Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Non Hunting > Politics
More evidence of the Clintons and the deep state >

More evidence of the Clintons and the deep state

Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

More evidence of the Clintons and the deep state

Old 11-16-2019, 02:10 PM
  #1  
Boone & Crockett
Thread Starter
 
Oldtimr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: south eastern PA
Posts: 12,719
Default More evidence of the Clintons and the deep state

Judicial Watch


FBI Emails Dispute Clinton’s Claim about Sending Classified Information

When it comes to Hillary’s email scandal, the lies and evasions of top Obama administration officials, as well as top State Department and FBI executives, were no more than a flimsy house of cards, which, thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, we continue to pull down.

Here’s the latest.

After former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s statement denying the transmission of classified information over her unsecure email system, former FBI official Peter Strzok sent an email to FBI officials citing “three [Clinton email] chains” containing (C) [classified confidential] portion marks in front of paragraphs.”

We learned this in 119 pages of records we obtained from the Justice Department through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The records containing emails from Strzok and former FBI attorney Lisa Page also reveal senior FBI officials’ concerns over articles written about the “tarmac meeting” between former President Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch. Strzok specifically cited a CBS News report terming the meeting “shocking, absolutely shocking,” and adding that, “the appearance of impropriety is just stunning.”

We received these documents in response to the January 24, 2018, lawsuit we filed after the Department of Justice failed to respond to a December 4, 2017, FOIA request ( Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-00154)). Judicial Watch seeks:
All records of communications, including but not limited to, emails, text messages and instant chats, between FBI official Peter Strzok and FBI attorney Lisa Page;
All travel requests, travel authorizations, travel vouchers and expense reports of Peter Strzok;
All travel requests, travel authorizations, travel vouchers and expense reports of Lisa Page.
In a July 4, 2016, email exchange with FBI Assistant Director William Priestap, FBI Counterintelligence official Jonathan Moffa, and unidentified Office of the General Counsel officials, a Daily Beast article titled “Is Hillary Clinton Telling the Truth About Emails?” is discussed. In it Clinton is quoted saying that she never sent or received emails with material marked classified.
...Strzok: There are three chains totaling 8 or 9 emails which have (C) [classified confidential] portion marks in front of paragraphs. Some have both (C) and (SBU) [sensitive but unclassified] in front of different paragraphs in the same email. During a brief a few weeks ago Jon provided a copy of the…
...All were released in the 30,000 FOIA production. One of the chains contains multiple B1 [national defense or foreign policy] redactions, indicating it is currently classified Confidential; the other two chains were released in full. We do not yet have determinations from State about their classifica…
On June 29, 2016, Strzok forwards to Page a story about the meeting between Bill Clinton and then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the Phoenix airport tarmac just days before Clinton’s criminal investigation interview. Strzok highlights an excerpt in which CBS News’s Justice Reporter Paul Reid called the meeting, “shocking, absolutely shocking” also that, “the appearance of impropriety is just stunning.” The excerpt ends with Reid saying: “[Lynch] stood up to El Chapo, she has taken on FIFA – she is not incapable to telling someone, ‘Look, you can’t come on my plane’ or ‘Look, I don’t want to talk to you.’”

The documents also show that on May 23, 2016, Strzok; FBI Office of Congressional Affairs’ official Elizabeth Beers; Principal Deputy General Counsel for the FBI Trisha Anderson; FBI Counterintelligence Division official Jonathan Moffa; and another redacted senior FBI official have an email exchange about how to respond to a letter sent from Senator Chuck Grassley to then-FBI Director Comey asking a series of pointed questions focusing on why FBI personnel working on Clinton’s email server case (Midyear Exam/MYE) were required to sign a special non-disclosure agreement (NDA) above and beyond the normal rules in place that govern disclosure of sensitive information by FBI personnel.

Grassley asked for copies of the special NDA and if any agents refused to sign.

Beers notes that some of her communications about the matter were on the “redside” (the Top Secret FBI computer system). Beers also noted that she ran their proposed response to Grassley by the DOJ, which provided “edits.”

On June 3, 2016, Peter Strzok organized an “MYE Scrub” meeting with Page, Moffa and an unidentified official from the FBI General Counsel’s Office.

On June 3, 2016, following the “MYE Scrub” meeting, Strzok emailed then Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe, Asst. Dir. for Counterintelligence Bill Priestap and other redacted officials, advising them that “PSEU [Policy and Statutory Enforcement Unit] approved memo about 45 minutes ago. They (Toscas, CES [George Toscas, Dep. Asst. Atty. Gen. for National Security Div., Counterespionage Section], and EDVA [US Attorney for Eastern District of Virginia] are having a conference call tonight ...”

(The PSEU, among other tasks, advises senior department leadership about “investigative tools and prosecutorial actions” to obtain information “from or about members of the news media.” The PSEU can “close otherwise public judicial proceedings to the public in federal criminal cases; seek court-ordered use immunity for federal witnesses; subpoena attorneys in federal criminal as well as civil proceedings for information relating to their representation of clients; [provide] authorization to apply for search warrants for the premises or electronic storage devices of attorneys who are the subjects or targets of federal investigations; and obtain authorization to conduct a dual or successive federal prosecution of an individual under the Department's Petite policy. The PSEU also provides advice when Department of Justice employees have been subpoenaed to provide testimony or to produce evidence in state or federal judicial proceedings.)

On June 6, 2016, Strzok organized a “MYE comment walk thru” meeting for himself, then-FBI Director James Comey’s Chief of Staff James Rybicki, Lisa Page, Moffa and an unidentified General Counsel’s office official.

On June 7, 2016, Strzok emails his boss, Bill Priestap, saying that that the FBI’s Counterespionage Section “engaged in multiple conversations with Beth Wilkinson [an attorney for several top Clinton aides during the server investigation] concerning the scope and wording of the consent to search the Samuelson and Mills laptops.”

In a June 9, 2016, email exchange, FBI Public Affairs Official Richard Quinn sends a Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article titled “Clinton Emails in Probe Dealt with Planned Drone Strikes” to Strzok and FBI Asst. Dir. for Public Affairs Michael Kortan. The article cites unidentified “law enforcement sources” by saying, “Several law enforcement officials said they don’t expect any criminal charges to be filed as a result of the investigation [of Clinton’s transmission of classified information on an unsecure server], although a final review of the evidence will be made only after an expected FBI interview with Mrs. Clinton this summer.”
Kortan writes to Strzok: “Whatta you think?”
Strzok replies: “Not bad at all. I think we’ll be OK. Thanks for all your work on this.”
Also on June 9, 2016, Strzok emailed redacted FBI officials, cc’ing Moffa about a phrase in the WSJ article that concerned him, asking whom they had interviewed that said something similar: “Some [State Department] officials chafed at pressure to send internal deliberations through intelligence channels, since they were discussing whether to push back against the CIA, congressional officials said.”

Moffa replied that he remembered an interviewee saying something like that at a 9AM briefing. Strzok then emails Page privately about it, asking her to “Call me.”

In a June 10, 2016 email exchange between top FBI and DOJ officials that included Strzok, Page, Moffa, McCabe, Priestap, General Counsel James Baker, and Toscas, they discuss scheduling the FBI’s interview of Clinton in the MYE investigation, keeping in mind “the Boss’s strong desire to get this wrapped up in June.”. The exchange has the subject line “Kendall DOJ contact:”
...Strzok: Bill, I’m driving and can provide more detail on the phone, but DOJ is telling Toscas. Without DOJ asking, Kendall [Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall] threw out a date of 2 July in NY for the Interview. [Redacted] said that he could not commit to a date and we need to look at the laptops first…
Thanks,
Pete
***
Baker: I guesss I’m OK with it so long as we clearly state in writing that the date is tentative and subject to our finishing our review of the laptops [of Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson]
McCabe: Keep in mind the Boss’s [presuambly James Comey] strong desire to get this wrapped up in June.
***
McCabe: So if July 2 is the first thing she has free now, we should grab it.
The exchange concludes with Strzok telling Page, “Also Phase I [redacted] of Samuelson is done. CES (Counterespionage Section) notifying Wilkinson per terms of consent - that we are moving to Phase 2 [redacted]. Mills laptop still processing, was about twice as large. OTD [Technical Division] thinks that will be done tonight as well.”

On June 21, 2016, Strzok emails to Page a Congressional Research Service (CRS) article about the McDade-Murtha Amendment relating to “Ethical Standards for Justice Department Attorneys.” He highlights in bold a section about the DOJ’s concerns relating to the “No Contact Rule” in many state laws that says a lawyer representing a client cannot discuss his representation of that client with another person involved in the same matter, without approval of the lawyer representing the other person in the same matter.

In a June 21, 2016 email, Strzok informs Priestap that there was a different email domain other than clintonemail.com located on Clinton’s private server (in addition to clintonemail.com):
And slight correction to below [redacted] account was not on clintonemail.com, but a different domain on the same server. We saw the login from the server logs.
In the early morning of July 5, 2016, (the day of Comey's press conference) there is an email exchange among McCabe, Strzok, Comey’s Chief of Staff James Rybicki and Priestap:
McCabe: Jim will email us once the D [Director Comey] has made contact with [redacted]. That will be the green light. If you are not able to make contact, you can send him a brief, non-detailed email. Please confirm.
Strzok replies: OK, will do.
Rybicki writes: DAG [Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates] and Axelrod [Principal Deputy AG Matthew Axelrod] notified. Go ahead with the others.
Strzok replies: Laufman notified [DOJ’s Chief of Counterintelligence and Export Control Section, David Laufman].
McCabe writes: Toscas emailed.
In a July 5, 2016, email marked “Importance: High,” with the subject line “Read this,” Strzok sends Page a New York Times article titled, “James Comey’s Rebuke of Hillary Clinton Fits a 3-Decade Pattern.” The article discusses Comey’s press conference and claims it demonstrated his “willingness to ‘take the hit’ on a controversial decision.”

Here’s my take on all of this. These emails show that neither the corrupt ‘tarmac’ meeting nor Hillary Clinton’s falsehoods about her emails nor anything else would get in the way of the Obama-Comey FBI letting Clinton skate. The FBI continues to slow roll the release of Strzok-Page materials and we may not see them all until at least 2021. What other documents are the FBI sitting on?

Here are some important background.

Strzok and Page were key investigators in the Clinton email and Russia collusion investigations. Strzok was removed from the Mueller investigative team in July 2017 and reassigned to a human resources position after it was discovered that he and Page, who worked for FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and with whom Strzok was carrying on an extramarital affair, exchanged pro-Clinton and anti-Trump text messages. Page resigned in May 2018. Strzok was dismissed from the FBI in August 2018.

In July 2019, Judge Walton ordered a hearing regarding the rate of production of emails, text messages, and other communications between Strzok and Page. The court scheduled the hearing to discuss: “Upon further consideration, the Court is concerned that the processing rate adopted by the Court may be inadequate.” The court’s July 24 order followed a joint status report by the FBI and Judicial Watch that disclosed that only 6,000 of almost 20,000 responsive records had been processed since May 2018.

In June 2019, we announced that we received documents showing FBI top officials scrambling to write a letter to Congress to supplement then-Director James Comey’s Senate testimony in an apparent attempt to muddle his message.

In June 2019, we uncovered documents in this case including emails showing the FBI’s attempts to muddle former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony on the Clinton email investigation and collusion between the FBI and the media. Other documents revealed then-FBI General Counsel James Baker instructing FBI officials to expedite the release of FBI investigative material to Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall, in August 2016. Kendall and the FBI’s top lawyer discussed specifically quickly obtaining the FBI’s “302” report of the interview of Clinton.

In February 2019, we uncovered documents showing an evident cover-up of a chart of potential violations of law by Clinton. In May 2019, we filed a related lawsuit for that secret chart of potential violations, as well as Comey’s talking points for the press conference.

Also in February 2019, we made public 215 pages of records from the DOJ revealing former FBI General Counsel James Baker discussed the investigation of Clinton-related emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop with Clinton’s lawyer David Kendall. Baker then forwarded the conversation to his FBI colleagues. The documents also describe a previously reported quid pro quo from the Obama State Department offering the FBI more legal attaché positions if it would downgrade a redaction in an email found during the Clinton email investigation “from classified to something else.”

In September 2018, we uncovered documents showing email exchanges between fired FBI official Strzok and FBI attorney Page revealing that FBI officials used unsecure devices in discussing how the U.S. could improve the sharing of sensitive data with the European Union top executive governing commission. The documents also reveal that high-ranking FBI officials were not properly read-in to top secret programs.

In July 2018, we received documents from the Department of Justice revealing Strzok and Page’s profanity-laced disdain for FBI hierarchy and policies. The DOJ, meanwhile, was resisting our request for a court order to preserve all responsive Page-Strzok communications. In May 2018, U.S. District Court Judge Reggie B. Walton ordered the FBI to begin processing thousands of pages of previously undisclosed records between FBI officials Strzok and Page.

There’s a lesson here: Lies and evasions can endure only in the darkness of secrecy, and whither in the light of FOIA. “If it is not right, do not do it,” the Roman emperor and philosopher Marcus Aurelius said. “If it is not true do not say it.” There are some in Washington who need to read this.
Oldtimr is offline  
Old 11-17-2019, 05:17 AM
  #2  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: WY
Posts: 2,053
Default

What IS the "Deep State" though? Having worked as a public servant for 34 years, at all levels of government, and to include some time in the Beltway, here's some insight. There's a clause in most oaths of office pledging allegiance to "... the orders of the President of the United States …" Decades ago, when politics and reflecting nation- and world-visions weren't so diametrically opposed to each other, a public servant could work within the boundaries of the policies established by a President who they did not vote for, and the appointees that President placed to lead various government bureaucracies. After all, we were the UNITED States. It really wasn't until the first Clinton administration that some of that began to change. Allegiance owed to many special-interest groups, that administration began virtue-testing not only its appointees, but its career employees, particularly those who aspired to higher positions within their organizations. What has transpired since has been a steady but inevitable infiltration of politics into those ranks, which has resulted in political loyalties manifested in careers in federal service. Local governments have endeavored to create the same climates within their areas of responsibilities as well. If you're not aligned to the political policies of Party A, it doesn't matter than you're the greatest NASA scientist ever, or the best forest ranger ever, you're not going to go anywhere in that organization but out.

I left government service during the first Obama administration. Retired - thankfully. What I was seeing then was a deliberate and almost artful displacement of highly-qualified career agency employees with political hacks with allegiance to the Obama platform, something that had never been done so efficiently or aggressively. It is no surprise to me that we have the public servants we have now - who not only violate their oath, but work to sabotage - at every opportunity - that administration they didn't vote for. After eight years and based on what I was seeing early-on, I can only imagine how many current senior GS and SES agency career employees are less proficient as professionals than they are compliant politically?

And, faced with the prospects of losing not only their careers, but the political platforms that they worship, is it reasonable to expect that they would probably fight back? Here we are. What you're seeing now is team Obama, embedded more deeply than it's ever been before within government service, fighting for its existence. And now that these government careerists have lost their sense of allegiance to their oaths, any future President taking over from an administration aligned the other way might be wise to send pink slips to everyone above a particular pay grade? Politics have no place in career government service.
homers brother is offline  
Old 11-17-2019, 01:29 PM
  #3  
Super Moderator
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 17,104
Default

^^^ I agree with all of that. Especially the last 2 sentences.
CalHunter is offline  
Old 11-17-2019, 03:48 PM
  #4  
Fork Horn
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 454
Default

Originally Posted by homers brother View Post
...any future President taking over from an administration aligned the other way might be wise to send pink slips to everyone above a particular pay grade?
Words of wisdom. Don't know if its actually true, but in the movie "Hoffa", Jimmy fired a whole bunch of people the day after he got elected president of the Teamster's for the same reason.
Cub Slayer is offline  
Old 11-19-2019, 05:01 PM
  #5  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: WY
Posts: 2,053
Default

A serving US Army Officer is offered the Ukrainian Defense Minister position? Either someone didn't know when smoke was being blown up his tender bottom by a foreign government, or someone was likely just a little.... more committed to the Ukrainian cause than his oath permits. Yet, Vindman is being paraded as a "hero"... He's either a useful idiot, or he's a traitor.

I think the "ranking member" got it right the first time. I'd have yanked this guy's security clearance and stuffed him into the Garrison Recycling Officer position until he earned back the title that is most befitting of the point that his Army career culminated: "Mister Vindman."

But then, I've heard more and more General Officers go political lately as well, one of my former Brigade commanders being among the first (McCaffrey). I guess you might say that their "leadership" set the example for guys like this? Politics have no place in the military. Shameful.
homers brother is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.