Paul Sperry has an interesting article today citing anonymous sources in/around the Inspector General Michael Horowitz investigation. Much of the information within the report is confirmation of prior research. However, the citations of FBI James Comey implanting an FBI operative into the White House is very specific:
Real Clear Investigations – At the same time Comey was personally scrutinizing the president during meetings in the White House and phone conversations from the FBI, he had an agent inside the White House working on the Russia investigation, where he reported back to FBI headquarters about Trump and his aides, according to officials familiar with the matter.
The agent, Anthony Ferrante, who specialized in cyber crime, left the White House around the same time Comey was fired and soon joined a security consulting firm, where he contracted with BuzzFeed to lead the news site’s efforts to verify the Steele dossier, in connection with a defamation lawsuit.
Knowledgeable sources inside the Trump White House say Comey carved out an extraordinary new position for Ferrante, which allowed him to remain on reserve status at the FBI while working in the White House as a cybersecurity adviser. (keep reading)
If the DOJ and the FBI genuinely believed Donald Trump was a hostile agent of a foreign government, their proclaimed justification for their ‘by the book‘ endeavors; and if the DOJ/FBI actually had reasonable evidence to support that investigative position; then everything FBI Director James Comey is now accused of doing would be justified.
The key words are “reasonable” and “justifiable”.
As we have discussed before,… generating public outrage over the investigative outcomes is a favored chaff-and-countermeasure approach by DC politicians and swamp protectors. See Benghazi, Fast-n-Furious, IRS targeting, etc.
You’ll note the origination stories/motives behind each aforementioned corrupt activities remained out of the public discussion, while all outrage was focused on the ‘outcome’.
In 2013 everyone wanted to talk about the Benghazi compound attack, but no-one wanted to ask about why the State Department and CIA were there in the first place.
In 2014 everyone was willing to talk about the IRS refusing tax-exempt status for conservative political groups, but no-one wanted to talk about why the DOJ originally requested CD-ROM’s from the IRS “Schedule-B’s”. etc.
In 2019 the FBI and DOJ would love to talk about planting bugs in the Trump White House; putting FBI assets in/around the Trump oval office; and being forced to lie to President-elect Trump etc, because all of that type of activity only highlights the FBI’s diligence and magnanimity given the risk of having a Russian agent as President of The United States.
That’s their justification position, and it makes for splendidly good DC media coverage and pundit pearl clutching. Oh those poor souls in the DOJ/FBI trying earnestly to protect our country…. well, you know the routine.
What they don’t want to discuss is the origin…. or the evidence to support their predicate position(s). That’s where the weaponization of the intelligence apparatus is located.
That origination aspect is what the DOJ and FBI do not want to talk about.
As a result, when it comes to the James Comey aspect, we need to start by demanding the declassification of the Comey memos; and the release of the Archey declarations that describe the Comey memos.
Mueller’s lead FBI agent David Archey wrote a series of declarations to the DC court describing the content of the memos and arguing why they should be kept classified.
On July 5th (around 3 weeks ago) the U.S. Department of Justice -under Attorney General Bill Barr- while waiting until the last minute (28 days since prior ruling), filed a motion [full pdf below] to block the release of the Archey Declarations, despite a June 7th court order demanding their release.
Again, if transparency in conduct of the DOJ and FBI during 2016 is the expressed goal of Attorney General Bill Barr, then his current department fighting to keep descriptions of FBI memorandum hidden from public review runs exactly counter to that intent.
This DOJ activity does not bode well for a narrative of Bill Barr is an honest broker. This is an example of how to cover-up material that is damaging to the institution.
To be fair, Attorney General Bill Barr may not be aware the United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch, is fighting this court ordered release.
However, the DOJ Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division is Jody Hunt. That name might be familiar to you because Jody Hunt was Jeff Sessions former chief-of-staff.
Asst. AG Jody Hunt most certainly knows his office is fighting to keep the FBI descriptions of the Comey memos hidden from the public. Despite the original FOIA lawsuit coming from CNN -vs- DOJ, there is no-one covering this story. Here is the July 5th DOJ filing.
Here’s the background on the June 7th, 2019, ruling as we shared at the time:
Judge Boasberg was deciding what could be publicly released, meaning current redactions removed, based on two connected events: (#1) The content of the Comey Memos; and (#2) the declarations of lead FBI agent for Robert Mueller’s special counsel, David Archey, in describing those memos. CNN had filed a lawsuit to gain full access.
[Note: the descriptions of the Comey memos by FBI agent David Archey are known as the “Archey Declarations” – Read Here.]
For those who may not be aware, there are so many memos (dozens) when assembled they seem to make up an actual diary of moment-by-moment events, during the FBI investigation of Donald Trump, as documented by FBI Director James Comey.
♦ In the issue of the redactions within the Comey Memos, the judge doesn’t remove them. Some are ordered to be removed, some are approved to stay in place. The Comey memo aspect, and the redaction decision, is basically a splitting of the baby 50/50. It will be interesting, but meh, maybe not too much detail. – CNN ARTICLE
The issues argued by the FBI lawyers to keep the Comey memos hidden surround sources and methods. The judge generally agreed to the potential for compromise, but also outlined several sections of redactions within the Comey memos where that argument doesn’t hold up. [The judge has read the fully unredacted memo content.]
♦ However, on the issue of the Archey Declarations there’s an opportunity for some very interesting information to surface. Here’s an example of currently existing redactions within the Archey Declarations:
And stunningly, yes, STUNNINGLY, Judge Boasberg has ordered the Archey declarations to be fully released to the public WITHOUT REDACTIONS. See pages 34 and 35 of the ruling.
That was until the DOJ stepped in on July 9th and requested to have the June 7th, ruling modified/changed.