You Have to Understand this IG Report Sadly is a Swamp Document
Now the Swamp always Protects the Swamp. Unfortunately
THE FACTS IN THIS IG REPORT DOCUMENT ARE NOT IN DISPUTE THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING CREDIBLE.
*HILLARY VIOLATED THE ESPIONAGE ACT
(That's a #Fact)
*HILLARY MISHANDLED, DESTROYED CLASSIFIED TOP SECRET SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAMMING INFORMATION
(That's a Fact)
*HILLARY DELETED OVER 33, 000 EMAILS
(That's a Fact) ACID WASHED OR BLEACHED THE COMPUTER SERVER,
There is no actual bleach, acid, or any other chemical involved.
That’s just one of many expressions some people have used to describe a process by which a file on a computer disk storage system is deleted more thoroughly than usual. It’s a routine procedure for many people and organizations in situations where a disk contains confidential data. Some folks will even do it first, and then physically destroy the disk.
Under normal circumstances, deleting a file on a computer disk only removes the file’s name from a folder, along with removing a pointer to the actual disk blocks that contain the file’s actual data and telling the operating system that those disk blocks can be re-used. The actual data blocks are left unchanged, or may be overwritten once with a fixed bit pattern (all ones, or all zeros).
The process described by the term “acid wash” or “bleaching” or “shredding” or “secure-erasing” or “secure-wiping”and various other synonyms goes further than that. It does it by repeatedly overwriting the bits in those storage blocks with random patterns of zero and one bits in order to eliminate even very subtle traces of the magnetic pattern left behind by the original file data.
The free (not “very expensive”, as alleged by Donald Trump) software called BleachBit is the name of one of a variety of tools that can be used to do this. Some computer operating systems that are designed for high security applications have this type of functionality built in. Some email servers also have similar functionality built in, although the standalone tools likely repeat the random overwrite process far more often in order to insure that even the tiniest traces of the original magnetic patter. **FUN FACT**
Christian S. spent a year in Prison for 6 pictures on a cell phone for a Submarine he was proud he worked on.
*James Comey & Trump Hater Peter Strozk started writing Hillary's Exoneration in Early May of 2016.
They didn't Interview her till July 2, 2016. Than July 5 2016 they Exonerated her.
Words Used
*Gross Negligence
*Foreign Intelligence Servers Hacked into that bathroom Closet.
THE SWAMP IS ABUSING POWER AND CORRUPTION
AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF THE FBI. AND HOW THE FBI
WAS POLITICIZED. IT IS ALL TRUE.
UNEQUAL JUSTICE
UNEQUAL JUSTICE
FBI, MEDIA BRPKE LAWS TO KEEP HILLARY FROM BEING INDICTED. FBI & MEDIA WERE GIVEN IMMINITY.
FOR DONALD TRUMP OTS SEARCH WARRANTS, SUPEONAS, BREAKING DOWN DOORS AT 6 IN THE MORNING, #GUNSABLAZED. THE HATRED OF DONALD TRUMP FROM THE LEFT AND MEDIA IN THIS COUNTRY KNOWS NO BOUNDS. THIS REALLY WAS A SCHEME TO PROTECT HTC (BITCH) FROM BEING INDICTED. AND SMEAR AND SLANDER CANDIDATE, AND NOW PRESIDENT ELECT DONALD J TRUMP AT ALL COSTS.
Comey’s Draft Statement
Comey’s initial draft statement, which he shared with FBI senior leadership on May 2, criticized Clinton’s handling of classified information as “grossly negligent,” but concluded that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a case based on the facts developed in the Midyear investigation. Over the course of the next 2 months, Comey’s draft statement underwent various language changes, including the following:
•
The description of Clinton’s handling of classified information was changed from “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless;”
•
A statement that the sheer volume of information classified as Secret supported an inference of gross negligence was removed and replaced with a statement that the classified information they discovered was “especially concerning because all of these emails were housed on servers not supported by full-time staff”;
•
A statement that the FBI assessed that it was “reasonably likely” that hostile actors gained access to Clinton’s private email server was changed to “possible.” The statement also acknowledged that the FBI investigation and its forensic analysis did not find evidence that Clinton’s email server systems were compromised; and
•
A paragraph summarizing the factors that led the FBI to assess that it was possible that hostile actors accessed Clinton’s server was added, and at one point referenced Clinton’s use of her private email for an exchange with then President Obama while in the territory of a foreign adversary. This reference later was changed to “another senior government official,” and ultimately was omitted
Comey did not raise any of these concerns with Lynch or Yates. Rather, unbeknownst to them, Comey began considering the possibility of an FBI-only public statement in late April and early May 2016. Comey told the OIG that a separate public statement was warranted by the “500-year flood” in which the FBI found itself, and that he weighed the need to preserve the credibility and integrity of the Department and the Other witnesses told the OIG that Comey included this criticism to avoid creating the appearance that the FBI was “letting [Clinton] off the hook,” as well as to “messag[e]” the decision to the FBI workforce to emphasize that employees would be disciplined for similar conduct and to distinguish the Clinton investigation from the cases of other public figures who had been prosecuted for mishandling violations.
The Tarmac Meeting and Impact on Comey’s Statement
On June 27, 2016, Lynch met with former President Clinton on Lynch’s plane, which was parked on the tarmac at a Phoenix airport. This meeting was unplanned, and Lynch’s staff told the OIG they received no notice that former President Clinton planned to board Lynch’s plane. Both Lynch and former President Clinton told the OIG that they did not discuss the Midyear investigation or any other Department investigation during their conversation. Chapter Six of our report describes their testimony about the substance of their discussion. Lynch told the OIG that she became increasingly concerned as the meeting “went on and on,” and stated “that it was just too long a conversation to have had.” Following this meeting, Lynch obtained an ethics opinion from the Departmental Ethics Office that she was not required to recuse herself from the Midyear investigation, and she decided not to voluntarily recuse herself either. In making this decision, Lynch told the OIG that stepping aside would create a misimpression that she and former President Clinton had discussed inappropriate topics, or that her role in the Midyear investigation somehow was greater than it was. On July 1, during an interview with a reporter, Lynch stated that she was not recusing from the Midyear investigation, but that she ”fully expect[ed]” to accept the recommendation of the career agents and prosecutors who conducted the investigation, “as is the common process.” Then, in a follow up question, Lynch said “I’ll be briefed on [the findings] and I will be accepting their recommendations.” Lynch’s statements created considerable public confusion about the status of her continuing involvement in the Midyear investigation. Although we found no evidence that Lynch and former President Clinton discussed the Midyear investigation or engaged in other inappropriate discussion during their tarmac meeting, we also found that Lynch’s failure to recognize the appearance problem created by former President Clinton’s visit and to take action to cut the to tell her what he intended to say beforehand, and should have discussed it with Comey. Comey’s public statement announced that the FBI had completed its Midyear investigation, criticized Clinton and her senior aides as “extremely careless” in their handling of classified information, stated that the FBI was recommending that the Department decline prosecution of Clinton, and asserted that “no reasonable prosecutor” would prosecute Clinton based on the facts developed by the FBI during its investigation. We determined that Comey’s decision to make this statement was the result of his belief that only he had the ability to credibly and authoritatively convey the rationale for the decision to not seek charges against Clinton, and that he needed to hold the press conference to protect the FBI and the Department from the extraordinary harm that he believed would have resulted had he failed to do so. While we found no evidence that Comey’s statement was the result of bias or an effort to influence the election, we did not find his justifications for issuing the statement to be reasonable or persuasive. We concluded that Comey’s unilateral announcement was inconsistent with Department policy and violated long-standing Department practice and protocol by, among other things, criticizing Clinton’s uncharged conduct. We also found that Comey usurped the authority of the Attorney General, and inadequately and incompletely described the legal position of Department prosecutors
I am alarmed, angered, and deeply disappointed by the Inspector General’s finding of numerous failures by DOJ and FBI in investigating potential Espionage Act violations by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
This report confirms investigative decisions made by the FBI during the pendency of this investigation were unprecedented and deviated from traditional investigative procedures in favor of a much more permissive and voluntary approach. This is not the way normal investigations are run.
The investigation was mishandled. The investigatory conclusions were reached before the end of the witness interviews. The July 5th press conference marked a serious violation of policy and process. And the letters to Congress in the fall of 2016 were both delayed in substance and unnecessary in form.
Moreover, the treatment afforded to former Secretary Clinton and other potential subjects and targets was starkly different from the FBI’s investigation into Trump campaign officials. Voluntariness and consent in the former were replaced with search warrants, subpoenas, and other compulsory processes in the latter. Many of the investigators and supervisors were the same in both investigations but the investigatory tactics were not.
Former Director Comey violated Department policy in several significant ways. The FBI’s actions and those of former Director Comey severely damaged the credibility of the investigation, the public’s ability to rely on the results of the investigation, and the very institutions he claims to revere.
The report also conclusively shows an alarming and destructive level of animus displayed by top officials at the FBI. Peter Strzok’s manifest bias trending toward animus casts a pall on this investigation. Bias is so pernicious and malignant as to both taint the process, the result, and the ability to have confidence in either.
The law enforcement community has no greater ally in Congress than me. But continued revelations of questionable decision making by FBI and DOJ leadership destroys confidence in the impartiality of the institutions I have long served, respected, and believed in.
COMMENTS
This is not the FBI I know. This is not the FBI our country needs. This is not the FBI citizens and suspects alike deserve.
It is now urgently incumbent on Attorney General Sessions and Director Wray to take decisive action to restore Americans’ confidence in our justice system.
James Comey, the 7th director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), was dismissed by U.S. President Donald Trump on May 9, 2017.Comey had been criticized in 2016 for his handling of the FBI's investigation of the Hillary Clinton email controversy and in 2017 for the FBI's investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections as it related to possible collusion with the 2016 Donald Trump campaign.
Donald J. Trump llowing
The IG Report is a total disaster for Comey, his minions and sadly, the FBI. Comey will now officially go down as the worst leader, by far, in the history of the FBI. I did a great service to the people in firing him. Good Instincts. Christopher Wray will bring it proudly back!
FBI Agent Peter Strzok, who headed the Clinton & Russia investigations, texted to his lover Lisa Page, in the IG Report, that “we’ll stop” candidate Trump from becoming President. Doesn’t get any lower than that!
The IG Report is a total disaster for Comey, his minions and sadly, the FBI. Comey will now officially go down as the worst leader, by far, in the history of the FBI. I did a great service to the people in firing him. Good Instincts. Christopher Wray will bring it proudly back!
“Why in the world didn’t Barack Obama fire this guy (Comey)?” asks Mark Levin!
The Department’s Declination Decision on July 6
Following Comey’s public statement on July 5, the Midyear prosecutors finalized their recommendation that the Department decline prosecution of Clinton, her senior aides, and the senders of emails determined to contain classified information. On July 6, the Midyear prosecutors briefed Lynch, Yates, Comey, other members of Department and FBI leadership, and FBI Midyear team members about the basis for the declination recommendation. Lynch subsequently issued a short public statement that she met with the career prosecutors and agents who conducted the investigation and “received and accepted their unanimous recommendation” that the investigation be closed without charges.
Following Comey’s public statement on July 5, the Midyear prosecutors finalized their recommendation that the Department decline prosecution of Clinton, her senior aides, and the senders of emails determined to contain classified information. On July 6, the Midyear prosecutors briefed Lynch, Yates, Comey, other members of Department and FBI leadership, and FBI Midyear team members about the basis for the declination recommendation. Lynch subsequently issued a short public statement that she met with the career prosecutors and agents who conducted the investigation and “received and accepted their unanimous recommendation” that the investigation be closed without charges.
Lynch, Yates, Axelrod, and their staffs had several discussions that same day as to whether Lynch or Yates should call Comey directly, but said they ultimately decided to have Axelrod communicate “the strong view that neither the DAG nor [AG] felt this letter should go out.” Yates told us they were concerned that direct contact with Comey would be perceived as “strong-arming” him, and that based on her experience with Comey, he was likely to “push back hard” against input from Lynch or her, especially if accepting their input meant that he had to go back to his staff and explain that he was reversing his decision. She said that she viewed Rybicki as the person they needed to convince if they wanted to change Comey’s mind. Accordingly, Axelrod informed Rybicki on October 27 of the Department’s strong opposition to Comey’s plan to send a letter.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/loretta-lynch-calls-infamous-bill-clinton-tarmac-meet-innocuous-article-1.3924655
http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/04/08/tom-fitton-justice-department-fbi-cover-mode-loretta-lynch-bill-clinton-tarmac-meeting
The Department of Justice is still in "cover-up mode" on former Attorney General Loretta Lynch's infamous tarmac meeting with former President Bill Clinton, according to Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
Lynch on Monday will speak to "NBC Nightly News" host Lester Holt about the 2016 meeting, which occurred while Hillary Clinton was being investigated for her use of a private email server while secretary of state, raising questions of possible collusion between the Justice Department and the Clintons.
"We still don't have a full explanation from either her or Bill Clinton about what went on," Fitton said on "Fox & Friends." "The Justice Department was a mess under Loretta Lynch. This meeting was an example of the way it bent over backwards -- both in appearance and in fact -- on behalf of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton regime."
The inspector general finds that Comey breached DOJ protocols when he usurped the mandate of DOJ and the attorney general by unilaterally declaring that Clinton should not be charged since her illegal actions were not intended to damage U.S. interests: “Comey admitted that he concealed his intentions from the Department until the morning of his press conference on July 5, and instructed his staff to do the same, to make it impracticable for Department leadership to prevent him from delivering his statement. We found that it was extraordinary and insubordinate for Comey to do so, and we found none of his reasons to be a persuasive basis for deviating from well-established Department policies in a way intentionally designed to avoid supervision by Department leadership over his actions.”
This unequivocal statement makes it patently obvious that President Trump made a sound decision when he fired Comey.
While the chief executive can fire any member of the executive branch with or without cause, insubordination at the top of the FBI is cause enough — insubordination that clearly was not a one-off, given that Comey repeatedly refused to publicly confirm that the new president was not the subject of the investigation into so-called Russian collusion.
Nevertheless, the report must be deemed a failure. Its most newsworthy conclusion about the former director is really a conclusion about bureaucratic process; this is why the report so often uses the term “protocol” when describing Comey’s breaches.
But the inspector general isn’t maintained at great taxpayer expense to spend months and months investigating breaches in protocol or bureaucratic regulations; his mandate concerns “violations of criminal and civil law.” Shamefully, IG Michael Horowitz has nothing to say about the potential crime that the Midyear Investigation was meant to investigate. On the contrary, this new report very closely tracks the obfuscatory line used by Comey during his end-run around the DOJ to exonerate Clinton.
Specifically, the report states that by “the Spring of 2016, Comey and the Midyear team had determined that, absent an unexpected development, evidence to support a criminal prosecution of Clinton was lacking. Midyear team members told us that they based this assessment on a lack of evidence showing intent to place classified information on the server, or knowledge that the information was classified.”
By reiterating this reasoning, IG Horowitz commits the same mistake Comey committed in his infamous press conference when he excused Clinton for handling classified information on her unsecured private server. Like Comey, Horowitz unilaterally redefines the terms of the Espionage Act, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 793(f), which makes it a felony for any person “entrusted with … information relating to the national defense” to allow that information to be “removed from its proper place of custody” through “gross negligence.”
The law is clear; the authorities are not required to demonstrate intent. The stakes are so high with regard to our nation’s secrets that carelessness itself is a crime. More damaging, the IG’s findings support the conclusion that the Clinton team acted intentionally, stating that “the emails in question lacked proper classification markings.” This fact, that classified communications were intentionally stripped of classification markings, is damning. A government employee would only remove said markings if he knew that what he was doing was illegal and he was intentionally breaking the law on national security secrets.
Why would the inspector general — meant to be an independent body — undergird the narrative of the man he has accused of being insubordinate? As a former DOJ employee pointed out to me, there may be a very simple, disturbing explanation.
Inspector General Michael Horowitz has a long career in the law and government; in the 1990s he served as assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, ending up as deputy chief of its criminal division. James Comey served in the same office for part of the same time; he even held the same position — deputy chief of the criminal division — before Horowitz.
Even if they were not close friends, the principle rule of law remains: Justice must not only be done, it must be seen as being done. This requires unimpeachable neutrality.
Despite the size of this report, many questions remain unanswered. For example, why is an FBI agent, Peter Strzok, who was in charge of the Clinton investigation and texting to his reported lover that “We’ll stop” Donald Trump from becoming president, still on the federal payroll?
Today’s report is just a start, since too many questions remain or have been handled in ways that support prior politically colored narratives which do not reflect the actual law.
http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/392391-is-the-department-of-justice-inspector-general-truly-impartial
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/06/inside-the-fbi-trumps-attacks-fuel-a-rising-anger
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/02/james-comey-fbi-director-letter
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/12/christopher-steele-the-man-behind-the-trump-dossier
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/26/donald-trump-wants-to-fight-the-fbi-its-a-suicide-mission-216533
SIDE NOTES: #Q ROBERT MUELLER IS ON TEAM TRUMP REMEMBER THIS!
**DEEPSTATE IN PANIC MODE!**
VI.
Criminal Statutes Relevant to the Midyear Investigation
Four statutes governing the handling and retention of classified information are relevant to the Midyear investigation: 18 U.S.C. §§ 793(d), 793(e), 793(f), and 1924.
25
Section 793(f)(1), which prohibits the grossly negligent removal of
“national defense information,” became a central focus of
the investigation and of subsequent prosecutive decisions. In addition to the mishandling and retention statutes, prosecutors also considered whether former Secretary Clinton or others violated 18 U.S.C. § 2071, a criminal statute prohibiting the willful concealment, removal, or destruction of federal records, in connection with the deletion of emails.
We discuss the Department’s analysis of these statutes in Chapter Seven.
A.
Mishandling and Retention of Classified Information 1.
18 U.S.C. §§ 793(d) and (e)
Sections 793(d) and (e) are felony statutes that apply to the willful mishandling and retention of classified information. Section 793(d) governs the mishandling of classified documents or information by individuals who are authorized to possess it
—
that is, who have the appropriate security clearance and require access to the specific classified information to perform or assist in a lawful
and authorized governmental function (“need to know”).
26
Section 793(d) provides: Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the
24
A special counsel’s jurisdiction also covers “f
ederal crimes committed in the course of, and
with the intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel’s investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses.” 28 C.F.R.
§ 600.4.
25
Under the USAM, t
he Department’s National Security Division (NSD) must expressly
approve any prosecution involving these statutory provisions.
See
USAM 9-90.020.
26
See
Exec. Order 13526 §§ 4.1(a)(1)-(3), 6.1(dd) (Dec. 29, 2009);
see also United States
v.
Truong Dinh Hung
, 629 F.2d 908, 919 n.10 (4th Cir. 1980)
Criminal Statutes Relevant to the Midyear Investigation
Four statutes governing the handling and retention of classified information are relevant to the Midyear investigation: 18 U.S.C. §§ 793(d), 793(e), 793(f), and 1924.
25
Section 793(f)(1), which prohibits the grossly negligent removal of
“national defense information,” became a central focus of
the investigation and of subsequent prosecutive decisions. In addition to the mishandling and retention statutes, prosecutors also considered whether former Secretary Clinton or others violated 18 U.S.C. § 2071, a criminal statute prohibiting the willful concealment, removal, or destruction of federal records, in connection with the deletion of emails.
We discuss the Department’s analysis of these statutes in Chapter Seven.
A.
Mishandling and Retention of Classified Information 1.
18 U.S.C. §§ 793(d) and (e)
Sections 793(d) and (e) are felony statutes that apply to the willful mishandling and retention of classified information. Section 793(d) governs the mishandling of classified documents or information by individuals who are authorized to possess it
—
that is, who have the appropriate security clearance and require access to the specific classified information to perform or assist in a lawful
and authorized governmental function (“need to know”).
26
Section 793(d) provides: Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the
24
A special counsel’s jurisdiction also covers “f
ederal crimes committed in the course of, and
with the intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel’s investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses.” 28 C.F.R.
§ 600.4.
25
Under the USAM, t
he Department’s National Security Division (NSD) must expressly
approve any prosecution involving these statutory provisions.
See
USAM 9-90.020.
26
See
Exec. Order 13526 §§ 4.1(a)(1)-(3), 6.1(dd) (Dec. 29, 2009);
see also United States
v.
Truong Dinh Hung
, 629 F.2d 908, 919 n.10 (4th Cir. 1980)
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/14/strzok-page-and-fbi-texting-scandal-explained.html
SO END OF THIS CONCLUSION THIS #IGREPORT HAS BEEN THROWN OUT. CREATED BY THE SWAMP MONSTERS. #DTS TO PROTECT THEIR MASTER #HRC. ONCE HILLARY GOES DOWN TEY ALL GO DOWN.
