Connect with us


Inspector General Report Concludes Comey Terrible but…

It’s quite possible that as bad as this report is for Comey, Strzok, Page, and Obama’s FBI leadership… Horowitz’ conclusion in the Russia investigation could prove to be even worse.



Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report on the FBI’s handling of the Clinton email investigation has finally been released to the public and while it does indeed lambaste former FBI Director James Comey for his terrible judgment and handling of the Clinton investigation, it stops short of blaming it all on politics.

Horowitz’s report not only slams Comey, but it also criticizes former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and immoral FBI philanderers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.

Horowitz blames Comey, Strzok, and Page for besmirching the good name of the FBI and harming the agencies reputation with the American people.

At the end of the day, Horowitz was unable to find solid proof that the agency acted in a politically partisan and biased manner in the Clinton email case. However, the Inspector General left the door open to the possibility that political bias did indeed play a role, as his current investigation in the Russia-Collusion probe of the FBI and the DOJ could reveal new evidence to damn the FBI’s Obama era leadership.

Trending: Rep Turner Gets Witness To Admit Bombshell, Debunking CNN Headline

While the report refuses to say conclusively that political bias was the animus behind the FBI’s handling of the Clinton probe, it also indicates that IG Horowitz may have more to say about the FBI’s political leanings in his Russia report.

The Washington Post explains:

The Justice Department inspector general on Thursday castigated former FBI Director James B. Comey for his actions during the Hillary Clinton email investigation and found that other senior bureau officials showed a “willingness to take official action” to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president…

Some senior bureau officials, the report found, exhibited a disturbing “willingness to take official action” to hurt Trump’s chances to become president.

Perhaps the most damaging new revelation in the report is a previously-unreported text message in which Peter Strzok, a key investigator on both the Clinton email case and the investigation of Russia and the Trump campaign, assured an FBI lawyer in August 2016 that “we’ll stop” Trump from making it to the White House.

“[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” the lawyer, Lisa Page, wrote to Strzok.
“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,” Strzok responded…
The inspector general concluded that Strzok’s text, along with others disparaging Trump, “is not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate’s electoral prospects.”
The messages “potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations,” the inspector general wrote…

Strzok has argued that he was just trying to reassure Page that Trump couldn’t win, and that he wasn’t implying that they would take action to stop his election. But it wasn’t just Page and Strzok, there were FIVE other investigators on the Clinton case who expressed overtly political views in support of Clinton and/or against Trump… DURING the investigation.

Page and Strzok are not the only FBI officials assigned to the Clinton email probe who were found to have exchanged personal messages indicating either an animus against Trump or frustration with the fact that the FBI was investigating Clinton. The report identified five officials with some connection to the email probe who were expressing political views, faulting them for having brought “discredit to themselves, sowed doubt about the FBI’s handling of the midyear investigation, and impacted the reputation of the FBI.” The midyear investigation refers to the Clinton email probe.

“The messages cast a cloud over the FBI investigations to which these employees were assigned,” Horowitz alleged. “Ultimately the consequences of these actions impact not only the senders of these messages but also other who worked on these investigation and, indeed, the entire FBI.”

The IG also found that the FBI moved slowly on new evidence that could have damned Hillary Clinton, and did so for reasons that make no sense.

The report took particular aim at FBI officials investigating Clinton’s email server for moving slowly after agents in the New York Field office discovered messages on the laptop of disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner that might be relevant to their case.

By no later than September 29, the inspector general alleged, the bureau had learned “virtually every fact” it would cite as justification late the next month to search Weiner’s laptop for messages of Clinton and top aide Huma Abedin.

The inspector general derided the bureau’s reasons for not moving more quickly — that agents were waiting for additional information from New York, that they couldn’t move without a warrant and that investigators were more focused on the Russia case — as “unpersuasive,” “illogical,” and inconsistent with their assertion that they would leave no stone unturned on Clinton.

The report also faulted the bureau for assigning essentially the same personnel to the Russia and Clinton teams, and singled out Strzok, suggesting his anti-Trump views might have played a role in his not acting more expeditiously on the new lead.

“Under these circumstances, we did not have confidence that Strzok’s decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the Midyear-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias,” the report said.

Did you get that? IG Horowitz can’t prove it, but he’s not sure that Strzok wasn’t acting in a politically biased manner when he slow-played the Clinton investigation while moving more quickly on the Russia investigation.

How in the world can we trust them even as they express bias while investigating malfeasance? We see this kind of corruption all over the world, why should believe that these officials could be immune to acting on their personal biases? There were 7 of them on the case, and they were comfortable enough with each other to express their biases openly and none of them ever chastised the others for expressing those biases!

Not only that, the team that handled Clinton’s investigation so poorly was almost the identical team that was then assigned to handle the Russia investigation! Meaning, the obviously politically biased team that had just cleared the woman that they supported, was now tapped to investigate if the man that they hated was tied to Russian corruption.

This is INSANE.

Meanwhile, another story just breaking at Fox News provides even more evidence that Peter Strzok is the big bad guy in the FBI mess. Not only was he slow-playing the Clinton investigation, he may be the only reason she was never charged with a crime.

In a newly released FBI email, we learned that “foreign actors” gained at least some access to Hillary Clinton’s unsecure email system.

Fox News obtained the memo prepared by the House Judiciary and Oversight committees, which lays out key interim findings ahead of next week’s hearing with Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz. The IG, separately, is expected to release his highly anticipated report on the Clinton email case later Thursday.

The House committees, which conducted a joint probe into decisions made by the DOJ in 2016 and 2017, addressed a range of issues in their memo including Clinton’s email security.

“Documents provided to the Committees show foreign actors obtained access to some of Mrs. Clinton’s emails — including at least one email classified ‘Secret,'” the memo says, adding that foreign actors also accessed the private accounts of some Clinton staffers.

Here’s the email in question:

Peter Strzok email about Clinton emails by Fox News on Scribd

The email came from FBI agent Peter Strzok and it’s the first place we see the question of whether or not Clinton can be found as “grossly negligent,” in the handling of classified intel. Remember, Strzok is widely credited as the man who changed FBI Director Comey’s language on the Clinton email investigation from the prosecutable “grossly negligent” to the legally superflous “extremely careless.”

At John Sexton explains the importance of this discovery:

In the FBI memo, you can already see the genesis of the distinction the FBI would rely on to clear Clinton. Strzok writes that the media has been focused on the question of why Hillary seems to be getting a pass when “Petraeus/Berger/Libby” did not. He writes, “We draw the distinction in noting we have no evidence classified information was ever shared with an unauthorized party, i.e. notwithstanding the server setup, we have not seen classified information shared with a member of the media, an agent of a foreign power, a lover, etc.”

In other words, Hillary may have been hacked but she didn’t intentionally give anything away. Of course, the statute itself didn’t make intent a prerequisite. Herridge reports that the House committee memo once again raises this same issue:

“Officials from both agencies have created a perception they misinterpreted the Espionage Act by stating Secretary Clinton lacked the requisite ‘intent’ for charges to be filed,” the memo says, before pointing to statements by Comey that indicated a belief that intent was required — which the memo says ignored “meaningful aspects” of the law.

It really does seem that Strzok, an agent who had a personal pro-Hillary bias, was the person who pushed to let her off the hook by focusing on her intent rather than her negligence setting up the server in the first place.

I fully believe IG Horowitz’ findings here. I believe that he was unable to prove that there was any political motive to the FBI’s handling of the Clinton email case, and I believe that while the case was obviously mishandled, it could have reached the conclusion it did honorably. However, I also think that the IG has purposely left room in his conclusion to amend that decision after he’s concluded his Russia investigation. In fact, there are already signs of him doing that in this report. Much of the information that he uses to chastise Strzok’s behavior and judgment in the Clinton email case, would have actually come from his current investigation into the Russia mess. It’s quite possible that as bad as this report is for Comey, Strzok, Page, and Obama’s FBI leadership… Horowitz’ conclusion in the Russia investigation could prove to be even worse.

We’ll see.

Don't forget to Like The Washington Sentinel on Facebook and Twitter, and visit our friends at The Republican Legion.

Become an insider!

Sign up for the free Washington Sentinel email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.



John Bolton ‘Liberates’ His ‘Suppressed’ Twitter Account, Only to Drop Vagaries

Bolton’s tweets were a bit ominous.



Former National Security Adviser John Bolton has been around the block and back, with a career spanning nearly two decades in Washington DC, and has found himself now in the middle of an impeachment fiasco the likes of which our nation has never seen before.

As the public testimony portion of the Democrats’ “formal impeachment inquiry” drew to a close yesterday, there were a crescendo of calls for Bolton himself to testify before the committee.  After all, his time in the White House was close to the epicenter of the Democratic allegations, and Bolton understands the game as well as anyone else.

But we must also recognize that this was undoubtedly planned by the Democrats as well.  The former Trump staffer declined to willingly testify without the protection of a court order forcing him onto the stand.  In stacking their Bolton-adjacent witnesses in the latter portions of the public hearings, it would put ever more pressure on Bolton to either put up or shut up before the time to gather evidence runs out.

There has been no change in Bolton’s testimony’s status as of late, but the former National Security Adviser has stirred a bit online.

And then, more curiously…

President Trump was asked about that first tweet during a wide-ranging interview on Fox News this morning.

Bolton’s ominous tweet appeared Friday amid a wide-ranging interview President Trump gave on “Fox & Friends.” The president was asked whether he was involved in blocking Bolton’s Twitter account.

“No, of course not,” Trump said. “I had a good relationship with John.”

We shall see if Bolton’s actions back up the President’s nonchalance, or if he will fall on the “resistance” sword as well.


Continue Reading


Rep Turner Gets Witness To Admit Bombshell, Debunking CNN Headline

There was more real evidence at the Salem witch trials.



Rep Turner Gets Witness To Admit Bombshell, Debunking CNN Headline
Rep. Mike Turner slammed U.S. Ambassador Gordon Sondland during the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry hearing on the House Intelligence Committee. He got Sondland to admit that “no one on this planet” told him that financial assistance to Ukraine was connected to any investigations.

“After you testified, Chairman [Adam] Schiff ran out and gave a press conference and said he gets to impeach the president of the United States because of your testimony and if you pull up CNN today, right now, their banner says ‘Sondland ties Trump to withholding aid,’” Turner said. “Is that your testimony today, Ambassador Sondland? That you have evidence that Donald Trump tied the investigations to the aid? Because I don’t think you’re saying that.”

“I’ve said repeatedly Congressman, I was presuming,” Sondland replied.

“So, no one told you?” Turner fired back. “Giuliani didn’t tell you? Mulvaney didn’t tell you? Pompeo didn’t tell you? Nobody else on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying aid to these investigations, is that correct?”

“I think I already testified,” Sondland responded.

“No, answer the question,” Turner shot back. “Is it correct? No one on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying aid to the investigations? Because if your answer is ‘yes,’ then the chairman is wrong and the headline on CNN is wrong.”

As the exchange was taking place, the chyron on CNN stated: “SONDLAND: ‘YES’ THERE WAS QUID PRO QUO IN UKRAINE SCANDAL.”

“No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations, yes or no?”

“Yes,” Sondland responded.

“So, you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations?” Turner pressed.

“Other than my own presumption,” Sondland replied.

“Which is nothing,” Turner fired back.

Full questioning:

Earlier in the hearing, Sondland told Schiff: “I finally called the president, I believe it was on the 9th of September, I can’t find the records and [the State Department] won’t provide them to me, but I believe I just asked him an open-ended question, Mr. Chairman.”

Sondland told Schiff that he asked Trump: “What do you want from Ukraine? I keep hearing all these different ideas and theories and this and that. What do you want?”

“It was a very short abrupt conversation, he was not in a good mood, and he just said, ‘I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing,’ something to that effect,” Sondland continued. “So I typed out a text to Ambassador Taylor and my reason for telling him this was not to defend what the president was saying, not to opine on whether the president was being truthful or untruthful, but simply to relay I’ve gone as far as I can go. This is the final word that I heard from the president of the United States.”

Continue Reading


Lindsey Graham Drops Bombshell FISA Announcement, Says Report Coming December 9

This is what we’ve all been waiting for.



With an election looming large on the horizon, and the threat of impeachment hovering over the Trump White House, the vast majority of Washington DC’s machinations are now under some sever chronological pressure.

The Democrats and their impeachment “inquiry” could be soon coming to a close, as the left struggles with just when to throw in the towel in regard to calling additional witnesses – many of whom will be blocked by the White House, or whose testimony will be devoid of all context thanks to executive privilege.  In other words, the left will need to carefully decide just when to pull the trigger on their presumably forthcoming articles of impeachment, so as not to deprive themselves of some grand piece of so-far-fictional evidence, while also being cognizant of the mood of the nation and the weakness of their case.

But there is likely another ethereal deadline weighing in on their decision-making as well, and it has to do with a second, far more explosive investigation occurring in Washington these days; one that could upend the entire narrative of Russian interference in the 2016 election, instead pinning much of the nefarious behavior associated with that event on the former White House administration.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Fox News Wednesday that Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report on allegations of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant abuse during the 2016 election will be released on Dec. 9.

During an appearance on “Hannity” Wednesday, host Sean Hannity noted Horowitz will be coming before Graham’s committee on Dec. 11 to testify on the matter and went on to ask Graham not to allow a Friday night document “dump” that could muffle the coverage of the news.

In response, Graham smiled and nodded.

“It’ll be December 9th — you’ll get the report,” the South Carolina lawmaker said.

“That’s locked.”

The report looks to detail the allegedly uncouth behavior of the Obama administration in the lead-up to the 2016 election, specifically the possible exploitation of an unverified and salacious “dossier” being used to approve a warrant that would allow the wiretapping of the Trump campaign.

Should this report drop prior to the Democrats completing their impeachment charade, there is little doubt that it could greatly affect the national sentiment regarding those efforts.

Continue Reading


As Swamp Drains, Clinton Foundation Sees 16-Year Low for Donations

The American people are growing too smart to humor the Clintons’ shady charade.



The American people have shown a propensity of late for cutting through the gibberish of Washington DC.

This sharpening of their political wit has arisen during a time of great turmoil in our nation.  President Donald Trump has swept into the nation’s capital on the premise that he would be shaking it up, draining the swamp, or whichever metaphor best suits the process.  This new sheriff in town attitude has trickled down to the people as well, and we find ourselves as skeptical as ever about the state of the union.

As such, we have looked deep within ourselves and our not-so-distant past to find evidence of wrongdoing just years or months behind us.  After all, this fits into the timeline in which our nation found themselves so bereft of corruption they saw fit to bring in a Trumpian solution.

Right in the middle of all of this swampiness sits former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whose Clinton Foundation has suffered greatly during this political awakening.

The Clinton Foundation’s revenue has nosedived following Hillary Clinton’s loss to then-candidate Donald Trump in 2016. According to its recently released public report, the organization took in just $30.7 million in 2018 – over seven million less than the $38.4 million it reported in 2017 and roughly $218 million less than the $249 million the charity raised in 2009, when Clinton served as the secretary of state in the Obama administration.

The charity spent millions more than it took in last year, spending $47.5 million on “payroll, grants and promotion, among other items,” according to Open Secrets.

Thanks to the work of whistleblower outfit Wikileaks, the American people learned that Hillary Clinton was operating a pay-to-play scheme during her time as Secretary of State, in which she solicited donations to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for face time at the State Department.

This, along with her rigging of the 2016 primary elections, has reduced Hillary Clinton’s political legacy to little more than proverbial rubble, likely affecting the ability of her foundation to raise funds.

Continue Reading


Trump Responds to Sondland Testimony with Notes of Call on White House Lawn

Sondland’s CYA opening statement has been eviscerated by his own transcribed phone call with the President.



Today’s impeachment hearing has been a tale of two parties, once again, but this time under the highly polarizing spell of a panicked Congress.

Gordon Sondland stunned the Republicans this morning during his opening statement, in which he stated quite clearly that a “quid pro quo” was present in the case of Ukraine, while also seemingly throwing a number of high-ranking government officials under the proverbial bus.

Apparently, Sondland got the mainstream media memo about the need for a little more “pizzazz” in these proceedings.

That opening statement hit the press ahead of his testimony, to get a head start on the news’ spin for the day, and appeared to take Ranking Republican Devin Nunes by surprise.

But, as Sondland trudged through the friendly questions of the Democrats and into the suddenly bitter then of the GOP, a new reality emerged.  In fact, the President had told Sondland explicitly and specifically that no such quid pro quo was to be had.

The President, on his way to Marine One, reminded the nation of this in his signature style.

Of course, these words come directly from a phone call whose transcript has already been read into evidence, and clearly shows the President assuring Sondland that nothing untoward should occur in Ukraine.

So do we believe the opening statement of a man who has already committed to refiguring this previous testimony in order to stay out of jail, or do we believe the transcript of a phone call emanating from the White House itself?


Continue Reading


Walter Reed Conspiracy Theories Spooked Melania Trump, According to POTUS

There has been no evidence provided that would suggest the President is unhealthy or that he had a medical emergency over the weekend. 



A strange side story has emerged in Washington DC this week after the President made an unexpected visit to Walter Reed Hospital.

Impeachment has certainly been the focal point of the mainstream media over the course of last few weeks, much to the chagrin of the Democratic Party.  They are viewing these hearings as an opportunity to demean President Trump ahead of the 2020 election, understanding full well that there is no chance of a conviction in the Republican-controlled Senate.

But another, just plain weirder subject seemed to take over social media in the last few days, and it involves the President’s health.

Predictably, the mainstream media has taken a bit of a biased stance in the matter including AP News.

A lack of notice. Past failures to level with the American people. A tough week for the White House as public impeachment hearings got under way.

Add it all up, and President Donald Trump’s unscheduled weekend visit to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center raised suspicions about his health, despite White House officials’ insistence that the president was merely getting a head start on his annual physical.

For any president, a sudden trip to the hospital would raise questions. But such scrutiny was magnified with a president who has a history of exaggeration and playing loose with the facts, giving skeptics room to run with their own theories.

“The one thing you can be absolutely sure of is this was not routine and he didn’t go up there for half his physical,” tweeted Joe Lockhart, a press secretary under President Bill Clinton, who was himself impeached for perjury and obstruction. “What does it mean? It means that we just won’t know what the medical issue was.”

The inexcusable speculation even frightened the First Lady – something that the President addressed from the White House on Tuesday.

“I went for a physical. and I came back and my wife said, ‘Darling are you OK? … Oh they’re reporting you may have had a heart attack,’” Trump explained. “I said ‘Why did I have a heart attack?’ ‘Because you went to Walter Reed Medical Center’ — that’s where we go when we get the physicals.”

“I was only there for a very short period of time, I went, did a very routine, just a piece of it, the rest takes place in January,” he continued, noting that afterward he took a tour of the hospital and met with an injured soldier and their family. “I got back home and I get greeted with the news that ‘We understand you had a heart attack!’”

There has been no evidence provided that would suggest the President is unhealthy or that he had a medical emergency over the weekend.


Continue Reading


Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman Scolds GOP Rep. Devin Nunes Over How He’ll Be Addressed

The impartiality argument is growing thinner by the minute.



The Democrats are walking quite the tightrope in their “formal impeachment inquiry”, incessantly attempting to paint many of their witnesses as non-partisan to counter accusations being made both by the President and the Republicans who are participating in the process.

This has led to a particularly contentious debate over the real, true purpose of impeachment itself, which Republicans have characterized as an attempt to nullify the will of the American people during the 2016 election.

Today, during the testimony of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a bit of that contention boiled over.

The testimony of National Security Council official Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman grew tense Tuesday under questioning from Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif. — as the impeachment hearing witness eventually scolded the top intelligence committee Republican for not addressing him by his military title.

The moment came amid a back-and-forth over the identity of the anonymous whistleblower whose complaint about President Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky led to the impeachment proceedings.

“Mr. Vindman, you testified in your deposition that you did not know the whistleblower,” Nunes stated.

“Ranking member, it’s Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, please,” the witness responded.

Nunes corrected himself and repeated the statement, which followed questions regarding who Vindman had spoken with about Trump’s phone call. More than once, Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., interjected to advise Vindman that the purpose of the hearing was not to expose the identity of the whistleblower, who is afforded legal protection.

The moment quickly went viral online, with a great many “resistance”-minded social media users cheering on what they say as a snide attack on Nunes, furthering the partisan hyperbole that these proceedings have already been mired in.


Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Become an insider

Sign up for the free Washington Sentinel email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Best of the Month

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!

Pin It on Pinterest