Report: Comey Misled Congress. His FBI Examined Less Than 1% of Hillary Emails

by Cillian Zeal


When he appeared before Congress to explain his investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails, former FBI Director James Comey assured America that his wizards had worked day and night to make sure that most of Hillary Clinton’s emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop had been scrutinized before Election Day to make sure voters knew the facts.

“And then they worked night after night after night, and they found thousands of new emails, they found classified information on Anthony Weiner,” Comey said.

“Somehow, her emails are being forwarded to Anthony Weiner, including classified information, by her assistant, Huma Abedin. And so they found thousands of new emails and then called me the Saturday night before the election and said thanks to the wizardry of our technology, we’ve only had to personally read 6,000. We think we can finish tomorrow morning, Sunday.”

And so they found that most of it was “duplicates” and nothing new was being found. He assured us all that he had “reviewed all of the communications” and everything was kosher. Or as kosher as it was in the summer, when it wasn’t terribly kosher but you know, whatever. Case closed, right?

Well, not so much. On Thursday, RealClearInvestigations published a piece which revealed “virtually none of his account was true, a growing body of evidence reveals.”

I mean, that could be said about so much that’s Comey-related, but this is particularly interesting.

So, firstly, as for that wizardry stuff: “a technical glitch prevented FBI technicians from accurately comparing the new emails with the old emails. Only 3,077 of the 694,000 emails were directly reviewed for classified or incriminating information.” That’s less than 1 percent.

Or that whole thing about them working shifts like Bullitt protecting Johnny Ross: “Three FBI officials completed that work in a single 12-hour spurt the day before Comey again cleared Clinton of criminal charges.”

The day before? That’s not coincidental at all. It’s almost as if they were rushing to reach a predetermined conclusion which would never happen because James Comey is a man of honor.

“Most of the emails were never examined, even though they made up potentially 10 times the evidence” that had been examined in the case which had originally “exonerated” Clinton, an official with knowledge of the investigation said.

“Yet even the ‘extremely narrow’ search that was finally conducted, after more than a month of delay, uncovered more classified material sent and/or received by Clinton through her unauthorized basement server, the official said,” RealClearInvestigations revealed.

“Contradicting Comey’s testimony, this included highly sensitive information dealing with Israel and the U.S.-designated terrorist group Hamas. The former secretary of state, however, was never confronted with the sensitive new information and it was never analyzed for damage to national security.”

It’s almost like Comey was convinced Hillary would win and didn’t want to do anything to jeopardize it. But it’s not like an FBI official would do something because he was convinced someone would win. No one of his stature would do that, though, right?

“Even though the unique classified material was improperly stored and transmitted on an unsecured device, the FBI did not refer the matter to U.S. intelligence agencies to determine if national security had been compromised, as required under a federally mandated ‘damage assessment’ directive,” RCI noted.

“The newly discovered classified material ‘was never previously sent out to the relevant original classification authorities for security review,’ the official, who spoke to RealClearInvestigations on the condition of anonymity, said.

“Other key parts of the investigation remained open when the embattled director announced to Congress he was buttoning the case back up for good just ahead of Election Day,” they noted. “One career FBI special agent involved in the case complained to New York colleagues that officials in Washington tried to ‘bury’ the new trove of evidence, which he believed contained the full archive of Clinton’s emails — including long-sought missing messages from her first months at the State Department.”

There’s a long list of Comey mistakes in RCI’s investigation, and it’s worth pointing out that RCI is one of the more objective sources that there is. What they point out is that Comey either misled Congress about the extent of the problem, was misled by his own staff or outright lied.

This appears to come dangerously close to perjury, considering what we now know about the matter. What they did was simply disregard the investigation because they wanted it closed before the election, lest they be accused of negatively affecting Clinton’s chances for election.

Whoops.



Lisa Page Admits Her Texts ‘Mean Exactly What They Say’

by Randy DeSoto


Texas Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe told reporters this week that former FBI attorney Lisa Page testified behind closed doors that the anti-Trump text messages between herself and FBI agent Peter Strzok “mean exactly what they say.”

In many cases she admits that the text messages mean exactly what they say as opposed to Agent Strzok, who thinks we’ve all misinterpreted his own words on any message that might be negative,” said Ratcliffe, who is a member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Ratcliffe further stated in an interview with Fox News host Maria Bartiromo on Sunday that Page gave the members of Congress attending the hearing “new information that Strzok wouldn’t or couldn’t that confirmed some of the concerns we have about these investigations and about the people running them.” {Like the Obama White House as new information reveals by Zero Hedge - ED]

Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report released last month concerning the Hillary Clinton email investigation found Strzok’s anti-Trump texts with his then-mistress Page “deeply” troubling.

“We were deeply troubled by text messages sent by Strzok and Page that potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations,” the report stated.

“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,” Strzok responded.

Strzok testified before the combined House Oversight and Judiciary committees last week that he did not remember writing the text, but he meant the “American people” would stop Trump by not voting for him.

“What I can tell you is that text in no way suggested that I or the FBI would take any action to influence the candidacy,” Strzok stated.

In texts released by the inspector general in December, Strzok described Trump during the campaign as a “loathsome human” and an “idiot,” and found the prospect of him being president “terrifying.”

Page wrote Strzok in August 2016, “There is no way (Trump) gets elected.”

Strzok responded, “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office …that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”

“Andy” apparently referred to then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who stepped down from the position in January to go on administrative leave. He was fired in March, two days before he was due to retire.




Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers' newsfeeds and is instead promoting mainstream media sources. When you share to your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you.


Politics Comey Disaster: Agent Who Quit Over Rigged Hillary Investigation Heads to Congress

by Cillian Zeal


An FBI agent who allegedly quit the bureau over his belief that the Hillary Clinton email investigation was rigged will testify before the House of Representatives, The Hill reported.

The joint investigation between the House Judiciary and the Oversight Committees — led by Republican Reps. Bob Goodlatte of Virginia and Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, respectively — has been a source of consternation for Republicans and Democrats alike.

Conservatives have complained about the slow pace of the examination into how the Clinton email investigation was conducted, noting that only two witnesses have appeared before it.

Democrats, of course, have complained that it exists at all, since anything that distracts from the endless investigation into how President Donald Trump is really a Russian plant is simply frivolous — particularly if it implicates former FBI Director James Comey, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or former President Barack Obama in any wrongdoing.

Well, now we’re finally about to see some fireworks. Three top witnesses are going to testify before lawmakers: John Giacalone, who was in charge of the Clinton investigation for the first seven months; Bill Priestap, assistant director of the FBI’s counterintelligence division; and Michael Steinbach, former head of the FBI’s national security division and the man who succeeded Giacalone.

All three are of particular interest, especially since Priestap was the supervisor of FBI agent Peter Strzok, whose anti-Trump text messages have thrown the objectivity of the entire investigation into doubt.

However, the real headliner here may be Giacalone. Shortly after then-FBI Director Comey announced he wouldn’t be pursuing charges against Hillary Clinton for the email server, Fox News pundit Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote a column in which he claimed Giacalone had quit the bureau because he believed the investigation was rigged.

In the Oct. 28, 2016 column, Napolitano claimed at that at the start of the Clinton email investigation, “agents and senior managers gathered in the summer of 2015 to discuss how to proceed. It was obvious to all that a prima-facie case could be made for espionage, theft of government property and obstruction of justice charges. The consensus was to proceed with a formal criminal investigation.”

“Six months later, the senior FBI agent in charge of that investigation resigned from the case and retired from the FBI because he felt the case was going ‘sideways’; that’s law enforcement jargon for ‘nowhere by design,'” Napolitano wrote.

“John Giacalone had been the chief of the New York City, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., field offices of the FBI and, at the time of his ‘sideways’ comment, was the chief of the FBI National Security Branch.”

“The reason for the ‘sideways’ comment must have been Giacalone’s realization that DOJ and FBI senior management had decided that the investigation would not work in tandem with a federal grand jury. That is nearly fatal to any government criminal case. In criminal cases, the FBI and the DOJ cannot issue subpoenas for testimony or for tangible things; only grand juries can,” Napolitano continued.

“Giacalone knew that without a grand jury, the FBI would be toothless, as it would have no subpoena power. He also knew that without a grand jury, the FBI would have a hard time persuading any federal judge to issue search warrants.”

Napolitano speculated there were several possible reasons that the case went “sideways.” One was that Obama feared having to testify if Clinton went to trial (he had sent emails to the private server, after all, meaning he was aware of it). There was also the fact that a Clinton indictment could have led to Trump becoming president, and Obama simply couldn’t countenance that. (Less than two weeks after Napolitano’s column was written, it must be noted, that reason became moot.)

Either way, if the investigation had indeed gone “sideways,” it would need to have done so with approval from the highest levels — certainly James Comey and possibly Barack Obama.

Whether or not Giacalone has any concrete evidence of this or not is another issue entirely. My guess would be no, given that we’re going on two years since Comey’s infamous news conference and we still haven’t heard anything to that effect from Giacalone.

However, of all of the congressional testimonies we’ve seen over the past few years, this could be one of the most underreported. John Giacalone may open up a gigantic can of worms for Comey and Clinton — one that drags them back in the spotlight for reasons significantly less pleasant than their book tours.

Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers' newsfeeds and is instead promoting mainstream media sources. When you share to your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you.






Mueller Investigating $150k Trump Donation from Ukranian Who Gave Hillary $13 Million

by Chuck Ross


Special counsel Robert Mueller’s office is investigating a $150,000 donation a Ukrainian businessman made to President Donald Trump’s charity in 2015, according to a new report.  The donation, from steel magnate Victor Pinchuk, pales in comparison to contributions he gave to the charity established by Bill and Hillary Clinton.  The billionaire has contributed $13 million to the Clinton Foundation since 2006 and had access to Hillary Clinton while she served as secretary of state.

But Mueller is not investigating the Clintons. Instead, he is conducting a broad investigation of Trump, including the flow of foreign money into various Trump-controlled entities. Mueller began investigating the Pinchuk donation after receiving documents in response to a subpoena issued to the Trump Organization — the real estate company Trump ran before entering politics.

In September 2015, Trump appeared via video link at a conference Pinchuk hosted in Kiev. Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen, negotiated details of the event with Douglas Schoen, a former consultant for Bill Clinton, according to The New York Times.

Trump did not initially request payment for the appearance, but Cohen contacted Schoen at one point to request a $150,000 honorarium, The Times reported.

In a seemingly unrelated matter, the FBI raided Cohen’s Manhattan office and residence on Monday. The search was reportedly conducted for records related to Cohen’s payments to Stormy Daniels, a porn star claiming to have had an affair with Trump in 2006.

The Victor Pinchuk Foundation issued a statement to The Times, downplaying the donation to Trump. The charity reached out to Trump and other world leaders in order to “promote strengthened and enduring ties between Ukraine and the West,” it said.  Contact with Trump was made at a time when “it was by no means assured that Mr. Trump would be the Republican nominee in 2016,” the foundation pointed out.  Pinchuk appears to have had a much closer relationship to the Clintons.

In June 2012, the billionaire attended a dinner at the Clintons’ residence. And through Schoen, Pinchuk lobbied the State Department in 2011 and 2013.  Documents filed with the Justice Department show Schoen and Pinchuk met on several occasions in 2012 with Melanne Verveer, a close Clinton associate who then served as an ambassador-at-large for global women’s issues.

RELATED: Dershowitz: Mueller’s Setting Stage To Impeach Trump


Bill Clinton attended Pinchuk’s annual Yalta conference, The New York Times reported on Feb. 13, 2014. Pinchuk also attended the former president’s 65th birthday party in Los Angeles.

The FBI reportedly investigated the Clinton Foundation over its foreign donations. The status of that investigation is unclear.

This story originally appeared on The Daily Caller News Foundation website.