Irony: FBI Leaker McCabe Outraged After DOJ Leakers Finger Him for Criminal Referral

by Benjamin Arie


Call it cosmic payback or reaping what you sow — either way, life has a way of swinging back like a boomerang and hitting people with a strong dose of reality.

That’s what former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe just found out, but he seems oblivious to the irony. The bureau figure who was fired for leaking to the press is now complaining about how unfair it is that there are leaks from the FBI, at the same time as he’s demanding immunity in exchange for his testimony to the Senate committee investigating the bureau’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation.

McCabe is one of the figures in the middle of several political bias scandals at the FBI, including the discredited “Trump dossier” and apparent spying by the FBI against Donald Trump’s presidential  campaign.

Back in March, the second-in-command at the FBI was fired by Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The reason was simple: McCabe repeatedly leaked sensitive information to the media and then lied about it.

A report from the Department of Justice’s inspector general explained that McCabe was funneling details about a Clinton Foundation investigation to The Wall Street Journal, and was then dishonest about where the leak had come from… namely, himself.

“The report states that McCabe authorized another FBI agent to leak information about an ongoing investigation into (the) Clinton Foundation to The Wall Street Journal, not in the interest of the public, but for his own personal gain,” summarized The Federalist.

That official report goes on to explain in detail how McCabe “lacked candor” — bureaucrat-speak for “lied” — about leaks at least three times, including under oath.

Now, showing just how tone-deaf the former bureau official truly is, McCabe is complaining about leaks from the FBI… yes, the same organization where he was fired for leaking like a sieve.

In a letter sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee by McCabe’s attorney on his behalf, the disgraced former FBI deputy director essentially whined to lawmakers and declared that he was “outraged” that leaks about a criminal investigation of his alleged wrongdoings were taking place.

“(A)s the result of a stream of leaks from the Department of Justice, it is now well-known that the (Office of Inspector General) has made a criminal referral to the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia,” the former deputy complained through his attorney.

“As you know, the grounds for such a referral is the very low standard of ‘reasonable grounds to believe there has been a violation of Federal criminal law,'” the letter continued, bizarrely implying that reasonable suspicion of a federal crime was a bad reason to investigate someone.

“Even so […]  these leaks have forced us to acknowledge the criminal referral,” the letter admitted.

The complaining and finger-pointing over the same type of leaking that McCabe was fired for doing didn’t stop there.

“And, unfortunately, the stream of leaks has continued: As recently as last Thursday, additional leaks led to the reporting of specific investigative steps allegedly taken by the United States Attorney’s Office in response to the referral,” the document stated.

“We are outraged by these leaks and last Friday requested an investigation by the Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility into the source(s) of the leaks,” McCabe’s attorney explained.

That’s right: Apparently, leaking information to the media and then lying about it is completely fine when it can damage Donald Trump, but McCabe is suddenly “outraged” when similar leaks start actually hurting him.

Maybe he’s just upset that he’s not the only snitch in town.

Incredibly, the former deputy director then demanded immunity from prosecution in order to testify to Congress about matters related to the crimes — leaking and lying — that he’s accused of committing.

“Mr. McCabe is willing to testify, but because of the criminal referral, he must be afforded suitable legal protection,” the letter declared. “Accordingly, we hereby request that the Judiciary Committee authorize a grant of use immunity to Mr. McCabe,” it stated.

If there was still any doubt about why cronies like James Comey and Andrew McCabe needed to go, this should clear it up.

They see themselves as special and above the law, and can’t seem to even comprehend that their own actions — and the culture of leaking that they created — have consequences.


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.








Report: James Comey ‘Defied Authority’ While Serving as FBI Director

by Scott Kelnhofer


Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report about the Justice Department and FBI’s 2016 investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server is expected to be made public in the coming weeks, and one source told ABC News the draft of the report uses the word “insubordinate” to describe former FBI Director James Comey’s behavior.

“The draft of Horowitz’s wide-ranging report specifically called out Comey for ignoring objections from the Justice Department when he disclosed in a letter to Congress just days before the 2016 presidential election that FBI agents had reopened the Clinton probe, according to sources,” ABC reported.

Horowitz’s draft report was also critical of Comey for failing to consult with Attorney General Loretta Lynch and other senior Justice Department officials before making his July 5, 2016 announcement on national TV in which he said said that while there was no “clear evidence” that Clinton “intended to violate” the law, the former secretary of state was “extremely careless” in her “handling of very sensitive, highlyclassified informaion."

Horowitz also criticized former Attorney General Loretta Lynch in the draft report for her handling of the federal investigation into Clinton’s personal email server, the sources told ABC News.

The draft of the report was finished last month. Horowitz said the Justice Department and FBI will be permitted to submit a formal response that will be attached to the final report.

On Tuesday, President Donald Trump went on Twitter to complain about the delay in the report’s release.

The report has been widely expected to be critical of Comey. The only question is just how damaging the report would be of the former FBI director.  “It’s not going to be good, it’s just a question of how bad it’s going to be,” a former Justice Department official told CNN last month of what’s expected to be in Horowitz’s report.

CNN law enforcement analyst James Gagliano said sources tell him to expect “a damning indictment” of Comey and the FBI’s upper echelon.

According to a May 16 report in The Washington Post, “The report is expected to blast former FBI director James B. Comey for various steps he took in the investigation, particularly his announcing in July — without telling his Justice Department bosses what he was about to say — that the FBI was recommending that Clinton not be charged, and for revealing to Congress just weeks before the presidential election that the bureau had resumed its work.”

According to The Wall Street Journal, the report is also expected to scrutinize whether former FBI Director Andrew McCabe should have recused himself from the Clinton investigation, since his wife’s campaign for the Virginia legislature was aided by then-Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a Clinton ally.

The report is also likely to criticize the thousands of texts exchanged by two FBI employees — agent Peter Strzok and attorney Lisa Page — who were extremely critical of President Donald Trump and others, the WSJ reported.  The report is currently being reviewed and is expected to be released this month.

What is taking so long with the Inspector General’s Report on Crooked Hillary and Slippery James Comey. Numerous delays. Hope Report is not being changed and made weaker! There are so many horrible things to tell, the public has the right to know. Transparency!Rudy Giuliani, one of the president’s lawyers, told the Associated Press in recent days that he believed the report would be damaging to Comey’s reputation.

“This is going to be the final nail in his coffin,” Giuliani said of Comey. “This guy has already proven to be a leaker and liar and we believe the report is going to make that plain.”

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.

Chair of Intelligence Committee Very Interested in Investigating Rosenstein's Collusion in Coverup of Obama's Stolen SS Number


by Orly Taitz

Press release: Chair of Intelligence Committee of Congress is very interested in investigating Rod Rosenstein’s collusion in cover up of Obama’s use of a stolen CT Social Security number

On Sunday June 3rd Attorney Orly Taitz, President of Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, got to talk to the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Congressman  Devin Nunes (R-CA).

Taitz advised Nunes about her work and FOIA legal action filed in the US District Court of MD in relation to Obama using a CT Social Security number xxx-xx-4425, which was traced to Harrison J. Bounel. Taitz  found this number when Obama posted his 2009 tax returns on WhiteHouse.gov and originally did not properly redact the number. Taitz advised Nunes that Obama was never a resident of Connecticut and there is no legitimate reason for him to have a CT Social Security number, he should have had a Social Securty number from Hawaii. The first three digits of the number signified the state where the applicant resided, until Obama randomized them in 2011. Obama’s SSN starts with 042, which is assigned  to Connecticut, not Hawaii.

Taitz stated to Nunes that the left claims that Michael Cohen was a fixer for Trump, but it appears that Rod Rosenstein was a fixer for Obama. Rosenstein was the US attorney for Maryland, where the Social Security administration is located and where the Freedom of Information case against them had to be filed. Rosenstein’s name is on the pleadings.   Taitz stated that the first assistant US Attorney on the case failed to have it dismissed, so Rosenstein replaced him with another assistant attorney, and they did not deny that Obama is using a Connecticut  Social Security  number assigned to someone else, a resident of Connecticut, but that the application for those records can no longer be found in the computer database and they have no duty to produce the original paper document. The judge, an Obama appointee, agreed. Interestingly enough, Rosenstein did not demand then to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate why evidence shows that the US President is using a Social Security number from a state where he never resided as well as his other IDs which appear to be fraudulent. Taitz asked Nunes if he, as a Chair of the Intelligence committee, would be willing to investigate what appears to be Rod J. Rosenstein’s collusion in the cover up of Obama’s use of a stolen CT Social Security number. Nunes stated that he will be VERY interested to investigate the matter.

Taitz will provide an update on this matter when it becomes available.  Taitz is asking the members of the public to forward to all members of Intelligence, Judiciary and Government Oversight committees as well as members of the media, particularly Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, all the information listed below. This matter needs to be brought to the committee hearing ASAP. If Rod Rosenstein is complicit in this cover up, he should resign or be removed from the position of Deputy AG.


Orly Taitz is the president of Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, which is dedicated to preservation of the constitutional rights of the US citizens. Any donations to work of Attorney Orly Taitz can be given through Paypal at www.OrlyTaitzESQ.com or by mail to 29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, ste 100, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688




Report: Dozens of FBI Agents Admit Agency Corrupted Hillary Probe, Considering Legal Action

by Benjamin Arie


Being subpoenaed to appear in front of a judge is something most people want to actively avoid, but a report regarding the Obama-era FBI suggests dozens of agents want to have their day in court to expose government corruption.

During Sean Hannity’s Fox News program Friday, the conservative host said he has learned that more than two dozen FBI agents want to be subpoenaed in order to testify about widespread abuses and political bias that occurred at the bureau during the Hillary Clinton email scandal.

“We have an (Inspector General) report coming out, and I’m told as many as 28 people that have knowledge of the Clinton email server scandal want to be subpoenaed so they can tell the story of corruption at the highest levels of the bureau at that they love,” Hannity said. It appears that Hannity isn’t the only one who sees a major rift between top-level FBI figures, like former Director James Comey, and the hardworking agents who want to see justice served.




Sara Carter, an investigative journalist whose reporting on Comey, the FBI and Clinton scandals has been proven correct with shocking accuracy, agreed with the Fox host.

“There are a lot of FBI agents that want to come out and speak,” Carter told Hannity. “A lot of them are current agents, which makes it very difficult for them, so they need to be subpoenaed. These are the things that Congress needs to act on.”

A growing stack of evidence backs up that claim.

The Daily Caller recently reported that several FBI agents have quietly come forward and admitted that many good people at the bureau are worried about speaking out because of career and legal reprisals from above.

FBI agents concerned about corruption are “hunkering down because they see good people being thrown to the dogs for speaking out and speaking out does nothing to solve the problems,” the Daily Caller quoted one agent who communicated via a former White House official.

Those rank-and-file agents believe the upper levels of the agency think they can get away with anything, while middle-level personnel are left powerless to speak out.

“It’s a question of basic credibility — Congress, the executive, and oversight are not seen to have any gravitas or seriousness,” The Daily Caller quoted its FBI source, who for obvious reasons wanted to stay anonymous. “The inmates have been running the asylum and they don’t respect, much less fear, their overseers. We know we’ll be hung out to dry.”

So-called “whistle-blower protections” are supposed to shield witnesses of abuse, but these are not always as strong as they should be.

“I’ve worked hard to strengthen legal protections, especially for FBI employees,” Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley said.

You have a right to cooperate with Congressional inquiries, just as you have a right to cooperate with the Inspector General. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying,” Grassley added.

But FBI members are apparently not convinced.

“Even with the enactment of the new (whistle-blower protection) law, what is the deterrent for retaliation against Whistleblowers?” an FBI source told the Daily Caller.

“The FBI executives will just stall, ignore, and run out the clock until the victim runs out of money for legal fees or else retires,” the agent noted.

Being ordered to testify under oath could be a sort of long-shot “Hail Mary” play to shine a light on the truth.  “That is why the new whistleblowers want to be subpoenaed,” the agent said, according to the Caller. “They simply don’t have the resources to fight the inevitable retaliation that will ensue, regardless of the new law.”

There is a clear hesitation for witnesses of “deep state” corruption to come forward — and that’s where Congress may come into play.

By subpoenaing FBI members who have direct knowledge of corruption and political games within the bureau, lawmakers could give the good people who are still with the agency the protection they need to expose the truth.

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.






WSJ Reporter: We’ve Confirmed the Worst – US Intel Truly Was Spying on Trump Camp

by Cillian Zeal

 

A Wednesday piece by The New York Times which details the FBI’s investigation into Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign may have revealed more than intended, at least if a Wall Street Journal reporter who has covered the surveillance previously is correct. 

The Journal’s Kimberley Strassel has written about the investigation in the past. In a piece last week, she posited that the FBI may have used a mole in the Trump campaign, particularly given the Department of Justice’s reluctance to turn over information about the informant to congressional investigators.

The Times piece revealed more details about the Trump campaign surveillance operation — called “Crossfire Hurricane” in reference to the Rolling Stones song “Jumpin’ Jack Flash” — and just how extensive it was. While the tenor of the article, which was written by Matt Apuzzo, Adam Goldman and Nicholas Fandos, is overwhelmingly favorable to the FBI and dismisses any claims that the surveillance was politically motivated ,(“I never saw anything that resembled a witch hunt or suggested that the bureau’s approach to the investigation was politically driven,” one DOJ official is quoted as saying) there were a few things buried deep in there that specifically caught Strassel’s attention.

In a tweetstorm Wednesday evening, Strassel noted key problems in The Times’ narrative, particularly when the story appeared and significant facts that they glossed over. 

Strassel first argued that the article was a calculated leak of sorts in an effort to get out ahead of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes and the information that he’s gathering and releasing regarding the FBI’s sources on the Trump investigation. 

1. So a few important points on that new NYT "Hurricane Crossfire" piece. A story that, BTW, all of us following this knew had to be coming. This is DOJ/FBI leakers' attempt to get in front of the facts Nunes is forcing out, to make it not sound so bad. Don't buy it. It's bad.

However, she says it proves what Trump was claiming all along: namely, that his campaign was being spied upon. 

Biggest takeaway: Govt "sources" admit that, indeed, the Obama DOJ and FBI spied on the Trump campaign. Spied. (Tho NYT kindly calls spy an "informant.") NYT slips in confirmation far down in story, and makes it out like it isn't a big deal. It is a very big deal.

— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) May 17, 2018

The story briefly mentions that “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 FBI was spying on the Trump campaign or trying to entrap campaign officials.”  However, if that informant met several times with two low-level Trump campaign officials, one wonders just what his role — if any — in the Trump campaign might have been. It seems somewhat unlikely that a random individual outside the campaign would have had the opportunity to meet with both George Papadopoulos and Carter Page without some suspicion being aroused if the informant didn’t have extremely close ties to the campaign.


Breaking: Rosenstein Personally Approved FBI Raid of Trump Lawyer

by Randy DeSoto


Deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein reportedly personally approved the Monday morning FBI raids on President Donald Trump’s personal attorney Michael Cohen’s home and offices.

The New York Times reported that the FBI seized emails, tax documents and records, some of which are related to Cohen’s $130,000 payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels in the days before the November 2016 presidential election.

According to The Times, a referral from special counsel Robert Mueller proceeded Rosenstein’s decision to green light the raid.

The Justice Department obtained a search warrant from a federal judge in New York, which would have required prosecutors to argue the FBI would likely find evidence of criminal activity.  A source told The Times that the documents identified in the warrant date back years.  Trump took the DOJ to task on Monday night during a meeting at the White House with his national security team.  He noted that Rosenstein approved a renewal of a FISA warrant, which authorized the FBI to continue surveil Trump campaign associate Carter Page during the early months of the new administration in 2017.

Asked by a reporter if Rosenstein would keep his job, Trump did not respond.  However, the president did voice his frustration with Sessions and Mueller. “(Sessions) should have certainly let us know if he was going to recuse himself, and we would have put a different attorney general in,” Trump said. “So he made what I consider to be a very terrible mistake for the country, but you’ll figure that out.”

Sessions’ recusal led to Rosenstein taking over Russia investigation, which resulted in his appointment of Mueller as special counsel.  The president said the Mueller investigation is “an attack on our country in a true sense. It’s an attack on what we all stand for” and called Mueller’s actions against Cohen “a disgrace.”


RELATED: Former Board Member Dershowitz Hammers ACLU for Support of Trump Attorney Raid

Attorney–client privilege is dead!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 10, 2018

Asked whether he will fire Mueller, the president replied, “We’ll see what happens,” and, “Many people have said you should fire him.”

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.


FBI Refuses to Release Docs About Secret Comey-Obama Meeting, Says America Doesn’t Need to Know

by Richard Pollock


  • The FBI will not expedite the release of documents about secret meetings between Comey and Obama.
  • Comey held a secret Oval Office meeting with Obama on Jan. 5, 2017.
  • TheDCNF requested records of all meetings between the two.

The FBI states it will not expedite the release of documents about secret meetings between FBI Director James Comey and former President Barack Obama, according to a letter the bureau sent to The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Such information is not “a matter of widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exists possible questions about the government’s integrity which affects public confidence,” David Hardy, the section chief for the bureau’s Record/Information Dissemination Section, told TheDCNF in a Feb. 26 letter.

TheDCNF, under the Freedom of Information Act, requested records of all meetings between Comey and Obama and sought an “expedited process” as provided under the act when issues are of great interest to the media and the records address issues pertaining to government integrity. TheDCNF FOIA request was filed Feb. 16, 2018.  The issue prompting the FOIA request was the disclosure Comey held a secret Oval Office meeting with Obama on Jan. 5, 2017. Comey never divulged the meeting to Congress.

Susan Rice, Obama’s national security adviser, former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, and former Vice President Joe Biden also attended the meeting.

The National Archives revealed the existence of the meeting and released a declassified version of an email Rice sent to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Rice wrote an email to herself about the secret Jan. 5 meeting with Comey on Inauguration Day Jan. 20, 2017, as President Donald Trump was being sworn into office. The email suggested Comey may have misled Congress and was attempting to cover up the extent of his relationship with Obama.

Christopher Bedford, TheDCNF’s editor in chief, called the FBI denial “shameful.”

“The FBI just told us that Director James Comey potentially lying to Congress should not be of interest to us, that it doesn’t speak to their ‘integrity,’ and that it shouldn’t impact America’s ‘confidence’ in them,” Bedford said. “They said this with a straight face. We disagree, we think the American people disagree, and we think it’s absolutely shameful.”

Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and subcommittee chairman, and Lindsey Graham released the Rice email after they received it from the National Archives.

“President Obama had a brief follow-on conversation with FBI Director Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in the Oval Office,” Rice stated in the email on Jan. 5. 

The president urged Comey to proceed “by the book” on the Russian investigation, according to Rice.  Grassley of Iowa and Graham of South Carolina wrote to Rice in a Feb. 8 letter saying the email seemed “odd” to them.

“It strikes us as odd that, among your activities in the final moments on the final day of the Obama administration, you would feel the need to send yourself such an unusual email purporting to document a conversation involving President Obama,” the two wrote.  “Despite your claim that President Obama repeatedly told Mr. Comey to proceed ‘by the book,’ substantial questions have arisen about whether officials at the FBI, as well as at the Justice Department and the State Department, actually did proceed ‘by the book,’” the two senators continued.

Comey claimed in June 8, 2017, testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence he had only two face-to-face meetings with the president in which they were alone.

“I spoke alone with President Obama twice in person (and never on the phone) – once in 2015 to discuss law enforcement policy issues and a second time, briefly, for him to say goodbye in late 2016,” Comey’s opening statement read.  The qualifier that he had meetings with Obama “alone” permitted the former director to suggest he only met with the former president on two occasions.

The DCNF filed its FOIA request before the bureau “seeking records that identify and describe all meetings between former FBI Director James Comey and President Barack Obama. This records request is for all meetings with Obama alone or with meetings with the president in the company of other administration officials.”   The DCNF requested records to include all Comey “logs, director appointment schedules, emails and memos outlining the meetings with the former President along with administration officials,” adding, the records “should list the date of the meeting, location, topic and meeting participants.”  TheDCNF stated it sought an “expedited request” for producing the records. 

“The issue of Director Comey’s meetings with President Obama is a key troubling issue for Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley,” TheDCNF wrote in its application for the expedited processing. TheDCNF attached to Grassly-Graham letter to Rice in the FOIA request for expediting handling.

Hardy said The DCNF failed to meet its standards for expedited processing as provided under 28 CFR 16.5 (e)(1)(iv).

“You have not provided enough information concerning the statutory requirements permitting expedition: therefore your request is denied,” he told TheDCNF.

A version of this article appeared on The Daily Caller News Foundation website.


Developing: Broward County Sheriff Ordered Deputies Not to Arrest

by Rebekah Baker


Just when it seemed like the government incompetence surrounding the events leading up to the the Parkland, Florida high school massacre couldn’t get any worse, new information reveals that political motivations and bad policy in the leadership at the sheriff’s office had a pivotal role in failing to prevent the shooting.

First, it was the FBI. A tip that outlined the shooter’s “gun ownership, desire to kill people, erratic behavior, and disturbing social media posts, as well as the potential of him conducting a school shooting,” was given to the FBI only six weeks before the deadly massacre occurred, NBC reported. The FBI failed to follow up.  Then, it was local law enforcement. Multiple agents within the Broward County Sheriff’s department cowered in the face of danger, and waited outside the Stoneman Douglas high school as innocent students were killed inside.

And there’s more: According to CNN, “Records obtained from the sheriff’s office by CNN show the law enforcement agency received at least 45 calls for service relating to Cruz or his brother from 2008 to 2017, before the attack at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland on Feb. 14.”  So was it pure incompetence, or was something more sinister at play?

It may have been both.

According to a report from RedState, a deeply embedded system of public corruption at the sheriff’s department may be to blame for the murderous shooter slipping right through the sheriff department’s fingers.

As reported by CNN, dozens of calls were made to local law enforcement about Nickolas Cruz with descriptions such as “mentally ill person,” “child/elderly abuse,” “domestic disturbance,” “missing person,” and more. Most of those warning calls resulted in “no written report.”  What in the world would have motivated an “oversight” like that?

According to RedState, it all comes back to Sheriff Israel.  First elected as sheriff in 2012, Israel’s run for re-election in 2016 was highly criticized and controversial, according to an August 2016 report from Sun Sentinel.  “Sheriff Scott Israel has hired from the ranks of his political supporters, building a community outreach wing his critics say doubles as a re-election team,” the Sentinel explained. “Israel’s opponents say he’s built a publicly funded political machine, paying back supporters with jobs and using them to keep him in office. They say the money could be better spent, particularly after the sheriff complained about not having enough funding to secure the county courthouse, where a murder suspect recently escaped.”

In other words, Israel rewarded his political supporters with high-paying cushy jobs within the sheriff’s office. The outreach manager position, for example, earned a $78,489 salary. That position was held by the husband of Israel’s campaign manager, the Sentinel reported.

So, a group of unqualified people filled the positions at the sheriff’s office. And we wonder why they failed to stop Nickolas Cruz?  It gets worse. An ominous foreshadowing of the deadly shooting was revealed in the form of a 2016 sheriff re-election campaign questionnaire.

Why are you running and what gives you an edge over your opponents?” the questionnaire asked Israel.  See Israel’s answer below:

I am the incumbent Sheriff for the past four years, and a career law enforcement officer with over three decades in the profession.  The results speak for themselves. As our sheriff, I successfully implemented new policies and approaches to public safety that sharply reduced violent crime and burglary rates – the sharpest declines in the entire State of Florida. My innovative initiatives also helped keep children in school and out of jail, greatly expanding the juvenile civil citation program and making issuance of civil citations mandatory for BSO deputies. I worked to combat gun violence by openly lobbying legislators to curtail Stand Your Ground, block open carry legislation, and block legislation allowing concealed guns on school campuses.

(Emphasis added.)

You read that right. Policies put into place within the sheriff’s department by Israel Scott discouraged arresting or expelling juveniles, apparently even if their behavior was violent or threatening.

Cruz had a history of violence at school and was never officially expelled. He had a history of violent behavior at home but was never arrested.  And one day, he stormed into a school building and murdered 17 innocent people — but it was too late. 

When pressed for answers on allegations about his alleged public corruption, Israel deflected. “Lions don’t care about the opinions of sheep,” he reportedly said at the time.  And lions apparently care more about their own interests than the lives of those they swore to protect.