Lou Dobbs Discusses the FBI Investigation That Never Happened…

This is the hidden story that could lead to a criminal probe of Loretta Lynch and James Comey

Tonight on his TV show, Lou Dobbs highlighted the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton that never took place.  WATCH:

.

CTH decided to go back through two years of documents, releases, reports, testimony, media interviews; including interviews with fired FBI Director James Comey; question all prior assumptions; re-examine the entire framework within all the known granular DOJ and FBI activity; and finally contrast it all against the full scope of released messaging between FBI Agent Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.

Within this project some breakout discoveries needed to be highlighted. One of those discoveries pertains to the Fox News interview with James Comey and Bret Baier.

Within the interview Mr. Comey is questioned about the announcement of re-opening of the Hillary Clinton email investigation on October 28th, 2016. In his response to why there was a delay between the FBI being notified by New York on September 28th, 2016, and waiting until October 28th, James Comey revealed a very important nugget.

The New York U.S. Attorney (SDNY, Preet Bharara) called Main Justice in DC to ask about a “search warrant”.  Previously we knew this call took place on October 21st, 2016 because it’s in the Page/Strzok text messages. Now we know the reason “why”, or at least the reason Comey was told, and who New York called at DOJ HQ.

Listen closely to James Comey at 06:06 to 07:30 of the interview (prompted):

Baier: “Did you know that Andrew McCabe, your deputy, had sat on that revelation about the emails”?

Comey: “Yeah, I don’t know that, I don’t know that to be the case. I do know that New York and FBI headquarters became aware that there may be some connection between Weiner’s laptop and the Clinton investigation, weeks before it was brought to me for decision – and as I write in the book I don’t know whether they could have moved faster and why the delay”

Baier: “Was it the threat that New York Agents were going to leak that it existed really what drove you to the ‘not conceal’ part?

Comey: “I don’t think so. I think what actually drove it was the prosecutors in New York who were working the criminal case against Weiner called down to headquarters and said ‘are we getting a search warrant or not for this’? That caused, I’m sorry, Justice Department Headquarters, to then call across the street to the FBI and poke the organization; and they start to move much more quickly. I don’t know why there was, if there was slow activity, why it was slow for those first couple of weeks.”

There’s some really sketchy stuff going on in that answer. Why would SDNY need to get authorization for a search warrant from DC if this is about Weiner’s laptop?

Yes, you could argue it pertains to a tightly held Clinton investigation run out of DC but the Weiner prosecution issues shouldn’t require approval from DC.

Additionally, the “search warrant” explanation by James Comey doesn’t match the internal communication that was happening inside the FBI (that was unknown to Comey).

But let’s take Comey at face-value…. In his explanation Comey stated it was justice officials within SDNY (Southern District of New York) who called Main Justice (DOJ in DC) and asked about a needed search warrant for “this“, presumably Weiner’s laptop by inference. Now, let’s go look at the Page/Strzok description of what was going on.

Here are the messages from Lisa Page and Peter Strzok surrounding the original date that New York officials originally notified Washington DC FBI. It’s important to note the two different entities: DOJ -vs- FBI.

According to the September 28, 2016, messages from FBI Agent Peter Strzok it was the SDNY in New York telling Andrew McCabe in DC about the issue. Pay close attention to the convo:

(pdf source for all messages here)

Notice: “hundreds of thousands of emails turned over by Weiner’s attorney to SDNY”.

Pay super close attention. This is not framed as an outcome of a New York Police Dept. raid on Anthony Weiner. This is stated as Weiner’s attorney going to the U.S. attorney and voluntarily turning over emails. These emails were not turned over to the FBI field office in New York (they have the laptop), these are actual emails turned over to the U.S. Attorney in the Southern District; that’s Preet Bharara.

Key point here: Weiner’s attorneys turned over “emails”. Actual “emails”.

♦If the U.S. Attorney in New York has the actual physical emails on September 28th, 2016, why would they need a search warrant on October 21st, 2016? (Comey’s call explanation)

♦Additionally, why would Weiner’s attorney be handing over evidence?

Think about this carefully. I’ll get back to the importance of it later; but what I suspect is that Anthony Weiner had physical material, a sub-set of the emails that were on Huma Abedin’s laptop, and those documents/emails were his “insurance policy” against anything done to him by Hillary Clinton. Facing a criminal prosecution Weiner’s lawyer went to the U.S. Attorney and attempted to exploit/leverage that specific content therein on his client’s behalf.

Fast forward three weeks, and we go back to FBI in DC.

On October 21, 2016, this is now the call referenced by James Comey in the Bret Baier interview. Someone from the New York U.S. Attorney’s office called “Main Justice” (the DOJ National Security Division in DC) and notified DOJ-NSD Deputy Asst. Attorney General George Toscas of the Huma Abedin/Hillary Clinton emails via the “Weiner investigation”.

[I would point out again, he’s not being notified of a laptop, Toscas is notified of “emails”]

George Toscas “wanted to ensure information got to Andy“, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe…. so he called FBI Agent Peter Strzok…. who told George Toscas “we know“.

FBI Agent Peter Strzok then tells Bill Priestap (who also previously knew) about Main Justice calling to make inquires about the emails.

Of course, Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe already knew about the emails since September 28th, 2016, more than three weeks earlier.

In his Bret Baier interview FBI Director James Comey says this call is about a search warrant. There is no indication the call is actually about a search warrant. [Nor would there be a need for a search warrant if the call was actually about the emails that Wiener’s attorney dropped off on 9/21].

However, that phone call kicks off an internal debate about the previously closed Clinton email investigation; and Andrew McCabe sitting on the notification from New York for over three weeks – kicks off an internal FBI discussion about McCabe needing to recuse himself.

Now it’s October 27th, 2016, James Comey chief-of-staff Jim Rybicki wants McCabe to recuse himself. But Rybicki is alone on an island. Lisa Page is furious at such a suggestion, partly because she is McCabe’s legal counsel and if McCabe is recused so too is she.

At the same time as they are debating how to handle the Huma Abedin/Hillary Clinton emails, they are leaking to the media to frame a specific narrative.

Important to note here, that at no time is there any conversation -or hint of a conversation- that anyone is reviewing the content of the emails. The discussions don’t mention a single word about content… every scintilla of conversation is about how to handle the issues of the emails themselves. Actually, there’s not a single person mentioned in thousands of text messages that applies to an actual person who is looking at any content.

Quite simply: there is a glaringly transparent lack of an “investigation”.

Within this “tight group” at FBI, as Comey puts it, there is not a single mention of a person who is sitting somewhere looking through the reported “600,000” Clinton emails that was widely reported by media.

There’s absolutely ZERO evidence of anyone looking at emails or scouring through laptop data…. and FBI Agent Peter Strzok has no staff under him who he discusses assigned to such a task…. and Strzok damned sure ain’t doing it.  Additionally, again accepting what Comey thinks is happening, sdny is asking for a search warrant – so under that premise the sdny has the laptop.

So what gives?

Remember, it’s now October 27th, 2016.  McCabe has been sitting on this information since September 28th; Comey doesn’t know anything about it; and a day earlier McCabe and Loretta Lynch were on a conference call with the New York field office and the conversation was full of drama.

From the OIG report4. The Attorney General Expresses Strong Concerns to McCabe and other FBI Officials about Leaks, and McCabe Discusses Recusing Himself from CF Investigation (October 26, 2016)

McCabe told the OIG that during the October 2016 time frame, it was his “perception that there was a lot of information coming out of likely the [FBI’s] New York Field Office” that was ending up in the news. McCabe told the OIG that he “had some heated back-and-forths” with the New York Assistant Director in Charge (“NY-ADIC”) over the issue of media leaks.

On October 26th, 2016, McCabe and NY-ADIC participated in what McCabe described as “a hastily convened conference call with the Attorney General [Loretta Lynch] who delivered the same message to us” about leaks, with specific focus being on leaks regarding the high-profile investigation by FBI’s New York Field Office into the death of Eric Garner. McCabe told us that he “never heard her use more forceful language.” NY-ADIC confirmed that the participants got “ripped by the AG on leaks.”

According to NY-ADIC’s testimony and an e-mail he sent to himself on October 31, McCabe indicated to NY-ADIC and a then-FBI Executive Assistant Director (“EAD”) in a conversation after Attorney General Lynch disconnected from the call that McCabe was recusing himself from the CF Investigation.

(Page #6 and #7 – IG Report Link)

Stuff just got seriously elevated.  Main Justice is making inquires, Attorney General Loretta Lynch is making inquiries, and now James Comey has to be brought into the loop.  How does McCabe explain the call from Main Justice, and Loretta Lynch, to his boss, James Comey?

Moving on – Note to readers. Click the graphics and read the notes on them too:

It’s still October 27th, 2016, the day before James Comey announces his FBI decision to re-open the Clinton investigation. Jim Rybicki still saying McCabe should be recused from input; everyone else, including FBI Legal Counsel James Baker, is disagreeing with Rybicki and siding with Lisa Page.

Meanwhile the conversation has shifted slightly to “PC”, probable cause. Read:

While Lisa Page is leaking stories to Devlin Barrett (Wall Street Journal), the internal discussion amid the “small group” is about probable cause, “PC”.

The FBI team is now saying if there was no probable cause when Comey closed the original email investigation in July 2016 (remember the very tight boundaries of review), then there’s no probable cause in October 2016 to reopen the investigation regardless of what the email content might be.

This appears to be how the “small group” or “tight team” justify doing nothing with the content received from New York. They presumably received the emails September 28th and it’s now October 27th, and they haven’t even looked at them. Heck, they are debating if there’s even a need to look at it…. and General Counsel (Baker), along with Office of Legal Counsel (“Trisha” Beth Anderson), are giving Strzok, Page and McCabe advice about using Probable Cause as an ‘out’.

However, the next day October 28th, 2016, the FBI and Main Justice officials have a conference call about the entire Huma Abedin/Hillary Clinton email issue. Here’s where it gets interesting.

George Toscas and David Laufman from DOJ-NSD articulate a position that something needs to happen – likely because Main Justice is concerned about the issue of FBI (McCabe) sitting on the emails for over three weeks, without telling Director James Comey and without any feedback to SDNY (New York).  Additionally, Loretta Lynch has made inquiries about what was going on.

Thanks to Deputy Director McCabe, Main Justice in DC, specifically DOJ National Security Division, now looks like they are facilitating a cover-up operation being conducted by the FBI “small group”. [which is actually true, but they can’t let that be so glaringly obvious].  The FBI New York field office suspects a top level cover-up.

As a result of the Top-Tier DOJ and FBI officials conference call, Peter Strzok is a grumpy agent because his opinion appears to be insignificant. The decision is reached to announce the re-opening of the investigation and take control over the optics.

This decision sends Lisa Page bananas…

…In rapid response mode Lisa Page reaches out to Devlin Barrett, again to quickly shape the media coverage. Now that the world is aware of the need for a Clinton email investigation 2.0 the internal conversation returns to McCabe’s recusal.

Please note that at no time in the FBI is anyone directing an actual investigation of the content of the Clinton emails. Every single second of every effort is devoted to shaping the public perception of the need for the investigation. Every media outlet is being watched; every article is being read; and the entire apparatus of the small group is shaping coverage therein by contacting their leak outlets.

So let’s go back to that Comey interview:

♦What exactly would SDNY need a search warrant for?

♦Anthony Weiner’s lawyer has delivered SDNY actual emails. Why would he do that?

Now lets pause and re-connect those questions to the earlier report.

On page six of the IG report on Andrew McCabe (point number 4) we find a conference call between Loretta Lynch, Andrew McCabe and the FBI field office in New York where the subject of the Weiner/Abedin/Clinton email findings overlap with: the Clinton Foundation (CF) investigation; the Clinton Email investigation; pressure for Asst. Director McCabe to recuse himself, and Washington DC via Loretta Lynch using DOJ Main Justice leverage from the Eric Garner case against the NY FBI office and New York Police Department.

From the OIG report:

4. The Attorney General Expresses Strong Concerns to McCabe and other FBI Officials about Leaks, and McCabe Discusses Recusing Himself from CF Investigation (October 26, 2016)

McCabe told the OIG that during the October 2016 time frame, it was his “perception that there was a lot of information coming out of likely the [FBI’s] New York Field Office” that was ending up in the news. McCabe told the OIG that he “had some heated back-and-forths” with the New York Assistant Director in Charge (“NY-ADIC”) over the issue of media leaks.

On October 26th, 2016, McCabe and NY-ADIC participated in what McCabe described as “a hastily convened conference call with the Attorney General who delivered the same message to us” about leaks, with specific focus being on leaks regarding the high-profile investigation by FBI’s New York Field Office into the death of Eric Garner. McCabe told us that he “never heard her use more forceful language.” NY-ADIC confirmed that the participants got “ripped by the AG on leaks.”

According to NY-ADIC’s testimony and an e-mail he sent to himself on October 31, McCabe indicated to NY-ADIC and a then-FBI Executive Assistant Director (“EAD”) in a conversation after Attorney General Lynch disconnected from the call that McCabe was recusing himself from the CF Investigation.

(Page #6 and #7 – IG Report Link)

What makes this explosive is the timing, and what we now know about what was going on amid the FBI “small group” in DC.

On September 28th, 2016, Andrew McCabe was made aware of emails given to New York U.S. Attorney (SDNY) directly from Anthony Weiner’s lawyer.  Again, the information relayed to DC is not about a Weiner laptop, it’s about actual emails delivered by Weiner’s lawyer.  The laptop was evidence in the Weiner “sexting” case involving a minor; however, the laptop did, reportedly, also contained thousands of State Department documents from Hillary Clinton and her aide Huma Abedin, Weiner’s wife.

When Weiner’s lawyer walked into SDNY to deliver his leverage emails, Preet Bharara, a Clinton-Lynch ally, was the United States Attorney.

Again, look at the text messages between FBI Agent Peter Strzok (Inbox) and FBI Special Counsel to Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page (Outbox):

[The letter to “Congress” at the end of the text exchange relates to notification of the re-opening of the Clinton investigation – Actual date of notification 10/28/16]

According to the text messages, and Comey’s own statements, FBI Director James Comey was not notified of the emails until after October 21st, 2016.

However, in late October and early November, there were media reports (leaks) from people with contacts in New York police and New York FBI, about Washington DOJ officials interfering with the Weiner investigation.

On the same date (October 26th, 2016) as the Lynch, McCabe and NY FBI phone call, former NY Mayor Rudy Giuilani was telling Fox News that an explosive development was forthcoming.   Two days later, October 28th, 2016, Congress was notified of the additional Clinton emails.

However, a few more days later, November 4th, 2016, an even more explosive development as Erik Prince appeared on radio and outlined discoveries within the Huma Abedin/Anthony Weiner/Hillary Clinton email issues that was being blocked by AG Lynch.

Prince claimed he had insider knowledge of the investigation that could help explain why FBI Director James Comey had to announce he was reopening the investigation into Clinton’s email server last week.

“Because of Weinergate and the sexting scandal, the NYPD started investigating it. Through a subpoena, through a warrant, they searched his laptop, and sure enough, found those 650,000 emails. They found way more stuff than just more information pertaining to the inappropriate sexting the guy was doing,” Prince claimed.

“They found State Department emails. They found a lot of other really damning criminal information, including money laundering, including the fact that Hillary went to this sex island with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Bill Clinton went there more than 20 times. Hillary Clinton went there at least six times,” he said.

“The amount of garbage that they found in these emails, of criminal activity by Hillary, by her immediate circle, and even by other Democratic members of Congress was so disgusting they gave it to the FBI, and they said, ‘We’re going to go public with this if you don’t reopen the investigation and you don’t do the right thing with timely indictments,’” Prince explained.

“I believe – I know, and this is from a very well-placed source of mine at 1PP, One Police Plaza in New York – the NYPD wanted to do a press conference announcing the warrants and the additional arrests they were making in this investigation, and they’ve gotten huge pushback, to the point of coercion, from the Justice Department, with the Justice Department threatening to charge someone that had been unrelated in the accidental heart attack death of Eric Garner almost two years ago. That’s the level of pushback the Obama Justice Department is doing against actually seeking justice in the email and other related criminal matters,” Prince said. (Link)

An earlier Grand Jury in New York had refused to return an indictment against the NYPD in the Garner case.  As an outcome of that grand jury finding, and as an outcome of their own investigation, the local FBI office and Eastern District of New York DOJ office was not trying to pursue criminal charges against the NYPD officers involved.  This created a dispute because federal prosecutors (EDNY) and FBI officials in New York opposed bringing charges, while prosecutors with the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department in Washington argued there was clear evidence to do so.

On October 25th, 2016, Loretta Lynch replaced the EDNY New York prosecutors:

New York Times (Oct. 25)  – The Justice Department has replaced the New York team of agents and lawyers investigating the death of Eric Garner, officials said, a highly unusual shake-up that could jump-start the long-stalled case and put the government back on track to seek criminal charges.

With the moves Lynch made prior to the phone call, on Oct. 25th, 2016, AG Lynch was  in position to threaten criminal prosecutions against the NYPD, and repercussions against the New York FBI field office and EDNY using the Garner case as leverage, just like Erik Prince outlined in the phone interview above.

Additionally, we see confirmation from the IG report, the Garner case was brought up in the (Oct 26, 2016) phone call to the NY FBI field office; just as Erik Prince outlined.  Obviously Prince’s sources were close to the events as they unfolded.

The NY FBI and Eastern District of New York (EDNY) were threatened by Washington DC Main Justice and FBI, via Loretta Lynch and Andrew McCabe to drop the Clinton/Abedin/Weiner email investigation matters, concede the Clinton email investigative approach to DC, or else the Garner DOJ Civil Rights Division would be used as leverage against the NYPD.  And Loretta Lynch had SDNY U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara as the enforcer waiting for her call.

There’s a solid case to be made that the emails Anthony Weiner’s lawyer brought to Preet Bharara was Weiner’s leverage to escape prosecution. Likely those specific emails were exactly as Eric Prince sources outlined. However, the SDNY Attorney (Preet Bharara) responding to upper level Main Justice leadership (Loretta Lynch), buried those emails.

In DC the FBI (Comey and McCabe), helped bury the content by creating the appearance of re-opening of the Clinton investigation.  This stemmed the NYPD and NY field office from making further public statements; and Comey’s move kept control of the investigation in DC; and ensured the investigative outcomes remained out of the hands of the Eastern District (EDNY) and New York FBI field office. They had no choice.

However, once the FBI reopened the investigation October 28th, they did exactly the same thing they had done from September 28th to October 28th… they did nothing.

A few days later they declared the second investigation closed, and that was that.

They never expected her to lose.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Clinton(s), Conspiracy ?, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Desperately Seeking Hillary, Election 2016, FBI, Jeff Sessions, media bias, New York, Notorious Liars, President Trump, THE BIG UGLY, Uncategorized, Valerie Jarrett, White House Coverup. Bookmark the permalink.

519 Responses to Lou Dobbs Discusses the FBI Investigation That Never Happened…

  1. Ziiggii says:

    SD made this statement re: the Oct 27th phone conference based on the OIG report on McCabe –

    Remember, it’s now October 27th, 2016. McCabe has been sitting on this information since September 28th; Comey doesn’t know anything about it; and a day earlier McCabe and Loretta Lynch were on a conference call with the New York field office and the conversation was full of drama.

    Or does he…?
    Comey claims that it was he that opened an investigation into “leaks” that were thought to be coming from the FBI NYC Field Office.

    In an interview with MSNBC host Rachel Maddow on Thursday night, Comey relived the drama. Did Giuliani, and by association the Trump campaign, asked Maddow, have forewarning from within the FBI — perhaps the New York office — of Comey’s consequential act of Oct. 28?

    Comey replied:

    Not that I know of, but I saw that same publicity and so I commissioned an investigation to see if we could understand whether people were disclosing information out of the New York office or any other place that resulted in Rudy’s report on Fox News and other leaks that we were seeing in the media.

    I don’t know what the result of that was. I got fired before it was finished, but I know that I asked that it be investigated.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2018/04/20/rudy-giulianis-pre-election-comments-on-fox-news-prompted-an-fbi-leak-investigation/

    Rudy’s Video referenced above by SD…
    http://video.foxnews.com/v/5185914034001/?#sp=show-clips

    It seems at the very least plausible that Comey was aware of the emails and was a part of the internal discussions Lynch was having re: “leaks” out of NYC office…

    Liked by 2 people

    • Newhere says:

      Protocol would suggest he either knew about it or was very conspicuously bypassed. This group were strict observers of reporting chains. Agree it’s unlikely that McCabe would have such a significant interaction with the AG without the director being aware or deliberately cut out.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Thomas Berwick says:

        “This group were strict observers of reporting chains.”

        We can only hope when the prosecutor gets Comey on the stand that he blurts like Jack Nicholson in “A Few Good Men”. Then they can walk him out in handcuffs.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Could this be related to yesterday’s 4/30 highly damning OIG Release that hasn’t been covered by CTH or anyone besides Gateway Pundit. OIG gives no names or relation to any investigation.

      “The OIG found that the SA contacted individuals who he either knew were, or had reasonable belief would be witnesses in the criminal investigation and that the SA’s contacts with several individuals appeared to be designed to improperly influence their prospective testimony. Accordingly, the OIG concluded that the SA’s contacts with the witnesses were improper and constituted misconduct.

      “During the investigation, the OIG also found that the SA divulged law enforcement sensitive information to unauthorized individuals; misused his government issued electronic devices; provided misleading testimony during a related civil deposition; mishandled classified information; misused his position during contacts with local law enforcement officers; and provided false information to the OIG. Criminal prosecution of the SA was declined.

      “The OIG has completed its investigation and provided its report to the FBI.”

      http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/04/doj-oig-releases-report-on-retired-fbi-special-agent-found-involved-in-numerous-corrupt-criminal-acts/

      Liked by 2 people

    • keeler says:

      I pointed out near the start of this comment thread that Comey added the qualifier “for decision” to his statement regarding what he knew about McCabe’s handling of the “Weiner” emails, and that by inference this would mean he knew about them earlier than October 27th or 28th.

      While possible, it appears implausible that the FBI Director, who had previously made a major public announcement about the Clinton Emails in July, would remain unaware his Assistant Director was sitting on these emails for three weeks. If McCabe was hiding the information from Comey or Comey disapproved of McCabe’s handling of the problem, wouldn’t Comey be angry at McCabe? None of Comey’s subsequent comments or actions indicate the two are at odds. Indeed, Comey appears to be covering McCabe at every turn possible.

      It also seems improbable that, with tension mounting between the New York and Washington agencies, rumors and chatter would not be circulating among the highest levels of the FBI and DOJ well before it hit the media.

      Finally, if we are to believe Comey, would we not expect a sea change in the email investigation once he became aware? Yet, as sundance points out not a single text message between Page and Strozak, indeed any evidence available, suggests the FBI conducted any review of the Clinton emails at any point. Even after Comey admits to knowing about the Weiner laptop emails, nothing changed in the FBI’s behavior. The continuity of behavior suggests Comey was either in on it all along, or fine with how McCabe handled them prior to his knowledge.

      Comey remaining unaware for three weeks doesn’t square with human nature. What does square is McCabe cluing Comey into the situation, and Comey tacitly letting McCabe sit on the emails until building media pressure forced the email issue onto Comey’s desk officially “for decision.”

      Liked by 2 people

      • Ziiggii says:

        👍

        Liked by 1 person

      • Newhere says:

        Agree. The line about “for decision” implies that information was kept tightly within reporting chains, only filtering up through formal “decision” channels — and I think this is one way top leadership insulates itself.

        Saying he learned about the Weiner-Clinton connection when it reached his desk “for decision” is the Comey trick of answering a question not really asked. The real question was when did you know, and the real answer is as soon as Strzok knew. But Comey’s answering “when were you thoroughly briefed on all facets and details of this matter such that you rendered an informed and decisive judgment?”

        Liked by 1 person

      • Rachel Guess says:

        I remember their claims on the weiner laptop emails during the election:

        -they did discover about 650,000 emails, but only some of them belonged to Ms. Abedin, agents found.
        -they claimed that software was used to identify whether there were any new emails from the ones to abedin, which numbered in the thousands which enabled them to ‘review’ all of them in only 8 days

        I still found it questionable at best at the time, so it’s no surprise to me that they never actually investigated it at all.

        Like

  2. James Charcomb says:

    Two things of interest in the Comey Baier interview. #1 Comey says he locked the notes in his safe. Why do that if they aren’t confidential/executive privileged documents? #2 Comey had already been fired when he “leaked” the documents to his friend. At that point in time? He was no longer authorized to make a determination if the documents were confidential/classified.

    Liked by 4 people

  3. tampa2 says:

    Did anybody else notice, at about 7:18 of the Brett Baier interview, Comey initially stated the request was sent to Headquarters, then corrected he meant DoJ Headquarters? Throwing Lynch and the DoJ under the bus much? CYA or cover for why it took three weeks? I don’t think Comey and Lynch care too much for each other.
    A final thought: This all boils down to the FISA warrant (paper trail) and Yates denying the IG permission to investigate FBI counter-intelligence division (no paper trail). Is this too simplistic?

    Liked by 2 people

    • DanO64 says:

      Yates was DOJ.

      Liked by 1 person

      • tampa2 says:

        OK. Then Comey has two DoJ AG’s he’s throwing under the bus.

        Like

        • Jan says:

          Who HASN’T Comey thrown under the bus yet? When someone comes up with logs that show how many times Comey talked to Ovomit on the phone or how many times he went to the White House for “no visits” with the President, OVomit is going to be next under the bus. This 6’8″ excuse for a human being needs a wedgie in the mouth so he’ll just stop talking because every time his lips move, he lies. And he still thinks Hillary would have kept him on as FBI director if she had won, which makes him the dumbest sack of schiff still walking around DC.

          Like

  4. I pray that high level people are prosecuted, otherwise justice is definitely not blind in the United States.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. tav144 says:

    Review the Application for that Search Warrant of the laptop here – https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/20/nyregion/huma-abedin-emails-search-warrant-application.html and in looking at that and the news surrounding the timeline of the Weiner sexting case, this seems likely…

    1) FBI (NY) and NYPD opened an investigation into Weiner sexting case in August/September 2016. Shortly thereafter, Preet Bhahara (DOJ – SDNY) was brought in on the case (or took it over) and issued subpoenas for electronics and “other records” – (https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/22/politics/first-on-cnn-us-attorney-investigating-weiner-sexting-allegations/ ).

    2) As a result of the subpoenas, the laptop was provided to SDNY- along with paper copies of the proof of HRC emails on the laptop – by Weiner’s attorney. In looking at the contents on the laptop, they confirmed the paper copies Weiner’s attorney gave them – that some header emails indicated the HRC emails were indeed on the Weiner laptop. Before “reading” them however, they still needed a search warrant as these were outside the scope of the original warrant dealing with the sexting case.

    3) We don’t know that what the Weiner attorney gave them was the full content of emails, or if they were simply a copy of the headers of the emails. However, the fact that no content of these emails have leaked seems to indicate that they did not have actual full paper copies of the content of the emails.

    4) SDNY then sent the application for a search warrant to DOJ to sign off on on September 28th, 2016 requesting permission to open and read the contents of those emails on the laptop. DOJ Main Justice was in charge of that HRC email case, so any plea deal would only be effective or beneficial to Weiner if Main Justice decides/decided to use that information to subsequently bring charges against HRC, et al. (Weiner pleaded guilty in May 2017 and was sentenced to 21 months in September 2017).

    5) Not having heard back from Main Justice in a month, SDNY inquires as to the status of the warrant October 28, 2016. Only then do the wheels begin to turn as to what to do and how to handle it.

    6) I don’t believe there were emails for them to read / investigate between September – October 2016. McCabe was slow walking the info, hoping it wouldn’t matter once Hillary won the election. But once the SDNY called, they couldn’t afford to NOT act since it would appear they were in cover-up mode.

    7) And essentially, they were in cover-up mode, even after Comey discovered McCabe was sitting on the info, since Page/Strzok text messages reveal that they were looking at using the same “PC” excuse previously used to exonerate her, i.e., by only investigating the narrow issues involved – instead of the unquestionably criminal conduct such as destruction of evidence/obstruction of justice that was likely notated in the damning 302’s Strzok said was not turned over to Congress.

    8) However, regardless, it is indisputable that DOJ – Main Justice knew about the request for the warrant, as they were notified by SDNY when it was requested and they must sign off on it. Therefore, I certainly believe Lynch most likely ordered McCabe to sit on it and do nothing, and her conduct thereafter with the implicit threat to prosecute the LEOs in the Garner case buttresses that.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ad rem says:

      Your comment was misdirected to the spam bin…. 😦

      Like

    • Newhere says:

      Regarding (2) — What is the basis for stating that the agents’ search of subject lines of emails on the Weiner laptop “confirmed” what they’d received in paper copy from Weiner’s attorney? I don’t find a representation to that effect warrant affidavit. Where is any FBI/DOJ acknowledgement of receiving the emails in paper copy?

      Regarding (4) — What is the basis for saying that SDNY sent an application for a search warrant to DOJ for sign off on 9/28? Do we have evidence of internal discussion or correspondence about a search warrant, prior to actions starting 10/27?

      Thanks — trying to follow what is recitation of confirmed fact, and what is theory.

      Like

      • tav144 says:

        #2. My assumption is that they received the emails (or copies of the email headers) from Weiner’s attorney first — because it is logical that this is one of the reasons for asking for the warrant to read the content of emails on the laptop after seeing (this confirming) the emails were on there.
        #4. I base this on my personal knowledge of working for DOJ for 8 years, that if a local case has a national component (or requirement) to it, the draft was prepared locally by the local USAO and sent to Main Justice to approve, edit, etc.

        Like

        • Newhere says:

          Thanks. I think this fills in how things would have been done by the book. Whether they were or not — agree Lynch would have known about the key developments, and SDNY wouldn’t itself be slow-walking absent instruction or at least a nod from main justice and/or fbi headquarters.

          (hesitant though to make assumptions about the delivered emails vs. the laptop emails, given how little actually is corroborated . . .)

          Like

      • DanO64 says:

        ty

        Like

    • Dixie T says:

      6) “I don’t believe there were emails for them to read / investigate between September – October 2016. McCabe was slow walking the info, hoping it wouldn’t matter once Hillary won the election. But once the SDNY called, they couldn’t afford to NOT act since it would appear they were in cover-up mode.”

      I personally believe there were “actual emails to read.” But I know someone who would know FOR CERTAIN—–former NYC Mayor, Rudy Guiliani!!!!!!! It has many times been reported that he has a very “close” relationship with the NYPD. Ironically, he just recently joined the Trump Administration!

      Like

  6. Laura Wesselmann says:

    Lynch, Preet Barra, Obama, should hang.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. whaasssssup?wassabi says:

    The IG published a report on April 30 that shows an FBI agent (now retired) messing with an investigation by tipping off witnesses, etc. Has anyone else seen this? https://oig.justice.gov/reports/all.htm

    Liked by 2 people

    • whaasssssup?wassabi says:

      April 30th (as in yesterday!!) – I think this is one of the folks below McCabe on the Clinton email investigation (or – heaven forbid – McCabe himself but I don’t think so because there is a line about “decline to prosecute” which I take to mean a cooperating person against the cabal).

      Liked by 2 people

    • whassup- Thanks for your post. That link is a treasure trove of info from the Inspector Generals’s office!

      Liked by 1 person

  8. KBR says:

    An investigation that was claimed to have happened but never happened, is a FRAUD.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. Betty says:

    Strzok: Got called up to Andy’s earlier … hundreds of thousands of emails turned over by Weiner’s att to sdny, includes a ton of material from spouse. \U0001f628\n\Sending team up tomorrow to review … this will never end….

    Weiner’s attorney turns over hundreds of thousands of emails which include a ton if Huma Ambiden’s emails – and Strzok thinks “…this will never end…” Whack a mole?

    I am thinking Strzok et el thought they had weiner’s laptop with all the evidence sequestered at the sdny. And then Weiner’s attorney turned, probably that same material, over to – who? And the gig was up.

    Like

    • Sneaky Pete says:

      It would make a great movie. That it’s really happening, and happening to us is terrifying! That such a thing could happen in the US is almost beyond belief. Even when I read it and think I get it I can’t believe it. Obama did terrible, terrible, terrible things to this country. And it wasn’t just political and social differences. He hates the United States and intended to harm it. And that’s why in this case, his prosecution does less harm to the country than the spectacle of a previous President jailed would do.

      Like

      • Jan says:

        It depends on when you started reading CHT, BB, TGP, etc., but since this all occurred fairly close to the election, I remember the NYPD trying to force everything on Weinstein’s laptop to come public and the NYPD was why Comey had to “reopen” the case. And in 5 days, “we determined no new evidence or classified materials” was on that laptop. I remember texting a friend about the reopening and AGAIN when Comey says nothing new. Here’s another lie told by Comey to Congress because now we know the FBI did nothing and lied again. Between Rosenstein saying today he was being extorted by Congress & the new McCabe/Comey lie about looking at the Weiner laptop, I hold out zero hope of salvaging the DOJ or the FBI. Unless we have at least 10,000 whistleblowers, there won’t be too many rank & file that are still honest, let alone not corrupt.

        Like

        • Let's roll says:

          Comey would have everyone believe 650,000 Clinton emails floating in no man’s land between the NYPD, SDNY, EDNY, McCabe’s office, Weiner’s attorney, main DOJand no action/knowledge of discovery efforts by Comey for a month? And “McCabe sat on them” like a cushion?!?! We need whistleblowers now! Honest NYPD, FBI – where are you?

          Like

    • DanO64 says:

      interesting.

      Like

    • Let's roll says:

      So Weiner made electronic copies of 650,000 Hillary emails, and these were his “insurance plan” for future dealings with the Clinton Cartel? Must of thrown “The Secret Group/FBI/DOJ/Obama Cartel” into hissy fit land, you think?

      Weiner, 21 months in jail where charges called for 10 years. Yes, sure seems everyone is dirty and “dealing.” OIG report, please soon..

      Like

  10. Sneaky Pete says:

    I’m glad to see Jarrett’s name mentioned a lot today. But let’s also not forget Biden. Being dumb-as-a-stump may sometimes be an explanation for criminality, but never an excuse.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Newt Love says:

      Visually, Gregg Jarrett looks like the mid-point in a “morph” from Sean Hannity to Rush Limbaugh.
      Nothing bad, but just an observation.
      Gregg Jarrett is a great reporter on his own merits!

      Like

  11. whaasssssup?wassabi
    Much of that info matches Mccabe , the leaks, requesting agents to misrepresent evidence , abuse of power with agents ( blaming agents for his leaks) lying on a civil suit ( Robin Gritz case )

    It could be someone else , but it appears to be someone in a high supervisory capacity .
    The bad part is that criminal prosecution was declined

    Like

    • Mike says:

      SA means Special Agent. If it was McCabe they would have said DD, Deputy Director.

      Where does it say prosecution declined? I read it was referred 4-30-18.

      Like

    • nbkilgore says:

      AT, McCabe was “FIRED”, he never got the chance to retire or resign. The retired Special Agent could be one of the two SA’s Strzok mentions several times in the first S/P texts dump, I can’t recall the name at the moment, but a departure party was mentioned also. Strzok was AD Priesteps underling who supervised about 3-4 SA’s.

      Like

  12. McCabe sat on the Weiner! …emails for a month. It is all right here, people are going down on the Weiner… email cover up.

    Like

  13. SharkFL says:

    Tip of the cap to our fearless leader Sundance. Great to see Lou give you a direct shout-out and plug for the site.

    Liked by 3 people

  14. David says:

    “The amount of garbage that they found in these emails, of criminal activity by Hillary, by her immediate circle, and even by other Democratic members of Congress was so disgusting they gave it to the FBI, and they said, ‘We’re going to go public with this if you don’t reopen the investigation and you don’t do the right thing with timely indictments,’” Prince explained.
    __________________________________________________

    Quoting Strzok, “Thing is, there are very inflammatory things in the 302’s that we didn’t turn over to Congress because they weren’t relevant to understanding the focus of the investigation.”

    The focus of the investigation was “classified intelligence.” Any other incriminating discoveries from the laptop or Weiner’s attorney were ignored by the FBI, and threats by Lynch to New York law enforcement kept them quiet.

    But Lynch is gone. What is keeping them quiet now?

    Liked by 1 person

  15. magacombover says:

    I remember reading stories that Carlos Danger had a “Life Insurance” file on his laptop that supposedly had incriminating information in it (photos). He probably feared he would be Arkancided.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Roberto says:

      There’s another aspect. It’s kinda like Darwin 101. Look, if you were Huma–after all those years of watcher her boss operate, blackmail, steal, lie, scheme, threaten etc.–would you turn over all of her emails to any investigative authority without making backups? And that that’s the same reason they got on Wiener’s laptop in the first place. Same can be said of NYFBI and NYPD keeping their own copies. Consequently, my guess is that there exists a bunch of copies of HRC’s emails lingering out there now.

      In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if DJT and Rudy Giuliani each have a private copy. And have had them for quite some time. If so, everything we’ve seen from DJT over the past years–vis a vis Mueller and Russia–makes complete sense. Including Session’s recusal.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Dixie T says:

        I totally agree—-there are many “copies” of those emails still being held by Anthony Weiner (and Huma), EDNY (Eastern Division of NY), the NYPD and maybe even by the SDNY!!! Weiner and his Attorney weren’t dumb enough NOT to put all those emails on a “flash drive,” at the very least. And NYPD didn’t “trust” Obama’s FBI or DOJ anyway, so you KNOW they have physical copies, or flash drives of the emails, as well.

        Like

      • DanO64 says:

        prolly true. just say N.

        Like

    • DD More says:

      Not Carlos’ ‘Life Insurance” file, but look in the “Intimate” file.
      Oct 2016 – An NYPD insider said the content they viewed did include State Department TOP SECRET emails. One file was called “Life Insurance”. The second email was titled “DNC Nuclear arsenal”. A third file, I’m sure Hillary definitely DOES NOT want released was a file labeled “Intimate” … according to this NYPD insider, this file contained x rated photos of Huma and Hillary with a TEENAGER.
      NYPD detectives were sickened by what they saw, according to our insider, and they have threatened FBI field agents that they would leak this information, if the FBI did not “step up and take off the kids gloves”. At that point, 13 of the FBI agents in NYC are also threatening to leak the information.

      Liked by 1 person

  16. I don’t know if Sundance has mentioned anything from the House Intelligence Committee report from last Friday, but there’s an interesting article about it in the Daily Mail. It seems like there’s no stopping these people:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5679485/Dirty-dossier-author-Christopher-Steele-paid-dig-dirt-Trump-Russia-election.html

    Like

  17. Mike diamond says:

    Pop Quiz name the biggest crime family in American history?? Here is a big hint = The Clintons!! They have had more people killed than all other crime familys!!!!!!

    Liked by 1 person

  18. Mercenary says:

    Are we 100% certain that they did not examine the emails?

    And according to Prince, the NYPD DID get a warrant for the laptop. So Preet had emails and the NYPD had emails.

    When Comey announced they were “reviewing” the emails, who did he assign? Who was looking at it? Would it be Strzok or somebody lower? I know Sundance said there is no evidence Strzok & Page were reviewing the laptop, but would they know?

    It’s all rather confusing. Comey said nothing about emails turned over to SDNY. He said they were reviewing a laptop. And why doesn’t NYPD go public on November 6th when Comey clears Hillary? The Garner threats?

    Preet has the emails and gives them to Strzok or McCabe. The NYPD has the laptop with the emails. Comey says he’s reviewing the laptop and does so in 5 days.

    Can we just clear up all of this confusing mess and actually state who did what wrong and where procedure wasn’t followed?

    Like

    • Roberto says:

      Better still, why did Pres-Elect DJT specifically meet with Preet in Manhattan before deciding to fire him a little while later?

      Liked by 1 person

      • nccosmiccurmudgeon says:

        Perhaps to provide an opportunity to work for the “good guys”??

        Like

      • Bulldog84 says:

        My theory is that Trump met w with Preet before he was warned that Preet was compromised.

        The phone call from SDNY is evidence of that.

        Like

    • Genie says:

      Contributor “Newhere” further up wrote an excellent analysis of whether Strzok’s team examined Weiner’s laptop for Clinton e-mails.

      See Strzok’s texts date stamped 10/30/16 and 11/5 – 11/6/16.

      On 10/30 Strzok writes “(redacted) told doj we have one classified.”

      On 11/5 Strzok writes about reviewing only 3,000 e-mails and finding nothing, “turns out no new classified.”

      Nothing is said in the texts about how 600,000 emails were rapidly reduced down to only 3,000 for actual review.

      Liked by 1 person

  19. RLC2 says:

    Keep in mind that if 650,000 emails are held on Weiner-Abedin’s laptop, that she sent from HRCs private email to her own Yahoo, to collect on her laptop. Given the DNC hack, the Dem Congress by DWS contractor the Awan Bros, and their ISI connections – that means the Mad Mullah’s have it.

    Gives new meaning to how the Iran Nuke Deal went down, doesn’t it? This stuff goes back years, and its dirt on both sides of the aisle. Of course the FBI is not going to look at it, because it goes straight to the top, as Obama himself admitted- using his own private email to HRCs private email.

    No one with a lick of common-sense can trust the Deep State after this.
    This makes the Whitey Bulger cover up look like patty-cakes.

    Like

    • nccosmiccurmudgeon says:

      And if the ISI has it,,, then China has it and most likely Russia as well. Unfortunately, for the Mensheviks, Mr. Trump Won!!!
      So the material can no longer be used to “leverage” the US by foreign powers. I can see the President saying to Xi, “go ahead, make my day and release the information. Please!!”

      Like

    • SouthernTrumpette says:

      “Given the DNC hack, the Dem Congress by DWS contractor the Awan Bros, and their ISI connections – that means the Mad Mullah’s have it.

      Gives new meaning to how the Iran Nuke Deal went down, doesn’t it? This stuff goes back years, and its dirt on both sides of the aisle. Of course the FBI is not going to look at it, because it goes straight to the top, as Obama himself admitted- using his own private email to HRCs private email.”

      Excellent point, RLC !

      Liked by 1 person

  20. 94corvette says:

    May be late in wondering this but what can we make of the immunity deals that they were giving out like candy to all of Clinton’s staff – and then got nothing for it? When does that question resurface?

    Like

    • nccosmiccurmudgeon says:

      Can we only hope that Tom Clancy’s “Mr. Clark” character is more than ‘artistic license’?

      Like

  21. Newhere says:

    An exchange with Ziigii earlier in this thread pushed me to sharpen the lens on timing/players. Sorry this got long — trying to parse out confusing threads.

    When you overlay the email drama between FBI headquarters and NY onto media exposure of McCabe’s “conflicts,” a bit more of the picture seems to emerge. Also have to tweak my earlier theory about the emails dropped by Weiner’s attorney and the subsequent search warrant.

    Review of timeline, followed by a partial working theory, below:

    9/28: Strzok reports that Weiner’s attorney turned over hundreds of thousands of emails to SDNY. Sending a team to NY to review.

    10/21: Strzok reports that “Toscas now aware that NY has Huma emails via Weiner investigation” and Comey explains to Bair this is because NY prosecutors called Main Justice to “poke” about getting a search warrant from FBI.

    [Pause here: Per Ziigii, are the NYPD laptop emails and they SDNY/attorney emails the same? per Erik Prince, NYPD found 650K emails on the Weiner laptop and were ready to call a press conference and issue indictments (so NY police had reviewed and knew the contents of the emails). In contrast, from Strzok’s account, that SDNY has emails from Weiner’s attorney (no laptop), there’s no indication at this point that the FBI (as opposed to NYPD) has discovered evidence of Clinton emails on the laptop at all.]

    Back to timeline:

    10/23: WSJ drops a story exposing McCabe’s apparent conflict of interest (i.e., McCauliffe contribtions to McCabe’s wife’s campaign); the story only references the email investigation (not CF).

    10/25: Lynch replaces the EDNY FBI field agents and prosecutors on the Garner case.

    10/26: McCabe/Lynch dress down the NY FBI field office over leaks; suspicion is that Lynch may have threatened NYPD indictments over Garner. NY-ADIC tells the OIG that after Lynch disconnected from call, McCabe said he would probably be recused from the CF investigation going forward, at least informally, and that NY-ADIC should report to the EAD on the CF investigation until further notice. McCabe told the OIG he didn’t recall this conversation.

    According to OIG report, at this same time, McCabe/Page were working on their rebuttal to the WSJ story, preparing to “out” the CF investigation and insinuate political pressure from main justice.

    [Pause again: The WSJ’s first McCabe story dropped at nearly the same time that NY made its call to Main Justice complaining about McCabe/slow-walking.]

    10/27: internal FBI meeting on what to do about new emails; Comey/Rybicki want McCabe recused at this point. Comey, Page, and someone else (redacted) tell the OIG that McCabe was excluded from the meeting because of the 10/23 article. At McCabe’s instruction, Page was simultaneously communicating with WSJ/Barrett to try to rehabilitate McCabe’s reputation by throwing DOJ/PADAG under the bus w/r/t to CF investigation.

    10/28: Comey sends letter to notify Congress about re-opening Clinton investigation.

    10/30: SDNY obtains search warrant for Weiner laptop, based on the representation to the court that “FBI agents” in an “unrelated” investigation had discovered what appeared to be Clinton emails while sorting through “subject” lines.

    10/30: WSJ runs the McCabe/Page-sourced article insinuating pressure from main justice/PADAG over CF investigation. That same day, McCabe calls and admonishes the NY and DC FBI field offices over leaks related to CF investigation, prompting response from NY that they don’t even have the relevant information alleged to have leaked.
    [Question here: what would McCabe have said to the NY-ADIC against the context of the 10/26 threat call from Lynch, and the knowledge between them that NY-ADIC couldn’t possibly have leaked what he didn’t know?]

    ********
    I have a hard time keeping track of the roles of the different NY offices here. What does seem likely is that the leak behind the 10/23 article about McCabe’s conflicts and the 10/21 call to main justice by “NY prosecutors” were connected, and appear to have prompted countermeasures (with different objectives) by both Lynch and McCabe: Lynch immediately replaces the EDNY Garner team and admonishes the NY field office over leaks, ostensibly to shut down exposure of the new Clinton emails; she applied maximum pressure through the field office/EDNY to clamp down on NYPD over what they’d found. And McCabe orders leaks of his own, worried about recusal and trying to change the narrative to political pressure from DOJ.

    So, here’s a partial theory: the NY field office was responsible for the 10/21 call to DOJ and the leak re McCabe, attempting an end-run to get action over the laptop email discovery by the NYPD. From their perspective, SDNY should have been obtaining a search warrant so agents could review what NYPD already had uncovered.

    Back to Ziigii’s question (or a twist on it) — is it the case that SDNY already had the emails, because when Weiner’s attorney realized what NYPD found, he marched straight to SDNY to hand deliver the discovery, with hopes of leveraging an intervention on Clinton’s (and thus Weiner’s ) behalf? Maybe I’m only finally getting SD’s point.

    So under this theory the emails would be the same, if it’s the case that Weiner’s counsel saw an opportunity in the fruits of the NYPD search and dumped them on Bharara for a deal.) If so, what the NY field office (and perhaps the EDNY) may not have known as of 10/21 (if they were the ones seeking to ratchet pressure) was that SDNY already had the laptop material.

    All we know about the 10/21 call is what Comey said — “NY prosecutors” called to ask about authorization to get a search warrant. Under the theory here, SDNY and FBI headquarters would have known that a search warrant was moot, since they had the material, provided voluntarily, and had decided not to do anything with it. Not exactly as sufficient answer for others, however.

    So, Comey’s real answer about the 10/21 call might be “SDNY (Bharara) called because he was getting questions from the field office about why they hadn’t authorized a search warrant or acted on the laptop discovery.” Now cornered, Comey decided they should go through the motions (quickly) of requesting the search warrant, rushing through the emails — and leave out the part about already having them from Weiner.

    There still appears to be a question about the representation in the search warrant that “FBI agents” discovered Clinton emails when searching the laptop in an unrelated investigation. Seems the sources of probably cause would be (a) the NYPD search or (b) the emails from Weiner’s attorney. Neither are mentioned in the warrant application.

    And, this still wouldn’t explain why it appears that when Strzok and his small team actually did review the laptop emails, they appear to have found hardly anything (e.g., Strzok’s 11/1 reference to 3K emails . . . ) . .. where’d the hundreds of thousands of emails go? Must be somewhere.

    Like

  22. aconcernedtreeper says:

    Any day now Mr. OIG Horowitz (if you are reading this, get back to work). We think it’ll be May 8th or sooner that the bulk of the IG reports will be released into the public domain. I am trying to imaging what a week from today will look like.

    Some musings/wishes:
    1) the tarmac meeting between Lynch and WJC (slick willy) I hope will be cast into some very bright (blinding-type) sunlight
    2) the documents that are classified surrounding that meeting to the extent the IG focused on this at all should be front and center of any grilling that Horowitz receives at next week’s hearing – Mr. President please do us the favor of declassifying them in advance
    3) Loretta Lynch owes the United States an explanation for her monkeying with the investigation into secretary Clinton’s emails
    4) It seems that DOJ Toscas sure had McCabe pegged as a HRC point person (plant/friendly) at the FBI – does anyone see other points of contact with Toscas??? Is he, Toscas, doing the bidding of the campaign or somehow a guy with divided loyalties or hidden loyalties to Clinton over DOJ? I mean was he next in line to Loretta Lynch who maybe Clintons were lining up to become a supreme court nominee or something like that so he was perfectly willing to say “how high?” when presumably Loretta said to Toscas something like “find out what is going on at FBI with those emails” once DOJ learned of them (so she wouldn’t be on any record as being the person calling up McCabe).

    Like

    • aconcernedtreeper says:

      re #4 – I am just reading that 10/21/2016 22:49:05 (late on a Friday) text that says at the end “George (toscas) wanted to ensure info got to Andy”

      Like

      • aconcernedtreeper says:

        This is weird especially since Andy (McCabe) already had the info. Why was Toscas so concerned that Andy get the info (IMPORTANT: and not Comey).

        Like

        • AMillionDChess. says:

          Because it seem Andy was their “fixer” the FBI clean up guy. It looks like he was paid off to be the “fixer” through funneling money to his wife so call campaign. Allegedly….

          Like

  23. Bulldog84 says:

    SD asks: “If the U.S. Attorney in New York has the actual physical emails on September 28th, 2016, why would they need a search warrant on October 21st, 2016? (Comey’s call explanation)”

    Most of my legal experience is in the civil arena, but without knowing more, I would guess that the emails actually belonged to Weiner’s wife and not to him. Therefore, the US attorney was taking the position that he needed a warrant to review the contents of Abedin’s emails. That would explain why — if no warrant was obtained — the content of the emails was not reviewed.

    Let me also venture to guess that the warrant would not have been difficult to obtain. Weiner was in possession of what he presumably knew was classified information, based on his use of a computer he shared with his wife. That knowledge, if shared with the FBI, would satisfy probable cause assuming Weiner has no security clearance.

    It does sound like Weiner was at least savvy enough to keep copies to give to his lawyer. Considering what we know about HRC’s tendency to make electronic communications disappear, that wasn’t a bad idea.

    Like

  24. AMillionDChess. says:

    Wow! No wonder Huma called off the divorce. She doesn’t want Anthony testifying against her in a criminal case .

    Like

  25. AMillionDChess. says:

    One of the the primary debates, Trump called Hilary a very nasty woman. He recoiled while saying it. I wonder if Rudy had showed Trump contents of what was on Weiner laptop. i.e photos, e-mails etc Erik Prince was talking about in his interview on radio that year. Which, then caused Trump to say to Hilary .” she’s a very nasty woman”

    Like

  26. InTime says:

    Holy Moly! Thank you, Sundance…..

    Like

  27. Lionel Mandrake says:

    James Comey is not stupid. He is lying with impunity because he knows he can get away with it. A mountain of evidence suggesting felony activity by dozens of people at the highest levels of our government already exists. It doesn’t matter: THERE ARE NO REPERCUSSIONS.

    The checks and balances of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government along with oversight by an informed citizenry are gone.

    The Executive branch is resisting it’s constitutional authority to clean up the corrupt DOJ for fear of political reprisal. President Trump is being skillfully lead into a box canyon of impeachment.

    Of 535 Congressmen and Senators elected to represent us all but a precious few are either actively complicit or complicit by their silence in a sham investigation engineered to impeach our duly elected President.

    Our Justice Department and FBI are running rogue, thumbing their nose at constitutional oversight and absurdly investigating themselves for overwhelming evidence of malfeasance and corruption.

    The media will stop at nothing to destroy those who oppose their ideology, including blatant lies, content control and suppression of free speech. The fact that 50% of U.S. voters voted for a presidential candidate that destroyed subpoenaed evidence while collecting money from foreign governments is a breathtaking example of the power of propaganda to influence U.S. citizens.

    The hour is late. Our institutions are failing. Hatred and lawlessness are being pandered as truth and justice. It is past time for our side to go to the streets. We need to organize and educate. We need constitutional law experts to help us restore the checks and balances that the judicial branch has usurped. Precious blood has been spilled by generations of Americans to protect our freedoms. We must stand up now and defend the rule of law if our democracy is to survive

    Like

    • G. Combs says:

      NO‼️

      The hour is STILL EARLY. A Conspiracy this large takes much effort and much TIME togather evidence against. Also the release has to be timed so the Fifth Column known as the Fourth Estate can not spin it prior to elections this fall.

      Like

  28. recoverydotgod says:

    “However, once the FBI reopened the investigation October 28th, they did exactly the same thing they had done from September 28th to October 28th… they did nothing.

    A few days later they declared the second investigation closed, and that was that.”

    Comey testifies that he met with the investigative team on October 27, 2018 to discuss the metadata. They did something Comey called “technical wizardry” in those days before they closed the investigation again.

    MAY 3, 2017 | CLIP OF FBI OVERSIGHT
    USER-CREATED CLIP
    MAY 10, 2017
    Feinstein “Speak” vs. “conceal”

    http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4669105/feinstein

    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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s