FBI and DOJ news you may have missed

[Eastex]

I can’t remember the exact specifics but I recall that Sally Yates fought having IG oversight for the National Security branch of the DOJ before she was shown the door. I don’t think it’s a Latin America Banana Republic opinion that when a government agency stakes out a position that it’s immune from oversight that your b.s meter goes off. Given that many of the actors in this episode are tied to that very section of the DOJ doesn’t help to turn the meter down either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Eastex]

I don’t think Comey was happy when this news broke yesterday.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[littlejerry]

So... Are we not talking about McCabe or did I miss a thread somewhere?

[HCM]

It's so weird to see conservatives bashing the FBI and liberals now defending them.

I’m agreeing with Zincwarrior. Strange times indeed.

I had a whole rant typed out but suffice to say:

1) There were significant issues at the executive level at many agencies during the Obama administration.
2) I’d have voted for the Devil himself over Hillary but the issues Trump is creating at the executive level, while different, are just as bad as those created by Obama.
3) I see a lot of people posting about things they don’t understand based on spin and half truths from partisan sources because those sources agree with their preconceived notions.

[FNFAN]

If Trump can pull off another decent Supreme Court appointment or two and keep the economy from imploding he'll have done us a great service. I can't see how we could come out from under 8 years of the Obamination with out pain and suffering. If he can do more that'll be HUGE!

[critter]

I’m agreeing with Zincwarrior. Strange times indeed.

I had a whole rant typed out but suffice to say:


3) I see a lot of people posting about things they don’t understand based on spin and half truths from partisan sources because those sources agree with their preconceived notions.

I've seen 'bashing' of the upper 'political' echelons of the FBI and DOJ, but no one, and I could very well have missed it, has been bashing the FBI or DOJ as wholes.

concerning McCabe with the early leaks going to the press.. paraphrasing:

Comey: "No one in the FBI was authorized to share information ..."
McCabe: "I was the only one authorized to share information..."

At the very least these strange times are going to become more interesting.

[Sensei]

The leaks are starting on the DOJ IG report regarding the Clinton Emailgate. A draft version was sent last week to the affected parties so it’s fitting that those implicated of wrong doing and those who might benefit from the admonitions of others might want to shape the narrative ahead of the official findings release. The rumors are that the report will skewer senior FBI officials including Comey. However, the details of the IG’s criticism that were leaked today centered around poor timing and foot dragging that created an unnecessary media spectacle just weeks before the election. It was unclear if these criticisms were the only concerns or just what the leaker wanted us to know. Notably absent from today’s leak was a finding that the FBI covered for Hillary or treated her with kid gloves.

I’d like to think that today’s leak was a very incomplete release by a Clinton surrogate wanting to push the narrative that the FBI unfairly hamstrung the Clinton campaign and threw the election to Trump. However, that is certainly a possibile takeaway from today’s leak. Moreover, you will recall that the IG’s findings on McCabe, while damning, actually accused him of leaking information (and lying about it) to the NYT that was actually HARMFUL to Clinton to combat a perception that he was a Clinton loyalist. In other words, the IG may be implicating some of the right people for all of the wrong reasons. We will need to wait for the official release to see if the IG tackles the elephant in the room - i.e. did Clinton / Obama loyalists suppress evidence of Hillary’s wrongdoing and should the email probe be reopened...assuming that they don’t classify the whole damn thing...for our own protection, of course.

[Sensei]

Well, the report is out. I’ve read most of the executive summary and some of the more important chapters. In my judgement, the winners are: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

Clinton is a winner mainly because the report affirms the decision not to charge her. Thus, the odds that we’ll see a mulligan on her email investigation are essentially zero. The report also criticizes the FBI handling in a way that supports the narrative that her campaign was unfairly harmed by Comey’s decision to publicly freelance the announcement.

Trump is a winner because the report effetively undermines the credibility and methods of key personnel who laid the groundwork for the Russia investigation. Strzok in particular comes across as hellbent on stopping Trump’s candidacy and thwarting his legitimacy if elected. The Strzok/Page texts will become exhibit 1 of any defense should Meuller allege crimes.

The losers are: The FBI, Comey, and Lynch

The FBI is a loser because this report is a scathing indictment of the organization’s culture. While pundits like to
portray the Bureau as having been led astray by a couple bad actors at the top, the report details a culture of rampant disregard for policy and norms even among the rank and file. Nowhere was this more apparent than in numerous instances of employees at all levels have inappropriate contact with the press. In many instances, Bureau employees received inappropriate gifts (also known as bribes) in return for unauthorized information. In other words, America’s premier investigative agency leaks worse than the White House - sobering.

Comey and Lynch are losers because the report essentially characterizes them as either incompetent, ego driven, or both.

[JHC]

This is a fairly comprehensive summary that seems to hit a nice balance of detail and a readable length.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/nine-tak...-investigation

Although on a high level, I haven't heard of too many surprises in this new report, there were a few for me.

For example the references to all of the prosecutors agreeing:

"The report spends a number of pages detailing the prosecutors’ reasons for not recommending charges. The prosecutors told the IG of a host of reasons why they couldn’t establish the necessary criminal intent to bring charges under the relevant statutes. Not one of the emails in question had the required classification markers, for example. No evidence supported the notion that Clinton or the people sending emails to her knew the contents were classified. Clinton and her correspondents sent the emails to government officers in support of official business, and there exists no history of charging people under such circumstances. None of the subjects intended to send classified information to unauthorized parties or to store such information on unauthorized networks. The senders frequently refrained from using specific classified details, facts or terms in their emails. Mishandling of classified information at the State Department was such widespread practice that it was difficult for prosecutors to establish specific criminal intent on behalf of Clinton or the other senders."

Personally, I have zero doubt that had Comey concealed the re-opening of the Clinton email investigation from Congress the outcry would be 100 times worse. I also have zero doubt that in July '17 had Comey and the FBI followed protocol and were silent and deferred to the compromised and half-recused AG the outcry for transparency would have been deafening from the GOP. If you are in the middle of enough complex conflicts, you will find that the rule book does not always cut it.

[revchuck38]

"The report spends a number of pages detailing the prosecutors’ reasons for not recommending charges. The prosecutors told the IG of a host of reasons why they couldn’t establish the necessary criminal intent to bring charges under the relevant statutes. Not one of the emails in question had the required classification markers, for example. No evidence supported the notion that Clinton or the people sending emails to her knew the contents were classified. Clinton and her correspondents sent the emails to government officers in support of official business, and there exists no history of charging people under such circumstances. None of the subjects intended to send classified information to unauthorized parties or to store such information on unauthorized networks. The senders frequently refrained from using specific classified details, facts or terms in their emails. Mishandling of classified information at the State Department was such widespread practice that it was difficult for prosecutors to establish specific criminal intent on behalf of Clinton or the other senders."

There's just so much fail in the above quote. Intent has no relevancy in terms of mishandling classified information. The fact that the classification markings had been stripped doesn't make the recipients innocent - they knew or should have known that the info in question was classified because they dealt with it on their official computers too. Had this happened at DoD instead of DoS, enough heads would be rolling that it'd look like a bowling tournament.

The bolded part just reinforces the stereotype of DoS folks as entitled idiots.