• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

McCabe Transcript: Comey’s May 2016 Draft Of Clinton Exoneration Statement Was ‘Not Normal FBI Protocol’

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
42,751
Likes
68,780
Location
Rocky Mountains
#1
McCabe Transcript: Comey’s May 2016 Draft Of Clinton Exoneration Statement Was ‘Not Normal FBI Protocol’
Posted at 8:30 am on June 10, 2019





We all know that in early May of 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey wrote a draft of an letter exonerating Hillary Clinton in their “Midyear Exam” investigation. We also know that this draft was written two months before the FBI had even interviewed Hillary or any other witnesses involved in the case. Comey has testified that Hillary “was not sworn in and that the interview was not recorded.”

After Comey had written the draft, he sent an email to several of his colleagues to test the language. The recipients included then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, then-FBI General Counsel James Baker and then-Chief of Staff and Senior Counselor James Rybicki.

In a recently released transcript of McCabe’s December 2018 closed-door Congressional testimony, then-House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte readComey’s email.

(Note: These transcripts were released three weeks ago, but this issue was not addressed by the media.)

The penultimate paragraph of the May 2 draft reads as follows: Accordingly, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters such as this, I am completing the investigation by expressing to Justice my view that no charges are appropriate in this case.​
Goodlatte pointed out that, “This paragraph is virtually identical to what Director Comey eventually said more than 2 months later on July 25, 2016, in recommending no charges against Secretary Clinton. It seems to confirm that the FBI, including the Director, had made up its mind not to charge Secretary Clinton before interviewing her.”

McCabe responded, “It may seem that way reading it now. But I know that Director Comey had not made up his mind at that time.”

He was asked if Comey had “tested language” for a statement to be used in the event the FBI were to recommend charges against Hillary and McCabe said no.

McCabe was then questioned by Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) and his answers told a different story. Here is the exchange.

Meadows: So is this common practice, in normal investigations of every type, to do a memo 2 months ahead of time to lay out what you’re going to say with a conclusion? So let’s take it outside of this particular person. How many other times does that happen?​
McCabe: No, sir, it’s not common.​
Meadows: So this is a unique situation where he did it this one time?​
McCabe: This is the only time I am aware of, sir…​
Meadows: Is this case so unique that you would have a prepared document 2 months ahead of interviewing the witness? Is that normal protocol within the FBI?​
McCabe: It is not normal protocol within the FBI to release a statement about a case —​
Meadows: That’s not the question I asked, Mr. McCabe.​
McCabe: We believed we were going to —​
Meadows: Is it normal protocol — is it normal protocol to draft a letter by the FBI 2 months before you interviewed the witness to draw a conclusion? Is that normal protocol?​
McCabe: I have not seen that before, sir.​
Meadows: So your answer is no, it’s not normal protocol?​
McCabe: I’m not aware of that protocol. I’ve never seen that. I haven’t been through an experience like this in the pendency of my career. So, no, I’ve never seen that before.​
Meadows: I yield back.​
We’ll take that as a no.

Meadows spoke to Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo on Sunday, and indicated there would be a delay in DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’ report because new information has come to his attention. He also said he expected criminal referrals.

Hmmm.
 

ZZZZZ

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 23, 2017
Messages
3,700
Likes
7,800
Location
Northern Arizona
#3
Judicial Watch: FBI Docs Show Notes about Meeting with Intelligence Community Inspector General about Clinton Emails are ‘Missing’ and CD Containing Notes Is Likely ‘Damaged’ Irreparably
JUNE 07, 2019


(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that the FBI released 277 pages of redacted records in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit that show the FBI failed to produce information from an August 2015 meeting with Intelligence Community Inspector General about Hillary Clinton’s email server. The FBI claimed that notes are “missing” and the CD containing notes from meeting is likely “damaged” irreparably.

The records, which were posted on the FBI’s website, are the 32nd release of documents in response to a Judicial Watch 2016 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:16-cv-02046). Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit after the Justice Department failed to comply with a July 7, 2016, FOIA request for:
  • All FD-302 forms prepared pursuant to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server during her tenure.
  • All records of communications between any agent, employee, or representative of the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding, concerning, or related to the aforementioned investigation. This request includes, but is not limited to, any related communications with any official, employee, or representative of the Department of Justice, the Executive Office of the President, the Democratic National Committee, and/or the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton.
  • All records related to the meeting between Attorney General Lynch and former President Bill Clinton on June 27, 2016.
Included in the documents are February 2019 FBI electronic communications documenting the damaged CD and the missing notes from the August 3, 2015, meeting between FBI special agents and the ICIG about Clinton’s server:

For reference, Special Agents (SAs) [redacted] have been gathering and copying materials from the captioned case located in the Washington Field Office (WFO) CI-13 Workbox in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) tasking from Information Management Division (IMD; formerly known as Records Management Division).

On or about February 6, 2019, SAs [redacted] opened [redacted]-CYBER-1A27, which contained a CD with a crack on it (a damaged CD). SA [redacted] attempted to copy the damaged CD at the WFO Computer Analysis Response Team (CART) self-service area, but was not able to do so. SA [redacted] spoke with FBI information technology specialists on the ground floor of WFO regarding the damaged CD, who indicated it was unlikely the CD could be copied.

The electronic communication regarding the missing “Notes from Meeting” says:

On or about February 4, 2016, Special Agents (SAs) [redacted] attempted to locate [redacted] 1A4, described as “Notes from Meeting” acquired by [redacted] (see referenced serial). The SAs looked through all case materials in the CI-13 file and workbox area, however they were not able to located this item.

SA [redacted] inquired with Supervisory Intelligence Analyst (SIA) [redacted] regarding the item, as he was previously the IA assigned to the case. SIA [redacted] contacted [redacted] regarding the item, who indicated he remembered handing over his case notes to SA [redacted] (see attached email).

On February 6, 2019, SA [redacted] contacted SA [redacted] regarding the notes. SA [redacted] explained he documented all relevant case materials before leaving the case and did not retain any notes or other case materials.

As such, WFO CI-13 considers the item missing and will enclose this document into 1A4 as a placeholder until the missing item is located.
The email referred to in the electronic communication on the missing “Notes from Meeting” reads as follows:

From: [Redacted]
To: [Redacted]
CC: [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted]
Subject: RE: MYE Serial #??
Date: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 10:43:14 AM

I actually remember turning over my original notes for the file for this (it was right at the beginning of the case). I gave them to [redacted] who was running the file then. The only question will be whether or not I kept a copy for myself. I’ll look and see what I have.

Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) said during a hearing with Strzok that in 2015 ICIG investigator Fred Rucker advised Strzok of an “anomaly” on Hillary Clinton’s emails going through the private server. The forensic analysis found that all of those emails except four – over 30,000 – “were going to an address that was not on the distribution list.” It was later reported that it was a “Chinese state-owned company” that hacked Clinton’s server. The ICIG referred the Clinton email investigation to the FBI on July 6, 2015, just under a month before the meeting for which the notes were “lost.”

The document production contains emails between Justin Cooper (the former close aide to Bill Clinton, who helped set up Hillary Clinton’s email system) and Huma Abedin regarding an attempted breach of the Clinton email server. On January 9, 2011, Cooper emailed Abedin: “I had to shut down the server Someone was trying to hack us and while they did not get in i didnt [sic] want to let them have the chance to. I will restart it in the morning.” Despite Abedin’s having explicitly warned Sullivan and Mills that Clinton’s unsecure non-government server had been attacked, the documents contain handwritten FBI notes of Abedin’s 2016 FBI interview in which she told agents she didn’t recall any hacking attempts.

“The Obama FBI was frantic to target then-candidate Trump while magically losing or destroying important evidence in the sham investigation of Hillary Clinton’s illicit email system,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “This new information underscores the need for a fresh, unbiased investigation into the Clinton email scandal.”

In a related case, Judicial Watch recently obtained documents from the DOJ showing that on August 5, 2016 – a month after Comey’s exoneration of Clinton – FBI officials Lisa Page and Peter Strzok and Jonathan Moffa were notified by a FBI assistant general counsel from the national security law branch that several FBI 302 interview reports were in need of processing:

Today [Redacted] brought over additional 302s from the WFO [Washington Field Office]. Are those supposed to go through the redaction process for production to DOJ on Monday? We’re trying to figure out what needs to be completed this weekend.

Page responded by writing to Strzok, Moffa and others that four FBI 302 reports of interviews related to the Clinton “Midyear Exam” investigation had never even been written:

[Redacted] to the best of my knowledge, yes they will when Pete identified for [redacted] the DOJ edits that needed to be made to the 302s [redacted] discovered that there were four (I think) 302s that had never been written. What I don’t know is whose 302s they are but unless Pete or Jon are able to respond in short order, I would throw them on the pile for redactions. Thanks so much.

Additionally, Judicial Watch recently filed a lawsuit against the Office of the Director of National Intelligence for details of a meeting with the FBI regarding national security threats associated with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s “private” email system.

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press...t&utm_term=members&utm_content=20190610164120
.
.
 

Thecrensh

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
7,013
Likes
9,463
#4
Judicial Watch: FBI Docs Show Notes about Meeting with Intelligence Community Inspector General about Clinton Emails are ‘Missing’ and CD Containing Notes Is Likely ‘Damaged’ Irreparably
JUNE 07, 2019


(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that the FBI released 277 pages of redacted records in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit that show the FBI failed to produce information from an August 2015 meeting with Intelligence Community Inspector General about Hillary Clinton’s email server. The FBI claimed that notes are “missing” and the CD containing notes from meeting is likely “damaged” irreparably.

The records, which were posted on the FBI’s website, are the 32nd release of documents in response to a Judicial Watch 2016 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:16-cv-02046). Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit after the Justice Department failed to comply with a July 7, 2016, FOIA request for:
  • All FD-302 forms prepared pursuant to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server during her tenure.
  • All records of communications between any agent, employee, or representative of the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding, concerning, or related to the aforementioned investigation. This request includes, but is not limited to, any related communications with any official, employee, or representative of the Department of Justice, the Executive Office of the President, the Democratic National Committee, and/or the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton.
  • All records related to the meeting between Attorney General Lynch and former President Bill Clinton on June 27, 2016.
Included in the documents are February 2019 FBI electronic communications documenting the damaged CD and the missing notes from the August 3, 2015, meeting between FBI special agents and the ICIG about Clinton’s server:

For reference, Special Agents (SAs) [redacted] have been gathering and copying materials from the captioned case located in the Washington Field Office (WFO) CI-13 Workbox in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) tasking from Information Management Division (IMD; formerly known as Records Management Division).

On or about February 6, 2019, SAs [redacted] opened [redacted]-CYBER-1A27, which contained a CD with a crack on it (a damaged CD). SA [redacted] attempted to copy the damaged CD at the WFO Computer Analysis Response Team (CART) self-service area, but was not able to do so. SA [redacted] spoke with FBI information technology specialists on the ground floor of WFO regarding the damaged CD, who indicated it was unlikely the CD could be copied.

The electronic communication regarding the missing “Notes from Meeting” says:

On or about February 4, 2016, Special Agents (SAs) [redacted] attempted to locate [redacted] 1A4, described as “Notes from Meeting” acquired by [redacted] (see referenced serial). The SAs looked through all case materials in the CI-13 file and workbox area, however they were not able to located this item.

SA [redacted] inquired with Supervisory Intelligence Analyst (SIA) [redacted] regarding the item, as he was previously the IA assigned to the case. SIA [redacted] contacted [redacted] regarding the item, who indicated he remembered handing over his case notes to SA [redacted] (see attached email).

On February 6, 2019, SA [redacted] contacted SA [redacted] regarding the notes. SA [redacted] explained he documented all relevant case materials before leaving the case and did not retain any notes or other case materials.

As such, WFO CI-13 considers the item missing and will enclose this document into 1A4 as a placeholder until the missing item is located.
The email referred to in the electronic communication on the missing “Notes from Meeting” reads as follows:

From: [Redacted]
To: [Redacted]
CC: [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted]
Subject: RE: MYE Serial #??
Date: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 10:43:14 AM

I actually remember turning over my original notes for the file for this (it was right at the beginning of the case). I gave them to [redacted] who was running the file then. The only question will be whether or not I kept a copy for myself. I’ll look and see what I have.

Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) said during a hearing with Strzok that in 2015 ICIG investigator Fred Rucker advised Strzok of an “anomaly” on Hillary Clinton’s emails going through the private server. The forensic analysis found that all of those emails except four – over 30,000 – “were going to an address that was not on the distribution list.” It was later reported that it was a “Chinese state-owned company” that hacked Clinton’s server. The ICIG referred the Clinton email investigation to the FBI on July 6, 2015, just under a month before the meeting for which the notes were “lost.”

The document production contains emails between Justin Cooper (the former close aide to Bill Clinton, who helped set up Hillary Clinton’s email system) and Huma Abedin regarding an attempted breach of the Clinton email server. On January 9, 2011, Cooper emailed Abedin: “I had to shut down the server Someone was trying to hack us and while they did not get in i didnt [sic] want to let them have the chance to. I will restart it in the morning.” Despite Abedin’s having explicitly warned Sullivan and Mills that Clinton’s unsecure non-government server had been attacked, the documents contain handwritten FBI notes of Abedin’s 2016 FBI interview in which she told agents she didn’t recall any hacking attempts.

“The Obama FBI was frantic to target then-candidate Trump while magically losing or destroying important evidence in the sham investigation of Hillary Clinton’s illicit email system,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “This new information underscores the need for a fresh, unbiased investigation into the Clinton email scandal.”

In a related case, Judicial Watch recently obtained documents from the DOJ showing that on August 5, 2016 – a month after Comey’s exoneration of Clinton – FBI officials Lisa Page and Peter Strzok and Jonathan Moffa were notified by a FBI assistant general counsel from the national security law branch that several FBI 302 interview reports were in need of processing:

Today [Redacted] brought over additional 302s from the WFO [Washington Field Office]. Are those supposed to go through the redaction process for production to DOJ on Monday? We’re trying to figure out what needs to be completed this weekend.

Page responded by writing to Strzok, Moffa and others that four FBI 302 reports of interviews related to the Clinton “Midyear Exam” investigation had never even been written:

[Redacted] to the best of my knowledge, yes they will when Pete identified for [redacted] the DOJ edits that needed to be made to the 302s [redacted] discovered that there were four (I think) 302s that had never been written. What I don’t know is whose 302s they are but unless Pete or Jon are able to respond in short order, I would throw them on the pile for redactions. Thanks so much.

Additionally, Judicial Watch recently filed a lawsuit against the Office of the Director of National Intelligence for details of a meeting with the FBI regarding national security threats associated with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s “private” email system.

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press...t&utm_term=members&utm_content=20190610164120
.
.
Of course it was. That's the public "excuse" for why they won't take action - incomplete evidence. It's amazing how the Dems/Media tipped the scales in favor of HRC, but simultaneously have been announcing Trump's guilt long before the Mueller report was even begun.
 

Alton

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,938
Likes
9,345
Location
Michiana
#5
I don't think there was ANY FBI investigation of Killary. Perhaps a series of meetings, consultations but no investigation as ALL effort was toward providing the dog and pony show to congress and the MSM/public. They never intended to investigate or prosecute Killary.
 

the_shootist

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
35,032
Likes
47,363
#6
SO??? What does anyone think will change??

When all is said and done Hillary will remain free and all that was done in her favor will be overlooked!
 

Thecrensh

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
7,013
Likes
9,463
#7
I don't think there was ANY FBI investigation of Killary. Perhaps a series of meetings, consultations but no investigation as ALL effort was toward providing the dog and pony show to congress and the MSM/public. They never intended to investigate or prosecute Killary.

No serious investigation gives out immunity deals to every witness and allows witnesses to be considered "legal counsel" and allowed to be present during questioning that involves THEM...let alone deals made to acquire evidence (Mueller didn't make any deals with Manafort, or Stone - he just showed up at 5am with a SWAT team).
 

Aurumag

Ag mirror of truth Aurum purity of mind
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
9,634
Likes
11,872
Location
State of Jefferson
#8
SO??? What does anyone think will change??

When all is said and done Hillary will remain free and all that was done in her favor will be overlooked!
You are wrong my friend!

POTUS DJT is in charge now.

The house (swamp) cleaning is extensive, and it is a WIP.

.mil ring a bell?

It is almost summer. Maybe you need to take a little vacation.

Come back in mid-July and we can discuss this again.

WIP = Work In Progress.