Tag Archives: James Comey

“Comey Has No Issue With It”: Judicial Watch Dumps Explosive New FBI Emails From McCabe’s Conflict Review, by Tyler Durden

Andrew McCabe is a deputy director of the FBI. He was involved with the bureau’s investigation of Hillary Clinton’s emails. His wife ran for a Virginia state senate seat. Groups aligned with Clinton and Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe gave Mrs. McCabe $700,000. See any potential conflict of interest here? From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

Judicial Watch has just dumped a new treasure trove of FBI emails regarding Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s conflict check relative to the Clinton email investigation (for those who missed it, we reviewed all of McCabe’s many scandals here: “FBI Director McCabe Subject Of Three Separate Federal Inquiries Into Alleged Misconduct: Report“).   Ironically, this particular FOIA request was filed in October 2016 under the Obama administration but they apparently just “didn’t have time” to get to it.

 Judicial Watch today released 79 pages of Justice Department documents concerning ethics issues related to FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s involvement with his wife’s political campaign. The documents include an email showing Mrs. McCabe was recruited for a Virginia state senate race in February 2015 by then-Virginia Lieutenant Governor Ralph Northam’s office.

The news that Clinton used a private email server broke five days later, on March 2, 2015. Five days after that, former Clinton Foundation board member and Democrat party fundraiser, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, met with the McCabes. She announced her candidacy on March 12. Soon afterward, Clinton/McAuliffe-aligned political groups donated nearly $700,000 (40% of the campaign’s total funds) to McCabe’s wife for her campaign.

Judicial Watch obtained the documents through a July 24, 2017, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed after the Justice Department failed to respond to an October 24, 2016, FOIA request

Among other things, the new FOIA dump reveals a panicked FBI’s efforts to enlist the support of an army of lawyers and public relations personnel to deal with the original Wall Street Journal article (see: “Clinton Ally Aided Campaign of FBI Official’s Wife“) that first revealed McCabe’s ties to the Clintons and his simultaneous oversight of the Clinton email investigation.

But perhaps none of the newly revealed emails from Judicial Watch today are more important than the following one in which McCabe describes how FBI Director Comey was breifed on his ties to the Clintons just days before his wife announced her Senate bid (and subsequently received roughly $700,000 in political donations for Clinton-friendly PACs) and then confirmed that he “has no issue with it.”

To continue reading: “Comey Has No Issue With It”: Judicial Watch Dumps Explosive New FBI Emails From McCabe’s Conflict Review



First Comey Memo Concluded Hillary Was “Grossly Negligent,” Punishable By Jail, by Tyler Durden

Evidently James Comey first concluded that Hillary was “grossly negligent” in her handling of her emails. That would have satisfied the requirement for violating a federal law, and later Comey revised his appraisal. She was only extremely careless, which does not meet the requirement for criminal liability under federal law. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

According to a new report from The Hill, early drafts of former FBI Director James Comey’s statement on Hillary Clinton’s email case accused the former Secretary of State of “gross negligence” in her handling of classified information as opposed to the “extremely careless” phrase that made its way into the final statement.

As The Hill further points out, the change in language is significant since federal law states that “gross negligence” in handling the nation’s intelligence can be punished criminally with prison time or fines whereas “extreme carelessness” has no such legal definition and/or ramifications.

 An early draft of former FBI Director James Comey’s statement closing out the Hillary Clinton email case accused the former Secretary of State of having been ‘grossly negligent” in handling classified information, new memos to Congress show.

The tough language was changed to the much softer accusation that Clinton had been “extremely careless” in her handling of classified information when Comey announced in July 2016 there would be no charges against her.

The draft, written weeks before the announcement of no charges, was described by multiple sources who saw the document both before and after it was sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee this past weekend.

“There is evidence to support a conclusion that Secretary Clinton, and others, used the email server in a manner that was grossly negligent with respect to the handling of classified information,” reads the statement, one of Comey’s earliest drafts.

Those sources said the draft statement was subsequently changed in red-line edits to conclude that the handling of 110 emails containing classified information that were transmitted by Clinton and her aides over her insecure personal email server was “extremely careless.”

Hillary Comey

To continue reading: First Comey Memo Concluded Hillary Was “Grossly Negligent,” Punishable By Jail

The Rout Is On, by Robert Gore


Hillary and Bill Clinton may well spend their final years in prison.

SLL has run a series of articles (“Plot Holes,” “Trump and Vault 7,” “Calling a Bluff?” “Let’s Connect the Dots,” “Powerball, Part One,” “Powerball, Part Two”) advancing interrelated hypotheses. We’ve asserted that President Trump is far smarter and the powers that be far stupider and weaker than current consensus estimates. Trump’s primary motivation is power. The nonstop vilification campaign against him has little to do with policy differences and instead reflects establishment fears that Trump will investigate, expose, and punish its criminality. The upshot of these hypotheses: Trump is winning and has consolidated his power.

Is Trump Winning?” SLL, 8/6/17

If Washington machinations were a football game, Team Trump just scored its fourth unanswered touchdown in the first quarter. The rout is on.

On October 17, TheHill.com reported that the FBI, using an undercover informant, an American businessman, had substantial evidence of extortion, bribery, kickbacks and money laundering by Russian nuclear industry officials in 2009. That was well before the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) in 2010 approved the sale of a majority interest in Canadian mining company Uranium One to Russian nuclear company Rosatam. That purchase gave Rosatam control of over 20 percent of the US’s uranium reserves.

Both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Attorney General Eric Holder sat on CFIUS. It’s conceivable Clinton didn’t know of the FBI’s investigation. Not so Holder; the FBI is part of the Department of Justice. The Clinton Foundation received donations in excess of $100 million from interested parties on both sides of the Uranium One sale. The CEO of Uranium One at the time of the sale, Frank Guistra, was a large donor and sat on the Clinton Foundation board.

Just before the sale, Bill Clinton received $500,000 from a Russian bank with ties to the Russian government for a speech in Moscow. He met with Vladimir Putin while he was there. Hillary Clinton has denied any connection between her vote to approve the Uranium One sale and the money her foundation and husband received.

Holder’s Justice Department took four years to bring an indictment against Vadim Mikerin, who led the Russian nuclear effort in the US. There was no public notice of the Justice Department investigation. Mikerin was arrested and charged in 2014, convicted in 2015—a plea deal for one charge of money laundering—and is now in prison. The Justice Department issued an innocuous press release announcing the conviction just before Labor Day. It also required the FBI’s informant to sign a nondisclosure agreement prohibiting him from testifying before congressional committees. It appears the department wished to attract no attention to the matter.

This brewing scandal is a gift that will keep on giving for Trump. It’s easy to understand and obviously damning for Clinton, Holder, and Obama. You don’t need to be a lawyer to spot the many potential felonies that the Justice Department and congressional committees can investigate, publicize, and prosecute.

But wait, there’s more! On October 24, The Washington Post reported that the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign paid for Fusion GPS’s Trump dossier. “The dossier alleged that the Russian government collected compromising information about Trump and that the Kremlin was engaged in an effort to assist his campaign for president.” It was one of the factors that launched the Obama administration’s decision to have the FBI investigate the Trump campaign’s alleged collusion with Russia. “Officials have said that the FBI has confirmed some of the information in the dossier. Other details, including the most sensational accusations, have not been verified and may never be.” (Quotes from The Washington Post.)

This story throws off a host of investigation-worthy questions. Why did Fusion suddenly decide, after months of stonewalling, to disclose the DNC and Clinton campaign’s funding? Why did Fusion fight so hard to keep its bank records secret, even after that disclosure? (Friday it reached an agreement to make them available to the House Intelligence Committee, but they will not be made public.) Did Fusion receive payments from Russian operatives? What’s in the FBI’s documents concerning the dossier, which it fought for months not to disclose to congressional investigators? (It has finally agreed to release them.) Did it use the dossier as the basis of its investigation? Did the FBI pay former British spy Christopher Steele to continue the research he had been doing for Fusion, when FBI director James Comey derided the dossier as “salacious and unverified”? Why was Fusion not listed as a vendor in either the DNC’s or the Clinton campaign’s campaign-finance filings, as election law requires?

Mueller’s investigation will come a cropper, but investigations of high-profile and no sub rosa value leakers and Democrats—up to and perhaps including Hillary Clinton—will lead to indictments and either plea bargained settlements or convictions.

Is Trump Winning?” SLL, 8/6/17

Uranium One and Fusion have displaced the Trump and Russian collusion allegations, which SLL has said from the beginning are phony and politically motivated. These new stories have directed Russian influence and collusion charges towards the Democrats, are quite real, and will be with us for some time.

Robert Mueller was the director of the FBI during its 2009 probe of Russian criminality within the US nuclear industry.

For anyone who cares to look, the real problem here is that the FBI itself is so thoroughly implicated in the Russian meddling story.

The agency, when Mr. Mueller headed it, soft-pedaled an investigation highly embarrassing to Mrs. Clinton as well as the Obama Russia reset policy.

The FBI’s Political Meddling,” Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., Wall Street Journal, 10/25/17

Mueller wasn’t just heading off embarrassment to Clinton and Obama. He had a duty to speak out against the Uranium One sale and is certainly compromised. That he is investigating Trump for Russian collusion is downright ludicrous. This weekend CNN and The Atlantic reported that Mueller has a grand jury indictment against someone. The information had to have come from Mueller’s team, and you have to wonder if it wasn’t in response to the Uranium One disclosures.

The US businessman (his identity is still secret) who served as the FBI’s informant in the Russian nuclear investigation has received a waiver from the Justice Department of his nondisclosure agreement and can testify before congressional committees. His attorney is claiming that Barack Obama received briefings and was aware of the FBI investigation well before the Uranium One sale was approved. Who knows what the informant will say before the congressional committees.

Uranium One and Fusion GPS are gold mines for Trump. There is no telling what other strands will unravel, who will turn state’s evidence and start squealing, and where all this will ultimately lead. It appears those who protected the Clintons for so long are now throwing them to the wolves. Anger runs deep in Democratic circles against Hillary Clinton. She screwed Bernie Sanders in the primary, lost the election she was supposed to win, and then hitched the party’s—and establishment Washington and its media lapdogs’—wagon to the star-crossed Trump-Russian collusion concoction.

It’s telling that the Uranium One scoops came from TheHill.com and the Fusion scoop came from The Washington Post, both reliable Democratic mouthpieces. There may be more than anger at work. The Clintons are perhaps being offered up as propitiatory sacrifices in the hope that Trump will be satisfied with their convictions and not proceed further. That hope is apt to be dashed. Further investigations will give Trump that much more sub rosa political leverage.

Absent a pardon or commutation, Hillary and Bill Clinton may well spend their final years in prison. Barack Obama will be problematic. He has no sub rosa value for Trump, and enough evidence against him may surface to convict, or at least indict. However, the Republican party doesn’t get many black votes and will get even fewer if Trump’s Justice Department goes after Obama. Assuming Trump has his eye on 2020, political expediency may allow the former president to skate. Eric Holder will probably not be so lucky. Lesser figures caught up in the various investigations will be either blackmailed—if they have sub rosa value to Trump—or subject to criminal justice process if they don’t.

Mueller and Comey are implicated in serious wrongdoing. The FBI has left itself wide open for a thorough investigation and house cleaning that would leave the agency stocked with Trump loyalists. While the CIA and NSA both played parts in the Russia-gate investigation, they will probably get a pass. Ostensibly they have engaged in less skullduggery than the FBI. However, Trump’s decision this weekend to release all of the Kennedy assassination materials is definitely a shot across the CIA’s bow.

It’s probably only a warning. Trump has the same regard for civil liberties as he does for kneeling footballers. He will do nothing to damage the government’s spying apparatus; he’s already taken steps to augment it. Trump is all about power and it’s the power calculus: you keep the agencies, with their troves of information and their surveillance capabilities, on your side.

Legions of worrywarts fret that an erratic, captured Trump will go off half-cocked and press a nuclear button or do something else almost as stupidly devastating. What should worry them are the precise calculations and bloodless strategies of the most ruthlessly Machiavellian president since Franklin D. Roosevelt as he further consolidates and extends his power.

So Deep It’s Sunk,” SLL, 9/3/17

Trump in full command of the intelligence and investigation apparatus gives those of us who worry about unchecked power still more to worry about.

Greene shook his head. “The Corleone Family don’t have that much muscle anymore. The Godfather is sick. You’re getting chased out of New York by the other Families and you think you can find easier pickings here. I’ll give you some advice, Mike, don’t try.”

The Godfather, Mario Puzo

Trump may be weak like Michael Corleone was weak, just before he wiped out his enemies, including Moe Greene. Like Corleone, Trump may be trying to further an impression of feebleness and for the same reasons: to make his enemies overconfident and to flush out traitors.

Plot Holes,” SLL, 2/26/17

That speculation met with considerable skepticism, even derision, at the time, but it’s been borne out. Everything that emerges in these investigations will redound to Trump’s benefit; he’s sitting in the quintessential cat bird seat. Establishment Washington made two colossal mistakes: assuming Clinton would win the election and continuing to underestimate Trump after he won. Trump does many things, some undoubtedly intentional, that lead his enemies to underestimate him. They forget the ancient wisdom: Never judge a man by his Tweets.

When was the last time you

didn’t want a novel to end?






Hillary Clinton Lied, Paid For “Trump Dossier”, by Tyler Durden

The Washington Post has reported that the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign paid for the infamous “Trump Dossier.” This Zero Hedge article makes extensive reference to that story, and to an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal concerning the FBI’s Russian investigations by Holman W. Jenkins Jr. There are links to both articles in the Zero Hedge article. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

What was previously widely suspected has now been confirmed. In its latest bombshell report that – for once – doesn’t include some nefarious allegations of wrongdoing or incompetence involving President Donald Trump or members of his administration, the Washington Post reported Tuesday that the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign jointly financed the creation of the infamous “Trump dossier,” which helped inspire the launch of the floundering investigations into whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians.

Though neither the DNC nor the Clinton campaign worked directly with former British spy Christopher Steele as he compiled the document, the fact that Democrats funded the dossier – which includes information primarily gleaned from sources in Russia – ironically suggests the Democrats indirectly leveraged Russian sources to try and spread information of dubious veracity about a political opponent to try and sway an election.

Sound familiar?

Even though the scandalous accusations contained within the dossier weren’t made public until after the vote, presumably waiting to see what foot the shoe would end up on, this would’ve provided serious grist for the collusion narrative, which we imagine would’ve been stretched to include the entire Republican establishment as accomplices.

While it’s impossible to determine exactly how much money was spent on the dossier, the Clinton campaign paid Perkins Coie – the law firm of Clinton superattorney Marc Elias – $5.6 million in legal fees from June 2015 to December 2016, according to campaign finance records, and the DNC paid the firm $3.6 million in “legal and compliance consulting’’ since Nov. 2015. Some of that money was presumably used to pay for the dossier.

Fusion GPS’s work researching Trump began during the Republican presidential primaries when an unidentified GOP donor reportedly hired the firm to dig into Trump’s background. The Republicans who were involved in the early stages of Fusion’s efforts have not yet been identified. Fusion GPS did not start off looking at Trump’s Russia ties, but quickly realized that those relationships would be a fruitful place to start, WaPo reported.

To continue reading: Hillary Clinton Lied, Paid For “Trump Dossier”

All Mr. Comey’s Wiretaps, by The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board

At long last, the light is shining on those, particularly James Comey, who have been investigating President Trump. From The Wall Street Journal editorial board, via zerohedge.com:

Congress needs to learn how the FBI meddled in the 2016 campaign.

 When Donald Trump claimed in March that he’d had his “wires tapped” prior to the election, the press and Obama officials dismissed the accusation as a fantasy. We were among the skeptics, but with former director James Comey’s politicized FBI the story is getting more complicated.

CNN reported Monday that the FBI obtained a warrant last year to eavesdrop on Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump’s campaign manager from May to August in 2016. The story claims the FBI first wiretapped Mr. Manafort in 2014 while investigating his work as a lobbyist for Ukraine’s ruling party. That warrant lapsed, but the FBI convinced the court that administers the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to issue a second order as part of its probe into Russian meddling in the election.

Guess who has lived in a condo in Trump Tower since 2006? Paul Manafort.

The story suggests the monitoring started in the summer or fall, and extended into early this year.

While Mr. Manafort resigned from the campaign in August, he continued to speak with Candidate Trump.

It is thus highly likely that the FBI was listening to the political and election-related conversations of a leading contender for the White House.

That’s extraordinary – and worrisome.

Mr. Comey told Congress in late March that he “had no information that supports those [Trump] tweets.”

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper was even more specific that “there was no such wiretap activity mounted against—the President-elect at the time, or as a candidate, or against his campaign.”

He denied that any such FISA order existed.

To continue reading: All Mr. Comey’s Wiretaps

Sarah Sanders Lays Out The Many Ways James Comey Broke Federal Laws In Fiery Press Conference, by Tyler Durden

Sarah Sanders states the obvious: it sure looks like James Comey may have broken a number of laws. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

Sarah Sanders’ White House press briefings have seemingly become way more entertaining over the past couple of days.  Maybe it’s just us, but ‘gotcha’ questions from the usual narrative-pushing mainstream media outlets that used to be quickly dismissed by Sanders are suddenly being exploited to put on a daily clinic on how to school brain-dead reporters.

The latest example came today after one such reporter had to seek clarification on why Comey’s leaking of confidential FBI property to the New York Times might violate federal laws.  Here was Sanders’ response:

“The memos that Comey leaked were created on an FBI computer while he was the director.  He claims they were private property, but they clearly followed the protocol of an official FBI document.”

“Leaking FBI memos on a sensitive case regardless of classification violates federal laws including the Privacy Act, standard FBI employment agreements, and nondisclosure agreements all personnel must sign. I think that is clean and clear that that would be a violation.”

“The Department of Justice has to look into any allegations of legality, whether or not something is illegal or not — that’s not up to me to decide.”

“What I’ve said and what I’m talking about are facts. James Comey’s leaking of information, questionable statements under oath, politicizing investigations, those are real reasons for why he was fired and the president’s decision was 100 percent right, which we’ve said multiple times over and over. In fact, I think the more and more we learn, the more and more that’s been vindicated.”

Of course, Sanders’ response could always be even clearer…we highly encourage the New York Times, CNN and/or Wapo to ask additional clarifying questions on this Comey issue tomorrow.


It Wasn’t Comey’s Decision to Exonerate Hillary – It Was Obama’s, by Andrew McCarthy

Back in April of 2016, Obama designed the legal framework for former FBI Director James Comey’s subsequent exoneration of Hillary Clinton. From Andrew McCarthy at nationalreview.com:

The thing to understand, what has always been the most important thing to understand, is that Jim Comey was out in front, but he was not calling the shots.

On the right, the commentariat is in full-throttle outrage over the revelation 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.

The news appears in a letter written to new FBI Director Christopher Wray by two senior Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans, Chairman Chuck Grassley and Senator Lindsey Graham. Pundits and the Trump administration are shrieking because this indicates the decision to give the Democrats’ nominee a pass was clearly made long before the investigation was over, and even long before key witnesses, including Clinton herself, were interviewed.

It shows, they cry, that the fix was in!

News Flash: This is not news.

Let’s think about what else was going on in April 2016. I’ve written about it a number of times over the last year-plus, such as in a column a few months back:

On April 10, 2016, President Obama publicly stated that Hillary Clinton had shown “carelessness” in using a private e-mail server to handle classified information, but he insisted that she had not intended to endanger national security (which is not an element of the [criminal statutes relevant to her e-mail scandal]). The president acknowledged that classified information had been transmitted via Secretary Clinton’s server, but he suggested that, in the greater scheme of things, its importance had been vastly overstated.

This is precisely the reasoning that Comey relied on in ultimately absolving Clinton, as I recounted in the same column:

On July 5, 2016, FBI director James Comey publicly stated that Clinton had been “extremely careless” in using a private email server to handle classified information, but he insisted that she had not intended to endanger national security (which is not an element of the relevant criminal statute). The director acknowledged that classified information had been transmitted via Secretary Clinton’s server, but he suggested that, in the greater scheme of things, it was just a small percentage of the emails involved.

Obama’s April statements are the significant ones. They told us how this was going to go. The rest is just details.

To continue reading: It Wasn’t Comey’s Decision to Exonerate Hillary – It Was Obama’s