Now that we know the Department of Justice Inspector General is about to release a report on former FBI Director James Comey; and now that we know the OIG Principal Review Phase was already initiated; we can start to monitor the IG Website for the release.

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

It appears the pending IG report will cover the conduct of James Comey and how he handled a series of memos he produced; contemporaneous accounts written by Comey covering events he documented outside of normal FBI protocol.

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

In the example of the 2018 IG report on Andrew McCabe, the OIG gave McCabe’s team a week during the principal review phase, and then published the report two days after the responses were submitted. [McCabe Report Reviewed] We don’t know how long James Comey has had the report, but my hunch is several days.

If the IG sticks to the same general feedback timeline as the McCabe report, we could see a final IG report very soon; perhaps even as early as tomorrow (Friday August 2nd); which would line-up with the DOJ request for additional time in the Comey Memo/Archey Declaration FOIA case in the DC Circuit (Judge James Boasberg) also due Aug 2nd, and possibly delayed due to the background of the Comey IG report being released.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It seems too coincidental to be disconnected. [Backstory]

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

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

I digress.

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

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

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

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

Stay tuned…

To say there is broad-based confusion is an understatement.  The recent reporting by John Solomon of The Hill only makes the confusion worse.  Let’s stand back and reconcile two issues (with evidence to support) that are MASSIVELY conflated.

First, go read the full Solomon article.  Notice the entire construct of the article surrounds “The Comey Memos“.  As you will see, this specific topic is important.  Within the Solomon article you will find (emphasis mine):

[…] Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz’s team referred Comey for possible prosecution under the classified information protection laws, but Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutors working for Attorney General William Barr reportedly have decided to decline prosecution — a decision that’s likely to upset Comey’s conservative critics.

Prosecutors found the IG’s findings compelling but decided not to bring charges because they did not believe they had enough evidence of Comey’s intent to violate the law, according to multiple sources.

[…] Patrick Fitzgerald and Daniel Richman, two of Comey’s lawyers, and Keith Urbahn, his spokesman, did not return repeated calls and emails seeking comment.

[…] While they cautioned that the IG’s final report won’t be complete until it gets feedback from Comey’s lawyers in the next few days, it is expected to conclude that the former FBI director improperly took with him memos that were FBI property when he was fired, transmitted classified information via an insecure email account, and shared some of the memos with his private lawyers.  (read more)

It sounds like the OIG report on FISA abuse is in the end-stages.  What is described in the highlighted sentence above would be what is technically called “The Principal Review Phase of the OIG Final Draft”.  That’s where targets are given the opportunity to review an IG report and provide feedback prior to public release.

However…. Note:  This reference is not to the IG report on FISA Abuse.

Full Stop.

Repeat:  This is NOT the Inspector General Michael Horowitz report on DOJ and FBI FISA abuse.

This is a carve-out.

John Solomon is conflating two distinct issues…. and there is no effort to explain, because the sourcing is compartmentalized.   Now the comment earlier in the week by Matthew Whitaker makes sense.  Bear with me….

From the outset it was reported and confirmed that U.S. Attorney John Huber was assigned to assist Inspector General Michael Horowitz.  Huber’s job was to stand-by in case the IG carved out a particular concern, discovered during his investigation, that might involve criminal conduct.

Earlier this week Matt Whitaker said: “John Huber is reviewing anything related to Comey’s memos and the like.”

Put the two data points together and what you realize is that during the OIG review of potential DOJ and FBI FISA abuse… IG Horowitz investigated the Comey Memo’s and then passed that specific issue along to John Huber for DOJ review.

The IG criminal referral for the James Comey memo leaking was a carve-out sent to U.S. Attorney John Huber.

Back to the Solomon article, only this time I will insert modified clarifying language to highlight what happened:

[…] Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz’s team referred Comey [to John Huber] for possible prosecution under the classified information protection laws, but [John Huber, working for AG Bill Barr] reportedly has decided to decline prosecution — a decision that’s likely to upset Comey’s conservative critics.

John Huber found the IG’s findings compelling but decided not to bring charges because he did not believe they had enough evidence of Comey’s intent to violate the law, according to multiple sources.

This is a carve-out IG report and referral; with a specific target of James Comey; based on evidence discovered during the larger OIG review of possible FISA abuse.

Now the ‘Principal Review Phase‘ makes sense, because the only principal is James Comey.  Therefore the IG has written a final draft report specific to James Comey and his memos. James Comey and his lawyers are now reviewing that final draft report and will provide feedback.

Inspector General Michael Horowitz, together with the OIG referencer, may put the response from Comey in the report along with additional rebuttal from the Inspector General’s office.

That process will generate a final IG report; but the report is only specific to the Comey memo aspect and James Comey’s conduct in handling that memo content.  That IG report on James Comey will be released pretty soon, likely within the next week.

This is not the inspector general report on DOJ and FBI FISA abuse.  This is an IG report carved out of the larger investigation.

Bottom Line: We are soon going to see an IG report exclusively on James Comey.

Does that make sense now?

A recent FOIA release from Judicial Watch (full pdf below) reveals that two of Mueller’s initial FBI agents, based on dates and redactions – likely Peter Strzok and Joe Pientka, visited James Comey on June 7th, 2017, to retrieve a collection of his memos.

[However, a word of caution, one of the memos was titled “last night at 6:30pm” and is being widely misinterpreted to have been written the night before (June 6th, 2017) when that is not accurate.  It is likely that memo relates to the January dinner in the White House with President Trump that held the same sentence.]

(pdf here)

If we ignore the misinterpreted “last night” memo aspect (dinner with potus in January ’17), here’s what we can learn from this FOIA release:

♦First, the memos were picked up while FBI agent’s Peter Strzok and Joe Pientka were lead FBI agents that transferred into the Mueller team.  Therefore it’s likely they were the two who traveled to Comey’s house for this June 7th effort.

♦Second, the memos were picked up June 7th, 2017, the day before James Comey appeared before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, June 8th, 2017 [See Link].

It was during this June 8th SSCI committee testimony where Comey first revealed the scope of his memo keeping.  Keep in mind, all prior research shows SSCI Chairman Richard Burr and SSCI Vice-Chair Mark Warner were part of the corrupt effort against President Trump.  Their committee was where leaker James Wolfe (sleeping with journalist Ali Watkins) was operational.  The SSCI was part of the aggregate coup effort.

WARNER: I think that’s a very important statement you just made. Then, unlike your dealings with presidents of either parties in your past experience, in every subsequent meeting or conversation with this president, you created a written record. Did you feel that you needed to create this written record of these memos, because they might need to be relied on at some future date?

COMEY: Sure. I created records after conversations that I think I did it after each of our nine conversations. If I didn’t, I did it for nearly all of them especially the ones that were substantive. I knew there might come a day when I would need a record of what had happened, not just to defend myself, but to defend the FBI and our integrity as an institution and the Independence of our investigative function. That’s what made this so difficult is it was a combination of circumstances, subject matter and the particular person.

WARNER: I think that is very significant. I think others will probably question that. Now, the chairman and I have requested those memos. It is our hope that the FBI will get this committee access to those memos so again, we can read that contemporaneous rendition so that we’ve got your side of the story. – Transcript Link

Understanding the timeline; and overlaying the ideological intents and purposes; it would make sense that Robert Mueller and the ‘small group’ would want to exploit the memo content (hell, they likely knew all about it as soon as written), and simultaneously keep those memos buried and under their ‘small group’ control.

By taking custody of the memos, the Mueller investigative team would be able to block any outside inquiry.  That’s the motive for the FBI visit to James Comey on June 7th, 2017.  Comey could then talk about the memos the next day while knowing the ‘small group’ would use the “ongoing investigation” to keep them hidden from review.

Senators Mark Warner, Richard Burr and the media would be able to frame discussion of the memos to undermine President Trump, while knowing the memos would be kept out of public review.  With hindsight go back and review the SSCI testimony; this approach appears to have been pre-planned.

Here is the FOIA release on the FBI records:

.

Now lets overlay the Archey Declarations” against the FOIA release.

David Archey was the lead FBI agent who took over the Mueller investigation after FBI agent Peter Strzok was removed.   David Archey came into the small group effort in August of 2017.

After the media sued the DOJ and FBI to get the Comey memos, David Archey described them.  Now we find a disparity.

David Archey gave sworn testimony to DC Circuit Judge Boasberg that the memos were assembled by the FBI “on or by May 12, 2017”.

(pdf source – page #3 of declaration #3)

Obviously if the FBI was picking up memos on June 7th, 2017, the Archey declaration to the court is incorrect.   However, remember, Archey didn’t join the team until August 2017, so his sworn statement in October 2017 has to be based on information from others.

Regardless of how the error was made, a lie – or intentional mistake, the declaration to Judge James Boasberg was obviously inaccurate.

Again, the bottom line is the Comey Memos (of unknown quantity) contain a diary of record keeping by FBI Director James Comey.  Obviously he was writing these memos because he was covering his ass.   The fact that he was keeping these notes at home, and/or he moved the memos to his home after the election, is even more indication that Comey knew the operation against President Trump had the potential to go sideways.

I would strongly advise everyone to be familiar with the Archey Declarations (pdf below) which are descriptions of the Comey memo content.

.

The DOJ has until August 2nd, 2019 (Friday), to file a response to the CNN motion supporting an earlier court order that mandated the release of the Archey Declarations

[Full Backstory].