Byron York has reported something several people noted several weeks ago; the Office of Inspector General for the DOJ, Michael Horowitz, has completed a separate carve-out investigation of former FBI Director James Comey and will soon publish a final report.

Via Washington Examiner – The Comey report is separate from a larger inspector general report on the DOJ’s handling of the Trump-Russia probe. That report, sometimes referred to by Republicans as an investigation into “FISA abuse,” is expected to be released later.

It is not clear why the inspector general, Michael Horowitz, chose to write a separate report on Comey.

Among other things, Comey has been under investigation for his handling of several memos he wrote memorializing conversations with President Trump. The memos began in January 2017, when Trump was still president-elect, and continued until April 2017, the month before Trump summarily fired the FBI director. (read more)

Byron York is habitually late to stories in/around Spygate; however, his current reporting dove-tails with the earlier reporting by John Solomon.

Taken together, and overlaying the formal process for final IG report publication, it would appear Comey’s legal team have responded to the final report (principal notification), and the IG has finished reconciling their replies with responses from his own investigation.

This process would conclude the final report assembly, immediately prior to public release.

NOTE: This is NOT the IG report on DOJ and FBI conduct about IG FISA abuses. This is a carve-out report, specific to James Comey and his leaked memos.

As part of the process, the inspector general report is previewed to James Comey in advance.  According to John Solomon’s earlier reporting, Comey lawyers Patrick Fitzgerald and Daniel Richman, along with spokesperson Keith Urbahn all participated in his review of the report content.  This is called the “Principal Review Phase”.

If the IG sticks to the same general timeline as the 2018 McCabe report, we could see a final IG report very soon; which could line-up with the DOJ delays in the Comey Memo/Archey Declaration FOIA case in the DC Circuit (Judge James Boasberg).

Possibly those delays were/are due to the background of the Comey IG report being released.  That’s the optimistic view for the DOJ delays.

Regardless of connection to the FOIA case, the IG report on James Comey is going to become public very soon.

The inspector general along with the OIG referencer, may (not required) include the responses from Comey’s team as part of their final report.  If Horowitz does include Comey’s responses, likely responses from Comey’s legal team, Horowitz will almost certainly include rebuttals to those responses in his final report.

The report itself is likely quite damning as pre-release reporting by John Solomon outlines the IG sent criminal referrals to the DOJ (John Huber) as part of the overall review.

The DOJ has reportedly declined prosecution on the referral; however, there may be extrajudicial reasons why that declination has taken place. [ex. if the DOJ wants to declassify and release the memos, as part of a larger investigative release.]

Now, it’s important to remember…. No-one knows the number of memos that James Comey has written.  [We may get that answer in the IG report.]  There are nine memos written by James Comey surrounding contact and conversations with President-elect and then President Trump (2016/2017).

However, based on the court declarations by Mueller’s former lead FBI investigator David Archey, it sounds like there are many more memos than anyone currently understands; including memos about the investigation of candidate Trump, that were written during the “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation 2016 and 2017, that describe investigative details, sources, operations and code-names of intelligence assets used in the investigation.

It is also worth remembering that James Comey leaked his memos to Daniel Richmanso that Richman could act as a go-between to pass the information along to the New York Times.  Richman was not only Comey’s friend, it was later discovered that Richman was an unpaid FBI employee given special access by James Comey.

Fox News Catherine Herridge detailed how Daniel Richman held special access privileges to the FBI, as an outcome of former FBI Director James Comey authorizing his friend as a “Special Government Employee” or SGE.

(VIA FOX) […] The professor, Daniel Richman, confirmed the special status in response to an inquiry from Fox News, while referring other questions, including on the scope of his work, to the FBI.

“I did indeed have SGE status with the Bureau (for no pay),” Richman wrote in an email.

Richman emerged last year as the former FBI director’s contact for leaking memos documenting his private discussions with President Trump – memos that are now the subject of an inspector general review over the presence of classified material.

Sources familiar with Richman’s status at the FBI told Fox News that he was assigned to “special projects” by Comey, and had a security clearance as well as badge access to the building. Richman’s status was the subject of a Memorandum of Understanding.  (read more)

A few paragraphs later in the article about Richman you might pay particular attention to this: “Richman’s portfolio included the use of encrypted communications by terror suspects.”

How did Daniel Richman review “encrypted communication”?  Well, likely through access to the FBI/NSA database.  The same database outlined by FISA Judge Rosemary Collyer:

It seems too coincidental to be disconnected. [Backstory]

When considering who were the FBI contractors, with special program access to the NSA database, conducting unauthorized searches and extracting results… there’s a specific type of contractor described by FISA Judge Rosemary Collyer.  One who was able to work around the security protocols: [Page 21] “systems …. that do not interface with NSA’s query audit system“.

I have my suspicions, [backstory] but we would need to see the fully unredacted Collyer FISA report to get the answers.

I digress.

After it was revealed that Richman was an exclusive special government employee of FBI Director Comey; and after it was revealed that Richman was the go-between for the leaked memo distribution; James Comey said Daniel Richman was also his lawyer.

Calling Richman his personal lawyer, conveniently has the benefit of taking Richman away from the reach of the current DOJ investigators via attorney/client privilege.

So we await the IG report on James Comey which could come at any time; and I suspect there will be some good information included within it for those who do research.  The primary question I have is whether the declination to prosecute now means the report will contain the actual memos.

Additionally, knowing this report is soon to be released it will be interesting to see how the DOJ responds to Judge Boasberg’s deadline in the FOIA case that involves the Comey memos.

Stay tuned…

The Lawfare group are the external influence agents for corrupt politically motivated lawyers working in government.  The group fingerprints show up everywhere including among “beach friends” and legal schemes hatched from the premise of their assembly.  Lawfare = use the law as a tool in warfare.  [Adult Alinsky disciples.]

The Lawfare group is headed by Comey’s friend Benjamin Wittes; and the group give resistance advice to ideologues inside government as well as outside organizations who are resisting (suing) the Trump administration.

So when Benjamin Wittes announces to his ideological resistance followers:

…”You should thus expect charges against McCabe to be forthcoming any day. And if such charges don’t happen, that doesn’t mean they weren’t planned but, rather, that some extrinsic event has intervened”… (link)

…readers can assume Lawfare leadership has known about McCabe’s risk position for quite some time. Remember, former FBI chief legal counsel James Baker also works for Lawfare.

It is almost guaranteed Andrew McCabe and his lawyer Michael Bromwich are in daily conversations with their network of friends inside Lawfare.  This same ideological network has vast affiliates throughout media. The pending indictment of Andrew McCabe would explain why CNN hired him.

Knowing the DOJ was likely to indict McCabe, CNN could help frame a narrative that serves both their interests.  That narrative was already in the New York Times article describing the potential for the indictment.

When McCabe is charged the media narrative will be it’s because he took the job with CNN… Trump/Barr weaponizing the DOJ and trying to kill free speech etc.  CNN doesn’t have to defend their action in hiring a known liar, they’ll instead frame McCabe as a victim, a fellow traveler to the larger cause of justice – whose indictment is evidence of how far Trump and Barr will go to destroy their enemies etc.

Hey, at least now we know Andrew McCabe is about to be indicted.

Additionally, Wittes goes on to say that something else must be behind the conduct of McCabe if the DOJ is actually going to indict him:

[…] But criminal charges? At least based on what’s in the inspector general’s report, this is very far from a criminal case. Criminal dispositions on false statements matters in internal investigations are exceptionally rare. Absent some gross aggravating factor, I struggle to think of any other examples. Workplace false statements are normally handled through internal disciplinary means, not criminal charges. (link)

Essentially, the Lawfare position is that McCabe was authorized to leak to the media; ergo, the investigation of McCabe leaking to the media was a non-criminal investigation…. ergo, according to Lawfare logic, McCabe lying about non-criminal conduct to the FBI INSD (internal investigators) is not itself criminal.  To wit Andrew McCabe is only lying as a common workplace type of lying, not illegal lying in a criminal investigation.

So Wittes says there must be more to the story…

Which then expands the Lawfare mindset to believe the decision to indict must be related to something discovered within the criminal investigation of events in/around the FISA application (intentionally and materially false presentations to the court), etc.

Perhaps….  I guess we’ll soon find out.

However, it is worth remembering how this entire internecine mess was started.

Andrew McCabe lied to INSD about leaking to the media when the INSD was investigating leaks to the media.  McCabe’s statements contradicted the statements of his assigned DOJ lawer, Lisa Page; who said McCabe instructed and coordinated the leaks to journalist Devlin Barrett of the Wall Street Journal.

When confronted with two sets of competing stories, Lisa Page -vs- Andrew McCabe, it appears the IG-INSD asked Page if she could prove her side of the story.  The need to prove her version of events appears to be the impetus for Page revealing her text messaging.  Page’s texts proved her story, and proved McCabe was lying.

However, from that text messaging review (June/July 2017), in addition to texts between Page and McCabe, the investigation turned-up discussions between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok.

And that’s how that whole thing got started…

Federal Judge James Boasberg has ruled the U.S. Dept of Justice has until October 11th, 2019, to produce the DOJ FOIA documents subject his August 12th court order; or file an appeal by that same deadline.  Hat Tip Techno-Fog:

~ FULL BACKSTORY HERE ~

The court has ordered the US DOJ “need not release the subject material until it makes a determination on appeal.”  Meaning the DOJ has until 10/11/19 (60 days from 8/12 order) to: A) Produce the documents; or B) Appeal his earlier ruling.

Frustrating.

There is a possibility the content of the Comey Memos and/or Archey Declarations may be part of the upcoming IG report on James Comey, and/or the documents may be part of the pending IG report on DOJ/FBI FISA abuse.  Key words: “may be“.

If you subscribe to the optimistic perspective the DOJ delay could be related to an intention to release the documents with the IG report(s).  However, if you are more cynical, then the DOJ and FBI could be attempting to hide the institutional corruption visible inside the documents.  Two possibilities.

On May 23rd, 2019, President Donald Trump gave U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr full authority to review and release all of the classified material hidden by the DOJ, FBI, State Department, CIA, FISA Court, and aggregate intelligence apparatus.

This Friday, August 30th, will mark 100 days since President Trump granted Bill Barr with the authority to declassify these documents.  Nothing has been declassified by the Department of Justice.

Unrelated to any known ongoing investigation, President Trump empowered AG Bill Barr to release the original authorizing scope of the Mueller investigation which began on May 17, 2017.  A Mueller investigation that concluded five months ago, and yet we are not allowed to know what the authorizing scope was?…. Nor the 2nd DOJ scope memo of August 2nd, 2017?… Nor the 3rd DOJ scope memo of October 20th, 2017?….  This specific non production is very annoying as it does not relate to any current investigation.

Here’s the original material requested by Congress and approved by President Trump:

• All versions of the Carter Page FISA applications (DOJ) (FBI) (ODNI).
• All of the Bruce Ohr 302’s filled out by the FBI. (FBI) (ODNI)
• All of Bruce Ohr’s emails (FBI) (DOJ) (CIA) (ODNI). All supportive documents and material provided by Bruce Ohr to the FBI. (FBI)
• All relevant documents pertaining to the supportive material within the FISA application. (FBI) (DOJ-NSD ) (DoS) (CIA) (DNI) (NSA) (ODNI);
• All intelligence documents that were presented to the Gang of Eight in 2016 that pertain to the FISA application used against U.S. person Carter Page; including all intelligence documents that may not have been presented to the FISA Court. (CIA) (FBI) (DOJ) (ODNI) (DoS) (NSA)  Presumably this would include the recently revealed State Dept Kavalac email; and the FBI transcripts from wiretaps of George Papadopoulos (also listed in Carter Page FISA). [AKA ‘Bucket Five’]
• All unredacted text messages and email content between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok on all devices. (FBI) (DOJ) (DOJ-NSD) (ODNI)
• The originating CIA “EC” or two-page electronic communication from former CIA Director John Brennan to FBI Director James Comey that started Operation Crossfire Hurricane in July 2016. (CIA) (FBI) (ODNI)

Additionally, since the 2018 list was developed, more information has surfaced about underlying material.  This added to the possibility of documents for declassification:

♦ Release the August 2nd, 2017, two-page scope memo provided by DAG Rod Rosenstein to special counsel Robert Mueller to expand the fraudulent Trump investigation, and initiate the more purposeful obstruction of justice investigation. Also Release the October 20th, 2017, third scope memo that expanded the investigation again, and targeted additional people including Michael Flynn’s family. The Scope Memos are keys to unlocking the underlying spy/surveillance cover-up. [SEE HERE and SEE HERE]

♦ President Trump can prove the July 31st, 2016, Crossfire Hurricane counterintelligence operation originated from a scheme within the intelligence apparatus by exposing the preceding CIA operation that created the originating “Electronic Communication” memo. Declassify that two-page “EC” document that Brennan gave to Comey.  [The trail is found within the Weissmann report and the use of Alexander Downer – SEE HERE]

♦ Release and declassify all of the Comey memos that document the investigative steps taken by the FBI as an outcome of the operation coordinated by CIA Director John Brennan in early 2016.  [The trail was memorialized by James Comey – SEE HERE]  Release and declassify the declarations of FBI Agent David Archey that describe the purpose of the Comey memos:

♦ Reveal the November 2015 through April 2016 FISA-702 search query abuse by declassifying the April 2017 court opinion written by FISC Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer. Show the FBI contractors behind the 85% fraudulent search queries. [Crowdstrike? Fusion-GPS? Nellie Ohr? Daniel Richman?]  This was a weaponized surveillance and domestic political spying operation. [The trail was laid down in specific detail by Judge Collyer – SEE HERE]

♦ Subpoena former DOJ-NSD (National Security Division) head John Carlin, or haul him in front of a grand jury, and get his testimony about why he hid the abuse from the FISA court in October 2016; why the DOJ-NSD rushed the Carter Page application to beat NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers to the FISA court; and why Carlin quit immediately thereafter.

♦ Prove the Carter Page FISA application (October 2016) was fraudulent and based on deceptions to the FISA Court. Declassify the entire document, and release the transcripts of those who signed the application(s); and/or depose those who have not yet testified. The creation of the Steele Dossier was the cover-up operation. [SEE HERE]

♦ Release all of the Lisa Page and Peter Strzok text messages without redactions. Let sunlight pour in on the actual conversation(s) that were taking place when Crossfire Hurricane (July ’16) and the FISA Application (Oct ’16) were taking place.  The current redactions were made by the people who weaponized the intelligence system for political surveillance and spy operation.  This is why Page and Strzok texts are redacted!

√♦ Release all of Bruce Ohr 302’s, FBI notes from interviews and debriefing sessions, and other relevant documents associated with the interviews of Bruce Ohr and his internal communications. Including exculpatory evidence that Bruce Ohr may have shared with FBI Agent Joseph Pientka. [And get a deposition from this Pientka fella] Bruce Ohr is the courier, carrying information from those outside to those on the inside.

UPDATE August 9th:  Never-mind the Bruce Ohr 302’s, Judicial Watch sued to clear the chamber of this request….  Thanks.

In the ongoing battle for the unredacted Comey Memos, and David Archey Declarations describing those memos [Backstory Here], today the DOJ filed a motion for a stay (full pdf below) against the forced production of the documents (previously ordered by Judge Boasberg).

Hat Tip Techno Fog – As a likely result of this DOJ motion, Judge Boasberg will issue a deadline on production. Whether that deadline will be 14 days or until the end of the appeal deadline (60 days from August 12) is still unknown.

[Backstory for those unfamilar] In the background of what was The Mueller Investigation, there was a FOIA case where the FBI was fighting to stop the release of the Comey memos.  Within that courtroom fight Mueller’s lead FBI agent David Archey wrote a series of declarations to the court describing the content of the memos and arguing why they should be kept classified.

The FOIA fight shifted; and the plaintiff, CNN, argued for public release of the content of the FBI agent’s descriptions, now known as the “Archey Declarations”.

After a lengthy back-and-forth legal contest, on June 7th Judge James E Boasberg agreed to allow the FBI to keep the Comey memo content hidden, but instructed the DOJ/FBI to release the content of the Archey Declarations.  On August 2nd the DOJ/FBI changed their position and claimed national security, “sources and methods” would be compromised by the release of the Archey Declarations.

On August 12th Judge Boasberg completely rejected the DOJ and FBI argument.

On August 13th the DOJ told CNN their compliance on production of the documents was pending their decision to appeal the August 12th judicial order.

On August 14th CNN filed a motion requesting Judge Boasberg to order immediate compliance from the DOJ with the release.

So today, August 26th, the DOJ is requesting a “STAY” of judicial order unless and until all legal appeals to a higher court are exhausted.  Here’s the motion:

.

The issue at hand is tangentially related to the current Inspector General carve-out report, through the aspect of the Comey Memos.

We are currently anticipating a report from the OIG related to former FBI Director James Comey, his writing of the memos, and the leaking of some of those memos to the media via his friend Daniel Richman.  {LINK}

No-one knows the number of memos that James Comey has written.  [We may get that answer in the IG report.]  There are nine memos written by James Comey surrounding contact and conversations with President-elect and then President Trump (2016/2017).

However, based on the court declarations by Mueller’s former lead FBI investigator David Archey, it sounds like there are many more memos than anyone currently understands; including memos about the investigation of candidate Trump, that were written during the “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation 2016 and 2017, that describe investigative details, sources, operations and code-names of intelligence assets used in the investigation.

The Comey memos are not just about his contact with Donald Trump as a candidate, president-elect or president.   The media keeps downplaying the memos as a few notes taken by the former FBI director, but all of the background information suggest the assembled writing is something more akin to a personal diary.

My strongly researched suspicion is that James Comey kept detailed private notes of what was happening during the operation(s) against Donald Trump and his campaign team, both during the campaign and after the election when President Trump took office.  Just take a look at how David Archey described the content and you can see those notes, now called memos, were in addition to FD 302 reports being filed by FBI officials.

Why James Comey would keep detailed notes beyond what was being officially recorded in the FBI 302 reports is likely a question to be answered within the pending inspector general report.   There’s a lot of sketchy non-transparent stuff going on amid all of this….

Below is an example of the redacted information in the Archey Declarations that Judge Boasberg had previously ruled must be released with the redactions removed.  This is what the DOJ and FBI are working to stop, stall and delay from being released to the public:

(Source Link)

The United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch, is fighting this court ordered release.  The DOJ Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division is Jody Hunt. That name might be familiar to you because Jody Hunt was Jeff Sessions former chief-of-staff.

We previously anticipated Jody Hunt being involved with this current case; the DOJ and FBI attempt to block release of the memos and declarations.   However, we have recently been informed that Jody Hunt was recused from the case by DOJ lawyers during the time when the Mueller investigation was ongoing.

According to the latest information we can gather, DOJ Asst. Attorney James Burnham  replaced Jody Hunt for all oversight issues in this court battle.

Everyone has been looking for a moment where we can determine the intents and motivation of U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr.  Well, here is one…

According to reporting today from the New York Times, Washington DC U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu has punted the decision on whether to indict former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe back to Main Justice, via Deputy AG Jeffrey Rosen.

All of our prior research into the DC U.S. Attorney’s office, specifically toward Jessie Liu, has identified her as -essentially- Rod Rosenstein in a skirt.  Attorney Liu’s DC office was responsible for not prosecuting the Awan Brothers; and also Liu’s office was responsible for covering up the leaking of the classified FISA application by SSCI Director of Security James Wolfe. Yes, covering it up – there is ZERO DOUBT.

Both cases were clear law-breaking, and both highly politically charged.

Today the Times is reporting on leaks from officials connected to the DC office of Ms. Liu, framing her deference of the McCabe indictment back to Main Justice.

Two former DC prosecutors who were involved in the McCabe decision are mentioned by name in the NYT reporting: former lead prosecutor Ms. Kamil Shields, and also former prosecutor David Kent.  It would be interesting to see if Shields and/or Kent were also involved in the Awan case or the James Wolfe case.

Here’s the substance of the NYT article [emphasis and names added by me]:

WASHINGTON — Federal prosecutors in Washington appear to be in the final stages of deciding whether to indict Andrew G. McCabe, the former deputy F.B.I. director and a frequent target of President Trump, on charges of lying to federal agents, according to interviews with people familiar with recent developments in the investigation.

In two meetings last week, Mr. McCabe’s lawyers met with the deputy attorney general, Jeffrey A. Rosen, who is expected to be involved in the decision about whether to prosecute, and for more than an hour with the United States attorney for the District of Columbia, Jessie K. Liu, according to a person familiar with the meetings. The person would not detail the discussions, but defense lawyers typically meet with top law enforcement officials to try to persuade them not to indict their client if they failed to get line prosecutors to drop the case.

But prosecutors may face headwinds if a case were to go to trial. One prosecutor quit the case [Ms. Shields] and has expressed frustration with how it was being managed, according to person familiar with her departure, and a key witness [Ms. Lisa Page] provided testimony to the grand jury that could hurt the government’s case.

Additionally, Washington juries are typically liberal, and prosecutors could end up with jurors sympathetic to Mr. McCabe who believe that he, not the president, is the victim of a political witch hunt. Mr. McCabe’s lawyers would probably emphasize his long history at the F.B.I. and his role protecting the country.

[…] Though the meetings between Mr. McCabe’s lawyers and top law enforcement officials suggest that prosecutors seem intent on moving forward with the case, they could also decide to pass on an indictment. Spokeswomen for the Justice Department, the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia and for Mr. McCabe all declined to comment.

[…] what should have been a seemingly straightforward case with a limited number of witnesses and facts has dragged out amid internal deliberations. It has been under investigation for so long that the term expired for the grand jury hearing evidence. One of the lead prosecutors, Kamil Shields, was unhappy with the lengthy decision-making process and has since left the Justice Department for private practice. Ms. Shields declined to comment.

Another prosecutor, David Kent, also left the case recently. It is not clear why he departed but it would be an unusual move if prosecutors were indeed planning to charge Mr. McCabe. (read more)

CTH must point out – this scenario as described is exactly what our research identified when we posted the previously controversial outline of Jessie Liu.  [SEE HERE]

The tiered justice system in/around Washington DC is based on politics, who you know, and who might possibly be collateral damage if the law was indeed enforced as written.  This reality highlights the two-tiered justice system that has infuriated so many Americans as we have watched people in/around DC escape accountability. [More HERE]

As a reminder, here is the April 2018 Inspector General Report on Andrew McCabe which included a criminal referral for McCabe for lying to investigators:

Here’s the full report:

.

….The problem for Attorney General Bill Barr is not investigating what we don’t know, but rather navigating through what ‘We The People’ are already aware of…. (more)