Connect with us

Politics

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.

Published

on

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: Joe Biden Wants Christians on Terror List for Opposing LGBTQ Agenda

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 HotAir.com 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.

Advertisement

Politics

Singer Issues Vulgar Statement After His Song Was Played During Phoenix Trump Rally

Published

on

By

Singer Issues Vulgar Statement After His Song Was Played During Phoenix Trump Rally

The frontman for Panic! At The Disco, slammed the Trump campaign after Trump walked out to one of the band’s songs before his event in Phoenix, Arizona.

“Dear Trump Campaign, F— you. You’re not invited. Stop playing my song. No thanks, Brendon Urie, Panic! At The Disco & company,” he tweeted.

In a second tweet, Urie addressed “Everyone Else,” urging them to “vote this monster out” and added a link to help people get registered to vote.

“Dear Everyone Else, Donald Trump represents nothing we stand for. The highest hope we have is voting this monster out in November.”

“Donald Trump represents nothing we stand for. The highest hope we have is voting this monster out in November. ” Since the left stands for violence, assault, arson, murder, killing babies, beating up old people, stealing, destroying people’s homes, destroying businesses yeah, they’re correct. President Donald Trump stands for none of that.

WJ:

As the presidential election nears, celebrities across the nation have been voicing their disapproval for President Trump more than normal.

Last week, rock-and-roll legend Bruce Springsteen criticized Trump on his SiriusXM show, and most recently, pop-rock band Panic! at the Disco’s Brendon Urie voiced his opinions on the president.

Following Trump’s rally in Phoenix, Arizona, on Tuesday evening, Urie discovered that the band’s hit song “High Hopes” was played during the event.

Urie published a strongly-worded tweet aimed at Trump and his campaign that same night. More

Funny how these musicians sell-outs get mad when people buy the rights to use their music. Did Brendon Urie consider that this is the first time many Americans have ever heard of him?

Continue Reading

Politics

BREAKING: Biden’s Staff Leaked Who The Campaign Is Vetting For Cabinet Positions… Here They Are!

Published

on

By

Team Trump: Joe Biden’s staff leaked who the campaign is vetting for cabinet positions!

Continue Reading

Politics

Michael Flynn Victory: Federal Appeals Court Rules District Judge Must Drop Charges

A huge win for Michael Flynn!

Published

on

By

A federal appeals court today ordered a lower court to allow the case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn to be dismissed, as requested by the Justice Department.

The abrupt ending came in a 2-1 ruling and order from judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

BI:

A three-judge panel on the US Court of Appeals in Washington, DC, ordered the federal judge overseeing the case against Michael Flynn to dismiss the prosecution on Wednesday, marking another big twist for the most high-profile former Donald Trump official to face criminal charges from special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe.

In a 2-1 decision, the appeals court also overturned US District Judge Emmet Sullivan’s decision to bring in a retired federal judge and veteran prosecutor to argue against the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss Flynn’s case. Sullivan had scheduled a July 16 hearing to weigh whether or not to toss out the case against President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser.

The appeals court ruled that Sullivan does not have the authority to prolong Flynn’s prosecution or examine the Justice Department’s motivation for wanting to drop the case.

“This is not the unusual case where a more searching inquiry is justified,” Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump-appointed judge, wrote in the majority opinion. Rao was joined by Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush.

The appeals court’s decision is a major victory for the former national security adviser, whose legal team has argued for months that the government  unfairly targeted him for political reasons. More

The DC Court of Appeals in NOT a bastion of conservatism. They did the right thing. Good for them. That is what Judge Emmet Sullivan gets for being an activist judge instead of an impartial one. Now it’s time to start the process to remove Judge Sullivan for abuse of power and political bias.

Continue Reading

Politics

Laura Loomer Drops Truth Bomb On Democrat’s Plans To Defund Our Police

Published

on

By

Laura Loomer Drops Truth Bomb On Democrat’s Plans To Defund Our Police

Laura Loomer is about to release her first campaign ad telling the truth about the Democrat’s plans to defund our police.

Her goal is to get this video in front of all 136,000 Republicans and 158,000 independents within the next few days – THREE TIMES. To do that, she needs to raise $21,975 in the next 48 hours.

Please donate to help Laura win this!

Florida Republican congressional candidate Laura Loomer is surging ahead of Nancy Pelosi’s puppet Lois Frankel. Why? Because Americans want Law & Order while Democrats want total chaos!

Continue Reading

Politics

Capital Hill Autonomous Zone Beefs Up Border Wall, Deports Conservative Visitors

This all sounds a little…fascist…doesn’t it?

Published

on

Something strange is occurring in Seattle, and it is quickly becoming the talk of the nation.

In the Capital Hill district of the Washington State capital, police were forced to abandon the 13th Precinct some days ago, during hearty demonstrations spawned from the death of George Floyd at the hands of the Minneapolis police.  In their absence, protesters took control of approximately six city blocks, renaming the area the “Capital Hill Autonomous Zone”, and warning visitors that they would be “leaving the USA” as they stepped into Free Cap Hill.

And while this quasi-secession appears to be led by the far left, they are seemingly resorting to some fairly “fascist” tactics…at least by their own standards.

Seattle, Washington’s Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ) — formed by anarchists, Antifa members, and Black Lives Matter activists — has set up a border wall surrounding its perimeters and is seemingly conducting ‘deportations’.

CHAZ, a six-square block autonomous zone, has clear and precise borders made up of mostly vehicle barriers and various forms of fencing.

Photos from CHAZ show the border controls:

A sign is seen on a barrier at an entrance to the so-called “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone” on June 10, 2020 in Seattle, Washington. (David Ryder/Getty Images)

Barriers are seen on a street leading to the Seattle Police Departments East Precinct on June 9, 2020 in Seattle, Washington. (David Ryder/Getty Images)

A protester uses a scope on top of a barricade to look for police approaching the newly created Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ) in Seattle, Washington on June 11, 2020. (JASON REDMOND/AFP via Getty Images)

Furthermore, there appears to be an issue with free speech within the CHAZ.

On Thursday, reporter Julio Rosas captured a moment where CHAZ occupants kicked out a man who said he was a pro-life activist and had been live-streaming from inside the autonomous zone.

The man was taunted by a mob as he was kicked out. The process was far less technical and impartial than the deportation process of the United States federal government.

Protesters in other US cities have also begun to consider creating their own “autonomous zones”, including in Nashville, Tennessee.

Continue Reading

Politics

Next Trump Rally’s Date and Location Offends Kamala Harris

The White House has pushed back against the suggestion that the timing and the location were purposeful. 

Published

on

Despite the risk that still exists due to coronavirus, President Trump is itching to get back out on the campaign trail.  This is where he excels.  It’s his comfort zone.  The opposite could not be truer for his opponent in 2020, either, which means that the Trump campaign is almost certainly relying on these tour de force performances to put distance between these candidates.

In Tulsa, on Friday, June 19th, Trump will return to the stage, much to the chagrin of his loyal base.

Kamala Harris, however, is not at all amused.

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) torched President Trump on Thursday over the president’s plan to hold a campaign rally in Tulsa, Okla., on Juneteenth.

In a tweet, Harris linked to a Los Angeles Times story that noted that Trump’s June 19 rally would take place in a city that was the site of a racist riot and massacre in 1921.

“This isn’t just a wink to white supremacists—he’s throwing them a welcome home party,” the senator tweeted.

June 19th, also known as Juneteenth, is a day that many Americans celebrate the end of slavery, as it corresponds with the day that the last slaves in Texas were read the emancipation proclamation back in 1865.

The White House has pushed back against the suggestion that the timing and the location were purposeful.

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump Rally Attendees Will Sign COVID-19 Liability Agreement Before Event

Published

on

President Trump will be returning to full-throated campaigning in just a weeks’ time out in Oklahoma, and at a time in which much of the nation is again concerned about coronavirus.

In several states, the numbers aren’t looking good.  Thanks to Americans’ generally annoyed take on COVID-19, and public gatherings for Memorial Day and protest, cases of the novel coronavirus are on the rise in several parts of the country.

Given the situation, President Trump’s team will be asking attendees at the upcoming Tulsa rally to sign a special waiver.

The sign-up page for tickets to President Donald Trump’s campaign rally in Tulsa next week includes something that hasn’t appeared ahead of previous rallies: a disclaimer noting that attendees “voluntarily assume all risks related to exposure to COVID-19” and agree not to hold the campaign or venue liable should they get sick.

Trump’s reelection campaign announced Thursday that the president’s next “Make America Great Again” rally will be held June 19 at the BOK Center.

The intent of the waiver was quite clear.

At the bottom of the registration page for tickets to the upcoming Trump campaign rally is a disclaimer notifying attendees that “by clicking register below, you are acknowledging that an inherent risk of exposure to COVID-19 exists in any public place where people are present.”

“By attending the Rally, you and any guests voluntarily assume all risks related to exposure to COVID-19 and agree not to hold Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.; BOK Center; ASM Global; or any of their affiliates, directors, officers, employees, agents, contractors, or volunteers liable for any illness or injury,” the notice states.
President Trump recently sparred with the Governor of North Carolina over health-related restrictions he was placing on the Republican National Convention, with the war of words eventually causing the RNC to move out of North Carolina to an as-of-yet-unknown location.
Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Become an insider


Best of the Month

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!
 
Send this to a friend