For about eight months columnist Andrew McCarthy appeared on television and wrote dozens of articles about the slow-drip of information stemming from the Trump-Russia probe and the IG Horowitz investigation.  Almost all of the articles were sympathetic to the institutions being challenged. However, in mid-May a funny thing happened.

The weekend before May 15th McCarthy actually broke down and read the six-month-old Lisa Page and Peter Strzok text messages he had been delivering opinion on; and guess what happened?  Yup, his perspective changed within a period of 36-hours, and with it – a radical shift in tone and delivery.  In essence, he red-pilled himself.

What does that have to do with FBI Director Christopher Wray and Attorney General Jeff Sessions?  Please bear with me.

When Christopher Wray appeared before the media three hours after the IG report, one thing was stunningly obvious: he never read the report.  Wray might have been briefed on a summary of the report, but there was no way Director Wray actually read the documented substance, the details and the facts, within the center of the report.

As a direct consequence Chris Wray looked and sounded like Baghdad Bob standing in front of the cameras.  “There are no Americans bombing Baghadad”, as the explosions are seen over his shoulders, was akin to “there’s no structural or institutional bias” as nom de plume FBI agents madly wave “F**k Trump” banners in the background.

It was an absurd display of a disconnect from the institution he is leading.

If you only read the executive summary of the IG report, you might not see how ridiculously absurd Director Wray’s presentation was.  In the old school corporate world we used to have a saying: “never allow your leadership to be compromised“; obviously those who briefed Wray had no issue watching him make a professional ass out of himself. Then again, perhaps that was the intention.

That stark reality should be alarming to everyone given the intended responsibilities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.  Alas, the reality now highlights why the FBI is a collapsing institution.  With a reputation in tatters, it is soon to become a caricature of its former self…. unless something happens quickly.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions didn’t read the IG report either.  If he did he would have quickly called Wray and asked him ‘what the f**k‘ he was doing. Instead the AG doubled-down on the Baghdad Bob approach.

When CTH says that neither AG Jeff Sessions nor FBI Director Wray actually read the report, that statement is not from some snarky click-bait arbitrary opinion. In the same way the lack of informational absorption was visible with Andy McCarthy from Oct. 2017 through May 2018, some things are transparently obvious.  We just have to accept them.

It takes a good 30 hours to fully read the IG report; approximately the same amount of time it takes to read all of the Page/Strzok text messages.  There’s lots of back and forth cross referencing needed.  My current review of media analysis lends me to believe that only a few, perhaps three so far, have actually read the 568-page report.

And that brings me to another reason why, at least to me, both Jeff Sessions and Christopher Wray are suffering from Battered/Disconnected Institutional Syndrome.

Within the IG report almost all of the key participants’ names are hidden.  Instead the reports’ authors chose to use descriptions like: “FBI Agent #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, etc.” Or “Analyst 1, 2, 3”; or “FBI Lawyer-1, FBI Lawyer-2”; or the ridiculously byzantine insider acronyms for all of the positions of the officials.  A conveniently useful bureaucratic mess of acronyms to hide behind.  Flippin’ ridiculous is what it is.  I digress…

The point is – by using descriptions the IG hides the obvious.  Those acronym-hidden officials still work inside the current FBI and DOJ; and that’s another big issue creating the Battered Institutional System that infects both of the Trump appointees.

Case in point: FBI Lawyer #1.  We know who she is because we’ve done a great deal of research on the issues, and many of these titles/acronyms are listed by name in the Page/Strzok messages.  FBI Lawyer #1 is Tashina “Tash” Gauhar, literally from the school and law firm of former Obama “wingman” Attorney General Eric Holder.

2009- Tashina Gauhar is the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Intelligence. Ms. Gauhar has extensive experience working with the U.S. Intelligence Community and has held a variety of national security positions within the Department since 2001, including serving as an Assistant Counsel in the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review and later as the Deputy Chief of Operations in the Office of Intelligence, and recently the Chief of Operations. Prior to joining the Justice Department, Ms. Gauhar was an associate at the law firm of DLA Piper (then Piper Marbury Rudnick and Wolfe, LLP).  (link)

Tashina was the MYE team member who was on a September 29, 2016, conference call with the FBI New York field office about the Weiner/Abedin laptop.  FBI Lawyer #1 Tashina Gauhar was directly at the center, no, the epicenter, of the most controversial time frame for the Mid-Year-Event team.

Tashina was one of only three MYE people who actually had the responsibility to review the Clinton emails from the Weiner/Abedin laptop. [The other two were Peter Strzok and the unknown “lead analyst]

Tashina is probably only eclipsed by Lisa Page and Peter Strzok in the level of influence within the entire Mid-Year-Team apparatus.  “Tash”, as she was known to the team, is a hub amid a very tight circle.  Tashina Gauhar held a great deal of influence…  Suffice to say, the spawn of Eric Holder is a big deal in the story.

You know what other decision Tashina Gauhar was influential in?

Attorney General Jeff Sessions recusal:

(link to pdf)

Note this meeting was on March 2nd, 2017.  Which prompted this announcement:

WASHINGTON POST, March 2 2017 – Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Thursday that he will recuse himself from investigations related to the 2016 presidential campaign, which would include any Russian interference in the electoral process.

Speaking at a hastily called news conference at the Justice Department, Sessions said he was following the recommendation of department ethics officials after an evaluation of the rules and cases in which he might have a conflict.

“They said that since I had involvement with the campaign, I should not be involved in any campaign investigation,” Sessions said. He added that he concurred with their assessment and would thus recuse himself from any existing or future investigation involving President Trump’s 2016 campaign. (link)

Yes, the DOJ/FBI lawyer at the heart of the Clinton-email investigation; the DOJ/FBI lawyer hired by Eric Holder at his firm and later at the DOJ; the DOJ/FBI lawyer who was transferred to the Clinton probe;  the DOJ/FBI lawyer at the epicenter of the Weiner laptop issues, the only one from MYE who spoke to New York; the DOJ/FBI lawyer who constructs the FISA applications on behalf of Main Justice;…. just happens to be the same DOJ/FBI lawyer recommending to AG Jeff Sessions that he recuse himself….

Battered Institutional Syndrome!

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/381806566/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-4WfKaOih0Xm7EA7gdK93

.

A letter from FBI Agent Peter Strzok’s attorney (presented below)  outlines his client’s joyful willingness to testify before any congressional committee that invites him, and welcomes the opportunity to clear his name.  According to the Washington Post:

(Via WaPo) Peter Strzok, who was singled out in a recent Justice Department inspector general report for the politically charged messages, would be willing to testify without immunity, and he would not invoke his Fifth Amendment rights in response to any question, his attorney, Aitan Goelman, said in an interview Sunday. Strzok has become a special target of President Trump, who has used the texts to question the Russia investigation.

Goelman said Strzok “wants the chance to clear his name and tell his story.”

“He thinks that his position, character and actions have all been misrepresented and caricatured, and he wants an opportunity to remedy that,” the lawyer said.

[…] Goelman said he had not discussed any dates with lawmakers on when Strzok might appear at a hearing.

[…] Goelman, who is with the firm Zuckerman Spaeder, wrote in a letter to Goodlatte that a subpoena would be “wholly unnecessary.”  (read more)

However, don’t get too excited…. remember, Peter Strzok is the primary witness in both the Trump-Russia investigation (ongoing Mueller probe), and the more recent OIG FISA Abuse/Campaign Spying investigation initiated by Michael Horowitz.

As such, dontchaknow, Mr Peter Strzok would have to politely refuse to answer questions about “ongoing investigations”, and could only testify issues specifically related to the Clinton-email probe which was the subject of the most recent IG report release.

And the administrative state, both inside government and outside government, have had over a year to assist Mr. Strzok in the coordination of his narrative and talking points.

Swampy.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes appears on Fox News with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the particulars of the IG report and the upcoming week.

Bartiromo is one of the few pundits who has actually absorbed the entire landscape of the back-story, read the actual reports and invested her time into the details.  As such Ms. Bartiromo is able to take a comprehensive understanding forward into her interviews:

.

When we see that justice is measured, not by due process, but by compulsion; when we see that in order to invoke our fourth or sixth amendment right to privacy and due process, we need to obtain permission from men who rebuke the constitution; when we see that justice is determined by those who leverage, not in law, but in politics; when we see that men get power over individual liberty by graft and by scheme, and our representatives don’t protect us against them, but protect them against us; when we see corruption holding influence and individual liberty so easily dispatched and nullified; we may well know that our freedom is soon to perish.

Appearing on Fox News Sunday, House Oversight Chairman Trey Gowdy discusses the recently released Inspector General report on FBI and DOJ conduct in the run-up to the 2016 election and the exoneration of Hillary Clinton.

Additionally, Chairman Gowdy discusses the meeting held last Friday night with FBI Director Christopher Wray and Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein. In the meeting Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, along with a group of house chairmen (Gowdy, Nunes, Goodlatte), told the FBI and DOJ the House of Representatives will move forward with “floor action” to enforce compliance.

General David Petraeus was arrested for leaving his classified schedule on mistress Paula Broadwell’s nightstand.  Kristian Saucier was arrested for taking a classified photograph on a submarine.  Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin had dozens of classified Clinton emails on a laptop and…

There are a great deal of inconsistent application of law surrounding classified information. There is also a great deal of fatigue surrounding discussion of those inconsistent applications.  Contradictions, inconsistency and obtuse justifications are as rampant in our midst as the political narratives shaping them.  Perhaps that’s by design.

We begin reading Chapter 11 of the IG Report with a growing 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 unknown lead analyst.  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 one 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.

Summary:

• There were only three people in the Mid-Year-Event team granted authority to physically do the Clinton email review.
• They were: FBI Agent Peter Strzok, FBI Attorney-1 Tashina “Tash” Gauhar, and an unnamed lead analyst.
• FBI Agent Peter Strzok says they were able to cull the number of emails through the use of “some amazing things to rapidly de-duplicate” the emails.
• The New York FBI case agent assigned to the Weiner investigation, a certified Digital Extraction Technician, as well as the FBI forensics team in Quantico say it was impossible to use the conflicted metadata to “de-duplicate” the emails.
• Someone is lying.
• FBI Director James Comey said his investigative unit used some form of “wizardry” to review the content of the Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner laptop.
• The Inspector General makes no determination as to who is telling the truth; and never asked the question of whether an actual review of the laptop emails took place.
• The FBI still has possession of the Abedin/Weiner laptop.

.

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/381806566/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-4WfKaOih0Xm7EA7gdK93

.

⇑ These Cannot Both Be True ⇓

.

The ultimate disruption.

Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH) appears on Fox News to discuss the IG report and the upcoming appearance of Michael Horowitz to the Judiciary and Oversight committee coming this Tuesday June 19th.

On Monday June 18th both Horowitz and FBI Director Chris Wray will be appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee (Chairman Grassley).  Then on Tuesday Horowitz will appear before the House Joint Judiciary/Oversight Committee.

We need Jim Jordan to ask some basic questions [SEE HERE] and gain clarity from Horowitz.  Tuesday is likely the best hope for answers because we have Jim Jordan, John Ratcliffe, Ron DeSantis, Louie Gohmert, Andy Biggs, Matt Gaetz, Steve King, possibly Mark Meadows and Chairman Goodlatte asking the questions:

One of the interesting aspects of the IG report is the documented use of personal email by participants within the FBI “small group” Mid-Year-Exam (MYE) team. [pg 424]

One of those documented examples involves FBI Agent Peter Strzok downloading the content of the sealed Anthony Weiner Indictment, October 29, 2016, to his personal email address. Unauthorized extraction of a ‘sealed SDNY indictment‘, and transmission to a non-secure system, is a felony.

(From summary pg vii) We found that Strzok used his personal email accounts for official government business on several occasions, including forwarding an email from his FBI account to his personal email account about the proposed search warrant the Midyear team was seeking on the Weiner laptop.

==> This email included a draft of the search warrant affidavit, which contained information from the Weiner investigation that appears to have been under seal at the time in the Southern District of New York and information obtained pursuant to a grand jury subpoena issued in the Eastern District of Virginia in the Midyear investigation. <==

We refer to the FBI the issue of whether Strzok’s use of personal email accounts violated FBI and Department policies.

Details of this specific example continue on pages 426, 427, 428 and footnotes #217 #218:

[…]  During our review, we identified several instances where Strzok used his personal email account for government business.  […]  Most troubling, on October 29, 2016, Strzok forwarded from his FBI account to his personal email account an email about the proposed search warrant the Midyear team was seeking on the Weiner laptop.

This email included a draft of the search warrant affidavit, which contained information from the Weiner investigation that appears to have been under seal at the time in the Southern District of New York and information obtained pursuant to a grand jury subpoena issued in the Eastern District of Virginia in the Midyear investigation.

The footnotes here are interesting:

fn #217 reads: ” The OIG previously notified the respective U.S. Attorney’s Offices about Strzok’s actions.”

Presumably fn #217 reflects the Office of Inspector General informing the Southern District of New York (sdny) and Eastern District of Virginia (edva) about Strzok downloading sealed Weiner investigation material to a personal email system and presenting abstracts containing that information to EDVA to gain the Huma Abedin laptop search warrant.

fn #218 reads: “We requested access to Strzok’s personal email account. Strzok agreed to produce copies of work-related emails in his personal account but declined to produce copies of his personal emails. Strzok subsequently told the OIG that he had reviewed the emails residing in his personal mailboxes and found no work-related communications. We determined that we lacked legal authority to obtain the contents of Strzok’s personal email account from his email provider, which requires an Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) search warrant to produce email contents. Strzok’s email provider’s policy applies to opened emails and emails stored for more than 180 days, which ECPA otherwise permits the government to obtain using a subpoena and prior notice to the subscriber. See 18 U.S.C. § 2703(a), (b)(1)(B)(i); COMPUTER CRIME AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, SEARCHING AND SEIZING COMPUTERS AND OBTAINING ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS at 129-30 (2009). In addition, although we learned that a non-FBI family member had access to Strzok’s personal email account in 2017, Strzok told the OIG that no one else had access to his personal email account during the period in question (i.e., late October 2016).”

(pg 428) We refer to the FBI the issue of whether Strzok’s use of personal email accounts violated FBI and Department policies. As noted above, Page left the Department on May 4, 2018.

Who was the primary stakeholder in the laptop? And who, as a matter of this very specific set of circumstances, did not have any control over the data?

As you consider this seemingly small and innocuous aspect of the IG report…. remember all of the effort that Hillary Clinton’s team put into the control over the information within her email network(s)…. Think about the exhaustive efforts into controlling, deleting, hiding, scrubbing, masking, transferring, bleach-bit wiping, etc. etc.  Three years of exhaustive physical and financial expenditures to ensure the content of the communication network was never retrievable by any investigative authority; millions spent, lawyers paid…. and…

Now fast forward to late 2016…

Think about 675,000 emails and Blackberry communications; “emails dated beginning in 2007 and covering the entire period of Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State” [pg 324] just magically appearing in September 2016… and this time, literally, Clinton has no control over them.

Think about it for a few seconds.

Think about the angst.

Think about the potential ramifications.

Think about it from Clinton’s perspective.

Remember, throughout this campaign period her team and the FBI team were working hand-in-glove; a political reciprocity agreement with the Obama White House.

Now consider Page #315:

At 2:30 p.m. on October 26, Midyear FBI personnel, Midyear prosecutors, NYO, and SDNY participated in a conference call about the Weiner laptop. The highest ranking participants for each group on the call were Strzok, Toscas, the NYO A/SAC, and Kim.

The NYO A/SAC, ASAC, SSA, and Weiner case agent all participated in the call. This was the first time that the Weiner case agent had spoken directly with anyone associated with the Midyear investigation.

The case agent told us that he felt he was asked questions about information that he had already reported up the chain of command in September. He stated:

They were asking questions that I had already repeatedly answered in other calls. In other words, people were asking what domains are you seeing? How many emails are you seeing? What do you think you’re seeing? Who are they to, who are they from? What are the domains? Oh, we have that domain? What years? Like, questions that we, I had been asked and either had answered preliminarily, and then we became uncomfortable legally searching for those answers. But these were things that were known to me and had been made known above me for weeks.

The Weiner case agent stated that “the only thing that was new” was that others on the call asked him to speculate on what he had seen. According to the case agent, he stated, “Based on the number of emails, we could have every email that Huma and Hillary ever sent each other. It’s possible, given the pure volume, it’s possible.”

The NYO SSA described the call as “just basically discussions and information about…potentially what…was there, which we still didn’t know because we hadn’t looked at anything.” The A/SAC thought the call was “matter-of-fact” and said it was the first time they were questioned by an NSD lawyer.

According to the A/SAC’s notes, NYO briefed that there were 675,000 emails on the laptop spanning a time period from 2006 to 2016, and stated that there “appears to be blackberry messages” on the laptop.

The FBI’s Midyear team told us that they learned important new information on the call.  Strzok described it as “the triggering event” and FBI Attorney-1 [Tashina Gauhar] stated that this was the “call where it was crystallized to me what was on the laptop.”  (link)

Who were the stakeholders?

Knowing the nature of all FBI investigative benefits-of-doubt previously afforded throughout 2015 and 2016; do you think the FBI DC team didn’t immediately notify Team Clinton directly or through some facilitating channel?

Perhaps the answer to that question outlines why Peter Strzok suddenly found a need to download the sealed SDNY Weiner indictment and transfer it to his personal email?

Curioser and curiouser…

MORE HERE

.

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/381806566/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-4WfKaOih0Xm7EA7gdK93

.