From here and here:
DOJ won't prosecute Comey for leaking Trump memos
The Justice Department has decided not to prosecute former FBI Director James Comey for leaking classified information in memos of his interactions with President Trump, according to a source who spoke to Fox News.
DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz had referred Comey for potential prosecution.
“Everyone at the DOJ involved in the decision said it wasn’t a close call,” an official told Fox News. “They all thought this could not be prosecuted.”
Comey wrote memos of his meetings with President Trump prior to his firing. He then passed them to a friend who gave them to the New York Times.
Fox News reported that one of the reasons the DOJ declined prosecution was that the memos labeled “confidential” were given that designation after the fact.
The inspector general report related to Comey’s leaks is separate from Horowitz’s review of alleged Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) abuses.
The report on FISA abuses, essentially a review of the origins of the FBI’s Trump-Russia collusion investigation, has been delayed due to a criminal probe of the matter by Attorney General Bill Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham.
WND reported former U.S. attorney general Joseph diGenova has pointed out that Durham is conducting a criminal investigation with a federal grand jury of senior former Obama administration officials.
Further, DiGenova has said, Durham’s criminal probe has prompted FBI officials and others to ask Horowitz’s team to re-interview them so they can “correct their testimony.”
‘I always thought of it as mine’
In an interview last year with Fox News’ Bret Baier, Comey said he did not consider the sharing of the memos a leak of classified information.
“I didn’t consider it part of an FBI file,” Comey said. “It was my personal aide-memoire. … I always thought of it as mine.”
Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee in June 2017 that he sought to memorialize his interactions with the president in a way that would not trigger security classification.
However, in seven memos handed over to Congress, eight of the 15 pages had redactions under classified exceptions.
The former FBI director testified that he deliberately leaked a memo to prompt the appointment of a special counsel.
The New York Times published a report on Comey’s memos on May 16, 2017. The memos indicated Trump asked Comey to shut down the probe of national security adviser Michael Flynn.
One day later, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel to lead the investigation of alleged Trump-Russia collusion.
WND reported Wednesday that Judicial Watch has obtained FBI records showing that shortly after Comey was fired, agents visited his home and collected four of the memos of his interactions with Trump.
Judicial Watch noted the Justice Department previously argued to the court in a separate case that Comey’s leak of the memo regarding Flynn was unauthorized, comparing it to the activities of Wikileaks.
DOJ Issues Immunity Agreements With Hillary Clinton Attorneys To “Dispose” Evidence
Well, if you are wondering why Hillary Clinton isn’t concerned, here’s your answer. the Department of Justice has issued immunity agreement with Hillary Clinton aides and attorneys Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, according to documents obtained by the American Center for Law & Justice.
Jordan Sekulow writes:
The ACLJ has just obtained previously unreleased documents related to the Clinton investigation and immunity agreementsgiven to top Clinton aids. These agreements reveal that James Comey’s Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Loretta Lynch’s Department of Justice (DOJ) granted immunity to Hillary Clinton’s aids and lawyers, Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, from prosecution for anything found on their laptops violating multiple felony criminal statutes governing the mishandling of classified information and/or the removal or destruction of records, including Espionage Act provisions. Further, the DOJ and FBI also agreed to evade the statutory requirements of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by purporting to deem the contents of the laptops as not under DOJ or FBI “custody or control.”These laptops were critical to any meaningful investigation of Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified emails and records. According to the DOJ Inspector General, who identified these as the “culling laptops,” “[a]ll 62,320 emails pulled from the Clinton servers were stored at one time on these laptops.” Having taken control of these laptops, agreeing to severely limit its searches, agreeing to unlawfully shield the laptops from FOIA, then agreeing to dispose of the laptops, it appears the Comey FBI and Lynch DOJ did everything in their power to protect Clinton’s senior aids and lawyers from both criminalliability and public scrutiny.While these immunity agreements and related news have been publicly discussed to some extent, the ACLJ has now obtained the actual documents so the public may see and judge them accordingly.
The ACLJ obtained the DOJ’s infamous immunity agreements with Hillary Clinton’s top aides Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, documents previously unreleased to the public.
According to ACLJ, these documents include “the DOJ attempting to enter an agreement not to comply with the requirements of FOIA, and which confirm it agreed to “dispose” of evidence, including Mills’ and Samuelson’s “culling laptops” which contained all of the missing emails from Hilary Clinton’s private homebrew server.
Additionally, the documents were obtained responsive to a FOIA request the ACLJ had submitted to the DOJ and FBI nearly two years ago, and we were forced to file a federal lawsuit in Washington, D.C., to get them.
The FOIA request demanded:
All records concerning the immunity agreements entered into between the Department of Justice (DOJ) and witnesses and/or subjects of the FBI’s Clinton investigation, including but not limited to Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, and all other such agreements whereby the DOJ agreed to destroy any records retrieved.
So, what did ACLJ discover in the documents?
According to the DOJ’s immunity agreement with Mills:
As we have advised you, we consider Cheryl Mills to be a witness based on the information gathered to date in this investigation. We understand that Cheryl Mills is willing to voluntarily provide the Mills Laptop to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, if the United States agrees not to use any information directly obtained from the Mills Laptop in any prosecution of Cheryl Mills for the mishandling of classified information and/or the removal or destruction of records as described below.
And, according to the immunity agreement:
To that end, it is hereby agreed as follows:
- That, subject to the terms of consent set forth in a separate letter to the Department of Justice dated June 10, 2016, Cheryl Mills will voluntarily produce the Mills Laptop to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for its review and analysis.
- That no information directly obtained from the Mills Laptop will be used against your client in any prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) and/or (f); 18 U.S.C. § 1924; and/or 18 U.S.C. § 2071.
- That no other promises, agreements, or understandings exist between the parties except as set forth in this agreement, and no modification of this agreement shall have effect unless executed in writing by the parties.
The agreement was then executed by Cheryl Mills. The immunity agreement with Samuelson reads the same.
Mills and Samuelson Were Granted Immunity From Prosecution Under Multiple Felony Statutes for Anything Found on Their Laptops.
The Espionage Act. The first criminal statute as to which Mills and Samuelson were expressly granted immunity are felony provisions of the Espionage Act, found at 18 U.S.C. § 793(e). The immunity agreements arguable would also cover the Espionage Act’s provision concerning conspiracy to violate the Act, under 18 U.S.C. § 793(g).
To summarize, these Espionage Act sections makes it a felony for a person with unauthorized access or possession to convey the information to an unauthorized person, or for a person with authorized possession to negligently allow it to be removed from its proper place, delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, lost, stolen, or destroyed; or failing to promptly report such an act.
Removal of Classified Information by Public Officers and Employees. The next criminal statute as to which Mills and Samuelson were granted immunity is a felony statute found at 18 U.S.C. § 1924.
To summarize, this criminal statute makes it a felony for a government officer or employee to, knowingly and without authority, remove classified information with the intent to retain the information at an unauthorized location.
Records and Reports. Mills and Samuelson were also granted express immunity from prosecution under both subsections of 18 U.S.C. § 2071.
To summarize, this criminal statute makes it a felony for a person to willfully and unlawfully conceal, remove, or destroy a government record or document, or where someone has custody of any such record, they willfully and unlawfully conceal, remove, falsify or destroy it. Further, a person convicted of doing the latter “shall forfeit and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.”
The ACLJ Obtained the Second Immunity Agreement Letters Originally Withheld, Which Show the DOJ/FBI Agreed to Evade FOIA and to Dispose of the Culling Laptops.
In commenting on the discovery, Sekulow writes, “Importantly, in item #1 of both the Mills and Samuelson immunity agreements obtained by the ACLJ earlier this year, the DOJ NSD referenced and incorporated the terms of a “separate letter” of the same date (June 10, 2016) containing the “terms of consent” to which the FBI/DOJ agreed to comply. These second letters were not initially provided to the ACLJ.”
“We are pleased to report that, as a result of our continued negotiations and efforts in this case, we have now secured those two separate letters the DOJ had thus far withheld,” he added.
“These two separate letters walk through the specific terms of Mills’ and Samuelson’s agreements with the DOJ in exchange for them voluntarily handing over their culling laptops – the laptops they used to delete Hillary’s emails and on which the Clinton Team used BleachBit,” Sekulow continued.
Further commentary by ACLJ went on to state:
In these letters, we learn that the DOJ attempted to circumvent its statutory obligation to comply with the FOIA:
In voluntarily providing the Device, Cheryl Mills does not relinquish ownership or control over the Device, except for the FBI’s limited investigative use as specified by this agreement. The FBI does not assert custody and control over the Device or its contents for any other purpose, including any requests made pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552.
The terms “custody and control” is a FOIA term of art. So, in other words, the DOJ/FBI purported or attempted to agree itself out of the requirements of FOIA, so that nothing on Mills’ or Samuelson’s culling laptops would be subject to FOIA. This agreement is particularly noteworthy given what former FBI lawyer Lisa Page told the DOJ Office of Inspector General:
[T]hese are the State Department’s records. And if the Secretary in the first place had actually followed normal protocol, every single one of these emails, whether personal or work-related would have been in the State Department’s possession, and there would be no attorney-client discussions happening with respect to the sort of this material.
In other words, the DOJ voluntarily agreed to refuse to comply with the requirements of FOIA as to documents that were clearly within the purview of FOIA requests and had otherwise been prevented from being FOIA’d by being stored on Clinton’s private server.
This attempt to evade complying with the FOIA is especially troubling given the next fact revealed in these newly obtained documents.
The DOJ/FBI Agreed to “Dispose” of Mills’ and Samuelson’s “Culling Laptops.”
The DOJ agreed that the FBI would “dispose” of Mills’ and Samuelson’s laptops after the search. According to the agreement:
As soon as the investigation is completed, and to the extent consistent with all FBI policies and applicable laws, including the Federal Records Act, the FBI will dispose of the Device and any printed or electronic materials resulting from your search.
In other words, after agreeing to limit its search of Mills’ laptop to (1) only a certain method of searching; (2) only for certain email-related files; and, (3) only files created within a certain time-frame, the DOJ/FBI agreed to dispose of the laptop – meaning anything else embarrassing, negative or potentially implicating on the laptop – including official State Department records – would be destroyed and never be exposed.
The DOJ Inspector General had discussed the disposal agreement in his report about the irregularities in fired-FBI Director Jim Comey’s investigation of Hillary Clinton, but now the ACLJ has obtained the actual letters confirming the DOJ agreed the laptops would be disposed of by Comey’s FBI.
According to the DOJ OIG, access to these “culling laptops” – the ones on which the Clinton Team used “BleachBit”:
was particularly important to ensure the completeness of the investigation. All 62,320 emails pulled from the Clinton servers were stored at one time on these laptops, so access to the laptops offered the possibility of reconstructing a large number of the deleted emails through digital forensics.
These documents are especially relevant given “the thousands of pages of testimony” released by congressional committees in the past few months “about how the bureau handled the probe into Clinton’s use of a private server to send classified government emails” – and the headlines that testimony is generating. Portions of that testimony reveal “the intricate role of the DOJ in attempting to limit the FBI’s ability to gain access to laptops belonging to two Clinton confidants Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson.”
The documents received by the ACLJ confirm our earlier report – more than a year ago – that, based on the Senate Judiciary Committee’s investigation and interviews:
[T]he DOJ entered into “highly unusual” immunity agreements with key witnesses in the investigation, including Cheryl Mills (Clinton’s top aide) and Heather Samuelson (the aide tasked with going through the Clinton emails and deciding which should be made public and which deleted). It is reported that Mills and Samuelson agreed to allow the agency access to their computers in exchange for immunity – i.e. DOJ’s assurances that the findings of those searches would not be used against them.
Finally, ACLJ pointed out, “Among the records the ACLJ obtained were redacted talking points the DOJ had shared with the FBI about the secret tarmac meeting. In fact, the ACLJ recently filed its opening brief in our appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit challenging the redaction of those talking points. Right before its response brief was due, the FBI caved and provided us with the talking points it had previously withheld.”
OK, great, but how long has this immunity been in place? And what results have we seen from these agreements?
Zero, zilch, nada.
We’ve seen nothing as of yet. That doesn’t mean nothing will come of it, but keep in mind that ACLJ requested these documents two years ago!
In less than two years the jackbooted thugs of the federal government took on the Bundy Ranch protesters after Facebook unlawfully dumped data into their hands, a CIA backed front group sorted it and corrupt prosecutors pushed the case before an Obama-appointed judge. Yet, Clinton was a woman running for the highest office in the land with a man at the helm who says the Clintons are “good people” and “doesn’t want to hurt them” while telling the American people they owe Hillary a “debt of gratitude.”
C’mon people, wake up and smell what these politicians are shoveling.
Article posted with permission from Sons Of Liberty Media
MEANWHILE ...!
From here:
FBI: AGENTS RETRIEVE 'MISSING' EVIDENCE FROM JAMES COMEY'S HOME
Judicial Watch slams his 'illegal leaking' as part of 'vendetta' against Trump
Hillary Clinton, while U.S. secretary of state for Barack Obama, kept emails with classified information on an unsecure server in her home.
James Comey, who was FBI director at the time, didn’t do that.
But he kept memos with classified information in his home.
We know because the FBI revealed that’s where it obtained them, according to government watchdog Judicial Watch.
The organization said Wednesday it obtained, through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, pages of records from the FBI showing that in June 2017, shortly after he was fired, agents visited Comey’s home. They collected as evidence four memos that allegedly detail conversations he had with President Trump.
“These extraordinary FBI docs further confirm that James Comey should never have had FBI files on President Trump at his home and that the FBI failed to secure and protect these private and classified files,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Mr. Comey’s illegal leaking these FBI files as part of his vendetta against President Trump (directly resulting in the corrupt appointment of Robert Mueller) ought to be the subject of a criminal investigation.”
It was only a day after the FBI was at Comey’s home that the FBI director testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that he leaked memos of his conversations with President Trump “because (he) thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.”
It was Columbia University Law professor Daniel Richman, a friend of Comey’s, who turned over copies of the memos to investigators, bypassing a request by Congress.
Trump fired Comey on May 9, 2017. Judicial Watch said the memos were collected on June 7 and were dated Feb. 14, March 30, April 11 and “last night.”
“The FBI documents also revealed that Comey recalled writing two other memos after conversations with Trump that he claimed were ‘missing,'” Judicial Watch said.
An FBI document shows the agents “collected memorandums (memos) as evidence from James Comey at his residence.”
The records came to Judicial Watch in a FOIA lawsuit against the Justice Department that sought all records of communications relating to Comey providing memoranda of his conversations with Trump to special counsel Robert Mueller and his team.
Noted Judicial Watch: “The Justice Department previously argued to the court in a separate case that Comey’s leak of the memo regarding former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn was unauthorized and compared it to WikiLeaks. Comey admitted to Congress regarding the ‘Flynn’ memo, ‘I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter [for The New York Times] … I asked him to because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.’ The New York Times published a report about the memo on May 16, 2017. Special Counsel Robert Mueller was appointed the following day.”
Further, the Hill reported sources familiar with the Comey documents said more than half of the memos were determined to contain classified information.
James Comey, who was FBI director at the time, didn’t do that.
But he kept memos with classified information in his home.
We know because the FBI revealed that’s where it obtained them, according to government watchdog Judicial Watch.
The organization said Wednesday it obtained, through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, pages of records from the FBI showing that in June 2017, shortly after he was fired, agents visited Comey’s home. They collected as evidence four memos that allegedly detail conversations he had with President Trump.
“These extraordinary FBI docs further confirm that James Comey should never have had FBI files on President Trump at his home and that the FBI failed to secure and protect these private and classified files,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Mr. Comey’s illegal leaking these FBI files as part of his vendetta against President Trump (directly resulting in the corrupt appointment of Robert Mueller) ought to be the subject of a criminal investigation.”
It was only a day after the FBI was at Comey’s home that the FBI director testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that he leaked memos of his conversations with President Trump “because (he) thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.”
It was Columbia University Law professor Daniel Richman, a friend of Comey’s, who turned over copies of the memos to investigators, bypassing a request by Congress.
Trump fired Comey on May 9, 2017. Judicial Watch said the memos were collected on June 7 and were dated Feb. 14, March 30, April 11 and “last night.”
“The FBI documents also revealed that Comey recalled writing two other memos after conversations with Trump that he claimed were ‘missing,'” Judicial Watch said.
An FBI document shows the agents “collected memorandums (memos) as evidence from James Comey at his residence.”
The records came to Judicial Watch in a FOIA lawsuit against the Justice Department that sought all records of communications relating to Comey providing memoranda of his conversations with Trump to special counsel Robert Mueller and his team.
Noted Judicial Watch: “The Justice Department previously argued to the court in a separate case that Comey’s leak of the memo regarding former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn was unauthorized and compared it to WikiLeaks. Comey admitted to Congress regarding the ‘Flynn’ memo, ‘I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter [for The New York Times] … I asked him to because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.’ The New York Times published a report about the memo on May 16, 2017. Special Counsel Robert Mueller was appointed the following day.”
Further, the Hill reported sources familiar with the Comey documents said more than half of the memos were determined to contain classified information.
No comments:
Post a Comment