Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the FBI category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘FBI’ Category

Bre Payton’s Federalist article highlights that, when it came to covering the Hillary Clinton email scandal, there wasn’t just a flood of fake news. There was a flood of fake justice, too.

According to Ms. Payton’s reporting, “Former President Obama’s attorney general, Loretta Lynch, used a fake name to cover up an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email server, indicates an admission from Lynch’s attorney.” Though this isn’t surprising practice, this isn’t the first time “the most transparent administration in history” was caught using fake email names and fake email addresses.

Ms. Payton reported “Using an email account under a fake name, Lynch (a.k.a. ‘Elizabeth Carlisle’) coordinated with DOJ officials to respond to queries about the secretive meeting with the former president. Lynch’s attorney, Robert Raben, confirmed her use of an alias on Monday and said she used an email account under a fake identity to prevent ‘inundation of mailboxes.'”

Ms. Payton continued, saying:

Using fake names was a common tactic among Obama administration officials to evade accountability. AG Eric Holder, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson all did so when serving in public offices during Obama’s tenure. Lois Lerner, an IRS official who has been suspected of using the tax-collecting agency to target conservative nonprofit organizations, is also thought to have used an email address registered to a pseudonym to conduct official business.

With law enforcement officials like these, it isn’t surprising to think that people would start believing there’s a two-tiered legal system in this nation:

It’s pretty apparent that Attorney General Lynch isn’t an ethical public servant. It’s pretty evident that Jim Comey isn’t the upstanding man that people claimed he was. With them at the top of the federal law enforcement list during the Obama administration, it’s pretty obvious that justice wasn’t a high priority for the Obama administration. Protecting President Obama’s political appointees and would-be political successors had a higher priority with Lynch and Comey.

It’s clear to me that Robert Mueller’s ‘investigation’ has turned into a fishing expedition. It’s clear, too, that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein won’t be the most forceful person in holding Mueller accountable and keeping his investigation on the right track.

Jazz Shaw’s post raised a point with me when he wrote “The actual findings of the investigation in this wild ride may not wind up being what matters. Even if no charges can be filed, this could turn out to be a complete treasure trove for Trump’s opponents. And if the investigation is steered away from any non-Russia material and back to the original charter, it’s a cover-up in the minds of those who want to find one. Ditto if Mueller winds up being fired. It’s pretty much a win-win for the Democrats at this point, so kudos to them for setting the trap this well.”

Not to be a contrarian but I read this situation the opposite way. First, it’s more than possible that Director Mueller has started a backlash against his fishing expedition. While people want to know whether Russians interfered with the 2016 election, it’s difficult to picture them being even slightly interested in President Trump’s decade-old financial transactions.

Once Mueller drifts too far afield from his originally assigned mission, people will question whether he’s trying to find the truth about Russia or whether he’s just looking for another scalp. The minute the American people get a whiff that this is a fishing expedition, Mueller’s support will crater.

Mueller apparently thinks that people aren’t paying attention while he hires more Democratic headhunters. That’s a mistake. Trump’s supporters are watching very closely. If Mueller starts investigating things that weren’t part of his original mission, Trump’s supporters will punish Democrats who insisted on a special counsel.

According to this article, Rep. Trent Franks, (R-AZ), has called for Robert Mueller’s resignation as special counsel. According to the article, “Mueller and former FBI Director James Comey have been longtime allies dating back to 2003 when the men both worked in Washington, Mueller as the FBI Director and Comey as Deputy Attorney General. Franks cited the pair’s relationship as a reason for Mueller to be disqualified from the probe. ‘Bob Mueller is in clear violation of federal code and must resign to maintain the integrity of the investigation into alleged Russian ties,’ Franks said. ‘Those who worked under them have attested he and Jim Comey possess a close friendship, and they have delivered on-the-record statements effusing praise of one another.'”

Gregg Jarrett laid it out perfectly, saying that “the special counsel statute says that if you have a personal relationship with any person substantially involved in the investigation or prosecution”, you cannot serve. It’s mandatory. Jarrett said that the language of the statute says that “you shall disqualify yourself.” It doesn’t suggest the special counsel should look into possible conflicts of interests. The statute says that the special counsel shall disqualify themselves.

The fact that Mueller hasn’t disqualified himself already indicates that Mueller isn’t the ethical man Democrats claim he is. That statute isn’t a suggestion. It’s a command.

Franks continued, saying this:

“Until Mueller resigns, he will be in clear violation of the law, a reality that fundamentally undermines his role as Special Counsel and attending ability to execute the law,” Franks said.

Mueller can’t stand for law and order if he’s selectively enforcing the law. It’s time he step aside ASAP.

It’s increasingly clear that the Agenda Media, aka the MSM, is intent on creating an artificial constitutional crisis. I offer Doyle McManus’ column as proof of this affliction.

In writing, you’re told to not bury the lede. Mr. McManus certainly didn’t do that. The opening paragraph of Mr. McManus’ column says “President Trump has openly declared war on Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating the Russian saga. The president clearly wishes he could fire Mueller; his associates say he’s mused about that for weeks. Now, by stepping up the pressure, he’s moving toward a showdown, and a possible constitutional crisis.”

First, the president can fire Mueller without triggering a constitutional crisis. It wouldn’t be the smartest move politically but it wouldn’t trigger a constitutional crisis. The next paragraph is just as hyperbolic, saying “There’s plenty of other craziness billowing from the White House: lawyers considering whether the president can pardon himself, the president publicly denouncing his attorney general for failing to protect him. But the clearest portent of a crisis is the president’s increasingly evident desire to be rid of the meddlesome prosecutor, who appears to be doing his job too well.”

If conflation were an Olympic event, Mr. McManus would be the gold medalist. Yes, it wasn’t bright for President Trump to publicly criticize Jeff Sessions. Still, jumping from that to saying “the meddlesome prosecutor” “appears to be doing his job too well” is a mighty leap.

At this point, Mueller looks more like the establishment’s hit man than an honest man seeking the truth. Roger Simon’s article highlights Mueller’s potential pitfalls, saying “significant portion of the American public, myself admittedly among them, will be convinced he has been railroaded in a partisan hatchet job. The voters who elected the president are going to feel, at the very least, undermined, more likely betrayed, & by their own government and public officials. Many are going to feel this has nothing to do whatsoever with justice and will act accordingly.”

After months of searching for a crime, Mueller still hasn’t found one. Adam Schiff, who specializes in running for Dianne Feinstein’s U.S. Senate seat, still hasn’t found a crime. He’s great at making accusations but he’s terrible at offering proof for his accusations.

The MSM is disgracing itself. This is a perfect example:

If Trump had business relationships with Russians who could be acting on behalf of Vladimir Putin, that would seem quite relevant.

Then there’s this stupidity:

The nightmare haunting Trump, of course, is the history of past counsels — especially Kenneth Starr, who took an inquest into Bill Clinton’s family finances and turned it into an investigation of sex and perjury.

The key difference between the Starr investigation and the Mueller fishing expedition is that Starr’s investigation expanded because judges expanded the investigation. Another important difference is that the statute that Ken Starr operated under expired.

Perhaps, at one time, Mueller was a man of integrity. Expanding his fishing expedition this far afield, though, appears intent on creating a legacy rather than seeking justice. Similarly, at one time, the MSM attempted to look semi-impartial. Those days seem like ancient history.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

Gregg Jarrett’s op-ed asks an interesting ethical question of former FBI Director Mueller. Jarrett first noted that the Hill reported that “Comey authored seven memorandums reflecting the contents of his conversations with President Trump and that four of the memos ‘have been determined to contain classified information.'”

Later, Jarrett made the observation that “If this is true and Comey kept these documents in his personal possession upon leaving government service and conveyed some of them to another individual without authorization, then it would appear that he committed multiple felonies under the Espionage Act.” Jarrett didn’t say that Comey had “committed multiple felonies under the Espionage Act.” Jarrett said Comey might’ve done that. In other words, he didn’t sound like a Democrat asserting that Trump had committed treason.

Another point Jarrett made was that “All of his memos are, unquestionably, government property under the Federal Records Act and the FBI’s own Records Management regulations. They were composed by him in the course and scope of his employment as the Director of the FBI. In meeting with President Trump, Comey was not acting as a private citizen. Both Congress and the FBI agree on this obvious point.”

What’s most interesting, though, is these questions:

How can Mueller discharge his responsibilities in a fair, objective and impartial manner? Will the mentor investigate and, if warranted, prosecute his protégé?

This is a charade that only DC insiders would think passes the smell test. Outsiders already think that the fix is in and that Comey will skate.

Let’s get serious about something. Comey’s documents weren’t private documents. They weren’t conversations about their grandchildren. They were work product. Comey let the cat out of the bag when he testified that it was important to get the information out. In fact, the fact that Comey took the documents with him after he was fired indicates that he stole government work product. Whether those documents contained classified information or not, they are work product subject to the Federal Records Act.

On the one hand, Comey is in deep dew-dew. On the other hand, he’s in serious trouble. That’s if Mueller doesn’t rescue him.

Technorati: , , , , , ,

To say that Sen. Grassley gave Jim Comey and Chuck Schumer a tutorial in integrity is understatement. This article highlights Sen. Grassley’s speech on the Senate floor that should’ve been delivered months ago.

First, Sen. Grassley reported that “then-FBI Director James Comey briefed ranking member Dianne Feinstein and him on the Russia probe.” Sen. Grassley then said the briefing included “telling us who was, and who was not, under investigation.” Then Sen. Grassley opened both barrels and trained them on then-FBI Director Comey and Senate Minority Leader Schumer.

During his speech, Grassley said “After that meeting, I publicly called for Mr. Comey to tell the public what he had told us about whether President Trump was under investigation. The public had a right to know. Mr. Comey told me and other Congressional leaders that President Trump was not under investigation. He even told the President himself – repeatedly. But, Mr. Comey didn’t listen to my request for transparency. He didn’t listen to the President’s request. Only months later has the truth finally come out.”

With that, Sen. Schumer was exposed. Then Sen. Grassley added this:

So the media was wrong. So the Democrats were wrong. So the wild speculation and conspiracy theories ended up harming our country. They played right into Russia’s hands. And how did we all learn about this truth? In President Trump’s letter removing Mr. Comey from office.

At first most didn’t believe it. The media scoffed when they wrote what the president said in that letter. They insisted that Mr. Comey would never tell the president that he was not under investigation. Well we learned earlier this month from Mr. Comey himself that he had done exactly that. It wasn’t a surprise to me because Mr. Comey had told me the same thing.

Check out this video of Sen. Grassley’s speech:

Let’s be clear about something. Mr. Comey didn’t tell the American people that President Trump wasn’t being investigated. Further, Senate Minority Leader Schumer didn’t tell the whole truth about the FBI’s investigation when he knew that it wasn’t focusing on President Trump. Instead, Sen. Schumer stuck with the Democrats’ chanting points, pretending that President Trump was under investigation.

At this point, Sen. Schumer’s integrity doesn’t exist. What politician ignores that type of information for political gain? A: The most corrupt leader of Senate Democrats since Harry Reid. People hate politicians because they’re morally bankrupt. Sen. Schumer is the poster child of moral depravity in the Senate. As the Democrats’ leader in the Senate, Schumer should be a leader. Instead, he’s the chief obstructionist in a party without a message.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

During his testimony, Jim Comey admitted that President Trump had the right to fire Comey. Comey also admitted that President Trump had the right to instruct the then-FBI Director to stop his investigation into Gen. Flynn. We know from this transcript, during Sen. Rubio’s cross-examination that Sen. Rubio said “He said, ‘If one of my satellites’ — I imagine, by that, he meant some of the other people surrounding his campaign — ‘did something wrong, it would be great to know that, as well”?

At that point in Mr. Comey’s testimony, it’s pretty clear that President Trump wasn’t interrupting the FBI investigation. Later in Mr. Comey’s testimony, Mr. Comey admitted that he’d sent some information to friend of his so his friend could leak the information to the NYTimes and trigger the appointing of a special counsel.

Here’s what I’m questioning. President Trump wasn’t attempting to hinder Mr. Comey’s investigation. Further, Comey’s a skilled litigator so he knows that many elements of obstruction of justice aren’t present. Gregg Jarett wrote comprehensively about the required elements of obstruction in this article. Specifically, Jarrett wrote “Felony obstruction requires that the person seeking to obstruct a law enforcement investigation act ‘corruptly.’ The statute specifically defines what that includes: threats, lies, bribes, destruction of documents, and altering or concealing evidence. None of that is alleged by Comey.”

I’m questioning Mr. Comey’s integrity because he’s testified that President Trump acted within his authority when the president terminated Comey and because the required elements of obstruction don’t exist.

If that’s true, then what’s Mr. Comey motivation for pushing for a special counsel? President Trump acted lawfully. He certainly didn’t threaten or bribe investigators. He certainly didn’t destroy documents or conceal evidence. At some point, shouldn’t people admit that there’s nothing here? Alan Dershowitz seems to think that we’ve reached that point:

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

After reading Clarice Feldman’s article, it’s clear she’s on the right track. Anyone that Mueller asks to testify should immediately demand to know what the underlying crime is that Mueller is investigating. If Mueller refuses to tell them that basic information, that person should immediately assert their Fifth Amendment rights.

Further, that person’s attorney should tell Mueller that this pattern will continue until Mueller states publicly what the underlying crime is. That attorney should make this statement publicly, preferably on TV. That way, Mueller will be put on the spot. If Mueller doesn’t state what crime he’s investigating, then the people will know that he’s conducting a fishing expedition. The minute that’s exposed, he and Jim Comey become laughingstocks.

At that point, they’ll also turn into discredited DC political operatives.

Why shouldn’t they be exposed? Comey and Mueller aren’t patriots. They’re political hacks. They haven’t earned and maintained that reputation. They might’ve been patriots at one point but they don’t fit that description anymore. It’s time they’re put to rest.

Technorati: , , , ,

According to Jim Comey’s testimony, Comey said “I don’t think it’s for me to say whether the conversation I had with the president was an effort to obstruct,” Comey said. “I took it as a very disturbing thing, very concerning, but that’s a conclusion I’m sure the special counsel will work towards to try to understand what the intention was there and whether that’s an offense.”

That investigation shouldn’t last long. There’s nothing for Trump to obstruct. Just because CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin breathlessly insists that Trump obstructed justice doesn’t make it so. Toobin said, in a heated debate with Prof. Dershowitz, that Watergate established the standard for obstructing justice. Apparently, Toobin can’t read a statute. Greg Jarrett, in this article, proved that he care. In this article, Jarrett said “The law demands much more than that. Felony obstruction requires that the person seeking to obstruct a law enforcement investigation act ‘corruptly.’ The statute specifically defines what that includes: threats, lies, bribes, destruction of documents, and altering or concealing evidence. None of that is alleged by Comey.”

Further, Nixon obstructed justice in Watergate, which was an investigation into a verified crime: the break-in of the DNC Headquarters in the Watergate Hotel. There isn’t a verified crime yet committed in the Russia collusion case. That alone eliminates the possibility of obstruction of justice. This exchange between Sen. Risch and former Director Comey settles that score:

Later in his article, Jarrett explains what obstruction of justice is:

The president’s statement is not an order or mandate. It is not even a “request,” though Comey insists he understood it to be.  But even if we construe it as such, it is not enough to constitute obstruction. Not even close. There must be a “corrupt” act that accompanies the directive.

For example, if the president had said, “Bury whatever incriminating evidence you have, exonerate Flynn, and terminate the investigation of him entirely… or I will fire you.” That is, arguably, obstruction. It includes two corrupt elements –a threat and concealing evidence. However, this is not what happened.

That doesn’t mean Mueller will wrap up the investigation quickly. That isn’t what special prosecutors usually do. Still, barring additional proof of corruption, I’m confident of saying there is no obstruction of justice here.

Today’s biggest loser in the Comey spectacle was Jim Comey. Comey came across as a spineless wimp at times. He was especially wimpy when a) he didn’t stand up to Loretta Lynch after her meeting with Bill Clinton on a tarmac in Arizona and b) he didn’t resign when Lynch told him to characterize the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton as a matter, not an investigation.

Further, Comey admitted that he leaked a memo to a Columbia professor, who then leaked the memo to the NY Times. Besides that, Comey called President Trump a liar. He also admitted that he leaked the memo to the Columbia professor to get a special counsel named against President Trump.

Other than that, Comey had a fine day testifying to the Senate.

Loretta Lynch was yesterday’s other major loser. After her meeting with Bill Clinton on the tarmac in Arizona, it’s clear that she became a recruit for the campaign. She told then-FBI Director Comey to not refer to the Clinton campaign investigation as an investigation. Lynch told him to use the term “matter” instead:

According to this article, Comey leaked his notes to the press through a friend to the press to get an independent counsel named:

Comey, who was fired by Trump on May 9, revealed during his testimony that he had a friend, later identified as Columbia University Law Professor Dan Richman, leak contents of his private memos to the media in hopes of prompting the “appointment of a special counsel.”

Many of DC’s talking heads said Trump took a hit Thursday. While he took a few minor hits, it was Comey and Lynch, especially Comey, who sustained the hardest hits.