“Mike” is Out – Michael P Kortan Quits FBI…

Another longtime FBI official quits today. According to Fox News Catherine Herridge reporting, FBI Asst. Director Michael Kortan (aka text message “Mike”), the head of the FBI Public Affairs Office, has announced he is retiring.

Mike Kortan was previously exposed by FBI Agent Peter Strozok as having specific information that the investigation into Hillary Clinton was manipulated by the “small group”. “Mike’s”  job was to sell the ruse as a valid investigation.

WASHINGTON – The longtime head of public affairs at the FBI — who was a confidant of former director James Comey — is planning to retire, Fox News has learned.

A notice went out this week for a retirement get-together for Michael Kortan scheduled for Feb. 15. Since 2009, Kortan has served as assistant director for public affairs, an influential job that controlled media access. He also served under former director Robert Mueller, now leading the Russia probe.

The FBI confirmed to Fox News that Kortan is retiring.

It’s unclear whether the retirement was long-planned or in any way precipitated by recent events. The FBI emphasized he was finishing 33 years of service. (read more)

Boy-o-boy this prior Peter Strzok tweet, as read by Bob Goodlatte on January 25th, is striking a nerve:

“Jim”, aka James Baker (FBI Chief Legal Counsel) was removed in January.
“Mike” aka Michael Kortan (FBI Asst. Director Public Affairs) quits today.
“Dave” aka David Laufman (DOJ – National Security Division, Deputy Asst. Attorney General in charge of counterintelligence) quit yesterday.
“Trisha” aka Trish Beth Anderson (Office of Legal Counsel, FBI)

At first, the context behind the September 10th, 2016, message was elusive, however it is now clear.

On September 2nd, 2016, during the (pre-election) apex of the FBI providing the documents behind their investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of her personal email, and the subsequent decision by FBI Director James Comey not to pursue criminal charges therein, the FBI released their investigative files:

September 2nd, 2016 FBI Press Release:

“Today the FBI is releasing a summary of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s July 2, 2016 interview with the FBI concerning allegations that classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on a personal e-mail server she used during her tenure. We also are releasing a factual summary of the FBI’s investigation into this matter.

We are making these materials available to the public in the interest of transparency and in response to numerous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Appropriate redactions have been made for classified information or other material exempt from disclosure under FOIA. Additional information related to this investigation that the FBI releases in the future will be placed on The Vault, the FBI’s electronic FOIA library.” (link)

The FBI was under pressure to release their investigative documents.  On Sept 2nd, 2016 the release included the FBI investigative notes (FD-302’s) from the questions and answers during Hillary Clinton’s interview.  This investigative release was big news at the time.

The 302’s are the specific FBI forms used to document interviews/interrogations. They detail questions asked and answers given as well as who was present during the interview.

Inside the September 2nd, 2016, FBI release were two files:

•One file was 47 pages (full pdf here) and includes a full summary of the Clinton email investigation.

•The second file is 11 pages (full pdf here) and is the actual FBI investigator notes during the Hillary Clinton interview.

This second file is the “FD-302” (embed at the bottom for reference).  This is the 302 file FBI Agent Peter Strzok is referencing in the text message to Lisa Page.  Remember, Peter Strzok was one of the FBI people who actually interviewed Hillary Clinton.

What FBI Agent Peter Strzok is admitting in the September 10th text message, is that there are details within the interview of Hillary Clinton that he (and others) intentionally withheld from the September 2nd, 2016, release.

Specifically, evidence withheld in the 302’s would be some of the FBI questions and some of the Hillary Clinton answers to those questions.   In essence, the FBI held back actually releasing the full account of the interview.

According to the Strzok text message, the reason for withholding some of the details of the Hillary Clinton interview is because there are “very INFLAMMATORY things” within it; and once congress finds out what was withheld the details will “absolutely inflame” them.

Peter Strzok then goes on to say when/if the full FOIA is released, presumably post-election, Jim, Trisha, Dave and Mike are going to have to figure out how to deal with the discrepancy:

…”I’m sure Jim and Trisha and Dave and Mike are all considering how things like that will play out as they talk among themselves.”

“Jim” is likely James Baker, the Chief Legal Counsel for FBI Director James Comey.

“Trish” is likely Trisha Beth Anderson, Office of Legal Counsel for the FBI.  [Anderson was hired for the DOJ, by AG Eric Holder, from Eric Holder’s law firm.]

“Dave” is likely David Laufman,  National Security Division, Deputy Asst. Attorney General in charge of counterintelligence. [Sat in on Clinton interview]

and “Mike” is Michael P Kortan FBI Asst. Director, Office of Public Affairs.

So it would appear, James Baker and Trisha Anderson, the legal advisers at the top of the FBI leadership apparatus, were both aware the September 2nd, 2016, FOIA release was manipulated to conceal part of Hillary Clinton’s questions and answers.

Perhaps now we can better understand the importance of this specific text message as it was released by House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte.

This message by Strzok shows a team of FBI officials intentionally conspiring to withhold “inflammatory” Clinton investigation evidence, from congress. And the decision-making goes directly to the very top leadership within the FBI.

Peter Strzok justifies his knowledge of the intentionally withheld 302 interview material by claiming: “because they weren’t relevant to understanding the focus of the investigation”.  However, to evaluate the filter this investigative team are applying we only need to look at the wording of their public release which accompanied the material:

Today the FBI is releasing a summary of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s July 2, 2016 interview with the FBI concerning allegations that classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on a personal e-mail server she used during her tenure. (link)

They felt obligated only to release information about “classified” or “improperly stored or transmitted” information.   That’s a rather disingenuous investigation.

There’s no mention of any FBI intent to investigate action or conduct undertaken by Hillary Clinton or her team to hide the use of classified or improperly stored information; or any intent to look at a cover-up, scrubbing, or conduct that happened AFTER it was discovered that she unlawfully used a personal e-mail server during her tenure.

We can see from the wording of the FBI public release, and the overlay of the text message from interviewer Peter Strzok, a deliberate effort to inquire into only the surface issues of classified information transmission and storage.  There was no investigative intent to go beyond that, and no information released, intentionally, that might disclose any larger issues.

If the FBI was legitimately conducting an investigation, and providing the subsequent evidence from within that investigation,  the FOIA would include all material relevant to the investigation, which would include all 302 (essentially Q&A) pages. However, the set of questions and answers the FBI released on Sept. 2nd 2016 was not the full set of Questions and Answers. They withheld something, likely “inflammatory”, per FBI Agent Strzok.

FBI Agent Peter Strzok is outlining in this text message a deliberate intent to shape the Clinton interview, and then a deliberative process of filtering out only those aspects of the interview that would support their pre-determined outcome, delivered only days later.

Additionally, FBI Agent Strzok is admitting that a group of FBI officials including himself, James Baker, Trisha Anderson, Lisa Page, and likely others (McCabe, Comey) conspired together to intentionally withhold  information -derived from this interview- from congress and the American people.

REFERENCE and RESOURCES:

File #1 of Document release – Investigation Summary:

File #2 – The Summary of Interview – The 302’s:

.

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Clinton(s), Conspiracy ?, Dept Of Justice, Desperately Seeking Hillary, FBI, media bias, President Trump, Professional Idiots, propaganda, THE BIG UGLY, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

547 Responses to “Mike” is Out – Michael P Kortan Quits FBI…

  1. Dats Right says:

    President Hillary was going to be so proud of them for their great work.

    Then the MOAB MAGA bomb dropped!

    Liked by 14 people

    • Bubba Whiteholder says:

      I hear Home Depot is running out of rope. Hmmm; not good for these folks….’neck tie time’. Who has a horse we can borrow??

      Like

    • Carrie2 says:

      Dats Right, and the cockroaches are running hoping to get away before been hammered by Trump. Too bad because he will hammer them as karma is a b**ch.

      Like

  2. Shadrach says:

    Yup, the Strozk/Page texts discuss which 302’s they provided, and whether Powell’s was one of them. Thus, they didn’t provide them all.

    Liked by 8 people

  3. Oldskool says:

    We all know by now what the Obama crew had been up to which I had been salivating over “obstruction of justice” and worse charges for all these bums until listening to Rush today referring to a note he had received from Andrew McCarthy. His note mentions that “obstruction” is not applicable in counter intelligence investigations, which is all any of the “Russia” nonsense has ever been, since the President has the right to manage every thing that is going on with such investigations. It does come into play in criminal investigations, which has never been the case against Trump, so he said Mueller is barking up the wrong tree if that is what he is pursuing. So, still hoping for charges of Treason against the perpetrators or at least some level of conviction to end their pensions.

    Liked by 4 people

  4. alliwantissometruth says:

    The Obama / Holder FBI Exit Form:

    Dear Employee, please fill out form & leave at the front desk

    Employee Name: Mike Kortan
    Reason for Leaving: Treason, Sedation, Coup to Overthrow Government, Authorities Closing In On Me

    Reference We can Check: Hillary Clinton

    Do not write below this line
    ________________________

    Approved
    Please give us an address where we can send your lifetime pension checks, check for unused vacation days & your “Outstanding Service Award” trophy

    Liked by 21 people

    • billrla says:

      alliwantissometruth: Thanks for the late afternoon chuckle. I have always enjoyed good gallows humor, and we are definitely talking gallows.

      Liked by 6 people

    • Mark L. says:

      Or this one:
      As always, should you or any of your FBI agents be caught, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions. This tape/disc will self-destruct in five/ten seconds. Good luck, Mike

      Liked by 11 people

    • OldSaltUSNR says:

      Congress needs to pass and Trump needs to sign legislation immediately stating that any federal official who takes the 5th in an investigation involving his official duties loses his/her pension, immediately, irretrievably. Trump could do this by E.O., but some leftist judge would rule by decree and claim that a judge alone, not the President, has that authority.

      Call it “The Lerner Amendment”.

      Liked by 4 people

      • DD More says:

        Old – Would I Don’t Recall vs the 5th count also?

        CLINTON provided the following information: “I Don’t Recall”, but only on the advice and council of Attorney Mills.

        Re-reading the FBI Anon drops from last year and ran across – [July 8th. This transcript covers communication to and from FBI Anon.]

        Q – Who made the call for the Clinton interview to be off the record?
        A – LL. This is why Comey (and myself) had no knowledge of it and were not allowed to participate. Comey nearly blew the whistle.

        Sounds like Coach A.G. Lynch was putting her favorite players into the game.

        Like

  5. NJF says:

    Lol. On Dobbs show they’re talking about the Warner emails. Another one is busted!

    Liked by 18 people

  6. capnrusty says:

    Sarah Carter and others have reported that Andrew McCabe required FBI agents to alter forms 302 that they had submitted. I have read elsewhere, and confirmed from my own sources, that FBI agents are required to retain the original, hand-written, notes made during an investigation. Thus, the form 302 that Sundance linked to above, or any form 302, may not accurately reflect the information that was discovered in an interview. Perhaps someone with a deeper understanding of FBI procedures can either confirm or deny this.

    Liked by 5 people

  7. So, here’s another couple of admittedly ambiguous texts.

    In reference to a NYTimes article, Page says, “Ugh, more of the same.”

    Later in the same convo, she says, “The Roger Stone comments were scary as sh*t.”

    Was she really scared about the election somehow being rigged? That’s what she’ll claim.

    Isn’t it more likely that Stone’s comments scared her because of what he was REALLY saying, and I quote:

    “’In an election in which Donald Trump has made it pretty clear that the Clintons are going to prison, I think they would do anything to make sure they win it, even steal it,’ Mr. Stone said. But, he added, ‘Trump cannot just lose and say, “They stole it.’ He has to have some tangible evidence — and that’s exactly what we’re trying to collect.’”

    Heh, methinks it “scared the shit out of” her because she KNOWS that’s exactly what they were in the process of doing, and that Stone has said he’s determined to find out?

    Liked by 9 people

  8. Michael Machnica says:

    The evening shows are just gearing up, it seems the gossip topic of the day is going to be attacking the White House staff and not these quiet departures from FBI & DOJ.
    With Valentine’s Day approaching, I hope Pete and Lisa are still having fun and their fellow employees are giving them the attention that they so richly deserve.
    I wonder if they have those texting appendages taped up to prevent further lapses, or if their devices were taken away and they are being given a “timeout” in the corner.

    Liked by 2 people

    • WSB says:

      Well, there WAS a St. Valentine’s Day Massacre, if I recall. Maybe Kortan’s last day is a sign.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Kintbury54 says:

      Don’t send the men in the white coats for me, just hear me out. Is it possible that the two lovebirds were texting to save themselves. They have put so much information out there so far, it is almost like a cry for help. Goodness knows what are in the 50,000 texts that are still missing. Could they really have been this stupid or were they trying to get things on the record?

      Like

  9. jackphatz says:

    No one could have foretold these events. Just because emails and messages have been discovered doesn’t mean much when you consider who these people are. We got lucky. Obviously this would never have happened without Trump as president. No one could have predicted this as an outcome. Even Congress, or some of them have grown a pair or two.
    A self draining sh1thole.

    Liked by 3 people

  10. L. E. Joiner says:

    When we start seeing some of these rats heading for non-extradition states like Costa Rica, we’ll know that the dam is about to burst. Until then. . .

    Liked by 3 people

    • Carrie2 says:

      L.E. Joiner, they can run but in the end they cannot hide! Not being able to be extradited does not mean they will mean karma face to face.

      Like

  11. woohoowee says:

    All the dirty schemers should have been put in HR stuffing envelopes by hand. And then sent to the parking lot to pick up every pebble out there.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. covfefe999 says:

    Any idiot who thinks that Clinton is a competent woman capable of leading a country ought to read the document outlining her FBI interview on July 2.

    Liked by 6 people

  13. Tom Begley says:

    Just wait until the corpses starting showing up. First was Seth Rich.

    Liked by 6 people

  14. covfefe999 says:

    Question for the patriots here: do you think if Trump hadn’t been the clear front-runner and eventual winner of the GOP nomination that the FBI would have been as easy on Hillary as they were? Let’s say Bush had been the front-runner. Was the kid gloves treatment of Hillary pro-Hillary or anti-Trump, if you get what I mean/

    Like

    • Mark L. says:

      Someone said the other characters may have played along with the swamp.
      Trump wins. Comey threatens him and the gloves come off. No mercy.

      Liked by 2 people

    • GB Bari says:

      In the article to which Sundance posted a link in this comment thread, the author Benjamin Wittes noted quite clearly that he was fairly certain that all of the other Republican candidates would be (to paraphrase) willing defenders of the Status Quo of the State. He declared that Only a Trump victory would threaten the existing order. In the same article he noted that Hillary MUST be defended and supported at all costs to ensure continuity of the status quo. So my take is everything was focused on anti-Trump.

      Liked by 7 people

    • Doppler says:

      That’s a great question cff. Obama laid out the exoneration theory a couple months before July 5, and Comey promptly started drafting the exoneration, on the same basis. Would Obama have picked Jeb! Over Hillary? I don’t thinks so. Would Comey have followed Obama’s lead if Jeb! were the alternative? Less certain, but very possibly determined by who he perceived to be the likely winner. As to the others, each would have had their own calculus, driven in part by how they felt about the Republican candidate, and how likely they judged the chances.

      I suspect that the idea of securing a DOJ exoneration began with the Clinton team in the first half of 2015, and that the DOS referral, the selection of Strzok to lead the investigation, the engagement of Crowdstrike in July 2015 (purpose undisclosed but possibly to examine HRC’s server), the limitation of the investigation to the time she was in office and to whether classified material was mishandled (a refusal to look at pay to play or obstruction of justice), were all orchestrated by the Clinton inner team, and all involved in making it happen were seduced by the likelihood that she would be elected, that they would be rewarded for helping her, whether by prestigious jobs in her administration, or lucrative work associated with the well-funded Clinton Foundation and its related organizations and funders. Hating Trump was probably a factor for many of them, clearly for Strzok and Page. But how a group might have reached a conclusion under different circumstances, without Trump to hate, is ultimately unknowable.

      Like

  15. Firefly says:

    Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee who has been leading a congressional investigation into President Trump’s alleged ties to Russia, had extensive contact last year with a lobbyist for a Russian oligarch who was offering Warner access to former British spy and dossier author Christopher Steele, according to text messages obtained exclusively by Fox News.

    More on this: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/08/democratic-sen-mark-warner-texted-with-russian-oligarch-lobbyist-in-effort-to-contact-dossier-author-christopher-steele.html

    Liked by 1 person

  16. phoenixRising says:

    Sundance,
    You want to see this one:
    chillum has twitter thread – https://twitter.com/chiIIum/status/961740882897702912

    Liked by 4 people

  17. lokiscout says:

    All right then, another unheard of until now decides to jump out hoping to save his hide!
    My question to those posters demanding instant gratification and instant prosecution of the low hanging fruit, how about we keep shaking the tree a bit longer and see what else shakes out? Just because they retire doesn’t mean their butts can’t be hauled back in to testify or be prosecuted for criminally prosecutable wrongdoing.
    Enjoying the show! Pass the popcorn!

    Liked by 8 people

    • Mark L. says:

      Under Executive Order December 21, 2017. Crimes of corruption will be handled under RICO laws. They won’t be able to hide.

      Liked by 5 people

      • Roozter says:

        Nothing would be better than seeing Obama’s ill gotten gains returned to the gov’t coffers and him sitting in prison for life regretting it 😃👏!!

        Like

        • lokiscout says:

          I hear you but the best we can hope for is President Trump can erase everything he did. We may see Hillary brought to justice but the former president is untouchable.
          It’s time folks wised up and vote based on a candidate’s character rather than the color of their skin (or gender). To paraphrase MLK.

          Like

  18. Sundance is on top of it again.

    Liked by 3 people

  19. Wow, dropping like flies.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. malmino says:

    IIRC agents complained to the IG that McCabe demanded they change their 302’s … big no-no. And that this why Wray had to sh1tcan his deputy. (This coincided with release of the Nunes memo, so maybe more than one reason.) Anyway, I wonder if these are the 302’s in question.

    Liked by 1 person

    • capnrusty says:

      I think the agents are required to retain the hand-written notes they take during the actual interview. The 302 does not have to be typed up until days, weeks, months or years later. It will be interesting to see how the hand-written notes differ from what McCabe demanded the agents to say.

      Like

  21. covfefe999 says:

    Do you think if Bush had been the clear front-runner and winner of the GOP nomination that they would have favored Clinton during that ridiculous email “investigation”? Was the kid gloves treatment of her pro-Clinton or anti-Trump? I don’t think Strzok was very happy with Clinton but he sure did hate Trump.

    Like

    • peace says:

      In one of his text messages (see the gatewaypundit for this) he states to Lisa that he can’t stand Chelsea ; he may think hillary is ok – gave her a B+ on her speech)

      Like

    • GB Bari says:

      Yes they would have still cleared her fully believing Jeb would have respected the swamp as did his brother and father and only looked forward. They had the media covering for her so if the leader of the opposition is willing to ignore, the abusive power remains where it was.

      Like

  22. WVNed says:

    Is he wearing on of those boots yet?

    Liked by 1 person

  23. Peter Rabbit says:

    Hotlanta Mike, you are too, too funny! And so busy. A million thanks for your time, attention and effort with the photos, cartoon and graphics. Brilliant!!

    Like

  24. ozarkhitman says:

    Honest I did not know that the FBI had hired Bahgdad Bob after the war. I swear I didn’t know!!!!

    Like

  25. Bill Rhea says:

    In my opinion the house cleaning is taking place one by one. Likely is that as each is presented with evidence internally they are told they are leaving the FBI and/or DOJ and are required to sign a Confidentiality and Cooperation Agreement that, if violated, will have tougher consequences than they would otherwise face. Leave under strict Confidentiality and Cooperation and their eventual punishment will be at the low end of the sentencing guidelines; violate the Confidentiality Cooperation and the DOJ will throw the book at them.

    Liked by 3 people

  26. Ziiggii says:

    Liked by 4 people

    • Ziiggii says:

      The retired career intelligence officer expressed dismay that no one would notice the potential security violation from Strzok.

      “Anywhere I’ve ever been, someone is going to notice you using [a device in a SCIF], so that tells me the whole system at the FBI is broken,” he sad. “What’s going on in the general counsel’s office? How rampant is this? They should have said ‘Sir, you need to take that out of the building immediately,’ and in some cases depending on the level of classification, they’d have to do a report that there was an inappropriate use of a device that’s not authorized.”

      Liked by 8 people

    • covfefe999 says:

      Good catch! That’s so bad!

      Liked by 2 people

    • Ditch Mitch says:

      Security violation big time! Who let the phone in a SCIF! Weak SCIF if transmissions can get out. Sending ANYTHING electronic out of a SCIF without review/control is grounds for dismissal possible jail.

      Any Questions!?

      Liked by 6 people

      • WSB says:

        If a phone can be used inside a SCIF, is it really a SCIF?

        Liked by 2 people

        • covfefe999 says:

          I think they aren’t physically built to prevent phone transmissions. I think they are just locked and have the minimal equipment in them. I remember reading about Hillary wanting to take her phone into a SCIF and I think someone stopped her. I’ll try to find it.

          Liked by 2 people

          • covfefe999 says:

            I mis-recalled someone stopping her. But here it is. On page 12 of https://www.scribd.com/document/322860635/Clinton-FBI-Emails-File-1

            Interviews of three former DS agents revealed Clinton stored her personal BlackBerry in a desk drawer in DS “Post 1” which was located within the SCIF on Mahogany Row. State personnel were not authorized to bring their mobile devices into Post 1 as it was located within the SCIF.

            Like

          • Ditch Mitch says:

            SCIF’s (Sensitive Compartment Information Facility, emphisis on compartment) are designed to be completely isolated from the outside world. SCIF’s I have used block frequency transmissions in both directions.

            As WSB said if a cellphone can be used inside a SCIF is it really a SCIF?

            Liked by 4 people

            • Donna in Oregon says:

              Is that how the FBI was able to leak, leaky Jim’s SCIF? Looks like anyone with a phone could go into Jim’s SCIF. Clearly

              Who was the responsible adult? Are we supporting a bunch of hormonal, over-emotional, logic impaired teenagers? ‘Cause that’s what it looks like and sounds like.

              We need to bring back firing squads.

              Liked by 2 people

            • GB Bari says:

              SCIFs I have built (worked for big defns contractor) were not all TEMPEST (rf shielded). My understanding from our InfoSec was that personal phones or any PDAs were forbidden because the customer required it (dd254 / nispom) but technically because they can record or transmit from within. All our SCIFs had shelves outside the door for cellphones etc.

              Liked by 1 person

        • capnrusty says:

          My recollection is that about a year ago, when Nunes first got wind from a whistleblower of some documents he needed to see, he went to the SCIF in the White House, rather than use the one in the Capitol Building. Maybe that one was known to be insecure?

          Liked by 2 people

      • WSB says:

        OK, question 2. Was the SCIF changed to a weak situation during Comey’s or Mueller’s tenure?

        Cause, boy…that would be a story.

        Liked by 1 person

      • All American Snowflake says:

        What do you expect from an organization, the FBI, who shot and murdered a rancher in the back. After which they then manipulated the video in such a way that after he was shot when he dropped his “hands-up” position in order to grab his gut, the FBI pretended that the murdered rancher was going for a gun.

        Like

    • lokiscout says:

      Cell phone in a SCIF? Unbelievable! Even pagers were forbidden in any SCIF I was ever in. Either leave it with the guard or lock it up in a locker outside the door. More than once I had to backtrack and recover my (forgotten) phone after discovering an odd key in my pocket!

      Liked by 5 people

    • covfefe999 says:

      Let’s not forget how Hillary kept the SCIF in Chappaqua so secure that her maid had access to it. https://nypost.com/2016/11/06/clinton-directed-her-maid-to-print-out-classified-materials/

      As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton routinely asked her maid to print out sensitive government emails and documents — including ones containing classified information — from her house in Washington, DC, emails and FBI memos show. But the housekeeper lacked the security clearance to handle such material. […] Santos also had access to a highly secure room called an SCIF (sensitive compartmented information facility) that diplomatic security agents set up at Whitehaven, according to FBI notes from an interview with Abedin. From within the SCIF, Santos — who had no clearance — “collected documents from the secure facsimile machine for Clinton,” the FBI notes revealed.

      Liked by 2 people

      • covfefe999 says:

        The government tries to make it as effortless as possible for high-level officials, such as the secretary of state, to use SCIFs. It built SCIFs in both Hillary Clinton’s Washington, D.C. home and in her home in Chappaqua, N.Y. She just had to take a short walk, insert the proper passwords and biometric data, and read documents. https://verdict.justia.com/2017/02/20/protecting-top-secret-information-secretary-state-rest-government

        If she had to provide biometric data then she must have done some fancy rigging to allow her maid to get in. Probably put an extra door to it that was kept unlocked. WHY ISN’T HILLARY IN PRISON ALREADY?

        Liked by 3 people

        • covfefe999 says:

          Huma Abedin admitted to the FBI that Hillary Clinton did not treat the SCIF’s at her homes as secure. Abedin said, “the SCIF door at the Whitehaven residence [DC] was not always locked“ and the Chappaqua SCIF was not “secured.” The FBI found that Hillary Clinton sometimes just left the door of her Washington SCIF open. Similarly, her Chappaqua SCIF was also “not always secure.” We now know from the FBI reports that email information was already marked top secret at the time that Hillary Clinton received it on her home-brew server. We know now that Mrs. Clinton routinely forwarded classified emails to her maid (who had zero security clearance) and asked her to print out classified materials. (from same link as above)

          Liked by 2 people

    • MaineCoon says:

      There he goes again. Flasher FIB Strzok has exposed himself again!

      Liked by 1 person

  27. Charlotte says:

    Democratic Sen. Mark Warner texted with Russian oligarch lobbyist in effort to contact dossier author Christopher Steele

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/08/democratic-sen-mark-warner-texted-with-russian-oligarch-lobbyist-in-effort-to-contact-dossier-author-christopher-steele.html

    Liked by 1 person

  28. Jere says:

    I just hope there is a Pulitzer out there for Sundance. Brilliant work!

    Liked by 5 people

  29. rob says:

    Wonder if these two latest departures have anything to do with the fact that the IG has provided the missing tranch of texts to DOJ for review/redaction prior to releasing to Congress. Escaping the ship before the next major exposure.

    Liked by 1 person

    • MaineCoon says:

      An interesting concept is that most of the FBIers in HQ haven’t seen the released emails or text messages. They are reading them at the same time we are. Can you just image after each conspirator is publicly exposed and they then see these traitors in the office?

      These co-conspirators have also ruined the careers of many innocent peers.

      Liked by 5 people

  30. LibertyONE says:

    Take the time and READ the FBI 302 Interview report of Hitlery. The agts show her a very small # of e/m’s and basically thru out the interview she says she “can’t recall” or “was not aware” ( numerous times),NO showing her records /documents that would show she HAD knowlege etc. I lost count of the times predicated on info they had, the feds could have charged her with NUMEROUS counts of lying to fed agts. The “interview” in a word was a JOKE!

    Liked by 3 people

  31. MaineCoon says:

    “Director Michael Kortan (aka text message “Mike”), the head of the FBI Public Affairs Office, has announced he is retiring.”

    Strzok & Page could transfer to that Office, since they have prior experience in that area.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Stephen e lawrence says:

      I thought you would be terminated ( if caught for office-friends with benefits acts with extra office staff having sex (while being married)with other FBI lawyers while working on a case, (both are married, a morality issue cheater issues now surface it seems a morals clause should kick in now drawing a line having zero tolerance to sexting on the job or having an affair on the job working should be fired and sent packing due to this as they both know better, but could care less working in the FBI.
      If you have no morals, why are you in the FBI? If you can’t be trusted by the American people to up hold the law why are you employed and sucking a pay check.Goodbye, maybe the Federal Marshals get you soon and save taxpayer money being let go.

      Like

  32. Ono says:

    I assume the increasing number of retirees and those not seeking re election are singing Canneries.

    Witness protection must be busy these days

    Like

  33. Raffaella says:

    Ok this is ridiculous – I just walked away one afternoon and so much has happened I cannot figure out anything. I have to catch up tonight.

    Liked by 1 person

  34. Linus_in_W.PA. says:

    So the FBI and Clinton/Mills, etc. get together for the ‘interview.’

    Now, at least 1/2 of the participants (FBI) knows they are not going to charge her with anything….and they’re the ones asking the questions.

    So, how can anything ‘inflammatory’ even be on record? Who T.F. would have initiated a question/answer about something incriminating to Clinton? Did Clinton blow up and start threatening everybody?

    If Mills was of counsel, how would she have let Clinton say something incriminating??

    Like

    • Donna in Oregon says:

      Mills should be handled the same way the lawyer for John Gotti was handled. They need to separate Mills and Clinton.

      Start with the bar assoc. in concert with the removal of her immunity deal. See if Mills can be disbarred. Mills ability to hide in plain sight is lessened when she loses her ability to lie. Prosecution should proceed, play the immunity deals off one another, and Patriot Act their azzes until someone blabs.

      National Security issues can do that…..sleep deprivation and lots and lots of questioning about our Top Secret information.

      Liked by 4 people

  35. g.w says:

    Throughout following this great investigative gold mine by SD for the past year, one thing is still niggling at me. Why did the FBI even begin an investigation into Hildabeast if they were going to cover it all, or most of it up? Is it possible obamagate and his deep state didn’t altogether trust her “when” she got elected to remain a “team player” afraid she may go rogue and try to take too much control away from the puppet masters? If this should happen they would have plenty of heavy objects hanging over her head via DoJ/FbI and even more?

    Liked by 1 person

    • GB Bari says:

      In his Coaltion articles, Wittes states several times that Hillary is a flawed person / candidate but must lead the “coalition” into and after winning the election. The way Obama politicized every agency that he felt was instrumental in furthering his agenda, it looks like the investigation was a ruse to make the opposition think there were only white hats running these security agencies when in fact the investigation was merely a “discovery” phase in order for them to then craft the coverup and diversion (Russia Trump).

      Liked by 1 person

      • Rynn69 says:

        Interesting how media and others referred to the Obama “coalition” as the way they did the Clinton “machine”. Seems to me in both cases it simply refers to partisan hacks embedded in the government as corrupt agents acting on the group’s agenda…not the people’s agenda.

        Liked by 2 people

    • ForGodandCountry says:

      >>>Why did the FBI even begin an investigation into Hildabeast if they were going to cover it all, or most of it up?<<<

      A: They had no choice. Once the fact that she had been using an unauthorized server to conduct gov't business became public, an "investigation" could not be avoided WITHOUT demonstrating the corruption inside the FBI/DOJ.

      Like

      • PMAC says:

        Another case aka Watergate the coverup worse than the crime being investigated. Look how it has engulfed DOJ and FBI, should engulf Obama, Dems in Congress and MSM too.

        Like

  36. David Reznor says:

    My prediction: More 302s will emerge of interview Q&As with specific people, which 302s were never turned over at all.

    This prediction arises from my participation in research for Watergate, and is predicated at least partly on the concept that *withholding* certain information has a better chance of being justified after-the-fact, if discovered, than *actual tampering with the material facts* in a Q&A 302. The latter would be serious felony fodder.

    Like

  37. Anonymous says:

    Trying to avoid the IG investigation and questions from Congress.

    Like

  38. Roozter says:

    🎼…and another one gone🎶and another one gone🎶and another one bites the dust🎶🎶!!

    Like

  39. Cheesehead54016 says:

    Plain and simple definition of: OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

    Intentionally all caps as Im yelling now…..we all should be!!!

    Like

  40. ForGodandCountry says:

    SIAP….

    Sundance wrote:

    ———————————
    According to the Strzok text message, the reason for withholding some of the details of the Hillary Clinton interview is because there are “very INFLAMMATORY things” within it; and once congress finds out what was withheld the details will “absolutely inflame” them.
    ———————————

    Re: those “inflammatory things”, Strzok texted:

    ————————–
    ….that are going to come out in FOIA…
    ————————–

    This has to lie at the core of the Nunes and Grassley reports. This is the information that proves Hillary SHOULD have been charged with crimes and thus proves the collusion and corruption within the FBI’s email investigation. This is the info that proves the Hillary Email investigation was, in fact, a blatant political cover up conducted by senior members of the FBI, including the then-Director himself, James Comey….presently attempting to lecture America about “ethics”.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Cheesehead54016 says:

      That Clinton/Mills interview……….isn’t that the one where Mills stormed out or ended it before it was concluded?? Is that the same interview? Anybody know?

      Like

    • PMAC says:

      We knew this before these texts came out. Comey read what we all thought would end in indictment. That is the real kicker how blatant in your face they all were HRC, Obama, Lynch, Comey bold face lies. I didn’t need these texts or hearings to know. I also saw HRC interview during the campaign where she was asked if she was concerned about the charges. She answered so cocky “there will be no indictment” from this “security review” I knew the fix was in and she had been told not to worry.

      Like

  41. South Col says:

    Lots of resignations now.

    That means they all walked if there is no prosecutions of the FBI elites.

    Of course.

    Like

  42. Donzo says:

    Just as a side note, that picture of them as a group walking out of a hearing is priceless. The faces of McCabe, Page and Baker tell it all.

    Like

  43. Newt Gingivitis says:

    Indightments? Treason. Coup d’etat. Sedition. Firing squads. Blindfolds. Reality show -Justice is served.

    Like

  44. radman414 says:

    NO blindfolds , Newt. They richly deserve to see it coming!

    Like

  45. Doppler says:

    How are we sure the 302s in question, the very inflammatory ones, were from the Clinton interview?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s