Wednesday, February 14, 2018


The FBI investigated Hillary Clinton's destruction of 33,000 emails related to the Benghazi scandal. After Bill Clinton met the Attorney General on her private jet, the FBI director James Comey said he found no intent. Just before the election he reopened the case, and closed it again. Wikileaks file in Ebook Reader format. House and Senate Committee investigations, Clinton Foundation/Uranium One and Special Counsel blogs, video

UPDATE: Andrew McCarthy has a compelling theory who exonerated Hillary. Most Conservative pundits are latching on to the evidence that former FBI Director Comey began drafting his statement exonerating Hillary Clinton in April 2016 – more than two months before he delivered the statement at his now famous July 5 press conference and conclude that it was Comey's decision. Not, says McCarthy. He was just following orders.

(...) In April, President Obama and his Justice Department adopted a Hillary Clinton defense strategy of concocting a crime no one was claiming Clinton had committed: to wit, transmitting classified information with an intent to harm the United States. With media-Democrat complex help, they peddled the narrative that she could not be convicted absent this “malicious intent,” in a desperate effort to make the publicly known evidence seem weak. Meanwhile, they quietly hamstrung FBI case investigators in order to frustrate the evidence-gathering process. When damning proof nevertheless mounted, the Obama administration dismissed the whole debacle by rewriting the statute (to impose an imaginary intent standard) and by offering absurd rationalizations for not applying the statute as written. (...) That plan was in place and already being implemented when Director Comey began drafting the “findings” he would announce months later. But it was not Comey’s plan. It was Obama’s plan. (More)

Feb. 8, 2018


An FBI intel briefing of the former president shows the silliness of the Trump obstruction inquiry. 
By Andrew McCarthy
Welcome to the “Trump-Russia” investigation and the pro-Trump media’s coverage of the latest “stunning” revelation: a text in which two top FBI counterintelligence officials discuss the fact that the president “wants to know everything we’re doing.” This has much of the conservative media crowing: The text, commentators exclaim, shows that Obama lied four months earlier when he claimed — hilariously, to be sure — that he never interfered in law-enforcement matters. Uh, guys, counterintelligence is not law enforcement. If Obama demanded an intelligence briefing, that indicates he was doing what he was supposed to be doing as president. (...)

Counterintelligence investigations, on the other hand, are not criminal investigations. They are not a rule-of-law issue or a judicial matter. The objective is not to prosecute someone who has violated the penal law, so we are not worried that political officials, rather than legal principles, control the outcome. That’s because counterintelligence is national security work, which is the principal duty of the political branches under the Constitution. Counterintelligence is an information-gathering exercise undertaken for one purpose and one purpose alone: to inform the president, through his subordinate intelligence officials, of information about threats to, and opportunities to advance, American interests. (...)

Consequently, what this episode ought to focus the commentariat on is the obstruction angle of the Mueller investigation. It is cockamamie. The theory behind this aspect of the special counsel’s work is that President Trump obstructed the Russia probe by, principally, (a) leaning on Comey to drop the investigation of Michael Flynn, (b) firing Comey, and (c) “threatening” to fire Mueller. Here is the problem: The Russia investigation is principally a counterintelligence investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 investigation. The president cannot interfere in a counterintelligence investigation. (...) Counterintelligence investigations are conducted for the president.

(...) the following happen to be constitutional facts: Trump is president and counterintelligence operations are conducted for the purpose of informing him, not for the purpose of building criminal prosecutions. If Mueller was to be engaged in a criminal investigation of Trump, the Justice Department was supposed to make that clear in defining the scope of the special-counsel appointment. It did no such thing. (...) It might be different if the Russia investigation were principally a criminal investigation and Trump were a suspect. But it is not (according to the Justice Department’s order appointing Mueller) and he is not (according to Director Comey, in conjunction with the utter absence of evidence that Trump was involved in any criminal conspiracy, much less a criminal conspiracy (...)\

Just the same, President Trump cannot obstruct a counterintelligence investigation. Such investigations are not undertaken to build prosecutions but to inform him. That’s the point. (More)

Feb. 7, 2018


Tick, tick, tick… we’re getting closer and closer to the “What did the president know and when did he know it?” moment in the biggest political scandal in American history. What looks like a sitting president authorizing the use of the vast spy apparatus of the federal government on the opposing party candidate for president would, if proven, be far bigger than Watergate – a mere burglary intended to spy on the opposition. Pay attention because you may want to tell your children or grandchildren what it was like watching this all unfold in 2018. Up until the present moment, Barack Obama has been missing in all the discussions of surveillance misbehavior. (...)
Page wrote to Strzok on Sept. 2, 2016 about prepping Comey because "potus wants to know everything we're doing." Senate investigators told Fox News this text raises questions about Obama's personal involvement in the Clinton email investigation. (snip) 
Strzok also calls Virginians who voted against then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe's wife for a state Senate seat "ignorant hillbillys." (sic) That text came from Strzok to Page on Nov. 4, 2015, the day after Jill McCabe lost a hotly contested Virginia state Senate election. Strzok said of the result, 
"Disappointing, but look at the district map. Loudon is being gentrified, but it's still largely ignorant hillbilliys. Good for her for running, but curious if she's energized or never again." (snip) 
The newly uncovered texts reveal a bit more about the timing of the discovery of "hundreds of thousands" of emails on former congressman Anthony Weiner's laptop, ultimately leading to Comey's infamous letter to Congress just days before the 2016 presidential election. 
(...) This raises “yuuuge” problems for McCabe and Comey because: It was a full month later, on Oct. 28, 2016 when Comey informed Congress that, "Due to recent developments," the FBI was reopening its Clinton email investigation. "In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation. I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday..." Comey said at the time. Comey swore under penalty of perjury that he was kept in the dark by McCabe, apparently. (...)

On Election Day 2016, Page wrote, "OMG THIS IS F***ING TERRIFYING." Strzok replied, "Omg, I am so depressed." Later that month, on Nov. 13, 2016 Page wrote, "I bought all the president's men. Figure I need to brush up on watergate." The next day, Nov. 14, 2016, Page wrote,
“God, being here makes me angry. Lots of high fallutin’ national security talk. Meanwhile we have OUR task ahead of us.”
Page’s meaning here is unclear, but Senate investigators say, coupled with Strzok’s Aug. 15 text about an “insurance policy,” further investigation is warranted to find out what actions the two may have taken. (...) The last text is from Page to Strzok, and comes on June 23, 2017 when she wrote, "Please don't ever text me again." (Source)


Historical archive Clinton Emails investigation