Senate Releases Damning Report of Hunter Biden Foreign Payments and Influence Sales – Money, Hookers and Bribes…


Senators Ron Johnson, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, released a report today showing millions in sketchy payments to the son of former Vice-President Joe Biden that showcase compromise and blackmail material.

Included in the release are details of payments made by the wife of the former Mayor of Moscow and what appear to be eastern European prostitutes provided to Hunter Biden.

The Senate report reveals millions of dollars were funneled to Hunter Biden during a series of questionable financial transactions between Biden, his associates and foreign individuals.  The report outlines a system of influence sales that were “very awkward for all U.S. officials pushing an anticorruption agenda in Ukraine.”

Additionally, the senate report highlights the potential for blackmail against the Biden family, the former vice-president and the U.S. government if Joe Biden was to remain in public office.  The report is damning.  Highlights include:

  • In early 2015 former Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine, George Kent raised concerns to officials in Vice President Joe Biden’s office about the perception of a conflict of interest with respect to Hunter Biden’s role on Burisma’s board.  Kent’s concerns went unaddressed and in September 2016, he emphasized in an email to his colleagues, “Furthermore, the presence of Hunter Biden on the Burisma board was very awkward for all U.S. officials pushing an anticorruption agenda in Ukraine.”
  • In October 2015, senior State Department official Amos Hochstein raised concerns with Vice President Biden, as well as with Hunter Biden, that Hunter Biden’s position on Burisma’s board enabled Russian disinformation efforts and risked undermining U.S. policy in Ukraine.
  • Hunter Biden was serving on Burisma’s board (supposedly consulting on corporate governance and transparency) when Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky allegedly paid a $7 million bribe to officials serving under Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Vitaly Yarema, to “shut the case against Zlochevsky.” George Kent testified that this bribe occurred in December 2014 (seven months after Hunter Biden joined Burisma’s board), and, after learning about it, he and the resident legal adviser reported this allegation to the FBI.
  • In addition to the over four million dollars paid by Burisma to Hunter Biden and his business partner, Devon Archer, for membership on the board, Hunter, his family, and Archer received millions of dollars from foreign nationals with questionable backgrounds.
  • Devon Archer received $142,300 from Kenges Rakishev of Kazakhstan, purportedly for a car, the same day Vice President Joe Biden appeared with Ukrainian Prime Minister Arsemy Yasenyuk and addressed Ukrainian legislators in Kyiv regarding Russia’s actions in Crimea.
  • Hunter Biden received a $3.5 million wire transfer from Elena Baturina. Ms. Baturina is the wife (widow) of the former mayor of Moscow.
  • Hunter Biden had business associations with Ye Jianming, Gongwen Dong, and other Chinese nationals linked to the Communist government and People’s Liberation Army. Those associations resulted in millions of dollars in questionable transactions.
  • Hunter Biden opened a bank account with Gongwen Dong that financed a $100,000 global spending spree with James Biden and Sara Biden.
  • Hunter Biden also moved millions of dollars from his law firm to James Biden’s and Sara Biden’s firm.  Upon being questioned about the transaction, Sara Biden refused to provide supporting documentation and information to more clearly explain the activity. The bank subsequently closed the account.
  • Hunter Biden paid nonresident women who were nationals of Russia or other Eastern European countries and who appear to be linked to an “Eastern European prostitution or human trafficking ring.”

Senate Website HERE – Full pdf of Report HERE

Ultimately what the senate investigation and report reveals is a remarkable and consistent pattern of the Biden family selling influence and policy manipulation for personal financial benefit.   However, that said, the media will likely play-down the report in an effort to support their preferred 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden.

Presidents Trump and Xi Deliver Dueling UN Speeches by Video


Finally, the United States has a president courageous enough to see through the empty rhetoric of such phony multilateralism and tell China and the rest of the world the truths they do not want to hear

Joseph A. Klein, CFP United Nations Columnist image

Re-Posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and ArchivesSeptember 22, 2020

The United Nations’ annual General Assembly high level debate week is usually a very big deal on the diplomatic calendar. World leaders assemble in New York with their entourages, deliver their perspectives on the state of the world in long-winded speeches, and conduct numerous conferences and bilateral side meetings on a variety of global issues. Of course, the world leaders are also busy attending a multitude of fancy receptions. This year, however, is very different due to the coronavirus pandemic. The UN headquarters building is eerily quiet. There are no foreign dignitaries to be seen. Speeches by heads of state and heads of government are being delivered via prerecorded videos. Although President Trump could have delivered his speech in person, he opted not to make the trip to New York and speak in front of a few UN ambassadors in a virtually empty General Assembly chamber. But President Trump nevertheless delivered via video his usual tour de force.

President Trump wasted no time holding China responsible for the global spread of the coronavirus

President Trump wasted no time holding China responsible for the global spread of the coronavirus. “We have waged a fierce battle against the invisible enemy — the China virus — which has claimed countless lives in 188 countries,” President Trump said. The United Nations “must hold China accountable.” He noted how China had criticized his restrictions on travel from China even though China had “locked down travel domestically while allowing flights to leave China and infect the world.” The president then recounted his administration’s unprecedented mobilization of resources to defeat the virus, including the progress being made to develop potential vaccines. “We will distribute a vaccine, we will defeat the virus, we will end the pandemic, and we will enter a new era of unprecedented prosperity, cooperation and peace,” he declared.

President Trump also took China to task for its record on the environment and its hypocrisy regarding its participation in the “one-sided” Paris Agreement on climate change from which the United States has withdrawn. China, he said, has dumped millions and millions of tons of plastic and trash into the ocean. It “emits more toxic mercury into the atmosphere than any country anywhere in the world.” President Trump added that “China’s carbon emissions are nearly twice what the U.S. has, and it’s rising fast.”

The U.S. president challenged the UN to remain relevant in dealing with the many problems besetting the world today. “If the United Nations is to be an effective organization, it must focus on the real problems of the world,” he said. “This includes terrorism, the oppression of women, forced labor, drug trafficking, human and sex trafficking, religious persecution, and the ethnic cleansing of religious minorities.”

President Trump extolled America’s economic and international security leadership in pursuing peace with strength. He also pointed to the historic agreements his administration brokered between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and between Israel and Bahrain, as well as one between Kosovo and Serbia. Inexplicably, the UN’s Secretary General Antonio Guterres made no mention of these agreements in the remarks he delivered in person before President Trump’s speech.

China’s press statement is an exercise in blame-shifting, deception, and fictional narratives.

“By taking a different approach, we have achieved different outcomes — far superior outcomes,” President Trump said. He predicted “more peace agreements shortly.”

As President Trump has done in the past, he explained that putting one’s own country first is not incompatible with multilateral cooperation. In fact, they reinforce each other. He said that “only when you take care of your own citizens will you find a true basis for cooperation.” He concluded his speech asking for God’s blessing for America and the United Nations.

China did not take long to release a rebuttal press statement accusing the United States of “spreading political virus.” China’s press statement is an exercise in blame-shifting, deception, and fictional narratives.

The press statement charged that the United States was “abusing the platform of the United Nations to provoke confrontation and create division,” adding that “the United States is weakening the UN, the WHO and other UN bodies, and undermining the authority and effectiveness of the UN.” The press release then defended China’s indefensible record on dealing with the coronavirus. It made the false claim that “China, with an open, transparent, and responsible attitude, has been giving updates and sharing experience with the WHO and other countries from the very beginning and providing active assistance to many countries, including the United States.” What a bunch of hogwash!

China’s President H.E. Xi Jinping’s speech, which followed shortly after President Trump’s remarks, was also prerecorded. While President Xi did not himself have the opportunity to reply in real time to President Trump’s extensive criticisms of China’s behavior, he obviously anticipated what President Trump would have to say about the coronavirus. Taking a not too subtle dig at President Trump’s frequent labeling of the coronavirus as the “China virus” and the U.S. withdrawal from the World Health Organization, President Xi declared: “We should follow the guidance of science, give full play to the leading role of the World Health Organization, and launch a joint international response to beat this pandemic. Any attempt of politicizing the issue or stigmatization must be rejected.”

President Xi urged the world to “uphold the multilateral trading regime with the World Trade Organization as the cornerstone

President Xi tried to portray China as the leader of multilateralism in dealing with the virus, ignoring the indisputable evidence of the Chinese regime’s refusal to make full disclosure of what it knew early on about the highly contagious nature of the virus’s human-to-human transmission. “China is actively involved in the international fight against COVID-19, contributing its share to upholding global public health security,” President Xi said with a straight face.

“COVID-19 reminds us that we are living in an interconnected global village with a common stake,” President Xi added. “No country can gain from others’ difficulties or maintain stability by taking advantage of others’ troubles.”

Is that why the Communist China regime hid the truth about the coronavirus from the world when the virus could have been contained, hoarded medical supplies such as face masks and surgical gowns and gloves imported from countries abroad to meet its own immediate needs, and then sold the supplies back to those countries at inflated prices after they became Covid-19 infected?  President Xi’s hypocrisy knows no bounds.

President Xi urged the world to “uphold the multilateral trading regime with the World Trade Organization as the cornerstone.” Only so long as his regime can continue bilking the world on its way to prosperity by manipulating the global trading system and stealing intellectual property, will President Xi, in his words, “stay true to multilateralism and safeguard the international system with the UN at its core.”

Finally, the United States has a president courageous enough to see through the empty rhetoric of such phony multilateralism and tell China and the rest of the world the truths they do not want to hear.

Free Men Shall Stand Between their Beloved Homes and a Marxist Revolution!


Marxist-trained anarchists, the Antifa Blackshirts, and the BLM terrorists are intent on causing fear, intimidation, and panic, in the populace in order to hinder those seeking to maintain fair elections

Dennis Jamison image

Re-Posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and ArchivesSeptember 22, 2020

Free Men Shall Stand Between their Beloved Homes and a Marxist Revolution!

On the third evening of the Republican National Convention, Vice President Mike Pence gave an eloquent acceptance speech at Fort McHenry. The voices on the Left offered a lot of disdain that he gave his speech at the historic site. Protestors and supporters both showed up in Baltimore and voiced their respective opinions without violence. However, in some cases they were directly across the street from one another. Yet, the local ABC news affiliate in Baltimore concentrated most of its reporting on what appears on the surface as a Marxist front group called the “People’s Power Assembly.”

“And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave. O thus be it ever when freemen shall stand Between their lov’d home and the war’s desolation! Blest with vict’ry and peace may the heav’n “rescued land Praise the power that hath made and preserv’d us a nation! Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, And this be our motto – “In God is our trust,” And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.” 

“The Defence of Fort McHenry”

Apparently, that convention night the “People’s Power Assembly” organized a car caravan to drive by Fort McHenry. Sharon Black explained that “We haven’t forgotten the racism of Trump when he said our city was rat infested and insulted Congressman Cummings.” Black is an organizer with “Peoples Power Assembly,” and clarified that “Today with Pence coming into town, we’re saying get out of town.” But, what the Left had a major problem with, consciously or unconsciously, is that Fort McHenry was the subject of a poem written by Francis Scott Key, which was titled aptly enough “The Defence of Fort McHenry.” The main problem is that the words of that poem have become the center of an incredible divisive controversy—they reference trust in God.

The words of Key’s poem were put to music not long after he wrote the poem, and it became a very popular song in the fledgling United States in the early 1800s. In fact, the song became so popular that it became America’s National Anthem. And, as the political conventions were completed, the NFL season began again. But Key’s song has become the eye of the storm in the realm of politicized sports—as if sports weren’t competitive or divisive enough already. Politics contorts competition into a whole new level. And, as the football season began this year, there was an incredible irony hovering over America.

Patriot Day had been remembered the previous week, as American citizens paid respect to true heroes on 9/11. And, less than a week later the nation celebrated Constitution Day. But, one day that may have been missed in the blur of events of the past week was the anniversary of the birth of the National Anthem. Francis Scott Key penned “The Defence of Fort McHenry” after he became genuinely moved that the U.S. flag was still flying over the fort protecting Baltimore after a 25-hour bombardment from a British fleet during the War of 1812. The bombardment began in earnest at 6:30 a.m., on September 13, 1814. It is estimated that between 1,500 and 1,800 cast-iron bomb shells were fired at the walls of Fort McHenry.

The future of our nation is on the line in this time as much, or even more than it was on the line in 1814

The bombardment was a display of sheer British naval superiority and the defiance of the motley American band in the fort was overtly obvious to any observers—even to the British. It was an unexpected outcome because the British military had basically wiped the American forces out—they burned the city of Washington, D.C., took control of the nation’s capital for nearly a month. The British attempt to take control of Baltimore did end in frustration even though they were by far the superior military force. The British bomber ships were named to strike terror as well as inflict serious damage. They had such formidable names such as HMS Devastation, or HMS Volcano or HMS Terror.

The leader defending the fort, Major George Armistead, had ordered the creation of a huge U.S. flag which he hoped could be seen clearly by any attacking forces. This huge 30’ x 42’ flag was what attorney Francis Scott Key saw that morning of September 14, 1814. It was a symbol of defiance in the face of extreme danger. Key was present to simply help free his friend, elderly Dr. William Beanes, who was being held as a prisoner by the British because he had confronted three of Her Majesty’s soldiers. One old man being defiant in the face of intimidation was why Key was even present in the moment, and then he witnessed the defiance of those patriots inside Fort McHenry.

Francis Scott Key: Fort McHenry

MSM, are essentially fanning flames of disunity and division for the sake of tearing the nation down

The U.S. almost lost the War of 1812, but the defense of Fort McHenry, even though it simply meant that there would be no American surrender, was one of the high points in the war. It represented a moment in which “no surrender” under such intense attacks was a victory in and of itself. Thus Key was so moved to write his poem. Was his intent a racist rant? It is highly doubtful, but Marxists who spew that it is, do not even believe their own words much of the time. If the mantra can confuse or shame enough people to abandon their values, then half of the battle is won.

The example of defending Fort McHenry in September of 1814, provides a lesson for patriots today. Vice President Pence chose the ground well in which he would deliver his acceptance speech for the GOP’s nomination. He knows the history, and he realizes the political battles and what is at stake in the election of 2020. The spirit of the moment was captured, and the memory of such resolve is within Vice President Pence and even more so in President Trump. The future of our nation is on the line in this time as much, or even more than it was on the line in 1814. Yet, the nation prevailed despite all odds.

Regardless of how the mainstream media are portraying reality in this election year, it must be taken with clear discernment for the propaganda being perpetuated by the MSM. The MSM is promoting football players, or those in other sports, who choose to take a knee and visibly disrespect our flag and covering those burning the flag. This institution is fomenting rebelliousness and supporting terrorism. It is incredibly wrong. From one vantage point, such efforts made by the MSM, are essentially fanning flames of disunity and division for the sake of tearing the nation down. The domestic enemy is in our midst, just as the enemy of America was in the presence of the colonists on a daily basis.

Marxist-trained anarchists, the Antifa Blackshirts, and the BLM terrorists are intent on causing fear, intimidation, and panic

One example is the attempt of progressive-revisionist historians who seek to provide their own politically-biased narrative regarding the intent of Francis Scott Key’s words, the words of the Marxist-based progressives are empty words rooted in resentment. The flag has always represented the people of America—even dissenters—the genuine symbol of the struggle of a determined people to be free. Even before the creation of the government, the design of the flag was recognized as a symbol of the unity of the people in their desperate fight for freedom. The government that would be formalized much later owed its existence to brave and brilliant people. Key’s words about the flag were a tribute to the resolve of free men to preserve their freedom.

Marxist-trained anarchists, the Antifa Blackshirts, and the BLM terrorists are intent on causing fear, intimidation, and panic, in the populace in order to hinder those seeking to maintain fair elections. The enemy will try to weaken and occupy this nation. Election 2020, in some ways, seems similar to the bombardment the patriots faced in such a desperate time. Will citizens express the kind of defiance that old Dr. William Beanes exhibited against the British soldiers? Will Americans show the same kind of resolve to  face the Marxists that Major George Armistead displayed at Fort McHenry against the British military?

Clinton Emails and FBI Activity Back in News as NY FBI Agent Talks – Fills-in CTH Background Research…


The Washington Examiner has an interesting article based on a book excerpt by Washington Post journalist Devlin Barrett: “October Surprise: How the FBI Tried to Save Itself and Crashed an Election.”

CTH readers will remember Devlin Barrett was Lisa Page & Peter Strzok’s favored journalist to receive FBI leaks from Clinton email investigation known as the “mid-year-exam;” during the time when the ‘small group’ was framing the preferred narrative.

According to the article the NY FBI Agent who raised the alarm bells was a man named John Robertson.  Robertson was cited in the IG report, but not named.  According to the recent discoveries…

“Robertson wrote a “Letter to Self” in late October after an Oct. 19, 2016, meeting, during which he implored Assistant U.S. Attorney Amanda Kramer of the Southern District of New York to push FBI leadership to look at the thousands of emails he had unearthed.”

“I have very deep misgivings about the institutional response of the FBI to the congressional investigation into the Hillary Clinton email matter. … Put simply: I don’t believe the handling of the material I have by the FBI is ethically or morally right. But my lawyer’s advice — that I simply put my SSA on notice should cover me — is that I have completed CYA [Cover Your Ass], and I have done so,” Robertson wrote. “Further, I was told by [Kramer] that should I ‘whistleblow,’ I will be prosecuted.” (read more)

Robertson fills in the background to our earlier research.  CTH identified how the FBI never actually investigated the emails, as the FBI and specifically former FBI Director James Comey, claimed: “due to the wizardry of technology.”

 

Within this earlier interview Mr. Comey is questioned about the announcement of re-opening of the Hillary Clinton email investigation on October 28th, 2016.

In his response about why there was a delay between the FBI being notified by New York on September 28th, and waiting until October 28th, James Comey revealed a very important nugget.

The New York U.S. Attorney (SDNY) called Main Justice in DC to ask about why they were not receiving authority for a search warrant. We knew that call took place on October 21st, 2016. Now we know “why” and who New York called at DOJ HQ.

Listen closely to James Comey at 06:06 to 07:30 of the interview (prompted):

Baier: “Did you know that Andrew McCabe, your deputy, had sat on that revelation about the emails”?

Comey: “Yeah, I don’t know that, I don’t know that to be the case. I do know that New York and FBI headquarters became aware that there may be some connection between Weiner’s laptop and the Clinton investigation, weeks before it was brought to me for decision – and as I write in the book I don’t know whether they could have moved faster and why the delay”

Baier: “Was it the threat that New York Agents were going to leak that it existed really what drove you to the ‘not conceal’ part?

Comey: “I don’t think so. I think what actually drove it was the prosecutors in New York who were working the criminal case against Weiner called down to headquarters and said ‘are we getting a search warrant or not for this’? That caused, I’m sorry, Justice Department Headquarters, to then call across the street to the FBI and poke the organization; and they start to move much more quickly. I don’t know why there was, if there was slow activity, why it was slow for those first couple of weeks.”

There’s some really sketchy stuff going on in that answer. Why would SDNY need to get authorization for a search warrant from DC, if this is about Weiner’s laptop?

Yes, you could argue it pertains to a tightly held Clinton investigation run out of DC but the Weiner prosecution issues shouldn’t require approval from DC.

But let’s take Comey at face-value…. So there we discover it was justice officials within SDNY (Southern District of New York) who called Main Justice (DOJ in DC) and asked about a needed search warrant for “this”, presumably Weiner’s laptop by inference. Now, let’s go look at the Page/Strzok description of what was going on.

Here are the messages from Lisa Page and Peter Strzok surrounding the original date that New York officials notified Washington DC FBI. It’s important to note the two different entities: DOJ -vs- FBI.

According to the September 28, 2016, messages from FBI Agent Peter Strzok it was the SDNY in New York telling Andrew McCabe in DC about the issue. Pay close attention to the convo:

(pdf source for all messages here)

Notice: “hundreds of thousands of emails turned over by Weiner’s attorney to SDNY”.

Pay super close attention. This is not an outcome of a New York Police Dept. raid on Anthony Weiner. This is Weiner’s attorney going to the U.S. attorney and voluntarily turning over emails. The emails were not turned over to the FBI in New York, the actual emails were turned over to the U.S. Attorney in the Southern District.

Key point here: Weiner’s attorneys turned over “emails”.

♦If the U.S. Attorney in New York has the emails on September 28th, 2016, why would they need a search warrant on October 21st, 2016? (Comey’s call explanation)

♦Why would Weiner’s attorney be handing over evidence?

Think about this carefully. I’ll get back to the importance of it later; but what I suspect is that Weiner had material that was his “insurance policy” against anything done to him by Hillary Clinton. Facing a criminal prosecution Weiner’s lawyer went to the U.S. Attorney and attempted to exploit/leverage the content therein on his client’s behalf.

Fast forward three weeks, and we go back to FBI in DC.

On October 21, 2016, this is the call referenced by James Comey in the Bret Baier interview. Someone from New York called “Main Justice” (the DOJ National Security Division in DC) and notified DOJ-NSD Deputy Asst. Attorney General George Toscas of the Huma Abedin/Hillary Clinton emails via the “weiner investigation”.

[I would point out again, he’s not being notified of a laptop, Toscas is notified of “emails”]

George Toscas “wanted to ensure information got to Andy“, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe…. so he called FBI Agent Peter Strzok…. who told George Toscas “we know”.

Peter Strzok then tells Bill Priestap.

Of course, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe already knew about the emails since September 28th, 2016, more than three weeks earlier.

In his Bret Baier interview FBI Director James Comey says this call is about a search warrant. There is no indication the call is actually about a search warrant. [Nor would there be a need for a search warrant if the call was actually about the emails that Wiener’s attorney dropped off on 9/21].

However, that phone call kicks off an internal debate about the previously closed Clinton email investigation; and Andrew McCabe sitting on the notification from New York for over three weeks – kicks off an internal FBI discussion about McCabe needing to recuse himself.

Now it’s October 27th, 2016, James Comey chief-of-staff Jim Rybicki wants McCabe to recuse himself. But Rybicki is alone on an island. Lisa Page is furious at such a suggestion, partly because she is McCabe’s legal counsel and if McCabe is recused so too is she.

At the same time as they are debating how to handle the Huma Abedin/Hillary Clinton emails, they are leaking to the media to frame a specific narrative.

Important to note here, that at no time is there any conversation -or hint of a conversation- that anyone is reviewing the content of the emails. The discussions don’t mention a single word about content… every scintilla of conversation is about how to handle the issues of the emails themselves. Actually, there’s not a single person mentioned in thousands of text messages that applies to an actual person who is looking at any content.

Quite simply: there is a glaringly transparent lack of an “investigation”.

Within this “tight group” at FBI, as Comey puts it, there is not a single mention of a person who is sitting somewhere looking through the reported “600,000” Clinton emails that was widely reported by media. There’s absolutely ZERO evidence of anyone looking at emails or scouring through laptop data…. and FBI Agent Peter Strzok has no staff under him who he discusses assigned to such a task…. and Strzok damned sure ain’t doing it. So what gives?

Moving on – Note to readers. Click the graphics and read the notes on them too:

It’s still October 27th, 2016, the day before James Comey announces his FBI decision to re-open the Clinton investigation. Jim Rybicki still saying McCabe should be recused from input; everyone else, including FBI Legal Counsel James Baker, is disagreeing with Rybicki and siding with Lisa Page.

Meanwhile the conversation has shifted slightly to “PC”, probable cause. Read:

While Lisa Page is leaking stories to Devlin Barrett (Wall Street Journal, now with the Washington Post), the internal discussion amid the “small group” is about probable cause.

The team is now saying if there was no probable cause when Comey closed the original email investigation in July 2016 (remember the very tight boundaries of review), then there’s no probable cause in October 2016 to reopen the investigation regardless of what the email content might be.

This appears to be how the “small group” or “tight team” justify doing nothing with the content received from New York. They received the emails September 28th and it’s now October 27th, and they haven’t even looked at it. Heck, they are debating if there’s even a need to look at it.

Then on October 28th, 2016, the FBI and Main Justice officials have a conference call about the entire Huma Abedin/Hillary Clinton email issue. Here’s where it gets interesting.

George Toscas and David Laufman from DOJ-NSD articulate a position that something needs to happen likely because Main Justice is concerned about the issue of FBI (McCabe) sitting on the emails for over three weeks without any feedback to SDNY (New York).

Thanks to Deputy Director McCabe, Main Justice in DC, specifically DOJ National Security Division, now looks like they are facilitating a cover-up operation being conducted by the FBI “small group”. [which is actually true, but they can’t let that be so glaringly obvious].

As a result of the Top-Tier officials conference call, Strzok is grumpy agent because his opinion appears to be insignificant. The decision is reached to announce the re-opening of the investigation. This sends Lisa Page bananas…

…In rapid response mode Lisa Page reaches out to Devlin Barrett, again to quickly shape the media coverage. Now that the world is aware of the need for a Clinton email investigation 2.0 the internal conversation returns to McCabe’s recusal.

Please note that at no time in the FBI is anyone directing an actual investigation of the content of the Clinton emails. Every single second of every effort is devoted to shaping the public perception of the need for the investigation. Every media outlet is being watched; every article is being read; and the entire apparatus of the small group is shaping coverage therein by contacting their leak outlets.

So let’s go back to that Comey interview:

♦What exactly would SDNY need a search warrant for?

♦Anthony Weiner’s lawyer has delivered SDNY actual emails. Why would he do that?

Now lets connect those questions to an earlier report.

According to ABC News Comey writes in “A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies and Leadership,” that he became the public face of the investigation partly because of a mysterious development which he felt could cast “serious doubt” on Lynch’s independence.

“Had it become public, the unverified material would undoubtedly have been used by political opponents to cast serious doubt on the attorney general’s independence in connection with the Clinton investigation,” Comey writes, according to ABC. He calls the material a “development still unknown to the American public to this day.” (ABC Link)

On page six of the IG report on Andrew McCabe (point number 4) we find a conference call between Loretta Lynch, Andrew McCabe and the FBI field office in New York where the subject of the Weiner/Abedin/Clinton email findings overlap with: the Clinton Foundation (CF) investigation; the Clinton Email investigation; pressure for Asst. Director McCabe to recuse himself, and Washington DC via Loretta Lynch using DOJ Main Justice leverage from the Eric Garner case against the NY FBI office and New York Police Department.

From the OIG report:

4. The Attorney General Expresses Strong Concerns to McCabe and other FBI Officials about Leaks, and McCabe Discusses Recusing Himself from CF Investigation (October 26, 2016)

McCabe told the OIG that during the October 2016 time frame, it was his “perception that there was a lot of information coming out of likely the [FBI’s] New York Field Office” that was ending up in the news. McCabe told the OIG that he “had some heated back-and-forths” with the New York Assistant Director in Charge (“NY-ADIC”) over the issue of media leaks.

On October 26th, 2016, McCabe and NY-ADIC participated in what McCabe described as “a hastily convened conference call with the Attorney General who delivered the same message to us” about leaks, with specific focus being on leaks regarding the high-profile investigation by FBI’s New York Field Office into the death of Eric Garner. McCabe told us that he “never heard her use more forceful language.” NY-ADIC confirmed that the participants got “ripped by the AG on leaks.”

According to NY-ADIC’s testimony and an e-mail he sent to himself on October 31, McCabe indicated to NY-ADIC and a then-FBI Executive Assistant Director (“EAD”) in a conversation after Attorney General Lynch disconnected from the call that McCabe was recusing himself from the CF Investigation.

(Page #6 and #7 – IG Report Link)

What makes this explosive is the timing, and what we now know about what was going on amid the FBI “small group” in DC.

On September 28th, 2016Andrew McCabe was made aware of emails given to New York U.S. Attorney (SDNY) directly from Anthony Weiner’s lawyer. Again, the information relayed to DC is not about a Weiner laptop, it’s about actual emails delivered by Weiner’s lawyer. The laptop was evidence in the Weiner “sexting” case involving a minor; however, the laptop did, reportedly, also contained thousands of State Department documents from Hillary Clinton and her aide Huma Abedin, Weiner’s wife.

When Weiner’s lawyer walked into SDNY to deliver his leverage emails, Preet Bharara, a Clinton-Lynch ally, was the United States Attorney.

Again, look at the text messages between FBI Agent Peter Strzok (Inbox) and FBI Special Counsel to Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page (Outbox):

[The letter to “Congress” at the end of the text exchange relates to notification of the re-opening of the Clinton investigation – Actual date of notification 10/28/16]

According to later reporting, FBI Director James Comey was not notified of the emails until after October 21st, 2016. However, in late October and early November, there were reports from people with contacts in New York police and New York FBI, about Washington DOJ officials interfering with the Weiner investigation.

On the same date (October 26th, 2016) as the Lynch, McCabe and NY FBI phone call, former NY Mayor Rudy Giuilani was telling Fox News that an explosive development was forthcoming. Two days later, October 28th, 2016Congress was notified of the additional Clinton emails.

However, a few more days later, November 4th, 2016, an even more explosive development as Erik Prince appeared on radio and outlined discoveries within the Huma Abedin/Anthony Weiner/Hillary Clinton email issues that was being blocked by AG Lynch.

Prince claimed he had insider knowledge of the investigation that could help explain why FBI Director James Comey had to announce he was reopening the investigation into Clinton’s email server last week.

“Because of Weinergate and the sexting scandal, the NYPD started investigating it. Through a subpoena, through a warrant, they searched his laptop, and sure enough, found those 650,000 emails. They found way more stuff than just more information pertaining to the inappropriate sexting the guy was doing,” Prince claimed.

“They found State Department emails. They found a lot of other really damning criminal information, including money laundering, including the fact that Hillary went to this sex island with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Bill Clinton went there more than 20 times. Hillary Clinton went there at least six times,” he said.

“The amount of garbage that they found in these emails, of criminal activity by Hillary, by her immediate circle, and even by other Democratic members of Congress was so disgusting they gave it to the FBI, and they said, ‘We’re going to go public with this if you don’t reopen the investigation and you don’t do the right thing with timely indictments,’” Prince explained.

“I believe – I know, and this is from a very well-placed source of mine at 1PP, One Police Plaza in New York – the NYPD wanted to do a press conference announcing the warrants and the additional arrests they were making in this investigation, and they’ve gotten huge pushback, to the point of coercion, from the Justice Department, with the Justice Department threatening to charge someone that had been unrelated in the accidental heart attack death of Eric Garner almost two years ago. That’s the level of pushback the Obama Justice Department is doing against actually seeking justice in the email and other related criminal matters,” Prince said. (Link)

An earlier Grand Jury in New York had refused to return an indictment against the NYPD in the Garner case. As an outcome of that grand jury finding, and as an outcome of their own investigation, the local FBI office and Eastern District of New York DOJ office was not trying to pursue criminal charges against the NYPD officers involved. This created a dispute because federal prosecutors (EDNY) and FBI officials in New York opposed bringing charges, while prosecutors with the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department in Washington argued there was clear evidence to do so.

On October 25th, 2016, Loretta Lynch replaced the EDNY New York prosecutors:

New York Times (Oct. 25) – The Justice Department has replaced the New York team of agents and lawyers investigating the death of Eric Garner, officials said, a highly unusual shake-up that could jump-start the long-stalled case and put the government back on track to seek criminal charges.

With that move – on Oct. 25th, 2016, AG Lynch was now in position to threaten criminal prosecutions against the NYPD, and repercussions against the NY FBI and EDNY using the Garner case as leverage, just like Erik Prince outlined in the phone interview above.

Additionally, we see confirmation from the IG report, the Garner case was brought up in the next day (Oct 26, 2016) phone call to the NY FBI field office; just as Erik Prince outlined. Obviously Prince’s sources were close to the events as they unfolded.

The NY FBI and Eastern District of New York (EDNY) were threatened by Washington DC Main Justice and FBI, via Loretta Lynch and Andrew McCabe to drop the Clinton/Abedin/Weiner email investigation matters, or else the Garner DOJ Civil Rights Division would be used as leverage against the NYPD. And Loretta Lynch had SDNY U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara as the enforcer waiting for her call.

And so it was…

“Had it become public, the unverified material would undoubtedly have been used by political opponents to cast serious doubt on the attorney general’s independence in connection with the Clinton investigation,” Comey writes, according to ABC. He calls the material a “development still unknown to the American public to this day.” (ABC Link)

The emails Anthony Weiner’s lawyer brought to Preet Bharara was Weiner’s leverage to escape prosecution. Likely those emails were exactly as Eric Prince sources outlined. However, the SDNY responding to upper level leadership buried those emails.

In DC the FBI (Comey and McCabe) created the appearance of a re-opening of the Clinton investigation to keep control and ensure the investigative outcomes remained out of the hands of the Eastern District (EDNY) and New York FBI field office. They had no choice.

However, once the FBI opened the investigation October 28th, they did exactly the same thing they had done from September 28th to October 28th… they did nothing.

A few days later they declared the second investigation closed, and that was that.

They never expected her to lose.

Peter Strzok, the FBI’s lead Investigator in the Clinton email investigation, never intended to investigate the laptop before the election. The evidence, in his own words, is in the report by the Inspector General. In addition, the IG report includes a jaw dropping contradiction regarding the investigation of the laptop. Strzok says one thing; the FBI’s computer experts say another. It calls into question the entirety of the laptop investigation.

Reading Chapter 11 of the IG Report reinforces an acceptance that not only is there a need for a special counsel, but there is a brutally obvious need for multiple special counsels; each given a specific carve-out investigation that comes directly from the content of the Inspector General report. This issue of the handling of the Weiner/Abedin laptop screams for a special counsel investigation on that facet alone. Why?

Well, consider this from page #388 (emphasis mine):

Midyear agents obtained a copy of the Weiner laptop from NYO immediately after the search warrant was signed on October 30.

The laptop was taken directly to Quantico where the FBI’s Operational Technology Division (OTD) began processing the laptop. The Lead Analyst told us that given the volume of emails on the laptop and the difficulty with de-duplicating the emails that “at least for the first few days, the scale of what we’re doing seem[ed] really, really big.”

Strzok told us that OTD was able “to do some amazing things” to “rapidly de-duplicate” the emails on the laptop, which significantly lowered the number of emails that the Midyear team would have to individually review. Strzok stated that only after that technological breakthrough did he begin to think it was “possible we might wrap up before the election.” (pg 388)

The key takeaway here is two-fold. First, the laptop is in the custody of the FBI; that’s important moving forward (I’ll explain later). Also, specifically important, FBI Agent Peter Strzok, the lead investigative authority in the Hillary Clinton MYE (Mid-Year-Exam), is explaining to the IG how they were able to process an exhaustive volume of emails (350,000) and Blackberry communications (344,000) in a few days; [Oct 30 to Nov 5]

Note: “OTD was able “to do some amazing things to rapidly de-duplicate” the emails on the laptop.

OK, you got that?

Now lets look at the very next page, #389 (again, emphasis mine):

[…] The FBI determined that Abedin forwarded two of the confirmed classified emails to Weiner. The FBI reviewed 6,827 emails that were either to or from Clinton and assessed 3,077 of those emails to be “potentially work-related.”

The FBI analysis of the review noted that “[b]ecause metadata was largely absent, the emails could not be completely, automatically de-duplicated or evaluated against prior emails recovered during the investigation” and therefore the FBI could not determine how many of the potentially work-related emails were duplicative of emails previously obtained in the Midyear investigation. (pg 389)

See the problem? See the contradiction?

Strzok is saying due to some amazing wizardry the FBI forensics team was able to de-duplicate the emails. However, FBI forensics is saying they were NOT able to de-duplicate the emails.

Both of these statements cannot be true. And therein lies the underlying evidence to support a belief the laptop content was never actually reviewed. But it gets worse, much worse….

To show how it’s FBI Agent Peter Strzok that is lying; go back to chapter #9 and re-read what the New York case agent was saying about the content of the laptop.

The New York FBI analysis supports the FBI forensic statement in that no de-duplication was possible because the metadata was not consistent. The New York FBI Weiner case agent ran into this metadata issue when using extraction software on the laptop.

CHAPTER 9: The case agent assigned to the Weiner investigation was certified as a Digital Extraction Technician and, as such, had the training and skills to extract digital evidence from electronic devices.

The case agent told the OIG that he began processing Weiner’s devices upon receipt on September 26. The case agent stated that he noticed “within hours” that there were “over 300,000 emails on the laptop.”

The case agent told us that on either the evening of September 26 or the morning of September 27, he noticed the software program on his workstation was having trouble processing the data on the laptop. (pg 274)

The New York Case Agent then describes how inconsistent metadata within the computer files for the emails and Blackberry communications, made it impossible for successful extraction. The FBI NY case agent and the Quantico FBI forensics agent agree on the metadata issue and the inability to use their software programs for extraction and layered comparison for the purposes of de-duplication.

Both NY and Quantico contradict the statement to the IG by FBI Agent Peter Strzok. However, that contradiction, while presented in a factual assertion by the IG, is entirely overlooked and never reconciled within the inspector general report. That irreconcilable statement also sheds more sunlight on the motives of Strzok.

Next up, there were only three FBI people undertaking the October Clinton email review. To learn who they are we jump back to Chapter #11, page #389.

The Midyear team flagged all potentially work-related emails encountered during the review process and compared those to emails that they had previously reviewed in other datasets. Any work-related emails that were unique, meaning that they did not appear in any other dataset, were individually reviewed by the Lead Analyst, [Peter] Strzok, and FBI Attorney 1 [Tashina Gauhar] for evidentiary value. (pg 389)

Pete Strzok, Tash Gauhar and the formerly unknown lead analyst we now know to be Sally Moyer. That’s it. Three people.

This is the crew that created the “wizardry” that FBI Director James Comey says allowed him to tell congress with confidence that 1,355,980 electronic files (pg 389), containing 350,000 emails and 344,000 Blackberry communications were reviewed between October 30th and the morning of November 6th, 2016.

Three people.

Pete, Tash, and Sally the lead analyst. Uh huh.

Sure.

The Inspector General just presents the facts; that’s obviously what he did. Then it’s up to FBI and DOJ leadership to accept the facts, interpret them, and apply their meaning.

No bias?

But FBI is committed to bias training?

FUBAR.

There is an actual hero in all of this though. It’s that unnamed FBI Case Agent in New York who wouldn’t drop the laptop issue and forced the FBI in DC to take action on the laptop. Even the IG points this out (chapter #9, page 331):

We found that what changed between September 29 and October 27 that finally prompted the FBI to take action was not new information about what was on the Weiner laptop but rather the inquiries from the SDNY prosecutors and then from the Department. The only thing of significance that had changed was the calendar and the fact that people outside of the FBI were inquiring about the status of the Weiner laptop. (pg 331)

Those SDNY prosecutors only called Main Justice in DC because the New York case agent went in to see them and said he wasn’t going to be the scape goat for a buried investigation (chapter #9, pg 303) “The case agent told us that he scheduled a meeting on October 19 with the two SDNY AUSAs assigned to the Weiner investigation because he felt like he had nowhere else to turn.” … “The AUSAs both told us that the case agent appeared to be very stressed and worried that somehow he would be blamed in the end if no action was taken.”

On October 20, 2016, the AUSAs met with their supervisors at SDNY and informed them of their conversation with the Weiner case agent. The AUSAs stated that they told their supervisors the substantive information reported by the case agent, the case agent’s concerns that no one at the FBI had expressed interest in this information, and their concern that the case agent was stressed out and might act out in some way. (pg 304)

Why would the New York Case Agent be worried?

Consider Page 274, footnote #165:

fn 165: No electronic record exists of the case agent’s initial review of the Weiner laptop. The case agent told us that at some point in mid-October 2016 the NYO ASAC instructed the case agent to wipe his work station. The case agent explained that the ASAC was concerned about the presence of potentially classified information on the case agent’s work station, which was not authorized to process classified information.

The case agent told us that he followed the ASAC’s instructions, but that this request concerned him because the audit trail of his initial processing of the laptop would no longer be available. The case agent clarified that none of the evidence on the Weiner laptop was impacted by this, explaining that the FBI retained the Weiner laptop and only the image that had been copied onto his work station was deleted. The ASAC recalled that the case agent “worked through the security department to address the concern” of classified information on an unclassified system. He told us that he did not recall how the issue was resolved.

 

⇑ These Cannot Both Be True ⇓

AG William Barr Constitution Day Speech – Transcript…


Last night U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr delivered a speech in celebration of constitution day to an audience at Hillsdale College. Here’s the transcript:

[VIA DOJ] –  I am pleased to be at this Hillsdale College celebration of Constitution Day.  Sadly, many colleges these days don’t even teach the Constitution, much less celebrate it.  But at Hillsdale, you recognize that the principles of the Founding are as relevant today as ever—and vital to the success of our free society.  I appreciate your observance of this important day and all you do for civic education in the United States.

When many people think about the virtues of our Constitution, they first mention the Bill of Rights.  That makes sense.  The great guarantees of the Bill of Rights—freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to keep and bear arms, just to name the first few—are critical safeguards of liberty.  But as President Reagan used to remind people, the Soviet Union had a constitution too, and it even included some lofty-sounding rights.  Ultimately, however, those promises were just empty words, because there was no rule of law to enforce them.

 

The rule of law is the lynchpin of American freedom.  And the critical guarantee of the rule of law comes from the Constitution’s structure of separated powers.  The Framers recognized that by dividing the legislative, executive, and judicial powers— each significant, but each limited—they would minimize the risk of any form of tyranny.  That is the real genius of the Constitution, and it is ultimately more important to securing liberty than the Bill of Rights.  After all, the Bill of Rights is a set of amendments to the original Constitution, which the Framers did not think needed an express enumeration of rights.

I want to focus today on the power that the Constitution allocates to the Executive, particularly in the area of criminal justice.  The Supreme Court has correctly held that, under Article II of the Constitution, the Executive has virtually unchecked discretion to decide whether to prosecute individuals for suspected federal crimes.  The only significant limitation on that discretion comes from other provisions of the Constitution.  Thus, for example, a United States Attorney could not decide to prosecute only people of a particular race or religion.  But aside from that limitation — which thankfully has remained a true hypothetical at the Department of Justice — the Executive has broad discretion to decide whether to bring criminal prosecutions in particular cases.

The key question, then, is how the Executive should exercise its prosecutorial discretion.  Eighty years ago this spring, one of my predecessors in this job —then-Attorney General Robert Jackson — gave a famous speech to a conference of United States Attorneys in which he described the proper role and qualities of federal prosecutors.  (By the way, Jackson was one of several former Attorneys General who went on become a Supreme Court Justice.  But I am one of only two former Attorneys General who went on to become Attorney General again.)

Much has changed in the eight decades since Justice Jackson’s remarks.  But he was a man of uncommon wisdom, and it is appropriate to consider his views in the modern era.

The criminal process is a juggernaut.  That was true then and it is true today.  Once the criminal process starts rolling, it is very difficult to slow it down or knock it off course.  And that means federal prosecutors possess tremendous power — power that is necessary to enforce our laws and punish wrongdoing, but power that, like any power, carries inherent potential for abuse or misuse.

Justice Jackson recognized this.  As he put it, “The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America.”  Prosecutors have the power to investigate people and interview their friends, and they can do so on the basis of mere suspicion of general wrongdoing.  People facing federal investigations incur ruinous legal costs and often see their lives reduced to rubble before a charge is even filed.  Justice Jackson was not exaggerating when he said that “While the prosecutor at his best is one of the most beneficent forces in our society, when he acts from malice or other base motives, he is one of the worst.”

The power to, as he called it, “strike at citizens, not with mere individual strength, but with all the force of government itself” must be carefully calibrated and closely supervised.  Left unchecked, it has the potential to inflict far more harm than it prevents.

1. Political Supervision

The most basic check on prosecutorial power is politics.  It is counter-intuitive to say that, as we rightly strive to maintain an apolitical system of criminal justice.  But political accountability—politics—is what ultimately ensures our system does its work fairly and with proper recognition of the many interests and values at stake.  Government power completely divorced from politics is tyranny.

Justice Jackson understood this.  As he explained, presidential appointment and senate confirmation of U.S. Attorneys and senior DOJ officials is what legitimizes their exercises of the sovereign’s power.  You are “required to win an expression of confidence in your character by both the legislative and the executive branches of the government before assuming the responsibilities of a federal prosecutor.”

Yet in the decades since Justice Jackson’s remarks, it has become fashionable to argue that prosecutorial decisions are legitimate only when they are made by the lowest-level line prosecutor handling any given case.  Ironically, some of those same critics see no problem in campaigning for highly political, elected District Attorneys to remake state and local prosecutorial offices in their preferred progressive image, which often involves overriding the considered judgment of career prosecutors and police officers.  But aside from hypocrisy, the notion that line prosecutors should make the final decisions within the Department of Justice is completely wrong and it is antithetical to the basic values underlying our system.

The Justice Department is not a praetorian guard that watches over society impervious to the ebbs and flows of politics.  It is an agency within the Executive Branch of a democratic republic — a form of government where the power of the state is ultimately reposed in the people acting through their elected president and elected representatives.

The men and women who have ultimate authority in the Justice Department are thus the ones on whom our elected officials have conferred that responsibility — by presidential appointment and senate confirmation.  That blessing by the two political branches of government gives these officials democratic legitimacy that career officials simply do not possess.

The same process that produces these officials also holds them accountable.  The elected President can fire senior DOJ officials at will and the elected Congress can summon them to explain their decisions to the people’s representatives and to the public.  And because these officials have the imprimatur of both the President and Congress, they also have the stature to resist these political pressures when necessary.  They can take the heat for what the Justice Department does or doesn’t do.

Line prosecutors, by contrast, are generally part of the permanent bureaucracy.  They do not have the political legitimacy to be the public face of tough decisions and they lack the political buy-in necessary to publicly defend those decisions.  Nor can the public and its representatives hold civil servants accountable in the same way as appointed officials.  Indeed, the public’s only tool to hold the government accountable is an election — and the bureaucracy is neither elected nor easily replaced by those who are.

Moreover, because these officials are installed by the democratic process, they are most equipped to make the complex judgment calls concerning how we should wield our prosecutorial power.  As Justice Scalia observed in perhaps his most admired judicial opinion, his dissent in Morrison v. Olson: “Almost all investigative and prosecutorial decisions—including the ultimate decision whether, after a technical violation of the law has been found, prosecution is warranted—involve the balancing of innumerable legal and practical considerations.”

And those considerations do need to be balanced in each and every case.  As Justice Scalia also pointed out, it is nice to say “Fiat justitia, ruat coelum. Let justice be done, though the heavens may fall.”  But it does not comport with reality.  It would do far more harm than good to abandon all perspective and proportion in an attempt to ensure that every technical violation of criminal law by every person is tracked down, investigated, and prosecuted to the Nth degree.

Our system works best when leavened by judgment, discretion, proportionality, and consideration of alternative sanctions — all the things that supervisors provide.  Cases must be supervised by someone who does not have a narrow focus, but who is broad gauged and pursuing a general agenda.  And that person need not be a prosecutor, but someone who can balance the importance of vigorous prosecution with other competing values.

In short, the Attorney General, senior DOJ officials, and U.S. Attorneys are indeed political.  But they are political in a good and necessary sense.

Indeed, aside from the importance of not fully decoupling law enforcement from the constraining and moderating forces of politics, devolving all authority down to the most junior officials does not even make sense as a matter of basic management.  Name one successful organization where the lowest level employees’ decisions are deemed sacrosanct.  There aren’t any.  Letting the most junior members set the agenda might be a good philosophy for a Montessori preschool, but it’s no way to run a federal agency.  Good leaders at the Justice Department—as at any organization—need to trust and support their subordinates.  But that does not mean blindly deferring to whatever those subordinates want to do.

This is what Presidents, the Congress, and the public expect.  When something goes wrong at the Department of Justice, the buck stops at the top.  28 U.S.C. § 509 could not be plainer:  “All functions of other officers of the Department of Justice and all functions of agencies and employees of the Department of Justice are vested in the Attorney General.”

And because I am ultimately accountable for every decision the Department makes, I have an obligation to ensure we make the correct ones.  The Attorney General, the Assistant Attorneys General, and the U.S. Attorneys are not figureheads selected for their good looks and profound eloquence.

They are supervisors.  Their job is to supervise.   Anything less is an abdication.

Active engagement in our cases by senior officials is also essential to the rule of law.  The essence of the rule of law is that whatever rule you apply in one case must be the same rule you would apply to similar cases.  Treating each person equally before the law includes how the Department enforces the law.

We should not prosecute someone for wire fraud in Manhattan using a legal theory we would not equally pursue in Madison or in Montgomery, or allow prosecutors in one division to bring charges using a theory that a group of prosecutors in the division down the hall would not deploy against someone who engaged in indistinguishable conduct.

We must strive for consistency.  And that is yet another reason why centralized senior leadership exists—to harmonize the disparate views of our many prosecutors into a consistent policy for the Department.  As Justice Jackson explained, “we must proceed in all districts with that uniformity of policy which is necessary to the prestige of federal law.”

2. Detachment in Prosecutions

All the supervision in the world will not be enough, though, without a strong culture across the Department of fairness and commitment to even-handed justice.  This is what Justice Jackson described as “the spirit of fair play and decency that should animate the federal prosecutor.”  In his memorable turn of phrase, even when “the government technically loses its case, it has really won if justice has been done.”

We want our prosecutors to be aggressive and tenacious in their pursuit of justice, but we also want to ensure that justice is ultimately administered dispassionately.

We are all human.  Like any person, a prosecutor can become overly invested in a particular goal.  Prosecutors who devote months or years of their lives to investigating a particular target may become deeply invested in their case and assured of the rightness of their cause.

When a prosecution becomes “your prosecution”—particularly if the investigation is highly public, or has been acrimonious, or if you are confident early on that the target committed serious crimes—there is always a temptation to will a prosecution into existence even when the facts, the law, or the fair-handed administration of justice do not support bringing charges.

This risk is inevitable and cannot be avoided simply by — as we certainly strive to do — hiring as prosecutors only moral people with righteous motivations.  I am reminded of a passage by C.S. Lewis:

It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth.

Even the most well-meaning people can do great damage if they lose perspective.  The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as they say.

That is yet another reason that having layers of supervision is so important.  Individual prosecutors can sometimes become headhunters, consumed with taking down their target.  Subjecting their decisions to review by detached supervisors ensures the involvement of dispassionate decision-makers in the process.

This was of course the central problem with the independent-counsel statute that Justice Scalia criticized in Morrison v. Olson.  Indeed, creating an unaccountable headhunter was not some unfortunate byproduct of that statute; it was the stated purpose of that statute.  That was what Justice Scalia meant by his famous line, “this wolf comes as a wolf.”  As he went on to explain:  “How frightening it must be to have your own independent counsel and staff appointed, with nothing else to do but to investigate you until investigation is no longer worthwhile—with whether it is worthwhile not depending upon what such judgments usually hinge on, competing responsibilities.  And to have that counsel and staff decide, with no basis for comparison, whether what you have done is bad enough, willful enough, and provable enough, to warrant an indictment.  How admirable the constitutional system that provides the means to avoid such a distortion.  And how unfortunate the judicial decision that has permitted it.”

Justice Jackson understood this too.  As he explained in his speech:  “If the prosecutor is obliged to choose his cases, it follows that he can choose his defendants. Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted.”  Any erosion in prosecutorial detachment is extraordinarily perilous.  For, “it is in this realm—in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies. It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself.”

  • Advocate Just and Reasonable Legal Positions

In exercising our prosecutorial discretion, one area in which I think the Department of Justice has some work to do is recalibrating how we interpret criminal statutes.

In recent years, the Justice Department has sometimes acted more like a trade association for federal prosecutors than the administrator of a fair system of justice based on clear and sensible legal rules.  In case after case, we have advanced and defended hyper-aggressive extensions of the criminal law.  This is wrong and we must stop doing it.

The rule of law requires that the law be clear, that it be communicated to the public, and that we respect its limits.  We are the Department of Justice, not the Department of Prosecution.

We should want a fair system with clear rules that the people can understand.  It does not serve the ends of justice to advocate for fuzzy and manipulable criminal prohibitions that maximize our options as prosecutors.  Preventing that sort of pro-prosecutor uncertainty is what the ancient rule of lenity is all about.  That rule should likewise inform how we at the Justice Department think about the criminal law.

Advocating for clear and defined prohibitions will sometimes mean we cannot bring charges against someone whom we believe engaged in questionable conduct.  But that is what it means to have a government of laws and not of men.  We cannot let our desire to prosecute “bad” people turn us into the functional equivalent of the mad Emperor Caligula, who inscribed criminal laws in tiny script atop a tall pillar where nobody could see them.

To be clear, what I am describing is not the Al Capone situation — where you have someone who committed countless crimes and you decide to prosecute him for only the clearest violation that carries a sufficient penalty.  I am talking about taking vague statutory language and then applying it to a criminal target in a novel way that is, at a minimum, hardly the clear consequence of the statutory text.

This is inherently unfair because criminal prosecutions are backward-looking.  We charge people with crimes based on past conduct.  If it was unknown or even unclear that the conduct was illegal when the person engaged in it, that raises real questions about whether it is fair to prosecute the person criminally for it.

Examples of the Department defending these sorts of extreme positions are unfortunately numerous, as are rejections of our novel arguments by the Supreme Court.  These include arguments as varied as the Department insisting that a Philadelphia woman violated the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act — which implemented the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling, and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction — by putting chemicals on her neighbor’s doorknob as part of an acrimonious love triangle involving the woman’s husband, which the Supreme Court unanimously rejected in Bond v. United States … to arguing that a fisherman violated the “anti-shredding” provision in Sarbanes-Oxley when he threw undersized grouper over the side of his boat, which the Supreme Court rejected in Yates v. United States … to arguing that aides to the Governor of New Jersey fraudulently “obtained property” from the government when they realigned the lanes on the George Washington Bridge to create a traffic jam, which the Supreme Court unanimously rejected earlier this year in Kelly v. United States.   There are other examples, but these illustrate the point.

Taking a capacious approach to criminal law is not only unfair to criminal defendants and bad for the Justice Department’s track record at the Supreme Court, it is corrosive to our political system.  If criminal statutes are endlessly manipulable, then everything becomes a potential crime.  Rather than watch policy experts debate the merits or demerits of a particular policy choice, we are nowadays treated to ad naseum speculation by legal pundits — often former prosecutors themselves — that some action by the President, a senior official, or a member of congress constitutes a federal felony under this or that vague federal criminal statute.

This criminalization of politics is not healthy.  The criminal law is supposed to be reserved for the most egregious misconduct — conduct so bad that our society has decided it requires serious punishment, up to and including being locked away in a cage.  These tools are not built to resolve political disputes and it would be a decidedly bad development for us to go the way of third world nations where new administrations routinely prosecute their predecessors for various ill-defined crimes against the state.  The political winners ritually prosecuting the political losers is not the stuff of a mature democracy.

The Justice Department abets this culture of criminalization when we are not disciplined about what charges we will bring and what legal theories we will bless.  Rather than root out true crimes — while leaving ethically dubious conduct to the voters — our prosecutors have all too often inserted themselves into the political process based on the flimsiest of legal theories.  We have seen this time and again, with prosecutors bringing ill-conceived charges against prominent political figures, or launching debilitating investigations that thrust the Justice Department into the middle of the political process and preempt the ability of the people to decide.

This criminalization of politics will only worsen until we change the culture of concocting new legal theories to criminalize all manner of questionable conduct.  Smart, ambitious lawyers have sought to amass glory by prosecuting prominent public figures since the Roman Republic.  It is utterly unsurprising that prosecutors continue to do so today to the extent the Justice Department’s leaders will permit it.

As long as I am Attorney General, we will not.

Our job is to prosecute people who commit clear crimes.  It is not to use vague criminal statutes to police the mores of politics or general conduct of the citizenry.  Indulging fanciful legal theories may seem right in a particular case under particular circumstances with a particularly unsavory defendant—but the systemic cost to our justice system is too much to bear.

We need to recognize that and must take to heart the Supreme Court’s recent, unanimous admonition that “not every corrupt act by state or local officials is a federal crime.”

If we do not, more lives will be unfairly ruined.  And more unanimous admonitions from the Supreme Court will come.

3. Conclusion

In short, it is important for prosecutors at the Department of Justice to understand that their mission — above all others — is to do justice.  That means following the letter of the law, and the spirit of fairness.  Sometimes that will mean investing months or years in an investigation and then concluding it without criminal charges.  Other times it will mean aggressively prosecuting a person through trial and then recommending a lenient sentence, perhaps even one with no incarceration.

Our job is to be just as dogged in preventing injustice as we are in pursuing wrongdoing.  On this score, as on many, Justice Jackson said it best:

The qualities of a good prosecutor are as elusive and as impossible to define as those which mark a gentleman.  And those who need to be told would not understand it anyway.  A sensitiveness to fair play and sportsmanship is perhaps the best protection against the abuse of power, and the citizen’s safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes, and who approaches his task with humility.

Thank you.

[LINK]

.

Is A Cover Up over Clinton’s 2000 Interference in Russia’s elections still Going On?


QUESTION: Marty; You said that not even Fox News will report the story that the US interfered in the 2000 Russian election. Do you have any idea why?

EK

ANSWER: No not really. Perhaps it would admit things that the US government does not want to admit that even under the Clinton Administration which let the bankers do whatever they wanted from exempting student loans from bankruptcy to repealing Glass Stegall which enabled the bankers to see the mortgaged back security time bombs. I do not know. The movie Forecaster has been banned in the USA. Netflix wanted it but then the last minute the board said no. They seem to have gotten a phone call. Amazon will stream it but only outside the USA. Why?

Here is Hillary here in 2020 still claiming the Russians interfered when that has been totally been unsupported and the entire Steele dossier was paid for by Hillary. She then erased all her emails. A Trump victory will mean the Democrats will still claim only because of Russia when it was the Clintons who allowed the bankers to blackmail Yeltsin, forced him to step down, but he turned to Putin. Look at Bill’s expression. He trashed her book and that became public. Hillary will never admit people did not trust her. In her mind, it was Putin BECAUSE she stood by while the bankers tried to take over all the resources of Russia – gold, diamonds, and oil.

Safra, head of Republic National Bank, was assassinated by Russians (see Vanity Fair). But they tried to cover that up blaming his nurse, who was then released simply saying he never received a fair trial. The guy the bankers were trying to install as president was Berezovsky, which fled to Britain but later hanged himself.

So I have no idea why Fox News will not report this issue, especially when the Democrats are already claiming Trump can’t win without Russian interference. I do not know. It seems there is a coverup still in play.

Recently Released FISA Court Response to DOJ Reveals Direction of Durham Probe – DOJ Requested FISC Approvals…


A very interesting release by ODNI John Ratcliffe [LINK] highlights a June 25, 2020 response from the FISA court to the DOJ.  There are five issues queried by the DOJ seeking guidance from the FISC.  Each issue points to a specific path being taken by the DOJ in general… and the John Durham probe specifically.

Today, the ODNI, in consultation with the Department of Justice, releases a June 25, 2020, opinion by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) evaluating and approving limited circumstances under which the Government may temporarily retain, use, or disclose information that was unlawfully acquired pursuant to a FISC order. (more)

Important note:  We are looking at this in hindsight.  The response from the FISC was dated June 25, 2020, so the request for opinion from the court was before June 25th.

The court opinion tells us for the first time, the DOJ is admitting/stating that ALL FOUR of the Carter Page FISA applications were corrupt upon origination.   This is a big deal. In previous filing with the court (January 2020) DOJ only refuted the predication for the second and third renewal.

Within the FISC reply we see the DOJ stating all four submissions contained material omissions and violations of “the duty of candor” (ie. lying)  by the FBI investigative unit and the DOJ team that assembled the application(s).

As we look closely at the response we see some very specific language that tells a story.

 

Apparently the DOJ asked the FISA court for guidance on five very specific issues centering around the Carter Page FISA application.  The DOJ is asking for legal guidance to assist them in disclosing information in the FISA file & evidence attached to the FISA file.

The five issues all circle around the FBI/DOJ use of the Carter Page FISA application; and, more importantly, the underlying evidence that is attached to the FISA application.  The five topics are very interesting:

  1.  DOJ requests guidance for distribution of material due to FOIA demands.  FISC gives legal opinion.
  2.  DOJ requests guidance for distribution of material due to ongoing and anticipated civil litigation.  The FISC gives legal opinion and expands to criminal litigation.
  3.  DOJ requests guidance for distribution of material to internal investigative units from the FBI inspectors division (INSD).  FISC gives opinion and advice.
  4.  DOJ requests guidance for distribution of non-minimized information, and/or, minimized information as part of the ongoing Office of Inspector General oversight.  FISC gives opinion and guidance.
  5.  DOJ requests guidance for distribution of material to John Durham probe, both for criminal prosecution and possible evidence gathering attached to other ongoing investigative needs.  FISC gives opinion and guidance.

The opinion from the FISC is only 20 pages long [direct pdf here], and if you skip the citations it’s a pretty straight forward answer from Judge Boasberg to review.  I would strongly urge everyone to take a few minutes and read it… carefully…. to see what John Durham was asking.

Pages #6 and #7 talk specifically about the different requirements for retention and distribution and outlines a cautious approach toward distribution.  One of the disconcerting parts of this segment seems to be the FISA court subtly guiding the DOJ away from using non-minimized raw FISA material in prosecution of intentional malfeasance.   On this issue the court says allowing a target to escape prosecution is part of the penalty upon the DOJ for wrongful assembly.

The court does not consider the DOJ is targeting the “assemblers” for their criminal conduct.  Rather the response is general toward criminals who were targets of a FISA application assembled with corrupt intent. A little weird.

Pages #11 and #12 hit the topic of FOIA production.  The court says “some” FOIA requests might warrant document distribution, but not all.   However, on the topic of Carter Page getting his FOIA fulfilled, the court supports expansive distribution to Mr. Page.

I find the arguments and issues in/around page #14 to be especially noteworthy.  In this segment the court is responding to the underlying raw evidence that would normally be used to assemble a “woods file”.  The court notes the FBI Sentinel system would contain the minimized outcomes (redacted evidence) and this points to a bigger issue.  READ:

Note the woods file would be what is in the Sentinel system.  The government (Durham Probe) needs “access to the case file” beyond what is in the Sentinel system.  Durham wants to see the raw data, the underlying raw intelligence.

Why?

It looks like Durham investigators were already on the trail of the special counsel creating a Woods file…. and/or wants to see if the Steele Dossier is the original substantive documentation that underpins the Woods file.   Notice how INSD previously received “hard copies” of documentation that is presumed to be the Woods file.

Regardless of motive or investigative suspicion, someone wants to compare the raw intel to the intel that made it into the FBI/DOJ Sentinel system.

In response to this inquiry Judge Boasberg notes FBI investigators would have access to the minimized information within the Sentinel system; however, insofar as there was additional inquiry into the raw and non-minimized intelligence, a review and distribution would be permissible so long as there was a strong filter team in place to ensure statutes surrounding FISA security were not violated.

Overall, Boasberg gives permission and approval for all six aspects requested.  However, he does so with several legal qualifiers and distinctions which the DOJ must observe.

Here’s the full reply and opinion.  Strongly suggest the time to review:

.

 

Jim Jordan Discusses Senate Homeland Security Committee Effort to Subpoena Key “Spygate” Officials…


Ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, Jim Jordan, discusses the effort by Senator Ron Johnson to subpoena a list of key names from the ‘spygate’ scandal.

Additionally, Jordan discusses the effort by Adam Schiff to create another fake whistle-blower scandal this time using Brian Murphy from the Dept. of Homeland Security. Jordan clarifies some common misinformation.

 

Ric Grenell Explains “The Big Ugly” – Outsider Trump is an Existential Threat…


Former Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard “Ric” Grenell explained last night why DC hates President Donald Trump and the stakes in the 2020 election.  WATCH: 

 

Blazing Sunlight – Senate Intel Committee Refuses to Give GOP Senators Documents From Russia Investigation…


Of all the *tells* that have surfaced in the past four years, this is the biggest.  This is the one that reveals just how corrupt and duplicitous the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence really is.   Do not pass over this information without pausing and evaluating just how explosive this refusal is amid the largest, most corrupt scheme in political history.

The republican led Senate Intelligence Committee (SSCI) is refusing to provide documents to republican senators from their Russia investigation.  Citing archaic justification within senate parliamentary rules current Chairman Marco Rubio (R) and Vice-Chairman Mark Warner are refusing to allow Senator Johnson and Senator Grassley to review the evidence the SSCI assembled to create their report on Russian election interference.

The reason and motives for the denial are simple, yet the majority of Americans have no idea…. The SSCI was the legislative entity, both republicans and democrats, who participated in the unlawful effort to remove President Trump from office.  The risk of exposure is exactly why Mitch McConnell put Senator Marco Rubio on the committee as chairman to replace Richard Burr.  The Senate was participating in the soft-coup.

WASHINGTON DC –  The Republican and Democratic leaders on the Senate Intelligence Committee rejected a broad request from two Republican Senate leaders seeking access to the panel’s records to assist in their investigation into the Trump-Russia investigators.

Acting Chairman Marco Rubio of Florida and Vice Chairman Mark Warner of Virginia rejected a late August letter from Senate Homeland Security Chairman Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who said that they “respect the authority” of the Senate Intelligence Committee to protect its interests, adding that “ultimately, we have the right as United States Senators” to access the records.

“We note that your request of the Committee is made pursuant to Senate Rule 26, but fails to account for the unique authorities and obligations invested in this Committee through Senate Resolution 400 and respected over decades of Senate and Committee practice,” Rubio and Warner responded. “Accordingly, we must reject the absolutist interpretation of Rule 26 that you propose. If this Committee elects to share materials that it has collected and generated in the course of its investigation into Russia’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, it will do so pursuant to these long-standing Committee rules, and specifically, the joint agreement of the Chairman and the Vice Chairman.”

Rubio and Warner added: “Independent of whether that agreement is forthcoming, our position on this matter obviously does not preclude you from pursuing your own investigation, using your own authorities, as you see fit, within the confines of your committees’ jurisdictions.”  (read more)

I cannot overemphasize the importance of this sunlight avoidance enough.

Back on March 17, 2017, the SSCI secretly received the FISA application used on Carter Page from FBI supervisory special agent Brian Dugan.   The ‘review and return’ application was delivered to Senate Security Director James Wolfe, who then placed it in the senate scif to be reviewed by Vice-Chairman Mark Warner (and possibly Chairman Richard Burr).  It appears no other senators were informed of this production.

James Wolfe then leaked the FISA application to reporter Ali Watkins.  All indications are that Wolfe leaked the application to Watkins as directed by Warner, possibly with Burr’s full knowledge.

FBI Agent Brian Dugan then completed a nine-month leak investigation resulting in James Wolfe admitting to the leak.  The leak was Dugan’s FBI equity.  Due to the severity of the leak; and specifically because the leak encompassed the FISA application; in/around mid-January 2018 the special counsel in Main Justice was notified of Dugan’s findings and the investigative file was shared with the Weissmann team.

The Weissman team then took apart the investigative file and began running cover for the corrupt background story that included the participation by Senator Mark Warner.  Part of that file surfaced when the text messages between Warner and Chris Steele’s lawyer Adam Waldman were made public on Feb 9, 2018.

In a pre-planned operation, as soon as the explosive Warner/Waldman texts were released Senator Marco Rubio rushed to the microphones to fraudulently state that Warner had informed the committee during his early spring (2017) contacts with Waldman and Chris Steele.  This claim by Rubio was a lie.  Rubio was running cover for Warner as part of his own affiliation with the origin of the Fusion-GPS opposition research and the subsequent transfer of information to the Clinton campaign and ultimately through Chris Steele to the corrupt FBI investigative unit.  [Later to the Weissmann/Mueller crew]

Rubio’s motive to downplay the ramifications of the Warner effort, and the subsequent Wolfe leak, directly ties to his own involvement with the Fusion-GPS effort.   Remember, at the time of this obfuscation (late ’17 and early ’18) no-one yet knew the Fusion-GPS fraudulent story (which became the Steele dossier) was originally funded by the Super-PAC funding the Rubio campaign.

Go look at when the Weissmann/Mueller special counsel deleted their iPhone records and history.  The scrubbing took place mid-January 2018 as soon as they realized the previously unknown leak investigation by Washington Field Office FBI agent Brian Dugan had bumped into the special counsel operation that was coordinating with the SSCI.

The special counsel warned Warner; took action to remove specific evidence assembled by Dugan (which included the Warner/Waldman text messages); created a fictitious cover story for the SSCI to use; extracted the Dugan version of the FISA application he used to catch Wolfe (which they later released under the guise of FOIA); then sent a deconstructed (now useless) investigative file back to DC USAO Jessie Liu who had nothing left except to present a DC grand jury with James Wolfe lying to investigators.

That corrupt, unlawful and coordinated cover-up effort lies at the heart of why the SSCI will not share any information with GOP senators today.

Senators Johnson and Grassley were asking for the FISA application in 2018, not knowing the original and first renewal were previously provided to the SSCI on March 17, 2017.

When congress (House Intel, House Judiciary, Senate Judiciary and Senate Homeland Security) were writing to FISA Court presiding judge Rosemary Collyer seeking a copy of the FISA application from the court they had no idea one early copy was already provided to the Senate Intelligence Committee.  Chairman Burr and Vice-Chair Warner kept their review and use secret; but the information about their reception came out because James Wolfe leaked it and FBI agent Brian Dugan was awaiting that leak.

FISA Judge Rosemary Collyer never told any of the chairmen about the March 2017 copy of the application that was provided to Brian Dugan to deliver to the SSCI.

Throughout the attempt to remove President Trump from office, which included the impeachment effort, the SSCI was participating and assisting; now they are in cover-up mode.  That’s the reason why Mitch McConnell put Marco Rubio in charge of that committee.

There’s a reason why senior staff from Senator Ron Johnson’s committee and senior staff from Chuck Grassley’s committee are asking for SSCI documents.  It might not come out before the election, but it will come out…

BACKSTORY:  (Read Here – and All Citations)

The sequence is critical:

1.  Adam Waldman text messages. (release date Feb 9, 2018)

https://www.scribd.com/document/371101285/TEXTS-Mark-Warner-texted-with-Russian-oligarch-lobbyist-in-effort-to-contact-Christopher-Steele#

2. Justice Dept. Letter to journalist Ali Watkins (release date Feb 13, 2018)

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4498451-Justice-Department-Records-Seizure.html

3.  James Wolfe indictment (release date June 8, 2018)

https://www.scribd.com/document/381310366/James-Wolfe-Indictment-Senate-Intelligence-Committee-Leaker#

4.  FISC / Senate Judiciary Letter (public release April, 2020 – event date July 12, 2018) The letter from DOJ-NSD (Mueller Special Proseuctors) to the FISC is important.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/download/2018-doj-letter-to-fisc&download=1

5.  Carter Page FISA application (release date July 21, 2018)  Only need the first application section. 83 pages of original application.

https://www.scribd.com/document/384380664/2016-FISA-Application-on-Carter-Page#

6.  Government Sentencing Wolfe Case memo and recommendation for upward departure and/or variance. Filed December 11, 2018

https://www.scribd.com/document/395499292/James-Wolfe-DOJ-Sentencing-Memo-December-11

7.  Govt. Reply to Defendant (Wolfe) sentencing memo (date Dec 14, 2018)  Govt. Exhibit #13 (two page attestation is critical).

https://www.scribd.com/document/395775597/Wolfe-Case-DOJ-Response-to-Defense-Sentencing-Memo

Misc:

July 27, 2018,  – Wall Street Journal  – Wolfe lawyers threaten SSCI subpoenas.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/former-intelligence-committee-aides-lawyers-want-testimony-from-senators-1532692801?mod=e2tw

Dec 11, 2018 – Politico – Senators seek Leniency:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/11/senate-intelligence-committee-leaking-james-wolfe-1059162

.