Who was leaking HRC information from the FBI NYO to Rudy Giuliani in 2016.
Were they the same leakers as the ones that Nunes now identifies as “good”?
Nunes seems to imply that they weren’t the GOP’s media targets the FBI agents and lovers, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.
Were the “good” FBI agents really “evil” since personal emails and text-messages aren’t as destructive as actual leaks and security breaches to unauthorized persons and entities.
Why did the NYO prove sufficiently unreliable or compromised so as to not take the Steele dossier seriously in 2016.
Last night on Fox News, Rep. Devin Nunes explained that in late September 2016, “good FBI agents” came to him and told him they’d found the Weiner laptop with Huma Abedin’s emails with Secretary Clinton.
If these are “good agents” are they also Giuliani leakers? Why isn’t that important enough to the OIG.
The case agent immediately notified his NYO chain of command, and the information was ultimately briefed to NYO Assistant Director in Charge (ADIC) William Sweeney on September 28.
Reporting of Emails to FBI Headquarters
As we describe in Chapter Nine of our report, Sweeney
took the following steps to notify FBI Headquarters
about the discovery of Midyear-related emails on the
• On September 28, during a secure video
teleconference (SVTC), Sweeney reported that
Weiner investigation agents had discovered
141,000 emails on Weiner’s laptop that were
potentially relevant to the Midyear investigation.
The OIG determined that this SVTC was led by
then Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and that
approximately 39 senior FBI executives likely
would have participated. Comey was not
present for the SVTC.
• Sweeney said he spoke again with McCabe on
the evening of September 28. Sweeney said
that during this call he informed McCabe that
NYO personnel had continued processing the
laptop and that they had now identified 347,000
emails on the laptop.
• Sweeney said he also called two FBI Executive
Assistant Directors (EAD) on September 28 and
informed them that the Weiner case team had
discovered emails relevant to the Midyear
investigation. One of the EADs told the OIG
that he then called McCabe, and that McCabe
told the EAD that he was aware of the emails.
The EAD told us that “[T]here was no doubt in
my mind when we finished that conversation
that [McCabe] understood the, the gravity of
what the find was.”
• Sweeney said he also spoke to FBI Assistant
Director E.W. “Bill” Priestap on September 28
and 29, 2016. Emails indicate that during their
conversation on September 29, they discussed
the limited scope of the Weiner search warrant
(i.e., the need to obtain additional legal process
to review any Midyear-related email on the
p.(vii) DoJ Inspector General report (OIG)
Once we get past the simple-mindedness of thinking that there are good and bad FBI agents, perhaps we can get to the defense of democracy and the rule of law complete with oaths to the Constitution which in the case of collusion includes treason.
4. Fear of Leaks
Comey denied that a fear of leaks influenced his decision to send the October 28 letter to Congress. However, other witnesses told us that a concern about leaks played a role in the decision. As Baker stated, “We were quite confident that…. [I]f
we don’t put out a letter, somebody is going to leak it. That definitely was discussed….” Numerous witnesses connected this concern about leaks specifically to NYO and told us that FBI leadership suspected that FBI personnel in NYO were
responsible for leaks of information in other matters. Even accepting Comey’s assertion that leaks played no role in his decision, we found that, at a minimum, a fear of leaks influenced the thinking of those who were advising him.
We also note that these discussions on October 27 and 28 were occurring at almost the same time that FBI leadership was focused on how the Midyear investigation was being publicly portrayed. As detailed in Chapter Eight, the FBI was devoting significant time and attention in October 2016 responding to both public and private criticism of the Midyear investigation. That included sending
talking points to FBI SACs on October 21 for their use in responding to such criticism. Comey told us that these efforts were necessary to “protect the credibility of the [FBI] in American life.” As a result, at the time Comey was deciding whether to send the October 28 letter to Congress, the FBI had just one
week earlier empowered its officials to speak publicly about the FBI’s handling of the Midyear investigation. In our view, this confluence of events inevitably increased the risk of leaks
To be fair, we should now look at the text messages and emails of all the FBI agents in NY office who were pushing for the Clinton Foundation investigation.
— David Corn (@DavidCornDC) June 14, 2018
Another anti-Clinton leak came Thursday, when sources thought to be disgruntled FBI officials told Fox News that an indictment was coming in the Clinton Foundation case.
The story gave Trump a new talking point, dominated Fox’s primetime news programming, and rocketed across the conservative media before being debunked by an array of other media outlets. By that point, though, the damage had already been done.
Taken together, it’s easy to come away with the conclusion that the FBI is out to get Hillary Clinton. The truth, though, is far more complicated. The FBI isn’t a monolith, and it isn’t the bureau as a whole that is targeting Clinton.
Experts who study the FBI believe the leaks are coming from a small clique of agents who profoundly distrust Clinton and believe she deserves to be punished for what they see as a long record of ethically dubious behavior.
“Comey has unleashed a lot of the bad behavior by people down the line by signaling that it’s okay to treat Hillary Clinton differently,” says Matthew Miller, a Democrat who formerly served as a spokesperson for the Justice Department. “There certainly seem to be FBI agents who have taken a really hard partisan line and are just kind of blinded by their anger and hatred toward Hillary Clinton.”