The DOJ has been investigating the FBI for 11 months

Attorney General Jeff Sessions, FBI Spox and Office of DOJ Inspector General Release Statements

The Last Refuge - December 4, 2017

Hold-up on the criticism folks. Three important statements today from the DOJ, FBI and OIG indicate there have been ongoing investigations and reviews of conduct within the upper tiers of leadership within the Department of Justice and the FBI.

Given the nature of the leaked IG investigation to the Washington Post and New York times; surrounding apex investigator and deputy head of counterintelligence at the FBI Peter Strzok; and accepting the direct approach of President Trump in his tweets toward that revelation; and adding the layer of Intel Chairman Devin Nunes threatening to file ‘contempt of congress charges‘; there is every indication something is about to break – very soon.

“[The allegations] if proven to be true, would raise serious questions of public trust. I look forward to receiving the Inspector General’s report. We will ensure that anyone who works on any investigation in the Department of Justice does so objectively and free from bias or favoritism.”

“My job is to restore confidence in the Department of Justice in all aspects of our work and I intend to do so. As such, I have directed that the FBI Director review the information available on this and other matters and promptly make any necessary changes to his management and investigative teams consistent with the highest professional standards.”

~ Attorney General Jeff Sessions

“When the FBI first learned of the allegations, the employees involved were immediately reassigned, consistent with practices involving employee matters.”

~ FBI Spokesperson

Here’s the critical OIG statement:

“The January 2017 statement issued by the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) announcing its review of allegations regarding various actions of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in advance of the 2016 electionstated that the OIG review would, among other things, consider whether certain underlying investigative decisions were based on improper considerations and that we also would include issues that might arise during the course of the review.

The OIG has been reviewing allegations involving communications between certain individuals, and will report its findings regarding those allegations promptly upon completion of the review of them.”

~ Justice Department Office of the Inspector General

What the OIG statement is saying is that for 11 months the Dept of Justice OIG office has been investigating the politicization within the DOJ and FBI and deciding if the actions, or lack of action, was driven by the political ideology of the participants therein.

I was not aware this investigation was taking place, were you?

Apparently the DOJ-OIG is close to “reporting its findings.”

It would be prudent to withhold negative opinion of AG Sessions and FBI Director Wray until we can see the outcome of the Inspector General findings – which will, given the duration of the investigation, likely be a very lengthy and extensive report.

All of a sudden the recent FBI leaks to the Washington Post and New York Times make more sense. All of the embedded political agents within the DOJ and FBI are quite possibly about to be exposed. This would explains a lot of the current activity and visible angst from within the participants of the professional administrative state.

This year-long OIG investigation could possibly explain a great deal of the current headlines on all sides of the DC spectrum. The black hats are on the cusp of being exposed.

And if we needed further proof of how close to the surface this final conclusion is to happening…. check out the Black Hat unified tweeting today in advance of this Investigator General report:

“I want the American people to know this truth: The FBI is honest. The FBI is strong. And the FBI is, and always will be, independent.”
Me (June 8, 2017) pic.twitter.com/OZ1ZiBrMNL

— James Comey (@Comey) December 3, 2017

The FBI is in “tatters”? No. The only thing in tatters is the President’s respect for the rule of law. The dedicated men and women of the FBI deserve better.

— Sally Yates (@SallyQYates) December 4, 2017

Nope. Not letting this go. The FBI’s reputation is not in “tatters”. It’s composed of the same dedicated men and women who have always worked there and who do a great, apolitical job. You’ll find integrity and honesty at FBI headquarters and not at 1600 Penn Ave right now

— Eric Holder (@EricHolder) December 3, 2017

Smoke em’ if you got em’… this is about to get REALLY INTERESTING.

Republicans Prepare For War With FBI,

DOJ: To File Contempt Action Over Anti-Trump Bias In addition to the threat of contempt, Strzok is also facing an internal review for his role in the investigation into Clinton’s handling of classified information on her private email server

Zero Hedge - December 4, 2017


Five weeks ago, House Speaker Paul Ryan accused the DOJ and FBI of “stonewalling” the House Intelligence Committee’s wide-ranging subpoena for all pertinent information about how the largely unsubstantiated “Trump dossier” played into the DOJ’s decision to launch the infamous Trump collusion investigation. At the time, the speaker said the agency was preparing to turn over the information requested by the committee, but despite his assurances, the promised documents never materialized.

Then yesterday, thanks to a series of coordinated media leaks, Nunes learned – at the same time as the broader public – about the reassignment of Peter Strzok, a senior Mueller aide who had played a critical role in the DOJ’s original collusion investigation. And before that, Strzok helped lead the FBI’s probe into Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information.

As it turns out, the agent had been reassigned for expressing anti-Trump sentiments in a series of text messages to FBI attorney Lisa Page while the two were having an affair. The bureau, it appears, had willfully tried to conceal this fact from Nunes and his committee.

Upon being blindsided with this information and publicly embarassed, the Intel committee chairman was understandably less than pleased. So in a statement issued Sunday, Nunes announced a serious escalation: His committee, he said, is preparing to hold Andrew McCabe and assistant AG Rod Rosenstein in contempt for the DOJ’s failure to comply with Nunes’s subpoena.

Strzok was reassigned in July, shortly before Nunes issued the request for the bureau to turn over all documents relating to the Trump dossier. In a transparent attempt to save face, the bureau contacted Nnes shortly after the Strzok news broke on Saturday to say they were ready to comply with the subpoena. But Nunes rightly repudiated this offer, saying it was too little, too late. He laid out his argument for preparing the order of contempt in a statement released Sunday offering details of the committee’s unsuccessful push to convince the FBI to turn over the documents it had requested.

Here’s a timeline of Nunes’ contact with the Department of Justice courtesy of the Washington Examiner:

On Oct. 11, Nunes met with deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein. In that meeting, Nunes specifically discussed the committee’s request for information about Strzok.
In an Oct. 31 committee staff meeting with the FBI, bureau officials refused a request for information about Strzok.
On Nov. 20, the committee again requested an interview with Strzok. (Three days earlier, on November 17, Strzok met with the Senate Intelligence Committee.)
On Nov. 29, Nunes again spoke to Rosenstein, and again discussed Strzok.
On Dec. 1, the committee again requested to speak with Strzok.

Republicans, including President Trump, pointed to the news as evidence that the entire probe into Russian meddling had been politically motivated.

Tainted (no, very dishonest?) FBI “agent’s role in Clinton probe under review.” Led Clinton Email probe. @foxandfriends Clinton money going to wife of another FBI agent in charge.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 3, 2017

After years of Comey, with the phony and dishonest Clinton investigation (and more), running the FBI, its reputation is in Tatters – worst in History! But fear not, we will bring it back to greatness.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 3, 2017

Unsurprisingly, both the FBI and House Democrats have been silent on the issue, according to Bloomberg:

A Justice Department spokesman, Sarah Isgur Flores, couldn’t be immediately reached for comment by telephone or text. There was no immediate response Sunday from a spokesman for the committee’s top Democrat, Representative Adam Schiff of California.

In his statement, included in full below, Nunes accused the FBI and the Department of Justice of willfully refusing to comply with an Aug. 24 committee subpoena in part by refusing the committee’s request “for an explanation of Peter Strzok’s dismissal from the Mueller probe.” Nunes is giving the FBI until end of business day tomorrow to fully comply with the committee’s requests, or face a contempt order before the end of the month.

Washington, D.C. – House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes issued the following statement today amid press reports that Peter Strzok, the top FBI official assigned to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of collusion between Russia and Trump officials, had been removed from the probe after exchanging anti-Trump and pro-Hillary Clinton text messages with his mistress, who was an FBI lawyer working for Deputy Director Andrew McCabe:

“The FBI and Department of Justice have failed to sufficiently cooperate with the Committee’s August 24 subpoena, and have specifically refused repeated demands from the House Intelligence Committee for an explanation of Pete Strzok’s dismissal from the Mueller probe. In light of today’s press reports, we now know why Strzok was dismissed, why the FBI and DOJ refused to provide us this explanation, and at least one reason why they previously refused to make Deputy Director McCabe available to the Committee for an interview.

“By hiding from Congress, and from the American people, documented political bias by a key FBI head investigator for both the Russia collusion probe and the Clinton email investigation, the FBI and DOJ engaged in a willful attempt to thwart Congress’ constitutional oversight responsibility. This is part of a months-long pattern by the DOJ and FBI of stonewalling and obstructing this Committee’s oversight work, particularly oversight of their use of the Steele dossier. At this point, these agencies should be investigating themselves.

“The DOJ has now expressed—on a Saturday, just hours after the press reports on Strzok’s dismissal appeared—a sudden willingness to comply with some of the Committee’s long-standing demands. This attempted 11th-hour accommodation is neither credible nor believable, and in fact is yet another example of the DOJ’s disingenuousness and obstruction. Therefore, I have instructed House Intelligence Committee staff to begin drawing up a contempt of Congress resolution for DOJ Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray. Unless all our outstanding demands are fully met by close of business on Monday, December 4, 2017, the committee will have the opportunity to move this resolution before the end of the month.”

In the statement, Nunes pointed to “a months-long pattern by the DOJ and FBI of stonewalling and obstructing this Committee’s oversight work,” including also withholding subpoenaed information about their use of an opposition research dossier that targeted Trump in the 2016 election.

In targeting McCabe and Rosenstein, Nunes explained that Attorney General Jeff Sessions was being excused from any contempt action by the committee because the AG had recused himself from the investigation into Russia meddling.

In addition to the threat of contempt, Strzok is also facing an internal review for his role in the investigation into Clinton’s handling of classified information on her private email server. It has already been revealed that then-FBI Director James Comey drafted his letter excusing Clinton before she had even been interviewed. The Office of the Inspector General probe into Strzok will examine his role in a number of “politically sensitive” cases this year, according to Fox News.

At the FBI, senior managers are facing a serious dilemma: It’s probable that the information pertaining to Strzok is only some of what the bureau has tried to keep from Nunes and the committee. Now, the FBI is facing a dilemma: Either rush to comply without having the time to screen all the documents that have been supplied to the committee, or continue to resist, and face a Congressional subpoeana. Either way, we’re certain this isn’t the last of the story.

Draining the swamp is hard. It's a big swamp.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Senator Grassley Lashes Out At FBI, DOJ In Fiery Senate Floor Speech

Grassley rips into Trump-obsessed Dems, corrupt deep state

Zero Hedge - December 7, 2017

Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) blasted the FBI and Senate Democrats on Wednesday for their unwillingness to fairly investigate Hillary Clinton and the Obama Administration, stating that the Democrats on the committee he oversees “only want to talk about [President] Trump.”

In a fiery speech to the Senate, Grassley lambasted Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and other Democrats for “a double standard here in the way that they desperately want to go after the president but ignore all other potential wrongdoing in the previous administration.”

He then tore into the credibility of the Justice Department and the FBI, pointing out that the veteran FBI agent placed in charge of both the Clinton investigation and the Trump-Russia, Peter Strzok, is wildly anti-Trump. Grassley insisted that both the Trump-Russia investigation and the Clinton email investigation are intricately connected to the firing of the former FBI Director James Comey, so they must be investigated together. From his speech:

“There are two major controversies plaguing the credibility of the Justice Department and the FBI right now. On the one hand the Trump Russia investigation, and then on the other hand the handling of the Clinton investigation. Any congressional oversight related to either one of these topics is not credible without also examining the other. Both cases were active during last year’s campaign. Both cases have been linked to the firing of the FBI Director.”

“These questions go to the heart of the integrity of our federal law enforcement and justice system.”

Grassley grilled Dianne Feinstein next for telling him that she would not participate in any investigations into Hillary Clinton’s emails, despite stating earlier in the year that she wanted to get to the bottom of whether Attorney General Loretta Lynch asked James Comey to downgrade the seriousness of Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information by referring to it as a “matter” instead of an investigation.
“The ranking member [Feinstein] has told me plainly she won’t join any investigation of the oversight of the Clinton e-mail investigations… Even on Trump-Russia oversight where we have been able to cooperate a great deal, there have been similar problems.” –Rep. Grassley

When it came to the topic of obstruction, Grassley pointed to the fact that Hillary Clinton’s use of ‘Bleach Bit’ to delete 33,000 emails under subpoena appears be a clear case of obstruction, however when it came to Trump he said “So far, I have seen no credible evidence that President Trump has told anyone to lie. I have also seen no credible evidence that he or his aides have destroyed records being sought by investigators.

Grassley even placed an article by liberal law professor Alan Dershowitz in the Congressional record which asserts that Trump did not commit obstruction – because even if the President did fire Comey over the Russia investigation, “the president cannot be charged with a crime for merely exercising his authority under Article 2 of the constitution. This authority includes firing the director of the FBI for whatever reason or no reason.”

In light of the mounting body of evidence that FBI officials were clearly covering for Clinton while gunning for Trump, one can understand why the President wanted Comey gone. As another example of Feinstein’s stonewalling, Grassley pointed to her refusal to fully investigate the “salacious and unverified” Trump-Russia dossier:

“All year I have wanted to learn more about the origins of the dossier that largely kick started the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign. In july, the ranking member [Feinstein] joined me in a bipartisan letter seeking voluntary cooperation from the firm that produced the dossier. The dossier was based largely on Russian sources within Russia and was put together by a former british spy. It made salacious and unverified claims about trump. The company responsible for producing it, Fusion GPS, was uncooperative.”

“In response to our bipartisan request, it dumped on the committee about 32,000 pages of press clippings and 8,000 pages that were entirely blank. Since then, it has provided zero additional documents. The founder of Fusion GPS Initially indicated he would rely on his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination rather than testify at the committee hearing in July. He later agreed to a private staff interview but refused to answer dozens of key questions. I would like to compel him to answer questions and compel him to provide the documents that senator Feinstein and I both asked him in July to provide voluntarily, but under our committee rules, I don’t have the authority to do that on my own.”

It should be pointed out that the House Intel Committee chaired by Devin Nunes (R-CA) has made much more progress with Fusion GPS, after the House found out that Fusion agreed to provide them with bank records, only to withhold 112 transactions relevant to the Russia probe. Due to this, the House is now demanding bank transfers to Fusion with other law firms in addition to the DNC’s council at Perkins Coie and Hostelter. Because of Fusion’s ommission of the banking transactions – effectively lying, the House committee is now arguing that the use of law firms to conceal payments to operatives is now fair game and relevant to their investigation.

While Grassley’s speech focused on Democrat efforts to hamstring Senate investigations, Feinstein told CNN on Monday that Grassley had similarly refused to sign her letters requesting more information on actions taken by the Trump campaign, saying “We want him to sign on. I think there’s an effort … not to go deeply,” adding “I hadn’t realized it before. But I realize it now. And we’re going to have to find a way to deal with it.”

Grassley shot back yesterday, stating “[Democrats] complain publicly and they complain privately that I’m not doing enough to investigate obstruction. But obstruction of justice is a legal term of art. It is a conclusion not evidence. …I do not make my conclusions first and try to shoehorn the facts to fit my conclusions.

Liberals Have Turned The FBI Into A Disgrace


Kurt Schlichter

Add this infamy to all the other crimes of the liberal establishment – its poisonous influence has converted the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in the eyes of the American people, from a proud institution dedicated to upholding the law into just another suppurating bureaucratic pustule. Where once we saw FBI agents as heroes – many of us ancients grew up watching Efrem Zimbalist, Jr., every Sunday night – now we see careerist hacks looking to suck-up to the Democrat elite while bending the law and subverting justice to do it. Truly, everything liberals touch dies.

The revelations about Oh-So-Special Agent Peter Strozk shouldn’t surprise anyone, as bad as they are. Even that hack Robert Mueller couldn’t keep him all-board the Russia Soft Coup Express after Strozk’s anti-Trump texts to his FBI mistress came out. Shocker – this is the same Democrat-loving clown who watered down the Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit investigation conclusions (helpfully drafted months before the investigation concluded). Oh, and he oversaw the unsworn, unrecorded interview of his special gal (not the one he was cheating with; the one with the taste for Chardonnay and failure who would have helped his career as a reward for his slavish devotion had she not botched running against Donald Trump). He was also in on the ambush of LTG Mike Flynn, who he and his scuzzy compadres decided to prosecute while the Harpy, Huma and all the rest of the Clinton Nostra got a pass.

Oh, but for the lefty in-crowd, it’s “Bros before Bureaus.” The new head honcho Christopher Wray – Where the hell is he hiding anyway? Is he locked in a gimp box somewhere in the Hoover Building? – didn’t even fire Strozk though intermural adultery is allegedly against the rules at the FBI. Nope, nothing builds confidence in a law enforcement agency’s organizational integrity like bending the rules to protect your bigwig buddies.

Oh, wait – outright payoffs do too! Don’t even start on Andrew McCabe and his wife’s Democrat contributions – to her. Yeah, the wife of the FBI second-in-command got money from the Democrat Party and he’s still not recused from this fake investigation. Are you kidding?

By the way, have we got even a single iota of information on what the unholy hell happened since Special Agent Johnson and Special Agent Johnson took over the investigation of the Las Vegas shooting?

It’s long past time to lance this boil. It’s sad when you have to accept that you can’t talk to the FBI, that they can’t be trusted to do justice, that you must protect yourself from being railroaded like LTG Flynn was and always – always always always – demand to speak to your attorney and demand that the FBI not question you if they come sniffing around. LTG Flynn trusted them not to have an agenda. Look what happened, and learn.

It’s heartbreaking, because the FBI’s real legacy – a legacy field agents largely live today – is a legacy of heroes.

Flashback to Miami, April 11, 1986. Eight agents make a felony stop on a car with two suspected bank robbers, igniting a firefight that demonstrated the bravery and devotion that should be what first comes to mind when any American thinks of the FBI.

William Russell Matix and Michael Lee Platt were ex-military and had killed before – and they packed an arsenal that ensured they were not going quietly. The FBI agents, lightly armed with under-powered handguns and a couple 12 gauges – came under intense rifle fire that the light vests some wore could not stop. In the end, seven of the eight agents were hit – and Special Agent Benjamin Grogan and Special Agent Jerry Dove died fighting.

This was no long-range stand-off – they fought it out with these psychos from just a few feet. Matix and Platt were both hit, but they were not going down. The agents were literally shot to pieces, but despite being outgunned, they didn’t back off. Not one inch.

His forearm shattered by a .223 rifle slug, Special Agent Edmundo Mireles, Jr. (no surprise, a former Marine from Texas), pumped his Remington 870 shotgun with his one good arm again and again as he engaged the criminals. His buddies dead or wounded all around him, bleeding out, Mireles then drew his .357 and advanced on the pair, in the open and totally exposed, as they attempted to drive away in one of the FBI cars. He put six magnum slugs into the criminals and finally put them down.

Matix took six hits to kill, Platt a dozen. And Mireles? This hero went back on the job, and actually worked with my former battalion commander Colonel (Ret.) Bill Wenger in Afghanistan in the 2000s on assignment there for the FBI. Now that’s a patriot. Now that’s what the real FBI is all about.

This dramatization gives you a good idea of what happened. The legendary Miami shootout has been studied for three decades to gather lessons learned about proper tactics and equipment, but the most important lesson it teaches is about courage.

That’s the courage that these desk-riding bums in Washington are dishonoring every time they sell their souls and their honor to kiss up to skeevy politicians.

You see that sanctimonious clown James Comey on Twitter presuming to quote the Bible, and it’s all you can do to keep your lunch from launching. These timeserving ladder-climbers are not what the FBI is, but their petty institutional gamesmanship has now seared that impression into the consciousness of millions of Americans. When you would say “FBI” to a liberal, he/she/xe would snarl, seething at the Bureau’s reputation for taking out the foreign and domestic terrorists progs love to play footsie with. But the tragedy is that when you say “FBI” to a conservative today, you get a sad shake of the head because we can no longer trust the Bureau because the top ranks are manifestly riddled with vindictive partisans angling for their own advantage.

Mueller, then Comey, and their progeny have done this. As liberals inevitably do, they have disgraced yet another proud institution. Imagine yourself a field agent, dedicated to upholding the law, and having to not only live under this corrupt regime but to have to share in the contempt the American people have learned to feel for it.

It’s heartbreaking, because the reality of the FBI is not the Muellers and the Comeys and the McCabes and the Strozks and whoever Strozk was having an affair with. It’s Special Agent Benjamin Grogan, Special Agent Jerry Dove, Special Agent Edmundo Mireles, Jr. and thousands of others who put their lives on the line for us every single day. They aren’t in the big upper-floor offices at HQ hiding documents from Congress or leaking to their pals at the WaPo. They aren’t mingling with Democrat bigwigs, schmoozing for their next step up the ladder. They’re doing their job.

Maybe the FBI can recover its reputation someday – I sure hope so. Maybe it can earn our trust and respect again. But the first step is for the President and Congress to pop this bureaucratic zit and clean out the pus.

BREAKING: Leftists Furious As DOJ Makes “Unusual” Power Move, 10,000 FBI Texts Expose TRUTH

Liberals didn’t even have time to absorb their lattes this morning before the latest headlines sent them into a panic-stricken fit of rage and fury. They woke up to learn that last night, the Justice Department offered a “highly unusual” invitation.

The DOJ hosted the press, allowing reporters to examine in detail a huge collection of ten thousand message texts, exchanged between FBI employees occupying key slots on Robert Mueller’s witch hunt. The posts were uncovered by the DOJ’s inspector general while auditing the FBI probe into Hillary Clinton’s secret server.

“It is highly unusual for the DOJ to release correspondences that are the subject of an ongoing investigation to Congress, let alone to the press,” one left-leaning source complains. “It’s appalling behavior by the department,” echoes former DOJ spokesman, Matthew Miller. “This is an ongoing investigation in which these employees have due-process rights, and the political leadership at DOJ has thrown them to the wolves.”

Deputy AG Rosenstein shrugs off the criticism, stressing the importance of the issue and the right of the public to know. DOJ officials discussed the matter and between them, they decided “that the texts turned over to Congress were fit for public consumption.” They backed that up with a statement this morning. “We often provide information we give to Congressional committees to avoid any confusion.”

Peter Strzok used his position on Robert Mueller’s inquisition to “protect the country” from President Trump. When FBI lawyer Lisa Page suggested, “maybe you’re meant to stay where you are because you’re meant to protect the country from that menace,” Strzok quickly embraced his role as a mole. “Of course I’ll try and approach it that way. I just know it will be tough at times. I can protect our country at many levels.”

375 lurid text messages that FBI counterintelligence agent Strzok swapped with his undercover lover were turned over to the House Judiciary Committee yesterday, on the eve of the expected third-degree interrogation of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. There is no doubt that the 90 pages of text messages will “demonstrate a bias in the FBI amid Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.”

Rosenstein, the second in command at the Justice Department, appointed Robert Mueller as Special Counsel to investigate possible Russian influence in last year’s election, so also has the authority to fire him. Every day, more and more evidence indicates that Mueller really is conducting a “witch hunt” instead of the promised impartial review. “The conflicts of interest here and the impropriety is a very serious concern,” warns Trump attorney Jay Sekulow.

FBI director Christopher Wray was subjected to a similar grilling last week where Strzok was also in the spotlight as the individual who changed the wording in James Comey’s final decision, downgrading the phrase “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless.” The difference is crucially important because gross negligence is a criminal charge. Before he grabbed a shovel to dig up dirt on Trump for Mueller, Peter Strzok was in charge of the FBI’s probe into Hillary Clinton’s back-channel secret server.

Following the hearing, the committee’s chairman, Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte (R-Virginia), was “very troubled by the recent controversy surrounding staff assigned to the special counsel’s investigation into Russian interference in last year’s presidential election.” Fellow Republican, Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), seconded the opinion. “If anyone is obscuring anything, it’s the Justice Department and the FBI.”

Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) wanted to know how Strzok got picked. “The question is, how did this guy get on your supposed unbiased team in the first place, when you consider this is the same guy investigating the Hillary Clinton email server scandal and apparently had a hand in altering the FBI’s conclusion that Clinton was grossly negligent down to ‘extremely careless,’ so she could escape prosecution and thus stay in the race against Donald Trump?”

While FBI guidelines allow the public expression of political opinions, a “conflict of interest” arises when those opinions can affect an ongoing investigation.

All through the election, the couple exchanged clearly biased messages. Page referred to Trump as a “loathsome human.” Strzok sent back “yet he may win.” Page said he would be a “worse president” than Ted Cruz.

The way they talked about Hillary showed fawning adoration. “She just has to win now. I’m not going to lie, I got a flash of nervousness yesterday about Trump.” Strzok typed. As the election got closer, Strzok’s agitation showed with messages in all caps. “I am riled up. Trump is an (expletive) idiot, is unable to provide a coherent answer. I CAN’T PULL AWAY. WHAT THE (expletive) HAPPENED TO OUR COUNTRY??!?!”

On election day, he posted “OMG THIS IS (expletive) TERRIFYING: A victory by Mr. Trump remains possible…” Page replied, “Yeah, that’s not good.”

These are only a few of the highlights but the pro-Hillary sentiment drips from every message. They thought they were being cagey about hiding their favoritism. “So look, you say we text on that phone when we talk about Hillary because it can’t be traced…” Page sent on April 2, 2016.

Good and bad critiques of the Mueller investigation. Law Professor Jonathon H. Adler of the Case Western University School of Law has his take on the investigation:

Draining the swamp isn't enough. You have to eliminate the swamp. And the only way to do that is to drastically reduce the size of the federal government. If there is no swamp, it can't get polluted.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Comey edits revealed: Remarks on Clinton probe were watered down, documents show


By Jake Gibson, Judson Berger | Fox News

Newly released documents obtained by Fox News reveal that then-FBI Director James Comey’s draft statement on the Hillary Clinton email probe was edited numerous times before his public announcement, in ways that seemed to water down the bureau’s findings considerably.

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, sent a letter to the FBI on Thursday that shows the multiple edits to Comey’s highly scrutinized statement.

In an early draft, Comey said it was “reasonably likely” that “hostile actors” gained access to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email account. That was changed later to say the scenario was merely “possible.”

Another edit showed language was changed to describe the actions of Clinton and her colleagues as “extremely careless” as opposed to “grossly negligent.” This is a key legal distinction.

Johnson, writing about his concerns in a letter Thursday to FBI Director Christopher Wray, said the original “could be read as a finding of criminality in Secretary Clinton’s handling of classified material.”

He added, “The edited statement deleted the reference to gross negligence – a legal threshold for mishandling classified material – and instead replaced it with an exculpatory sentence.”

The edits also showed that references to specific potential violations of statutes on “gross negligence” regarding classified information and “misdemeanor handling” were removed.

The final statement also removed a reference to the “sheer volume” of classified information discussed on email.

“While the precise dates of the edits and identities of the editors are not apparent from the documents, the edits appear to change the tone and substance of Director Comey’s statement in at least three respects,” Johnson wrote Thursday.

That includes, Johnson said, “repeated edits to reduce Secretary Clinton’s culpability in mishandling classified information.”

Johnson continued, “In summary, the edits to Director Comey’s public statement, made months prior to the conclusion of the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s conduct, had a significant impact on the FBI’s public evaluation of the implications of her actions.”

Johnson referenced newly revealed anti-Trump text messages exchanged between FBI officials who at one point worked on the Robert Mueller Russia probe.

Fox News has confirmed that one of those officials, Peter Strzok, a former deputy to the assistant director for counterintelligence at the FBI, was the person who changed the language from “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless.”

“This effort, seen in light of the personal animus toward then-candidate Trump by senior FBI agents leading the Clinton investigation and their apparent desire to create an ‘insurance policy’ against Mr. Trump’s election, raise profound questions about the FBI’s role and possible interference in the 2016 presidential election and the role of the same agents in Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation by President Trump,” Johnson said.

According to Johnson, Comey emailed a draft statement to top FBI officials clearing Clinton of criminal wrongdoing in May of 2016 -- two months before the FBI completed two dozen interviews, including with Clinton herself.

“I’ve been trying to imagine what it would look like if I decided to do an FBI only press event to close out our work and hand the matter to the DOJ,” Comey wrote at the top of the draft. “To help shape out discussions of whether that, or something different, makes sense, I have spent some time crafting what I would say, which follows. In my imagination, I don’t see me taking any questions. Here is what it might look like.”

Comey delivered his statement on the Clinton case in July 2016, calling her actions “extremely careless” while recommending against criminal charges.

The Senate Homeland Security Committee is doing oversight of the Office of Special Counsel's investigation into whether Comey violated the Hatch Act with his statement. The Hatch Act limits the political activities of federal employees.

Was there ever any doubt? If this doesn't convince the everyday American that there is a soft system of justice for the power elite and a less forgiving one for the common Joe, nothing will.

Gowdy tears deputy A.G. apart over Mueller probe

Smackdown: 'What in the hell is going on with the Department of Justice'

Bob Unruh

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., used to be a prosecutor. So he’s not entirely new to the concept of evidence, investigations, charges and conflicts of interest.

What he apparently doesn’t understand is the FBI’s idea of a “conflict-of-interest-free” special counsel’s office, which employed a key investigator who helped clear a political candidate he supported and later targeted one he vehemently opposed.

“There are a lot of issues I’d like to ask you about, Mr. Deputy Attorney General,” Gowdy told Rod Rosenstein at a House hearing Wednesday. “We had the terrorist incident in New York this week. We have 702 reauthorization that is pending in Congress. Gun violence. The opioid epidemic. Criminal justice reform.

“But when I go home to South Carolina this weekend, trust me when I tell you that no one is going to ask me about any of those issues. They’re going to ask me what in the hell is going on with the Department of Justice and the FBI.”

Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel to investigate the allegations the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 election. Mueller later stacked his staff with almost exclusively Democratic Party donors.

Rosenstein’s appointee even hired someone to help investigate allegations about President Trump as a candidate who talked about having an “insurance policy” in the event Trump won.

After months of bashing Trump in texts and stating that Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton “just has to win,” Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page exchanged a cryptic text concerning an “insurance policy” against a Trump win.

On Aug. 15, 2016, Strzok wrote: “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in [Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe’s] office that there’s no way he gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”

Mark Taylor and Mary Colbert write in “The Trump Prophecies” about the miracle of the 2016 election, and what the Body of Christ should do – now – for the nation.

It’s unclear what the “insurance policy” against Trump’s election might have been. However, as WND recently reported, the FBI’s investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the presidential election began in late July 2016, just weeks before Strzok’s mysterious text.

It advised, “Watch the video. I can guarantee you won’t be bored.”

Gowdy began: “The reason we have special counsel is because of a conflict of interest. … The regulation itself specifically makes reference to a conflict of interest. We don’t like conflicts of interest because it undermines people’s confidence in both the process and the result. … Let’s be really clear why we have special counsel. There was either a real or perceived conflict of interest that would either impact the result or people’s confidence in the process. … That’s why we have something called special counsel. And then, lo and behold, those that are supposed to make sure there are no conflicts of interest seem to have a bit of their own.”

He cited Strzok’s tweets blasting Trump and talking about the “insurance policy.”

Rosenstein told Gowdy the inspector general is investigating concerns about bias in the investigation and assured him that he and other Justice Department officials were committed to fairness and the public should trust them.

Gowdy noted the fact that senior prosecutors “of this conflict-of-interest-free” special counsel’s office donated almost exclusively to one candidate, Hillary Clinton.

One attended what was supposed to be a victory party for Hillary Clinton. Another investigator’s wife was on the payroll of a political group paid to dig up dirt on then-candidate Trump. One changed the wording of a condemnation of Hillary Clinton’s email activities from a legally based “gross negligence” to a generic “extremely careless.”

Gowdy pointed out that a “conflict-of-interest-free” investigator in Mueller’s office contended Hillary Clinton should win the election 100 million to nothing.

“[He] can’t think of a single, solitary American who would vote for Donald Trump,” Gowdy said.

He pointed out the “conflict-of-interest-free” investigator also slammed Trump’s family members and supporters by saying he could “smell them at a Walmart.”

The RedState commentary continued: “It is a thing of beauty. When Rosenstein tries to run away from the anti-Trump FBI agent, Gowdy points out that Department of Justice was not forthcoming with Congress about why the guy was removed and three months elapsed before the truth came to light.”

WND reported that Strzok discussed the “insurance policy” at about the time the anti-Trump “dossier” created by the commercial research and strategic intelligence firm Fusion GPS was given to the FBI.

That’s according to former British spy Christopher Steele, who was hired by Fusion GPS, which funded Steele’s research with cash from Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

Strzok also called Trump a “f—ing idiot” and assured friends, “I can protect our country at many levels, not sure if that helps.”

FBI: Hillary’s “Shadow Government” Buried Email Scandal

State Dept. offered FBI “quid pro quo” to reclassify Clinton emails

Jerome Corsi | Infowars.com - December 18, 2017

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A “shadow government” within John Kerry’s State Department was constituted to review all FOIA requests to prevent public disclosure of classified information Hillary Clinton may have transmitted over her private email server, FBI documents reveal.

The newly released “FBI Vault” release on Hillary Clinton makes clear Clinton “fixer” in the State Department, Deputy Secretary of State Patrick F. Kennedy, pressured the FBI to downgrade the classification status of various Clinton emails from “classified” to “unclassified,” offering the FBI a “quid pro quo” in exchange for the FBI agreeing to cooperate in the subterfuge.

The Clinton documents released in the FBI Vault are the source documents that led to reports published by the Washington Post in an Oct. 17, 2016 report that State Department official Kennedy had pressured the BI “to change its determination that at least one of the emails on Hillary Clinton’s private server contained classified content, prompting discussion of a possible trade to resolve the issue, two FBI employees told colleagues investigating Clinton’s use of a private server last year.”

Reading the FBI source documents make clear that Kennedy was determined to recruit not only the FBI but the CIA and other intelligence agencies to engage in a “quid pro quo” cover-up scheme aimed at hiding the truth that Clinton did transmit classified State Department documents over her private unsecured email server.

The FBI source documents make clear the FBI had evidence suggesting Clinton had committed criminal violations of national security laws regarding her transmitting of State Department classified information over her unsecured private email server in July 2015 – a year and a half before the Nov. 2016 presidential election – information that had it been made public at that time most likely would have derailed Clinton’s bid to win the DNC’s presidential nomination.

The FBI source documents do not explain why the FBI did not press the Department of Justice to bring charges against Clinton in July 2015 when the FBI had in hand clear evidence State Department officials were engaged in a cover-up of the Clinton email scandal.

“Shadow Government” within Hillary’s State Department

That memo, dated Aug. 8, 2015, (FBI Vault, Hillary R. Clinton, Part 4, pp. 53-57), contains the following paragraph that makes explicit reference to the “Shadow Government” constituted within the Department of State to protect Sec. Clinton from potentially criminal mishandling of classified information.

The paragraph in question reads as follows:

There was a powerful group of very high-ranking STATE officials that some referred to as “The 7th Floor Group” or “the Shadow Government.” This group met every Wednesday afternoon to discuss the FOIA process, Congressional records, and everything CLINTON-related to FOIA/Congressional inquiries. The known regular attendees included Jonathan FINER, Jennifer STOUT, Deputy Chief of Staff, Heather HIGGINBOTTOM, Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources KENNEDY, Julia FRIFIELD, Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs, [REDACTED] Office of Legal Adviser, [REDACTED] Office of the Legal Adviser overseeing STATE’S [REDACTED]. [REDACTED] [REDACTED] and [REDACTED].

Further into the memo, there is a discussion of Patrick F. Kennedy, then Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources, requesting the FBI to downgrade from “National Security Classified” an email from Clinton long-time advisor Sidney Blumenthal that evidently had either potentially embarrassing and/or suspect criminal implications for Sec. Clinton if made public as a document made secret by a national security classification.

Pressured to change “classified” to “unclassified”

The memo also suggests that Patrick F. Kennedy, a Clinton “fixer” within the State Department pressured the FBI to change Clinton emails marked “classified” to “unclassified.”

The memo dated Aug. 8, 2015, continues:

In late April 2015, IPS officials completed the formal review of the Benghazi-related Congressional inquiry. All materials were ready for release at that time. The CIA provided redactions [REDACTED] but none were deemed a B(1) exemption. Most of the items with CIS redactions were emails from Sidney BLUMENTHAL. One was deemed classified according to the FBI and KENNEDY held a closed-door meeting attended by the FBI’s [REDACTED] and IPS’ [REDACTED] among others. In that KENNEDY held a closed-door meeting attended by the FBI’s [REDACTED] among others. In that meeting, KENNEDY asked [REDACTED] to change the FBI’s B(1) upgrade classification, but [REDACTED] did not change the FBI’s stance. On May 22 (2015), it was decided by the IPS team they would keep the upgrade of the one FBI-related email and the IPS officials sent David KENDALL, Attorney, Williams & Connolly, LLC, a letter informing him of the results.

Clearly, the FBI insisted the email remain with its “classified” national security classification.

The B(1) exemption under the Freedom of Information Act is designed to protect from public disclosure information that has been deemed classified “under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy” and is “in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order.

The State Department operates its FOIA program through the Office of Information Programs and Services (“IPS”), a part of the Bureau of Administration; the Assistant Secretary for Administration serves as the State Department’s Chief FOIA officer.

State offers FBI a “quid pro quo” to cover-up Clinton email scandal

Proof that Clinton operatives in the State Department were trying to recruit FBI officials to participate in their arguably illegal scheme to change the classification status of various Hillary emails is clear from “classified” to “unclassified” can be found in a FBI memo dated July 30, 2015 (FBI Vault, Hillary R. Clinton, Part 4, pages 25-27).

In that document, the key paragraph reads as follows:

Shortly thereafter, [REDACTED] received a call from [REDACTED] of the International Operations Division (IOD) of the FBI, who “pressured” him to change the classified email to unclassified. [REDACTED] indicated he had been contacted by PATRICK KENNEDY, Undersecretary of State, who had asked his assistance in altering the email’s classification in exchange for a “quid pro quo.” [REDACTED] advised that, in exchange for making the email unclassified, STATE would reciprocate by allowing the FBI to place more Agents in countries where they are presently prohibited.

The next paragraph of the memo provided a description of a meeting during which Kennedy openly pressed his declassification scheme in an “all agency” meeting that included CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency representatives.

The next paragraph reads as follows:

Following the above exchange, [REDACTED] was summoned to an “all agency” meeting at STATE to discuss matters pertaining to the classification review of pending CLINTON FOIA materials. [REDACTED official from STATE, along with representatives from CIA, DIA, and other government agencies were present. PATRICK KENNEDY presided over the meeting. During the conversation, a participant asked whether any of the emails in question were classified. Making eye contact with [REDACTED] KENNEDY remarked, “Well, we’ll see.” [REDACTED] believed this was reference to the FBI’s categorization of SECRET/NOFORN emails which KENNEDY was attempting to influence. In a private meeting with KENNEDY following the all agency meeting, Kennedy asked [REDACTED] whether the FBI could “see their way to marking the email unclassified.” According to [REDACTED] KENNEDY spent the next 15 minutes debating the classification of the email and attempting to influence the FBI to change its markings. Since [REDACTED] continued to assert that the email was appropriately marked SECRET//NOFORN, KENNEDY asked who else in the FBI he could speak with. [REDACTED] referred KENNEDY to MICHAEL STEINBACH, Assistant Director of CTD.

NOFORN (No Foreign Nationals) is a designation in the FBI classification system that indicates the document is not to be disseminated to foreign nationals.

Michael Steinbach, the executive director who heads the FBI’s National Security Branch, also served as the assistant director of both the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division (CTD).

The next paragraph makes clear that Kennedy met a stone wall in his attempt to recruit the FBI into his cover-up scheme.

[REDACTED] was then present during a conference call involving KENNEDY and STEINBACH in which KENNEDY continued to pressure the FBI to change the classified markings on the email to unclassified. STEINBACH refused to do so.

The controversy over Blumenthal emails

An FBI report made public in Aug. 2016 concluded 24 memos sent by Blumenthal to Sec. Clinton had been identified as containing “information currently classified as CONFIDENTIAL.”

Among the cache of Blumenthal emails to Clinton release by Wikileaks is an email sent by Blumenthal to Sec. Clinton in March 2011, that contained a highly classified intelligence memo that revealed then French President Nicholas Sarkozy’s motive in deposing Libyan dictator Qaddafi involved a desire for Libyan oil.

Sidney Blumenthal emails to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made public by WikiLeaks made clear Obama and Clinton armed he Free Syrian Army rebels in an effort to topple the regime of Bashar al-Assad, mirroring a strategy already underway in Libya to help al-Qaida-affiliated militia overthrow Muammar Gadhafi.

A consequence of the strategy was the emergence of ISIS out of the loosely coordinated Free Syrian Army coalition as well as the disastrous Benghazi attack in which a U.S. ambassador was murdered.

Various WikiLeaks emails examined by WND indicate the Free Syrian Army was among the first splinter rebel groups Clinton and Obama armed. The Obama administration apparently was hoping to replicate the regime-change strategy in which it armed al-Qaida-affiliated militia in Libya, including Ansar al-Sharia, the group responsible for the Sept. 11, 2012, attack at Benghazi.

The WikiLeaks email evidence shows a shift in policy in which Clinton and Obama appear to have decided in 2011 to topple the governments of Gadhafi in Libya and Assad in Syria, even if it meant arming radical Islamic terrorist groups that traced back to al-Qaida.

On June 20, 2011, Blumenthal sent a confidential email to Clinton at the State Department that included an article by David W. Lesch, a professor of Middle Eastern history at Trinity University in San Antonio. Lesch argued a strategy of regime change could be effected in Syria if the U.S. could find opposition groups in Syria capable of establishing “a Benghazi-like refuge from which to launch a rebellion and to which aid can be sent.”

In a subsequent confidential email July 24, 2012, Blumenthal further advised Clinton that the “growing success of the rebel forces of the Free Syria Army” caused him to believe the Assad regime was increasingly vulnerable to being toppled.

In an email dated Feb. 24, 2012, Blumenthal characterized the FSA as “loosely organized and uncoordinated,” noting it was “for the most part, local militias, many of them civilian-based, that are simply calling themselves the FSA to appear to be part of a whole.”

Blumenthal commented in the email that the armed resistance to Assad “is not well-funded or well-armed.”

On Feb. 28, 2012, Jacob Sullivan, a State Department senior policy adviser to Secretary Clinton, forwarded to Clinton an opinion piece published in the New York Times by foreign correspondent Roger Cohen suggesting the strategy Obama and Clinton had used to topple Gadhafi in Libya should be used to bring down Assad in Syria.

“As the Bosnian war showed, the basis for any settlement must be a rough equality of forces. So I say step up the efforts, already quietly ongoing, to get weapons to the Free Syrian Army. Train those forces, just as the rebels were trained in Libya,” Cohen wrote. “Payback time has come around: The United States warned Assad about allowing Al Qaeda fighters to transit Syria to Iraq. Now matériel and special forces with the ability to train a ragtag army can transit Iraq – and other neighboring states – into Syria.”

Then, on Sept. 18, 2012, one week after the Benghazi terror attack, Blumenthal, in a confidential memo, alerted Clinton to the possibility of the FSA military taking over Damascus.

The prospect caused Assad’s wife and close relatives to urge Assad to flee Syria to avoid “the fate of Assad’s former ally Muammar al Qaddafi of Libya, who was captured and killed by rebel forces while attempting to flee his home territory in Sirte.”

The controversy over David Kendell

In May 2015, a senior State Department official informed Clinton lawyer, David Kendell, that government reviewers had found at least one classified email among the emails Clinton transmitted over her private email system she used as Secretary of State.

The suspect email was found in a State Department FOIA search to respond to a House committee investigating the 2012 terrorist attack on U.S. officials in Benghazi that ended up with the murder of U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens.

Attorney David Kendell of Washington-based law firm Williams & Connolly, LLC, began representing President Bill Clinton and First Lady Hillary Clinton in 1993 during the Special Prosecutor investigation into the Whitewater scandal; Kendell continued to represent the Clintons “in a variety of matters, including independent Counsel, Senate House of Representatives, FDIC, RTC {Resolution Trust Corporation}, and bar counsel investigations, civil litigation, and the 1998-99 impeachment hearings.”

On Aug. 23, 2015, the New York Times reported on a controversy that developed when Kendell, then representing former Sec. Clinton had in his possession a thumb drive containing Clinton State Department emails that Kendell may not have secured properly to prevent public disclosure of national security classified information.

“For more than 20 years, Mr. Kendell has been on the front lines for Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton as their personal lawyer, battling investigators and litigants in the superheated environment where law and politics meet,” wrote Peter Baker in the Times report. “So as Mrs. Clinton faces questions about her use of a personal email server as secretary of state, no one is surprised she turned to Mr. Kendall.”

In August 2015, Kendall turned over the thumb drive to the Justice Department and gave copies to the FBI, after the thumb drive, believed to hold copies of some 55,000 Clinton emails, after a report to Congress by the intelligence community inspector general reported to Congress that Clinton’s State Department emails were found to contain classified material.

FBI Deputy Director McCabe ‘Retiring’ After ‘Trump Insurance Policy’ Debacle

Seeking a way to escape Russia probe scrutiny

Zero Hedge - December 24, 2017

Just hours after the FBI’s top lawyer, James Baker, was reassigned, WaPo reports that FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe will retire in a few months – once he becomes fully eligible for pension benefits.

McCabe, who has been the target of Republican critics for more than a year, spent hours in Congress this past week, facing questions behind closed doors from members of three committees.

Republicans said they were dissatisfied with his answers:

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), has called for McCabe’s ouster, saying he “ought to go for reasons of being involved in some of the things that took place in the previous administration. We want to make sure that there’s not undue political influence within the FBI — the [Justice] Department and the FBI.”

Democrats called it a partisan hounding:

Democrats emerging from Thursday’s questioning of McCabe urged him to resist Republicans’ calls to step down, saying the GOP’s new focus on McCabe smells of political opportunism. “Mr. McCabe should in no way be fired by biased political commentary,” said Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.).

But whichever it was, The Washington Post reports, according to people familiar with the matter, McCabe plans to retire in a few months when he becomes fully eligible for pension benefits.

As a reminder, McCabe was former director James B. Comey’s right-hand man, a position that involved him in most of the FBI’s actions that vex President Trump as well as the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state, a matter that still riles Democrats.

McCabe won’t become eligible for his full pension until early March. People close to him say he plans to retire as soon as he hits that mark.

“He’s got about 90 days, and some of that will be holiday time. He can make it,’’ said one.

A spokesman for McCabe declined to comment, as did an FBI spokesman.

There is good reason to question McCabe’s perspective and un-biasedness…

His wife, a Democratic candidate for a Virginia Senate seat in 2015, had received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign donations from the political action committee led by a close ally of the Clintons. He had also been part of discussions with Justice Department officials that critics said prevented FBI agents from more aggressively pursuing their investigation of the Clinton Foundation. Agents were trying to determine if donations to the foundation were made with an expectation of government favors from Clinton or her allies.

After reports about those issues surfaced in October 2016, then-candidate Trump singled out McCabe for criticism, and congressional Republicans demanded detailed answers from the FBI about his role in the Clinton probes — questions they insist remain unanswered.

McCabe’s role is being examined by the Justice Department’s inspector general, who has said a report on how the Clinton probe was handled should be finished by spring.

Republicans are also focusing on the FBI’s relationship with the author of a dossier containing allegations against Trump. The bureau offered to pay the author of that document after the election to keep pursuing leads and information, but the agreement was never finalized, The Washington Post reported earlier this year.

And most recently, one of his senior advisers, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, had exchanged numerous pro-Clinton and anti-Trump text messages with Peter Strzok, the top FBI agent on Mueller’s probe. Strzok was removed by Mueller when he learned of their communications; Page had left the Mueller team two weeks earlier for what officials said were unrelated reasons. In one text, Strzok texted that he thought Clinton should win “100,000,000-0.’’

More problematic for McCabe is a text in which Page told Strzok, “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.’’

Republican lawmakers have seized on that text as evidence Strzok, Page, and possibly McCabe were involved in an effort to somehow ensure Trump would not win the election. But people familiar with the exchange said the officials were debating how overtly they should begin investigating Trump, and that one of the factors they considered was the likelihood Trump could win the presidency – which they considered small.

Even that explanation presents a headache for McCabe because it places a conversation in his office about how the expected election outcome should or should not affect the FBI’s investigative decisions.

But apart from that.. he is a great guy, according to his former boss James Comey took to the Twitter to defend him and his lackey James Baker today…

“Sadly, we are now at a point in our political life when anyone can be attacked for partisan gain.”

With The FBI’s reputation in tatters (and former FBI Director claiming that anything that exposes corruption or bias is off-limits, “for partisan gain”), it appears FBI Director Christopher Wray may be – just maybe – starting to clean house as first Baker and McCabe (following Peter Strzok’s and Bruce Ohr’s reassignment) are thrown under the bus, perhaps in an effort to appease those looking for Mueller blood.

Meanwhile, Trump predictably wasted no time to lash out at the FBI asking “How can FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, the man in charge, along with leakin’ James Comey, of the Phony Hillary Clinton investigation (including her 33,000 illegally deleted emails) be given $700,000 for wife’s campaign by Clinton Puppets during investigation?”

How can FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, the man in charge, along with leakin’ James Comey, of the Phony Hillary Clinton investigation (including her 33,000 illegally deleted emails) be given $700,000 for wife’s campaign by Clinton Puppets during investigation?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 23, 2017

Followed up by “FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe is racing the clock to retire with full benefits. 90 days to go?!!!”

FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe is racing the clock to retire with full benefits. 90 days to go?!!!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 23, 2017

https://youtu.be/g0-wLpGsY-k