IG Horowitz Said to have Found “Reasonable Grounds” FBI Violated Federal Crimes in Bureau’s Handling of Hillary Investigation
IG HOROWITZ ABOUT TO DROP ANOTHER BOMBSHELL REPORT … CONNECTING THE DOTS.
According to investigative reporter Paul Sperry, Inspector General Horowitz found “reasonable grounds” for believing there has been a violation of federal criminal law in the FBI’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation. Imagine that? I thought Comey told us that no reasonable prosecutor would ever have tried this case. The Fix was in from Comey, the Obama FBI and the DOJ from the outset.
A criminal referral could be on the way to Huber …
When the IG’s report finally breaks, former FBI director Comey will be put on the hot seat and have much explaining to do. The fix was in and the IG’s report will bring the FBI’s and DOJ’s misdeeds to light.
IT’S OFFICIAL … Confirmed by NY Times, Deep State FBI Spied on Trump’s Camp Using Informant: Code Name: Crossfire Hurricane.
ITS OFFICIAL, THE DEEP STATE IS OUT OF CONTROL AND INDIVIDUALS NEED TO GO TO PRISON ..
We know have confirmation that the FBI spied on a political campaign and actually used an undercover informant to do so. The NY Times article is a must read. So riddle me this Batman, if the FBI had an informant in the Trump political campaign apparatus, how that was authorized one can only imagine, and this mole was supposed to be getting dirt and information on Trump-Russian collusion, then how in hell over one year later of a Mueller Special counsel and even longer FBI investigation has the Deep State come up with nothing to do with collusion? Seriously, they had and informant and still nothing! Maybe because there is nothing and this was a political hit job born out of the Obama administration to get Hillary elected and then destroy a duly elected President of the United States. Folks, this is 1000 times worse than Watergate.
VIA the New York Times, of all places, Code Name Crossfire Hurricane: The Secret Origins of the Trump Investigation.
Within hours of opening an investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia in the summer of 2016, the F.B.I. dispatched a pair of agents to London on a mission so secretive that all but a handful of officials were kept in the dark.
Their assignment, which has not been previously reported, was to meet the Australian ambassador, who had evidence that one of Donald J. Trump’s advisers knew in advance about Russian election meddling. After tense deliberations between Washington and Canberra, top Australian officials broke with diplomatic protocol and allowed the ambassador, Alexander Downer, to sit for an F.B.I. interview to describe his meeting with the campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos.
The agents summarized their highly unusual interview and sent word to Washington on Aug. 2, 2016, two days after the investigation was opened. Their report helped provide the foundation for a case that, a year ago Thursday, became the special counsel investigation. But at the time, a small group of F.B.I. officials knew it by its code name: Crossfire Hurricane.
In the Clinton case, Mr. Comey has said he erred on the side of transparency. But in the face of questions from Congress about the Trump campaign, the F.B.I. declined to tip its hand. And when The New York Times tried to assess the state of the investigation in October 2016, law enforcement officials cautioned against drawing any conclusions, resulting in a story that significantly played down the case.
Mr. Comey has said it is unfair to compare the Clinton case, which was winding down in the summer of 2016, with the Russia case, which was in its earliest stages. He said he did not make political considerations about who would benefit from each decision.
But underpinning both cases was one political calculation: that Mrs. Clinton would win and Mr. Trump would lose. Agents feared being seen as withholding information or going too easy on her. And they worried that any overt actions against Mr. Trump’s campaign would only reinforce his claims that the election was being rigged against him.
The F.B.I. obtained phone records and other documents using national security letters — a secret type of subpoena — officials said. And at least one government informant met several times with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos, current and former officials said. That has become a politically contentious point, with Mr. Trump’s allies questioning whether the F.B.I. was spying on the Trump campaign or trying to entrap campaign officials.
Rudy Giuliani on Hannity: “I’m Sorry Hillary, But You’re a Criminal” (VIDEO) … “If They Went After Ivanka The Whole Country Would Turn On Them”
SO WHY ISN’T TRUMP BEING TREATED THE SAME AS HILLARY CLINTON WAS BY THE FBI AND DOJ …
What happened to equal justice under the law in the United States? Rudy Giuliani calls out former FBI Director Comey for his miscarriage of justice, the double standard during the Hillary investigation and calls him perverted.
Bret Baier Interview witn Former FBI Director James Comey on Clinton Probe, Russia investigation … Baier Exposes Comey For the Liar & Leaker He Is (VIDEO)
Bret Baier of FOX News exposes Comey for the lying weasel he truly is …
The more James Comey talks. the less credible he sounds. What becomes obvious is that there was a total double standard when it came to the Trump and Hillary Clinton investigations. It is chilling that he can’t see it. Comey doen’t think he leaked , does sneaky things or does weasily things. Guilty on all counts.
Three Big Takeaways from Bret Baier’s Thorough Grilling of James Comey:
(1.) “What do you mean?” asks an incredulous Baier when Comey says he can’t say for sure that the DNC and Clinton campaign funded the salacious dossier. Comey clarifies that he’s only heard media reports to that effect, but can’t be certain they’re true. How is that possible? First of all, the provenance of that file, and who paid for it, has been an established fact for months. Comey was in an unique position to know basically everything about the dossier, upon which he at least partially relied (his answer on this point struck me as slippery and conflicts with other information) to secure surveillance on a former Trump campaign associate. He claims he knew it was furnished by people opposed to Donald Trump, but never knew their specific identities. Really? Either that’s false or he was strangely and perhaps deliberately under-informed about key details behind a crucial oppo-research file that he exploited to achieve important investigative ends. As for his assertion that Steele’s anti-Trump work was originally paid for by Republicans, this is a Democratic talking point that has long been debunked, as Baier notes. Conservative figures did employ Fusion GPS for a time to gather research on Trump, but they did not fund Steele or his dossier. As Byron York says, “given its importance in Trump-Russia probe and his own relationship with the president, James Comey’s ignorance of some basic facts about the dossier is stunning.”
(2.) On the Clinton email scandal probe, Comey defends his actions over the course of that process — persuasively at times, and less so at others. His explanation of his judgments about Clinton’s criminal intent wasn’t terribly compelling to me. Baier plays a montage of Comey confirming multiple lies Clinton told about her improper and national security-compromising email scheme, essentially asking how intentional deceit about arguably illegal conduct doesn’t signal intent (Trey Gowdy made the same point). Comey responds that Clinton lying to the media and the American people isn’t the same as lying to the FBI. That’s true as a legal matter, but lying to the FBI wasn’t the core potential crime under scrutiny; gross negligence in handling classified materials was. Was Clinton merely sloppy (or ‘really sloppy,’ as Comey puts it in the interview), or did she have an ulterior motive for her reckless set-up, of which she was well aware and calculating? Her repeated public lies about her actions suggest the latter. That ought to be the relevant standard on divining intent within that context, in my view. Plus, “sloppiness” does not explain the lengths to which she went to bypass the rules and accountability, nor does it cover the knowing falsehoods and evidence destruction she engaged in when caught.
(3) In my earlier Comey-related post, I mentioned the theory that the decision to brief President-elect Trump only about the most prurient aspect of the dossier (regarding Russian prostitutes) was a set-up to offer a “news hook” to media outlets eager to run with the story. Baier put this theory to Comey, who said he didn’t leak about that briefing to anyone, adding that former Obama intelligence official James Clapper didn’t either, to his knowledge. The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway pieced together and floated this idea a week ago:
Bret Baier on key takeaways from his James Comey interview
Comey Wrote in Memos He Later Leaked to Liberal Media … “I Don’t Do Sneaky Things, I Don’t Leak, I Don’t Do Weasel Moves”
COMEY WAS AGAINST LEAKING, BEFORE HE WAS FOR IT … IF THE SNEAKY WEAZIL FITS, WEAR IT.
Who needs to buy Comey’s book when you can read his memos for free? The below comments came from the redacted memos of disgraced former FBI Director James Comey’s redacted memos that were published online Thursday evening.
In one of his memo’x dated January 28th 2017, Comey recalls a dinner he had with President Trump in the Green Room at the White House. Let’s just get to the unbelievable part, you can read all the details … James Comey told Trump he could count on him to always tell the truth, stating, “I said I don’t do sneaky things, I don’t leak, I don’t do weasel moves.” Seriously? Sir, that’s all you seemed capable of as it was not but a few months later after Comey was fired that he leaked the memos to the liberal media via a friend. He admitted to this during Congressional testimony.
“I said I don’t do sneaky things, I don’t leak, I don’t do weasel moves.”
Comey Gives Weasels a Bad Name
Who finds this completely comical that they very individual who said he did not leak and do sneaky things, did just that? You are just so credible James Comey, That and the fact that these memos are released when Comey’s former #2 at the FBI that the Justice Department inspector general referred his finding that former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe repeatedly misled investigators to Washington’s top federal prosecutor, who will determine whether McCabe should be charged with a crime. Yup, nothing sneaky here.
The Justice Department inspector general referred his finding that former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe repeatedly misled investigators to Washington’s top federal prosecutor, who will determine whether McCabe should be charged with a crime, according to people familiar with the matter.
The referral to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia occurred some time ago, after the inspector general concluded McCabe had lied to investigators or his boss, then-FBI Director James B. Comey, on four occasions, three of them under oath.
The U.S. attorney’s office met with McCabe’s legal team in recent weeks, though it was not immediately clear whether prosecutors there were conducting their own investigation or believed criminal charges are appropriate.