publicly. (Fortune)

H/t FOTM reader Big Lug

~Eowyn

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

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Hypocrite: James Comey discussed sensitive FBI business on private email

Shocker, not. Seemed this was SOP for members of Obama’s administration.

From NY Post: Fired FBI chief James Comey used his private Gmail account hundreds of times to conduct government business — and at least seven of those messages were deemed so sensitive by the Justice Department that they declined to release them.

The former top G-man repeatedly claimed he only used his private account for “incidental” purposes and never for anything that was classified — and that appears to be true.

But Justice acknowledged in response to a Freedom of Information request that Comey and his chief of staff discussed government business on about 1,200 pages of messages, 156 of which were obtained by The Post.

The Cause of Action Institute, a conservative watchdog group, filed a Freedom of Information lawsuit for Comey’s Gmail correspondence involving his work for the bureau.

The Justice Department responded that there were an eye-popping 1,200 pages of messages for Comey and his chief of staff that met the criteria.

Justice released 156 of them but refused to hand over seven emails because they would “disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions.” And another 363 pages of emails were withheld because they discussed privileged agency communications or out of personal privacy concerns.

Cause of Action’s CEO slammed the former top G-man for minimizing the work he did using his private account. “Using private email to conduct official government business endangers transparency and accountability, and that is why we sued the Department of Justice,” said John Vecchione.

“We’re deeply concerned that the FBI withheld numerous emails citing FOIA’s law enforcement exemption. This runs counter to Comey’s statements that his use of email was incidental and never involved any sensitive matters.

In one email on Oct. 7, 2015, Comey seems to recognize the hypocrisy of the FBI investigating Hillary Clinton’s email practices while he’s exchanging FBI info on his own private account because his government account was down.

Two days after complaining that his “mobile is not sending emails,” Comey asked an aide that the testimony he was to deliver to the Senate be sent on his private account — calling it an “embarrassing” situation.

“He [aide] will need to send to personal email I suppose,” Comey wrote. “Embarrassing for us.”

Lisa Rosenberg, executive director of Open the Government, a nonpartisan coalition that advocates for government transparency, said Comey’s practice of using personal email while investigating Clinton reeks of a double standard.

“It’s just so transparently hypocritical to have one standard for a person you are investigating and an entirely different standard for yourself when you are the one who’s enforcing the law,” Rosenberg said.

The inspector general at Justice previously slammed Comey for using his personal account for FBI business, saying it was “inconsistent” with government policy. But Comey claimed his private email use was “incidental” and only used for word processing a “public speech or public email.” He said he wasn’t sending “anything remotely classified” on Gmail and that his use was “a totally different thing” from Clinton’s.

Experts told The Post there was a clear disconnect between what Comey said he was using his personal email for and what the Justice Department concluded he was doing after vetting his emails.

If the Justice Department accurately withheld his emails for the legal reasons cited, Comey would have been talking about substantive government business and active law enforcement matters. “He can’t have it both ways,” Rosenberg said.

“Either he used his personal email for things that were public or would be in the public domain, or he used it to discuss internal policies, investigations, etc. that might or might not be appropriately withheld under FOIA.”

A rep for Comey said he had no comment.

The 156 email pages that were released mark the first wave from Justice, with more expected soon.

The emails obtained by The Post span from 2013 to 2017, and many are heavily redacted.

In the messages, Comey discusses speeches and public statements with his aides and other routine business. There are also emails about pressing concerns like a threat of a mass shooting at a Chicago school in May 2016, changes on his protective detail and helping two American teachers with their visa processes in December 2013.

The emails show that Comey used personal email throughout his investigation into Clinton and even talked about it.

He emailed Sept. 30, 2015, to his then-Chief of Staff James Rybicki, a Fox News article link about Russian hackers trying to access Clinton’s server. “Need to be sure our colleagues across the street don’t think I actually said most of the stuff they attribute to me,” the email said.

Read the whole story here.

DCG

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

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

FISA Memo in text format. Lock them up!

Yesterday, after President Trump had declassified the memo, the House Intelligence Committee (full name: House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence or HPSCI) finally released the notorious FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) memorandum.
The memo was released in PDF format that does not enable copying. So I took screenshots of the memo and posted them yesterday.
Since I prefer a document in text format because it enables copying, pasting, highlighting, and reproduction, I painstakingly copied and typed the FISA memo from the screenshots into a text document.
Below is the text version of the FISA memo, followed by my bullet-point analysis. Word between brackets [ ] are my comments.

The FISA Memo

January 18, 2018
To: HPSCI Majority Members
From: HPSCI Majority Staff
Subject: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Abuses at the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation
Purpose
This memorandum provides Members with updates on significant facts related to the Committee’s ongoing investigation into the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and their use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) during the 2016 presidential election cycle. Our findings, which are detailed below, 1) raise concerns with the legitimacy and legality of certain DOJ and FBI interactions with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) and, 2) represent a troubling breakdown of legal processes established to protect the American people from abuses related to the FISA process.
Investigation Update
On October 21, 2016, DOJ and FBI sought and received a FISA probable cause order (not under Title VII) authorizing electronic surveillance on Carter Page from the FISC. Page is a U.S. citizen who served as a volunteer adviser to the Trump presidential campaign. Consistent with requirements under FISA, the application had to be first certified by the Director or Deputy Director of the FBI. It then required the approval of the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General (DAG), or the Senate-confirmed Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division.
The FBI and DOJ obtained one initial FISA warrant targeting Carter Page and three FISA renewals from the FISC. As required by statute (50 U.S.C. §1805(d)(1)), a FISA order on an American citizen must be renewed by the FISC every 90 days and each renewal requires a separate finding of probable cause. Then-Director James Comey signed three FISA applications in question on behalf of the FBI, and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe signed one. Then-DAG Sally Yates, then-Acting DAG Dana Boente, and DAG Rod Rosenstein each signed one or more FISA applications on behalf of DOJ.
Due to the sensitive nature of foreign intelligence activity, FISA submissions (including renewals) before the FISC are classified. As such, the public’s confidence in the integrity of the FISA process depends on the court’s ability to hold the government to the highest standard–-particularly as it relates to surveillance of American citizens. However, the FISC’s rigor in protecting the rights of Americans, which is reinforced by 90-day renewals of surveillance orders, is necessarily dependent on the government’s production to the court of all material and relevant facts. This should include information potentially favorable to the target of the FISA application that is known by the government. In the case of Carter Page, the government had at least four independent opportunities before the FISC to accurately provide an accounting of the relevant facts. However, our findings indicate that, as described below, material and relevant information was omitted.

(1) The “dossier” compiled by Christopher Steele (Steele dossier) on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application. Steele was a longtime FBI source who was paid over $16,000 by the DNC and Clinton campaign, via the law firm Perkins Cole and research firm Fusion GPS, to obtain derogatory information on Donald Trump’s ties to Russia.

a) Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials.

b) The initial FISA application notes Steele was working for a named U.S. person, but does not name Fusion GPS and principal Glenn Simpson, who was paid by a U.S. law firm (Perkins Cole) representing the DNC (even though it was known by DOJ at the time that political actors were involved with the Steele dossier). The application does not mention Steele was ultimately working on behalf of—and paid by—the DNC and Clinton campaign, or that the FBI had separately authorized payment to Steele for the same information. [That means Steele, in addition to producing an egregiously flawed dossier on Trump, double-dipped!]

(2) The Carter Page FISA application also cited extensively a September 23, 2016, Yahoo News article by Michael Isikoff, which focuses on Page’s July 2016 trip to Moscow. This article does not corroborate the Steele dossier because it is derived from information leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News. The Page FISA application incorrectly assesses that Steele did not directly provide information to Yahoo News. Steele has admitted in British court filings that he met with Yahoo News—and several other outlets—in September 2016 at the direction of Fusion GPS. Perkins Cole was aware of Steele’s initial media contacts because they hosted at least one meeting in Washington, D.C. in 2016 with Steele and Fusion GPS where this matter was discussed.

a) Steele was suspended and then terminated as an FBI source for what the FBI defines as the most serious of violations—an unauthorized disclosure to the media of his relationship to the FBI in an October 30, 2016, Mother Jones article by David Corn. Steele should have been terminated for his previous undisclosed contacts with Yahoo and other outlets in September—before the Page application was submitted to the FISC in October—but Steele improperly concealed from and lied to the FBI about those contacts.

b) Steele’s numerous encounters with the media violated the cardinal rule of source handling—maintaining confidentiality—and demonstrated that Steele had become a less than reliable source for the FBI.

(3) Before and after Steele was terminated as a source, he maintained contact with DOJ via then-Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, a senior DOJ official who worked closely with Deputy Attorneys General Yates and later Rosenstein. Shortly after the election, the FBI began interviewing Ohr, documenting his communications with Steele. For example, in September 2016, Steele admitted to Ohr his feelings against then-candidate Trump when Steele said he “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.” This clear evidence of Steele’s bias was recorded by Ohr at the time and subsequently in official FBI files—but not reflected in any of the Page FISA applications.

a) During this time period, Ohr’s wife [Nellie Ohr] was employed by Fusion GPS to assist in the cultivation of opposition research on Trump. Ohr later provided the FBI with all of his wife’s opposition research, paid for by the DNC and the Clinton campaign via Fusion GPS. The Ohrs’ relationship with Steele and Fusion GPS was inexplicably concealed from the FISC.

(4) According to the head of the FBI’s counterintelligence division, Assistant Director Bill Priestap, corroboration of the Steele dossier was in its “infancy” at the time of the initial Page FISA application. After Steele was terminated, a source validation report conducted by an independent unit within FBI assessed Steele’s reporting as only minimally corroborated. Yet, in early January 2017, Director Comey briefed President-elect Trump on a summary of the Steele dossier, even though it was—according to his June 2017 testimony—“salacious” and “unverified”. While the FISA application relied on Steele’s past record of credible reporting on other unrelated matters, it ignored or concealed his anti-Trump financial and ideological motivations. Furthermore, Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information.
(5) The Page FISA application also mentions information regarding fellow Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos, but there is no evidence of any cooperation or conspiracy between Page and Papadopoulos. The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late 2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok. Strzok was reassigned by the Special Counsel’s Office to FBI Human Resources for improper text messages with his mistress, FBI Attorney Lisa Page (no known relation to Carter Page), where they both demonstrated a clear bias against Trump and in favor of Clinton, whom Strzok had also investigated. The Strzok/Lisa Page texts also reflect extensive discussions about the investigation, orchestrating leaks to the media, and include a meeting with Deputy Director McCabe to discuss an “insurance” policy against President Trump’s election.

Here are the main points you need to know about the FISA memo:

(1) The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 is a federal law that establishes procedures for the U.S. government’s physical and electronic surveillance of foreign powers and domestic (U.S.) agents of foreign powers suspected of espionage or terrorism. The Act created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to oversee requests for surveillance warrants by federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
(2) To prevent abuse of FISA against U.S. citizens, FISA applications require the government to produce valid and unbiased documentation in support of the application.
(3) In October 2016, the Obama Administration made a FISA application to FISC to conduct electronic surveillance of an American citizen named Carter Page, who was at the time a volunteer advisor to the Trump presidential campaign.
(4) The validity of the Carter Page FISA application depended on two supporting documents:

  • A “dossier” compiled by a former British spook named Christopher Steele which claims that Trump was colluding with Russia, which meant Trump was a foreign (Russian) agent — thus triggering the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and justifying the government’s surveillance on Trump and members of his campaign team.
  • An article in Yahoo News by journalist Michael Isikoff.

(5) Both supporting documents are seriously flawed:

  • The Steele dossier’s information is tainted because:
    • The information in the dossier was unverified and unsubstantiated.
    • The dossier was politically motivated, paid for by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign to be used as “opposition research” against Trump.
    • The dossier’s author, Christopher Steele, had made known to the DOJ (in the person of Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr) his political objections to and bias against Donald Trump — the subject of the dossier.
  • Michael Isikoff’s Yahoo News article is a duplicate of the Steele dossier because Isikoff’s source was none other than Christopher Steele. Since the Steele dossier is tainted, Isikoff’s article is also tainted.

(6) An individual involved in the Page FISA application, DOJ official Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, should have recused himself due to conflict of interest. Ohr’s wife, Nellie Ohr, was working for Fusion GPS — the firm that hired Christopher Steele — to produce “opposition research” on Trump. All of this, however, was concealed from the FISC — information relevant to the FISC’s consideration of the Page FISA application.

(6) FBI agent Pete Strzok, who conducted a counterintelligence investigation of another Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos, should have recused himself because of his bias against Trump, expressed in text messages to his mistress, another FBI agent named Lisa Page. To compound his misdeeds, Strzok then leaked information to the media, which was used to attack Trump.
(7) Similarly, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who signed the Page FISA application, should have recused himself because of his anti-Trump bias. McCabe had met with Bruce Ohr to discuss an “insurance policy” to ensure that Trump would not be elected President.

Lock Them Up!

The FISA memo shows that the Obama Administration abused the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to illicitly obtain court approval to conduct surveillance of at least one Trump team member, Carter Page, in violation of Page’s Fourth Amendment Constitutional rights.
This means that the following FBI and DOJ officials committed malfeasance when they certified, approved, and signed the FISA applications:

  1. FBI Director James Comey
  2. FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe
  3. Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates
  4. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein
  5. Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente


~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Trump fires FBI director James Comey

Late this afternoon, President Trump did something he should have done a long time ago — fire FBI director James Comey.

The New York Post reports that the reason given is Comey’s mishandling of the FBI’s probe into Hillary Clinton’s private email server.
In 2013, Comey was nominated by Obama to a 10-year term as FBI director.
Trump issued a statement, saying the FBI needed fresh leadership:

“The FBI is one of our nation’s most cherished and respected institutions and today will mark a new beginning for our crown jewel of law enforcement.”

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein wrote in a memo explaining Comey’s dismissal:

“The FBI’s reputation and credibility have suffered substantial damage, and it has affected the entire Department of Justice. I cannot defend the director’s handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton’s emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken. Almost everyone agrees that the director made serious mistakes; it is one of the few issues that unites people of diverse perspectives.’’

Trump acted based on the recommendations of both Rosenstein and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who wrote in a memo to the President:

“I have concluded that a fresh start is needed at the leadership of the FBI. I must recommend that you remove Director James B. Comey, Jr. and identify an experienced and qualified individual to lead the great men and women of the FBI.’’

Trump also sent a letter breaking the news to Comey:

“I received the attached letters from the attorney general and deputy attorney general recommending your dismissal as the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I have accepted their recommendation and you are hereby terminated and removed from office effective immediately.”

Trump then expressed his appreciation to Comey for telling him he was not the target of an FBI investigation:

“While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the bureau. It is essential that we find new leadership for the FBI that restores public trust and confidence in its vital law enforcement mission.”

He then wished Comey “the best of luck in your future endeavors.”
Meanwhile, the FBI’s investigation of possible ties between Russia and the Trump campaign and administration will continue.

Update (May 10, 2017):

Investigative journalist Charles C. Johnson says according to “sources close to the White House,” Trump fired Comey to send a message to that POS, Sen. John McCain:

  • Earlier this year, McCain went after Trump with widely discredited opposition research (the made-up intelligence dossier that Trump hired Russian hookers to pee on a hotel bed) that he immediately shared with Comey, his longtime friend.
  • McCain has been working with Comey to undermine Trump since Trump was elected.
  • McCain has used his position as chairman on the U.S. Senate Armed Services to veto Trump’s national defense picks.
  • McCain was keeping alive the faux Russia investigation to hurt Trump.

It is noteworthy that Trump deliberately kept Reince Priebus and Sean Spicer in the dark to keep them from leaking the impending firing of Comey — which suggests Trump suspects Priebus and Spicer of being leakers.
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Who really hacked the WikiLeaks emails? – Russia, Romania or the CIA?

Calling it “a direct assault on our democracy,” Hillary and the Obama administration are pointing their finger at the Russian government as the hacker of the never-ending stream of embarrassing and damaging Democrat emails published by WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks groups those emails into three data bases:

  1. DNC (Democratic National Committee) emails
  2. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton emails
  3. John Podesta emails (Podesta is the longtime Democrat apparatchik who is currently the chairman of Hillary’s presidential campaign).

Based on that accusation, Obama recently instructed the CIA to prep for a cyber attack on Russia. On NBC’s Meet the Press on Oct. 16, Vice President Joe Biden spoke ominously that U.S. retaliation “will be proportional in what we do” “at a time of our choosing and in circumstances that have the greatest impact.”
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25A6cI6QPIo]
Hillary was equally bombastic. On August 31, 2016, she vowed that when she is President, she will treat Russia’s alleged “cyber attacks just like any other attack . . . with serious political, economic, and military responses.”
In effect, Hillary threatens to unleash what can become World War III in retaliation for Russia’s alleged hacking of emails.

But we are not told or shown the actual evidence that points to Russia as the hacker. So why should we believe it?
What we do have are evidence and testimonies that a Romanian hacker and perhaps the CIA are the hackers.

(1) FBI: No hack of Hillary’s email server

To begin, the whole question of who the hacker(s) is, is itself in question because none other than the FBI had said there’s no evidence that then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s illegal email server had even been hacked in the first place. In his press release of July 5, 2016, FBI Director James Comey said:

“With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked.

(2) FBI: Hillary’s email hacked by Romania

That’s what FBI director James Comey publicly said. Privately, however, in FBI’s transcription of witness interviews, the FBI said a different story.
The latest Hillary Clinton document release by the FBI includes a 100-page document identified as FD-302a — summaries from FBI interviews conducted with employees of and various parties associated with Platt River Networks (PRN), the Denver-based IT (information technology) firm that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hired to manage her email system.
Until 2013, Hillary’s private, unsecured email server was located in her home in Chappaqua, New York. In early 2013, PRN won the bid for a contract to be the email server of not only Hillary Clinton, but also email domains associated with Bill Clinton and Clinton aides, e.g., Sidney Blumenthal, a close confidante of Hillary who was Bill Clinton’s White House aide and a major proponent of the “Arab Spring” rebellion in Libya that ousted Muammar Qaddafi and plunged Libya into a blood-soaked civil war. PRN’s account with the Clintons was under the name CESC.
According to an FBI interview conducted on June 6, 2016 with an unnamed employee working for a US defense contractor in “missile, space and intelligence,” while trying to determine if Hillary’s private server had been breached from the outside by “a foreign power,” the defense contractor employee found files from the server of Sidney Blumenthal residing on a server in Romania. The Romanian server contained approximately 200 Microsoft Word, Excel, and other file types belonging to Blumenthal. “Upon viewing this file”, the unnamed witness “became concerned he had found a classified document and stopped the project.”

(3) Guccifer

Guccifer Lehel
In an NBC interview in May 2016, Romanian hacker Marcel Lazăr Lehel, aka Guccifer, claimed that in addition to hacking Sidney Blumenthal, he had also gained access to Hillary’s “completely unsecured” server. Referring to Hillary’s emails, Guccifer said, “It was like an open orchid on the Internet. There were hundreds of folders.”
It was in 2013 that Guccifer breached Blumenthal’s inbox and exposed Hillary’s private email address, which forced her to change her username.
In subsequent questioning by the FBI, however, Guccifer recanted and said he had lied about hacking Hillary’s server. But according to independent investigative reporter Wayne Madsen, Lehel/Guccifer was arrested by Romanian authorities for publicizing Hillary’s private emails that he had hacked during the time frame surrounding the attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi. Romania then very obligingly extradicted Lehel to the U.S., where he was prosecuted in the court of the U.S. Eastern District of Virginia, described by Madsen as “the U.S. military-intelligence community’s ‘rocket docket’ for quick prosecutions without the worry of classified information being disclosed during a trial.”
Last week, Guccifer was quietly sent back to Romania where he will remain for the duration of his 52 month sentence.

(4) Guccifer 2.0

“Guccifer 2.0” is a person or persons claiming to have hacked into the DNC computer network and then leaked its documents to WikiLeaks. In August 2016, Guccifer 2.0 posted an excel spreadsheet on his blog which includes the personal cell phone number, physical and email address, as well as full personal information of some 200 Congressional Democrats. (See “Nancy Pelosi had to change phone number after receiving scores of obscene and sick calls“)
According to Wikipedia, some of the documents released by Guccifer 2.0 “appear to be forgeries cobbled together from public information and previous hacks, which they then salted with disinformation.” The Obama administration’s intelligence community and cybersecurity experts and firms say that some of the genuine leaks claimed by Guccifer 2.0 are part of a series of cyberattacks on the DNC by two Russian intelligence groups. But the Russian government claims it had no involvement in the theft.
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange also said there’s no proof that Russia was behind the attack. In an interview on Dutch television on August 9, 2016, Assange implied that the source of the leaked DNC emails was a 27-year-old DNC staffer named Seth Conrad Rich who, at about 4:19 a.m. on Sunday, July 10, 2016, was shot and killed in the 2100 block of Flagler Place NW in Washington, DC. The D.C. Metropolitan Police Department posted its customary reward of $25,000 for information about Rich’s death; WikiLeaks has a $20,000 reward for information leading to a conviction. Rich’s murder remains unsolved. (See “WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange: murdered DNC staffer was source of leaked DNC emails”)

(5) The CIA

In a for-subscribers-only post on October 17, 2016, Wayne Madsen — author of the recently-published book, The Almost Classified Guide to CIA Front Companies, Proprietaries & Contractors — claims that he was told by “top Republican Party sources not connected with the Donald Trump presidential campaign” that the CIA, not Russia, “has been conducting unprecedented interference in the 2016 campaigns for the presidency and Congress,” which Madsen calls “unparalleled in U.S. electoral history.”
The CIA’s code name for its clandestine interference in the 2016 election is “The Wave” — meaning “a wave” of Democrat victories on November 8.
To support his claim, Madsen makes the following points:

  1. The CIA favors Hillary Clinton, who has the endorsement of top retired CIA officials — former acting CIA director Mike Morrel; former CIA and National Security Agency director Michael Hayden (who said Hillary would be a better president than the “incoherent” Trump); former CIA director David Petraeus (who wrote an op-ed for The Washington Post last May that condemned Trump’s rhetoric without mentioning Trump’s name: “inflammatory political discourse . . . has become far too common both at home and abroad against Muslims and Islam.”); and former CIA director Robert Gates. The only former CIA director who has publicly endorsed Trump is James Woolsey, who describes himself as a life-long Democrat. Woolsey was Bill Clinton’s first CIA director. Bill fired Woolsey in December 1994 after CIA officer Aldrich Ames was revealed to be a Soviet spy.
  2. But the CIA wants Trump as the GOP presidential candidate because Trump, whose “embarrassing skeletons are well known to the CIA,” is “the best opportunity for the Democrats to retain the White House and decisively win back control of the U.S. Senate and, quite possibly, the House of Representatives.”
  3. Ohio was the one state where CIA operatives were unsuccessful in ensuring a Trump victory in the GOP primaries. Kasich won his home state’s primary and the state capital of Columbus serves as a GOP bulwark against Trump forces — comprised of Kasich, Ohio Republican chairman Matt Borges, Senator Rob Portman who is running for re-election, and state auditor Dave Yost. It was the CIA’s interference in Ohio that “showed its hand in the state,” which “became known to an inner circle of Republicans, both current and former office holders.” Presumably, those Republicans are Madsen’s informants.
  4. To ensure Trump’s defeat on November 8, a former CIA clandestine services officer, Evan McMullin, is running as an independent spoiler in normally solid-Republican Utah to siphon votes away from Trump. McMullin, a Mormon and a former banking executive for Goldman Sachs, is making a difference in Utah, which many polls now rate as a toss-up state between Trump and Clinton.
  5. Madsen: “Underlying the CIA subterfuge directed against the Ohio Republican Party are some recent suspicious and untimely deaths, including one individual who revealed the existence of ‘The Wave’ operation and two former Republican congressmen who may have been briefed on ‘The Wave.'” The suspicious deaths include:
    • A female CIA officer, who retired to her native Ohio and first spoke to a select audience about the CIA’s involvement in the 2016 election, contracted a fatal form of cancer and died soon thereafter.
    • Michael Oxley, a former Congressman (Ohio) who had served as an FBI agent and was the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee and House sponsor of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that regulated Wall Street after the collapse of the CIA-linked Enron, died of lung cancer in McLean, Virginia, on January 1, 2016, a few weeks before the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary. Oxley never smoked.
    • Steve LaTourette, a 9-term Congressman (Ohio) and a close confidante of House Speaker John Boehner, died of pancreatic cancer at his home also in McLean, VA, on August 4, 2016. McLean is adjacent to CIA headquarters in Langley. In May 2015, LaTourette sued the federal government over a misdiagnosis of his cancer by U.S. Capitol doctors in 2012.

Madsen then makes the bold assertion that the CIA is “at the forefront of proffering intelligence” that Russia has been leaking hacked Democratic Party emails to WikiLeaks. All of this is actually “a ruse by the CIA to cover the tracks on its own interference in the election by running interference for Trump throughout the primaries” so as “to hand Hillary Clinton the White House and the Democrats the Congress with the gift-wrapping and ribbons supplied by the CIA.”
H/t Will Shanley and ZeroHedge

UPDATE:

Interestingly, a new Rasmussen Reports poll found that most voters aren’t buying the story that the Russians are trying to manipulate the election for Donald Trump. Instead, 56% of Likely U.S. Voters believe it’s more likely that many in the media are working to get Clinton elected president. Only 26% believe Hillary-Obama’s accusation that the Russian government is working to get Trump elected; 18% are not sure.
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Military bases across U.S. on heightened alert against Islamic terrorist threat

Please follow and like us:
error0