Showing posts with label fbi director. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fbi director. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 2, 2018

James Comey Says Deep State Doesn’t Exist, Then Describes The Deep State’s Existence


Former FBI director James Comey, who was fired, said during a question and answer session that there is no deep state right before describing the existence of the deep state perfectly. He simply called it a “deep culture” instead.


The context, as reported by Twitchy, was a question about what would happen if Trump were to fire special counsel Robert Mueller. Comey was specifically addressing whether those under Trump would adhere to such an order or not. “I don’t know. That’s a really interesting question,” Comey begins. “I think there’s an argument to be made that it would be utterly ineffective in practice.” And why, exactly would it be “ineffective” for Trump to fire Mueller? Because of the deep state, wait…no…the “deep culture.”


“You’d have to fire the entire FBI and the entire justice department for two reasons,” Comey says.  The first reason is that Comey doesn’t think Trump could find an executive willing to carry out the order to fire Mueller. And the second reason firing Mueller would be ineffective is because of the “deep culture.”


“There is no deep state, but there’s a deep culture and commitment to the rule of law that runs all the way down through not just the Department of Justice and the FBI but the military services and the intelligence community. It would be interesting to see what would happen next,” Comey said.




So basically, there is no deep state, but there’s a deep culture that would try desperately to stop Donald Trump from firing Robert Mueller.  Thanks for the clarification, Comey.






It is absolutely fascinating that Comey described what he just previously said didn’t exist. But we all remember who Comey really is: the deep state puppet who let Hillary Clinton off the hook.


The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has discovered that edits made to former FBI Director James Comey’s statement exonerating Hillary Clinton for transmitting classified info over an unsecured, private email server went far beyond what was previously known, as detailed in a Thursday letter from committee chairman Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) to FBI Director Christopher Wray.


The letter reveals specific edits made by senior FBI agents when Deputy Director Andrew McCabe exchanged drafts of Comey’s statement with senior FBI officials, including Peter Strzok, Strzok’s direct supervisor, E.W. “Bill” Priestap, Jonathan Moffa, and an unnamed employee from the Office of General Counsel (identified by Newsweek as DOJ Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson) – in what was a coordinated conspiracy among top FBI brass to decriminalize Clinton’s conduct by changing legal terms and phrases, omitting key information, and minimizing the role of the Intelligence Community in the email investigation. Doing so virtually assured that then-candidate Hillary Clinton would not be prosecuted. -Zerohedge


Sleep tight, everyone; because James Comey says there’s no deep state. It’s just a deep culture.

Monday, July 10, 2017

Comey Bombshell: FBI Director’s Leaked Trump Memos Contained Classified Information

(ZHE) Amid the constant media outrage over everything Trump, Trump, Trump, some might have forgotten that in the political rollercoaster over the past 12 months, there were numerous other high-profile individuals involved, including not only former DOJ head Loretta Lynch, whose every interaction with the Clinton campaign is about to be probed under a Congressional microscope, but the man who some say started it all: former FBI Director James Comey.







First loved by the Democrats when he personally absolved Hillary Clinton of any sins regarding her (ab)use of her personal email server, then furiously loathed when he reopened the FBI probe into Hillary Clinton one week before the election, then finally getting into a feud with President Trump which cost his him job, Comey ultimately admitted to leaking at least one memo which contained personal recollections of his conversations with the president, in hopes of launching a special probe into the president’s alleged Russian collusion.



There was just one problem: according to a blockbuster report from The Hill, in addition to the leaked memos, Comey also leaked classified information in gross and direct violation of FBI rules and regulations. And just like that Comey finds himself in trouble. Only not just any trouble, but the virtually same trouble that Hillary Clinton was in in the summer of 2016… and which James Comey was tasked to investigate.







We’ll repeat the above because it bears repeating: in the purest definition of irony, James Comey is about to be investigated for the exact same thing which he absolved Hillary Clinton of doing last summer. Almost as if neither Comey nor Clinton were aware of – or willing to abide by – the security protocol of the agency they were in charge of.


Aside from once again confirming that Trump may have been right all along in his accusation of the ex-FBI chief’s motives, this shocking revelation raises the possibility that Comey broke his own agency’s rules – by putting his own interests above those of his country – but far more grotesquely, ignored the same security protocol that he publicly criticized Hillary Clinton for in the waning days of the 2016 presidential election, in order to settle his vendetta with President Trump.


Amusingly, Comey’s alleged flagrant disregard for FBI regulations would explain why he also found Clinton’s email server transgressions to not be a material concern, contrary to what most Republicans claimed at the time. After all, if it was good – or rather not bad enough for Clinton, maybe it was the same with Comey’s own abuse of confidential data? The only problem is that while Comey was generous enough to let Hillary go, now that the ex-FBI chief is facing the president of the US as his adversary, he may not be quite so lucky.





Upon hearing of Comey’s alleged transgressions, the now former Chair of the House Oversight Committee said simply that “IF true, this is bombshell news.”


Incidentally, the first to warn of Comey’s imminent headaches, was Breitbart News, which on Friday reported that a new Senate report said recent leaks by former FBI Director James Comey’s leaking of memos could “potentially harm national security.” The report, released by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Thursday, found that there were 125 separate leaks in President Trump’s first 126 days that were potentially damaging to national security. The report said it included Comey’s leaking of his memos after he was fired by Trump in May.


* * *


Comey’s troubles started when he testified under oath last month that he considered the memos he prepared to be personal documents and that he shared at least one of them with a Columbia University lawyer friend. As Comey later disclosed, he asked that lawyer to leak information from one memo to the news media in hopes of increasing pressure to get a special prosecutor named in the Russia case after Comey was fired as FBI director.


The Hill recounts that particular exchange with Senator Roy Blunt:



“So you didn’t consider your memo or your sense of that conversation to be a government document?,” Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) asked Comey on June 8.  “You considered it to be, somehow, your own personal document that you could share to the media as you wanted through a friend?”


“Correct,” Comey answered. “I understood this to be my recollection recorded of my conversation with the president. As a private citizen, I thought it important to get it out.”



Comey insisted in his testimony he believed his personal memos were unclassified, though he hinted one or two documents he created might have been contained classified information. “I immediately prepared an unclassified memo of the conversation about Flynn and discussed the matter with FBI senior leadership,” he testified about the one memo he later leaked about former national security adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. Additionally, he added, “My view was that the content of those unclassified, memorialization of those conversations was my recollection recorded.”


That’s when the problems escalated, because according to The Hill – which for the first time disclosed that the total number of memos linked to Comey’s nine conversations with Trump – when the seven memos Comey wrote regarding his nine conversations with Trump about Russia earlier this year were shown to Congress in recent days, the FBI claimed all were, in fact, deemed to be government documents.


Oops.  As The Hill reveals, four, or more than half, of the seven memos had markings making clear they contained information classified at the “secret” or “confidential” level, according to officials directly familiar with the matter.


This is a major problem for Comey because FBI policy forbids any agent from releasing classified information or any information from ongoing investigations or sensitive operations without prior written permission, and mandates that all records created during official duties are considered to be government property.



“Unauthorized disclosure, misuse, or negligent handling of information contained in the files, electronic or paper, of the FBI or which I may acquire as an employee of the FBI could impair national security, place human life in jeopardy, result in the denial of due process, prevent the FBI from effectively discharging its responsibilities, or violate federal law,” states the agreement all FBI agents sign.



FBI policy further adds that “all information acquired by me in connection with my official duties with the FBI and all official material to which I have access remain the property of the United States of America” and that an agent “will not reveal, by any means, any information or material from or related to FBI files or any other information acquired by virtue of my official employment to any unauthorized recipient without prior official written authorization by the FBI.”


Comey indicated in his testimony the memos were in his possession when he left the bureau, leaving him in a position to leak one of them through his lawyer friend to the media. But he testified that he has since turned them over to Robert Mueller, a former FBI chief and now spearheading the investigation about possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.  It is not clear whether Comey as director signed the same agreement as his agents, but the contract is considered the official policy of the bureau. It was also unclear when the documents were shown to Congress whether the information deemed “secret” or “confidential” was classified at the time Comey wrote the memos or determined so afterwards, the sources said.


Meanwhile, Congressional investigators have already begun examining whether Comey’s creation, storage and sharing of the memos violated FBI rules, but the revelation that four of the seven memos included some sort of classified information opens a new door of inquiry into whether classified information was mishandled, improperly stored or improperly shared.


Where things get especially ironic, is that this was the same issue the FBI – under Comey – investigated in 2015-16 about Clinton’s private email server, at the time the most sensitive and controversial issue of the Clinton campaign, where as secretary of State she and top aides moved classified information through insecure channels.


Ultimately, Comey concluded in July 2016 that Clinton’s email practices were reckless, but that he could not recommend prosecution because FBI agents had failed to find enough evidence that she intended to violate felony statutes prohibiting the transmission of classified information through insecure practices. While the news initially was loved by Democrats as it let Hillary get off scott-free from any potential criminal probe, Comey’s subsequent decision to restart the FBI probe into Clinton’s email server one week before the election is what eventually prompted both Hillary and John Podesta to claim that James Comey was one of the two factors that cost Clinton the presidency… along with the “Russian hacking” of course.


The only problem is that while there is yet no evidence of Russian hacking, suddenly with the factual emergence of Comey’s transgression, questions may emerge not only into the ex-FBI chief’s actions and motives, but whether the FBI’s clearance of Clinton’s use of an email server under Comey was proper after all…


* * *


So what happens next? According to The Hill, congressional investigators are likely to turn their attention to the same issues to determine if Comey mishandled any classified information in his personal memos.


In order to make an assessment, congressional investigators will have to tackle key questions, such as:


  • Where and how were the memos were created, such as whether they were written on an insecure computer or notepad.

  • Where and how the memos were stored, such as inside his home, his briefcase or an insecure laptop.

  • Were any memos shown to private individuals without a security clearance and did those memos contain any classified information

  • When was it determined by the government that the memos contained classified information, before Comey took them and shared one or after.

One avenue for answering those questions is for a panel like Senate Intelligence, House Intelligence or Senate Judiciary to refer the matter to the Justice Department’s internal watchdog, the inspector general, or to the Director of National Intelligence and its inspector general. One thing is certain: the near-future will see many more of Comey’s sworn Congressional testimonies, and the vendetta between Trump and Comey is about to not only be rekindled but escalate to previously unseen levels. For an appetizer of what’s to come, look closely at Trump’s twitter feed once the president learns the news of Comey’s alleged transgressions.


By Tyler Durden / Republished with permission / ZeroHedge.com / Report a typo





Wednesday, May 10, 2017

WikiLeaks’ Assange Offers Comey a Job: ‘Mr. Comey Knows Where Many Bodies are Buried’

wikileaks



Washington, D.C. – Only hours after the unexpected firing of FBI Director James Comey, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange extended a job offer to the embattled former federal bureau chief.




Assange tweeted, “WikiLeaks would be happy to consider hiring James Comey to help lead it’s D.C. office”, where the now unemployed top G-man could “properly investigate the U.S. government.”


Only minutes prior to Assange’s job offer to Comey, WikiLeaks offered to assist, posting that “If James Comey or any other former or current FBI officers have information on why he was fired, we want to help: wikileaks.org/#submit”




And for those that thought Assange was simply trolling the recently fired Comey, he posted another tweet that metaphorically (and perhaps literally) explained his reasoning for the job offer, noting that, “Comey knows where many bodies are buried.”





While the offer of employment by WikiLeaks, to the man who recently labeled the transparency organization as “intelligence porn” that compromises sources and methods by publishing sensitive material without regard to who it may affect, is surprising in some regards, it makes sense given the extensive access to highly sensitive information Comey was privy to.




Assange predicted a politicized backlash within the FBI would precipitate a massive amount of new leaks from within from the bureau and suggested that Comey could eventually make a presidential run himself in 2020 (given the highly partisan atmosphere surrounding his dismissal).






Given the fact that the head of the CIA, Mike Pompeo, recently labeled WikiLeaks a “non-state hostile intelligence service” during an April 13, 2017, speech, it seems unlikely that Comey would be willing to accept WikiLeaks employment offer.



READ MORE:  REPORT: IRS Continues SWAT Raids for Evasion While Hundreds of Agents Avoid Paying Any Taxes at All



“It’s time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is: a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia,” Pompeo told an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.


The irony of Pompeo’s assertion is that WikiLeaks essentially operates as an intelligence service for the citizenry of the world. It’s the opposite of hostile actor, as it operates in the public interest.


In fact, the only way for the public to hold their elected representatives responsible is by having a thorough understanding of the actions undertaken globally in their name. Without the basic knowledge provided to the public by WikiLeaks, government can operate with virtual impunity, with actions shrouded in secrecy.


The idea that releasing truthful and verified original documentation pertaining to the actions of governments and their representatives, in an effort to open up governments and force greater transparency, can be classified as a hostile action, reveals the lack of morality that underpins the U.S. government position on WikiLeaks.


WikiLeaks operates as a public information portal that sheds light on the policies and actions of state actors, and their representatives, that often take place unbeknownst to the public they claim to represent.


While we won’t hold our breath for Comey to accept WikiLeaks offer, it would be amazing to see the revelations he could provide as a source.



Please share this article, and let us know what you think about Assange’s job offer to Comey in comments below.

Tuesday, March 21, 2017

The Two Political Bombshells Dropped During the FBI Director’s Congressional Hearing




(ANTIMEDIA) Even in Washington D.C. politics, FBI Director James Comey is a confusing figure. With only ten days left before the 2016 election, Comey revealed the FBI was investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. That announcement played extremely well for Donald Trump and resulted in a backlash from Democratic lawmakers Dianne Feinstein of California and Tom Carper of Delaware, who authored a letter demanding a briefing on the investigation.


Then, earlier this month, the New York Times revealed that Comey asked the Justice Department to publicly reject President Trump’s claims that Trump Tower was wiretapped by the Obama administration. Comey’s request came in response to two early morning tweets sent out by President Trump on March 4th.





On Monday, the House Intelligence Committee unloaded a barrage of questions upon Comey, and while he refused to comment on several of their inquiries, he did reveal two ground-shaking facts from inside the intelligence community. While both of his revelations were damaging to the Trump White House, specifically their desire for credibility and to put the Russia investigation behind them, he also failed to provide Democrats the nail-in-the-coffin moment they were hoping for.




We"re revolutionizing the news industry, but we need your help! Click here to get started.




Firstly, Comey admitted for the first time on public record that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is investigating ties between the Trump campaign and Russian agents. Devin Nunes of California, a longtime Trump ally and chair of the House Intelligence Committee, sought to combat any sense of collusion between the Trump administration and Moscow. “Do you have any evidence that Russia cyber actors changed vote tallies in the state of Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida, North Carolina, Ohio?” he asked National Security Administration director Mike Rogers. In each case, Rogers responded negatively but did stress that the NSA “is a foreign intelligence organization, not a domestic intelligence organization, so it would be fair to say that we are probably not the best organization to provide a more complete answer.”







President Trump tweeted out the exchange with the caption “the NSA and FBI tell Congress that Russia did not influence electoral process.” In what was indubitably a first, Democratic lawmaker Jim Himes of Connecticut fact-checked the president’s Twitter account during the congressional hearing, asking, “That’s not quite accurate, that tweet?”


Comey responded:


“It’s hard for me to react to that, let me just tell you what we’ve said is. We’ve offered no opinion, have no view, [and] have no information on potential impact because it’s never something we’ve looked at.”


Trump’s own inner circle is not helping his case. Confidant Roger Stone has been a spur in the heel of the administration’s efforts to rid themselves of the Russian controversy. Stone has boasted about a relationship with Wikileaks insiders, including Julian Assange. Though Assange has denied that Russian state actors were behind the DNC leaks, 17 American intelligence agencies concluded the Kremlin was involved — conclusions that apparently remain questionable. And Monday’s hearing didn’t give Democrats’ hopes of exposing collusion the extra boost they needed.


Nevertheless, in his opening statement, Comey said the ongoing FBI investigation “includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.”


In a surprising moment, Comey also said the Russians “wanted to hurt our democracy, hurt her, help him.” Even so, reports seem to indicate that President Trump intends to keep James Comey on in his role as FBI Director. While the commander-in-chief has a bittersweet relationship with the intelligence community, it would be extremely unusual for him to remove Comey.


In a second bombshell, Comey stated that the FBI has no information leading them to conclude former President Barack Obama “wiretapped” the Trump campaign. President Trump has refused to back off those claims. On Friday, in a joint press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Trump joked that “as far as wiretapping, I guess, by this past administration, at least we have something in common.” He defended his statements, saying the allegations of wiretapping were “made by a very talented lawyer on Fox.”


The White House seems to have been backed into a corner with the House Intelligence Committee’s hearings. These are likely to last for a few days, though they certainly haven’t been nailed to the wall. Unfortunately for Democrats, who had previously smelled blood in the water, they received no confirmation of their consistent allegations. Trump’s claims weren’t vindicated, either.


In D.C., even Democratic sympathizers are beginning to characterize the Trump administration’s’ relationship with Russia as a room full of smoke. And to the chagrin of Democrats, Comey’s statement that Trump’s wiretapping tweet was unfounded didn’t seem to rattle Trump allies.


The partisan stalemate continues.


Creative Commons / Anti-Media / Report a typo

Thursday, November 3, 2016

Report: FBI to Move to “Likely Indictment” Of Clinton Foundation

A new report says the FBI investigation of the Clinton Foundation has taken a “very high priority” after dragging on for over a year in its White Collar Crime Division, and a preponderance of evidence means a forthcoming indictment is “likely.”


Two unnamed, separate sources with “intimate knowledge” of the investigation told FOX News’ Bret Baier the FBI is “actively and aggressively pursuing this case” — even re-interviewing key people for the third time.


Ironically, one of the anonymous sources told Baier the investigation has benefited from ongoing publications by Wikileaks of Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta’s emails, in that “There is an avalanche of new information coming in every day.”


Taken in conjunction with the rapidly approaching presidential election on November 8, it appears Julian Assange’s ‘October Surprise’ could have lasting implications beyond lifting the veil from behind-the-scenes wrangling by Clinton campaign insiders, corporate media, and Democratic National Committee.


However, even before Wikileaks began publishing the Podesta Files, unnamed law enforcement sources told FOX News, the bureau had collected “a great deal of evidence.”


“FBI agents have interviewed and re-interviewed multiple people on the foundation case,” FOX reports, “which is looking into possible pay for play interaction between then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation.”


Indeed, an indictment on the pay-for-play scandal appears likely, “barring some obstruction in some way” from the Department of Justice.



Real Clear Politics summarized major points of Baier’s revealing report, noting the FBI’s investigation is “far more expansive than anybody has reported so far.”


In fact, although previous revelations the FBI had made special “side agreements” to “destroy” the laptops of Clinton aides Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson — which prompted scathing criticism and doubts about possible purposeful decimation of evidence — Real Clear Politics notes those computers “have not been destroyed, and agents are currently combing through them.”


Baier reports, “As a result of the limited immunity deals to top aides, including Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, the Justice Department had tentatively agreed that the FBI would destroy those laptops after a narrow review. We are told definitively that has not happened. Those devices are currently in the FBI field office here in Washington, D.C. and are being exploited.


“The source points out that any immunity deal is null and void if any subject lied at any point in the investigation.”


Further, elaborating suspicions about aide Huma Abedin’s now-estranged husband’s laptop causing the FBI to relaunch its investigation, Real Clear Politics notes, “Agents have found emails believed to have originated on Hillary Clinton’s secret server on Anthony Weiner’s laptop. They say the emails are not duplicates and could potentially be classified in nature.”


While Baier’s sources, being unnamed, are impossible to verify, the FOX report comes on the heels of reporting by the Wall Street Journal — also citing unnamed sources “familiar” with the same investigation — which states, “Secret recordings of a suspect talking about the Clinton Foundation fueled an internal battle between FBI agents who wanted to pursue the case and corruption prosecutors who viewed the statements as worthless hearsay.”


Those sources, paraphrased by the WSJ, explained, “Agents, using informants and recordings from unrelated corruption investigations, thought they had found enough material to merit aggressively pursuing the investigation into the foundation that started in summer 2015 based on claims made in a book by a conservative author called ‘Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.’”


Inter- and intra-agency disputes over the strength of evidence surrounding the pay-to-play allegations against the Clinton Foundation left senior officials at both the FBI and DOJ at odds with lower-ranking investigators, who felt that — in combination with ‘Clinton Cash’ and the aforementioned recordings — promising leads deserved to be pursued.


Internal discord spilled into the public arena recently when FBI Director James Comey took the highly anomalous step of publicly announcing the investigation had been re-started — sparking condemnation by President Obama, politicians, and other officials about potentially influencing the looming election.


Partly fueling the internal squabble over investigating the foundation are those who blame Comey’s second-in-command, “deputy director Andrew McCabe, claiming he sought to stop agents from pursuing the case this summer. His defenders deny that, and say it was the Justice Department that kept pushing back on the investigation,” the WSJ reports.


While FBI agents continued making headway in an informal probe to decide whether a full investigation was warranted, official in the Justice Department began objecting to their actions, under the premise the evidence was flimsy at best — despite further statements from informants and additional information beyond what had been presented in “Clinton Cash.”


As the WSJ describes:


“FBI investigators grew increasingly frustrated with resistance from the corruption prosecutors, and some executives at the bureau itself, to keep pursuing the case.



“As prosecutors rebuffed their requests to proceed more overtly, those Justice Department officials became more annoyed that the investigators didn’t seem to understand or care about the instructions issued by their own bosses and prosecutors to act discreetly.”


Friction between the DOJ and FBI reached a pivotal point when a ‘senior Justice Department official’ summoned McCabe to a meeting over the perception agents had rebuffed instructions from superiors not to pursue the investigation further.


“Are you telling me that I need to shut down a validly predicated investigation?” the WSJ quoted McCabe asking the official.


“Of course not,” the DOJ official is said to have replied.


Whether or not quashing a deeper investigation into the Clinton Foundation had, in actuality, been the Justice Department’s intent may never be clear — but given the overlapping dates of this bickering and the FOX News report of the yearlong probe, it would seem the Clintons are still very much treading water.



Watch the latest video at <a href=”http://video.foxnews.com”>video.foxnews.com</a>