House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte sends a letter (full pdf below) to Attorney General Jeff Sessions requesting an investigative review of former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and the potential interference/influence by Principal Asst. Deputy Attorney General (PADAG) Matthew Axelrod.
In the letter Chairman Goodlatte references the previous Inspector General report which outlined an October 26th, 2016, conversation between Main Justice and the FBI about the investigation of the Clinton Foundation. The concern is undue influence by the DOJ over the investigation; potentially leading to a compromise of the investigation itself.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller has requested another delay in the sentencing of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, citing the status of the special counsel’s investigation.
WASHINGTON DC – Lawyers for both special counsel Robert Mueller and President Trump’s former national security adviser want two more months until Michael Flynn is sentenced.
In a court filing in Washington on Tuesday afternoon, Mueller’s office asks for a postponement “due to the status of the special counsel’s investigation.”
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.
Mr. Joe diGenova discusses the ongoing revelations within the former administration’s use of the intelligence apparatus to target their political opposition:
Just a quick note on the current tone and confrontational content coming from former FBI Director James Comey, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and former CIA Director John Brennan.
There is a great deal of discussion about the combative and hate-riddled language coming from Comey, Clapper and particularly Brennan. Be aware their combative posture as an actual risk avoidance strategy.
Each of the three heavily corrupt officials engaged in the most substantive abuse of their intelligence positions for political purposes. Each of them weaponized their offices against their political opposition. The scope and severity therein is a story yet to surface; and unlike prior examples of weaponizing the DOJ and IRS, there is no administration in place to protect them from investigative sunlight.
Therefore the Comey, Clapper and Brennan defense strategy is to position themselves politically and lean on their like-minded media allies for support. Their adversarial posture is intended to draw the Trump administration into political combat, thereby diminishing any investigative outcomes behind a false shield of political prosecution.
You can call it a soft-coup, or you can call it politicization of the DOJ and FBI, but the end result is the same – the intentional effort to manipulate, influence, and ultimately subvert an election for the presidency of the United States.
A disgusted former FBI Deputy Director, James Kallstrom, appears on Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the nonsense and James Comey’s insufferable conduct. Mr. Kallstrom also discusses the bigger picture and the corruption within the intelligence apparatus.
Having reviewed every conversational message between FBI Counterintelligence Agent Peter Strzok and DOJ Special Counsel to FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, in new chronological order; and having overlaid those messages atop congressional witness testimony, released investigative reports, historic media presentations and generally known details of events; and having questioned all prior assumptions amid the latest information; here is some -perhaps new- perspective.
There is zero evidence of a romantic relationship between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page; and no, a complete chronological review doesn’t indicate the romantic stuff was withheld. By looking at the messaging chronologically, studying the date and times, there’s nothing to indicate segments of romantic stuff was removed. What does appear obvious in many redactions, and likely some removals of messages, is an intentional effort to remove content that would be of an embarrassing professional nature to Ms.Lisa Page.
It is more than likely the “affair narrative” was likely created by investigators as part of an agreement on content control to explain withholding some information and message redactions. Investigators would not want those being investigated to know the scale of the evidence trail. Regardless, except for the useful story, the romantic angle is irrelevant.
It is clear that when Lisa Page gave FBI INSD (Inspection Division) authorization to access *all* her communication and messaging *accounts* and devices (July 15 – 20th, 2017) the FBI INSD and Office of Inspector General (OIG) agreed to redact snarky interoffice material that would be embarrassing to Ms. Page.
[Congressional Report – Page 18, Item #3, second paragraph] “The DOJ OIG obtained the initial batch of text messages on July 20, 2017.” It is clear that Ms. Page underwent a period of (no less than) three solid days of extensive initial questioning by FBI (INSD) and DOJ (OIG) officials. [Which ended on/around July 20th, 2017.]
As many people are aware, CTH has decided to go back through two years of documents, releases, reports, testimony and 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 Counterintelligence Agent Peter Strzok and DOJ Special Counsel assigned to Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page.
Suffice to say, this project was no small task; reading the messages in a chronological order takes a minimum of four to six hours. It is understandable why so much mystery and confusion circles the rather complex storyline. However, before going into the deep weeds – two distinct issues must frame what will soon follow:
♦First, notice a catch-phrase by fired FBI Director James Comey in every interview: “that was not my understanding.” That phrase is Mr. Comey’s ‘go-to’ lead-in at the beginning of every explanation, amid challenging questions presented to him, on his current book tour. That phrase is also a highly legalized linguistics and deployed for a specific reason.
♦Second, if you are going to endeavor to read through all of the released messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok; and/or review an outline of content that utilizes their communication as the background to understand events within the FBI and DOJ-NSD; it helps to have a familiarity from their perspective.
Having said that, this encapsulation of the Page and Strzok outlook by “Newhere” is both fair and accurate:
As many people are aware, CTH has 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 need 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, and waiting until October 28th, James Comey revealed a very important nugget.
The New York U.S. Attorney (SDNY) called Main Justice in DC to ask about why they were not receiving authority for a search warrant. We knew that call took place on October 21st, 2016. Now we know “why” 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.
But let’s take Comey at face-value…. So there we discover 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.
