Expanding on my analysis of the IG report from yesterday it’s now just about as clear as it possibly could be that the DOJ Inspector General has in no uncertain terms documented that there was no Deep State FBI Political Conspiracy against the candidacy of Donald Trump.
It does say that there is legitimate criticism of the action of former FBI Director James Comey in his interactions with the public, the Congress and his superiors which stemmed largely from the fact that he wanted the Clinton investigation to be handled by a Special Counsel, and when it wasn’t he choose effectively act as a Special Counsel himself cutting his DOJ bosses out of the loop.
In hindsight, we can see that Comey wasn’t wrong to have his concerns and this case probably should have been handled by an SP. His flaw was not accepting the judgement of AG Loretta Lynch that this was going to be handled as a normal case without any special consideration and his taking several actions, including criticizing Clinton’s actions personally even though no criminal wrong-doing was found, then notifying Congress that they were re-opening the case for “reasons of transparency” just ten days before the election in violation of long-standing DOJ protocols when they hadn’t even taken the first steps to fully examine what they had, and the fact that it wasn’t any new or valuable information were all serious mistakes.
All of these actions harmed Hillary’s campaign and helped Donald Trump. Comey owns this, he should own this.
His actions, along with the help of the Russians, put Trump in the White House.
Those facts simply do not operate and function in a world where — at the same time — FBI was implementing a secret Deep State Jihad against Donald Trump.
To his credit, Chris Cuomo did a masterful job here of slamming down bogus Right-wing talking points from Nunes acolyte Rep. Jim Jordan.
Jordan repeatedly claimed that the text messages between FBI Agent Strzok and Page definitively prove that they were biased against Trump - but Cuomo notes that the report says there was absolutely no evidence that he or Page ever let their personal feelings about him affect how they did their job.
The IG Report says:
As we describe in Chapter Twelve of our report, most of the text messages raising such questions pertained to the Russia investigation, which was not a part of this review. Nonetheless, the suggestion in certain Russia- related text messages in August 2016 that Strzok might be willing to take official action to impact presidential candidate Trump’s electoral prospects caused us to question the earlier Midyear investigative decisions in which Strzok was involved, and whether he took specific actions in the Midyear investigation based on his political views. As we describe Chapter Five of our report, we found that Strzok was not the sole decisionmaker for any of the specific Midyear investigative decisions we examined in that chapter. We further found evidence that in some instances Strzok and Page advocated for more aggressive investigative measures in the Midyear investigation, such as the use of grand jury subpoenas and search warrants to obtain evidence.
There were clearly tensions and disagreements in a number of important areas between Midyear agents and prosecutors. However, we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative decisions we reviewed in Chapter Five, or that the justifications offered for these decisions were pretextual.
Nonetheless, these messages cast a cloud over the FBI’s handling of the Midyear investigation and the investigation’s credibility. But our review did not find evidence to connect the political views expressed in these messages to the specific investigative decisions that we reviewed; rather, consistent with the analytic approach described above, we found that these specific decisions were the result of discretionary judgments made during the course of an investigation by the Midyear agents and prosecutors and that these judgment calls were not unreasonable.
Jordon just plain refuses to accept “No" for an answer and continues to complain about the “We'll stop it" message — but the fact is that the IG went further than just making assumptions about the context and intent of that message, they actually asked Strzok what he was talking about.
August 8, 2016:
In a text message on August 8, 2016, Page stated, “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” Strzok responded “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.”
When asked about this text message, Strzok stated that he did not specifically recall sending it, but that he believed that it was intended to reassure Page that Trump would not be elected, not to suggest that he would do something to impact the investigation.
They also asked Page about the "secret society" text:
November 9, 2016:
The day after the presidential election, on November 9, 2016, Page sent the following text message to Strzok: “Are you even going to give out your calendars? Seems kind of depressing. Maybe it should just be the first meeting of the secret society. ”We asked Page about this message. Page stated that the “calendars” referenced in this text message were “funny and snarky calendars of
Russian President Vladimir Putin in different poses, such as “holding a kitten.” Page told us that Strzok had previously purchased these calendars as “dark gallows humor.” Page stated that the reference to the “secret society” was also a “dark sort of” humor about Trump winning the election and concerns she and Strzok had about Trump.
Page continued: And so, we somewhat with dark humor, but also somewhat, you know, with real concern as, of course, our Director actually gets fired, talk about, like, well, when he shuts down the, when [Trump] finds out about the investigation and shuts down the FBI, you know, we’ll form a secret society so we can like continue the investigation. So that’s just, that’s obviously not real. I mean, that’s just us being, you know, sort of snarky. But that’s a, that’s a joke. I mean, a reflection of that sort of joke.
Strzok stated that he “took and certainly believed [this text message] to be a joke.”
And they also asked them specifically about the "insurance policy" text.
August 15, 2016:
In a text message exchange on August 15, 2016, Strzok told Page, “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office —that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40....” The “Andy” referred to in the text message appears to be FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.
McCabe was not a party to this text message, and we did not find evidence that he received it. In an interview with the OIG, McCabe was shown the text message and he told us that he did not know what Strzok was referring to in the message and recalled no such conversation. Page likewise told us she did not know what that text message meant, but that the team had discussions about whether the FBI would have the authority to continue the Russia investigation if Trump was elected.
Page testified that she did not find a reference in her notes to a meeting in McCabe’s office at that time. Strzok provided a lengthy explanation for this text message.
In substance, Strzok told us that he did not remember the specific conversation, but that it likely was part of a discussion about how to handle a variety of allegations of “collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the government of Russia.” As part of this discussion, the team debated how aggressive to be and whether to use overt investigative methods.
Given that Clinton was the “prohibitive favorite” to win, Strzok said that they discussed whether it made sense to compromise sensitive sources and methods to“ bring things to some sort of precipitative conclusion and understanding.” Strzok said the reference in his text message to an “insurance policy” reflected his conclusion that the FBI should investigate the allegations thoroughly right away, as if Trump were going to win. Strzok stated that Clinton’s position in the polls did not ultimately impact the investigative decisions that were made in the Russia matter.
The report does express reasons to suspect potential bias, and that these messages give a highly negative impression, but after reviewing all the details of their actions, even the 30 day delay between the time that copies of Abedin's emails were found by the NY FBI Office, it turns out that the final results of this and Comey's action all hurt Hillary Clinton and helped Donald Trump.
Page and Strzok were both specifically asked about any attempts to harm Trump and they both - independently — pointed out that the easiest thing they could have done to harm Trump would have been to leak that he and his campaigns links to Russia were under investigation.
Strzok told the OIG that he did not take any steps to try to affect the outcome of the presidential election, in either the Midyear investigation or the Russia investigation. Strzok stated that had he—or the FBI in general — actually wanted to prevent Trump from being elected, they would not have maintained the confidentiality of the investigation into alleged collusion between Russia and members of the Trump campaign in the months before the election.
Page similarly stated that, although she could not speak to what Strzok meant by that text message, the FBI’s decision to keep the Russia investigation confidential before the election shows that they did not take steps to impact the outcome of the election.
American citizens have a right to their political opinion, in fact, it’s a clear part of the 1st Amendment that they have that right. Page and Strzok were wrong to have political discussions on the official FBI phones — but other than that they didn’t do anything wrong. Part of being a professional is being able to compartmentalize your personal feelings from your professional judgment.
That ability, to separate your political feelings from how you do your job seems to be something that people like Jim Jordan apparently can’t conceive of. They can't even imagine what that’s like.
They could have easily torpedo Trump’s campaign based on what they knew at the time, but they didn't do that.
In fact, on October 31st the New York Times reported based on law en sources that Trump appeared to be “free and clear" of any contacts or influence with Russia during the election.
“Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia,”
In late October, in response to questions from The Times, law enforcement officials acknowledged the investigation but urged restraint. They said they had scrutinized some of Mr. Trump’s advisers but had found no proof of any involvement with Russian hacking. The resulting article, on Oct. 31, reflected that caution and said that agents had uncovered no “conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government.” The resulting article, on Oct. 31, reflected that caution and said that agents had uncovered no “conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government.”
The key fact of the article — that the F.B.I. had opened a broad investigation into possible links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign — was published in the 10th paragraph.
But that wasn't true, we now know that the entire investigation was started because an Australia diplomat had informed the FBI that Trump campaign staffer George Papadopoulos had admitted to them that he had received information about the Russian hacking of Hillary Clinton emails.
And let's go one step further when the NYTimes later reported that members of the Trump campaign had been in contact with suspected Russian intelligence operatives, Strzok’s boss Andrew McCabe went racing to the White House to tell Reince Priebus that the report was "Bullshit."
Spicer: The Deputy Director of the FBI was at the White House for a 7:30 meeting — whenever it was — the morning that the story came out, he asked to see the Chief of Staff after the meeting privately and said in fairly colorful terms that the New York Times story was not accurate. As frankly any would at the time said — “Could you clarify that then? If it’s not true, could you clarify the story?” The Deputy Director then said “I’ll get back to you.” When he got back to us he said “Hey, we don’t want to get into the practice of having to refute every story.” Uh, the Chief of Staff said “Well, you’ve put us in a very difficult position. You’ve told us that a story that made some fairly significant accusations, was not true. And now you just want us to sit out there? And I think we have a right, and if there’s information, or if you’re saying that the stories not right, could you at least make it available to the media, or some folks in the media that, Yes, that’s stories not right, it made very, very serious allegations.”
Further in the Director of the FBI said to Reince that “You have every right to go out and say that you’ve been briefed by us.” Which he did.
But the fact is that Paul Manafort had a member of Russian Military Intelligence on his payroll and they’ve now both been indicted, so how exactly what the NYTimes story “bullshit”, and why exactly was McCabe violating DOJ protocol to communicate this to Trump’s chief of staff instead of telling the White House Counsel Don McGhan?
All of this continues to make Strzok and Page’s point that they weren’t out to “get Trump.”
This is while at the same time NY FBI head Kallstrom was decidedly pro-Trump and was dropping anti-Hillary leaks all over the place for months.
Comey said that he feared “a pretty reasonable likelihood” that Clinton emails being discovered on Weiner’s computer would get to the press through the New York office.
“The team that had done the investigation was in the counterintelligence division at headquarters, of the emails,” Comey said. “And there were no leaks at all, very tight. But the criminal folks in New York were now involved in a major way—and I don’t want to single anybody out ’cause I don’t know where it was coming from, but there’d been enough up there that I thought there was a pretty reasonable likelihood that it would leak.”
It all comes down to an understanding of the nature of the office, Comey said: “Counterintelligence is different. They’re so used to operating in a classified environment. They’re much tighter. But once you start involving people whose tradition is criminal, and in New York which has a different culture, there is a reasonable likelihood it was going to get out anyway.”
Page and Strzok actually had several text messages which were about leaks and ultimately involved discussion of Kallstrom and people being blinded by their personal politics.
Page: Yeah and I made the mistake of reading some stupid NYPost article about how some agents are ready to revolt against D [Director Comey] because on MYE [Clinton Email Investigation]. Now I’m really angry.
Strzok: There are a bunch of ignorant people out there blinded by their politics.
Page: Sometimes reminds me how how deeply politics, like religion, can blind objectivity.
Strzok: You can’t read that sh*t and frankly let them the b [Bureau] is better off without them.
Page: I can’t help it, it’s click bait. I emailed it to you.
Kallstrom was mentioned apparently when there was a big kerfuffle by a Senior DOJ official who was coming down on them like a ton of bricks on election day [which was likely related to McCabe’s leak to the WSJ about the Clinton Foundation investigation going forward even without DOJ support.]
Page. Oh God (Redacted) — [My strong suspicion is that it says “LYNCH” as in then Attorney General Loretta Lynch because it’s clearly a woman that is higher in hierarchy than Page, who at the time was McCabe’s Legal Counsel. Also in fairness it could also be “YATES” who was Lynch’s deputy at the time].
Strzok : What is she saying? She does realize that you’ve been in EVERY conversation that has been had about the case right?
Page: That we should have gone on the record saying that [then New York FBI Office Chief ]ames] Kallstrom and others may not be credible (which may be valid) but then saying we could pull his folks if we wanted to. Because she knows all about our policy of investigating members of the media.
Because she’s an expert who knows everything. I’m telling you it’s wildly infuriating. She has some good points but then assumes wildly impossible understanding of things to make groundless assertions. Told her twice she was either calling me stupid or a liar.
Strzok: What crime are we investigating? That’s a terrible idea, go to war with the formers? Jesus (redacted) that would make me blind with rage.
Page: “Leaking information about ongoing investigations. Which is incorrect information. By agents who don’t know about things talking to him.” See? That’s the thing, that we should have gone after agents talking harder and sooner, is not unreasonable. But the following discussions falls into uninformed assertions.
And there were reports in that time period that in reality, the FBI was “Trumpland.”
Current and former FBI officials, none of whom were willing or cleared to speak on the record, have described a chaotic internal climate that resulted from outrage over director James Comey’s July decision not to recommend an indictment over Clinton’s maintenance of a private email server on which classified information transited.
“The FBI is Trumpland,” said one current agent.
This atmosphere raises major questions about how Comey and the bureau he is slated to run for the next seven years can work with Clinton should she win the White House.
The currently serving FBI agent said Clinton is “the antichrist personified to a large swath of FBI personnel,” and that “the reason why they’re leaking is they’re pro-Trump.”
The agent called the bureau “Trumplandia”, with some colleagues openly discussing voting for a GOP nominee who has garnered unprecedented condemnation from the party’s national security wing and who has pledged to jail Clinton if elected.
This morning during a fairly bonkers interview Trump himself continued to bash Page and Strzok’s messages as showing “bias” against him and said the IG report “blew it” when they determined that they took no official actions against him based on the fact that they personally opposed his campaign.
He himself didn’t offer any examples of how they implemented official actions against him, because. they. didn’t.
He then said the IG report exonerated him on the Russia probe when that wasn’t even the subject of the investigation.
4.) Trump says the DOJ Inspector General report “totally exonerates” him in the Mueller probe. In fact, the IG report had absolutely nothing to do with the Mueller probe or its findings.
Yeah, no, the IG report didn’t do that. Not even a little bit.