June 16, 2018
The long-awaited Inspector General’s report on the Hillary Clinton email probe, also referred to as the Midyear investigation, was finally released. The biggest takeaway for most of the media is that the IG, Michael Horowitz, did not find “documentary’ or “testimonial” evidence that bias influenced the outcome of the investigation. However, in this painstakingly detailed 568 page report the bias in favor of Hillary Clinton, and the documented animus for Donald Trump as well as for his supporters, and the consequent desire to prevent his presidency screams from this report.
Documented Bias
A heretofore unreleased text exchange between the agent in charge of the Clinton email investigation, Peter Strzok, and his mistress and colleague Lisa Page, who was counsel to the FBI’s deputy director, should be viewed as the “smoking gun” to prove that some of the actions of those in charge at the FBI were politically motivated.
Just weeks after Strzok opened the Russia investigation, in an August 2016 text, Page asked him for reassurance that Trump will never become president. Strzok, replied “ No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.” Strzok’s explanation to the IG was that he was just trying to reassure Page that Trump would never be elected, not that he would take action to influence the election. “We’ll stop it” sure sounds like he was ready and willing to take action, and not just reassuring his girlfriend.
For added context these are the same agents that a week later discussed an “insurance policy”, in reference to the Russia probe, as a bulwark against the possibility of a Trump presidency.
A text sent by Strzok to Page on the day the Russia investigation was opened illustrates the difference in the way Strzok viewed the Clinton investigation from the Russia probe. Strzok wrote that the Russia investigation felt “momentous”, and that “it matters”. He explained, “the other one did too, (meaning the Clinton investigation) but that was to ensure we didn’t F something up. This matters because this MATTERS.”
It appears that Strzok is saying that what “ mattered’ about the Clinton investigation was not destroying her candidacy for president. Was that the “something” he didn’t want to “F” “Up”?
There were also text messages in May 2017 regarding whether or not Strzok should join the Mueller probe. Strzok apparently was weighing his career choices. The implication of this text was that joining an “investigation leading to impeachment”, was a superior option to being an Assistant Director. Later in the exchange Strzok wrote, “I hesitate in part (to join the Mueller probe) because of my gut sense and concern there’s no big there there”. This exchange is very revealing. Strzok, the agent who lead the Russia probe since July 2016, seems to be stating that he’s disappointed that he hasn’t seen evidence that points to collusion between Trump and Russia. Further, it appears that he wanted to join the Mueller investigation in hopes that it could lead to Trump’s impeachment.
It’s also disturbing that some of these texts have never before been produced. This provides further proof that the DOJ/FBI is hiding information for no other reason other then that it’s perceived to be harmful to their respective agencies.
The IG report also detailed messages between three other key agents in the Clinton email probe in which vitriol for Trump and his supporters was expressed, as well as regret over Trump’s election. One agent wondered what they could have done differently. Another stated that Trump supporters were “…uneducated, lazy POS…”
Another FBI employee assigned to the Clinton probe, who also subsequently joined the special counsel Mueller probe, texted “Hell no. Viva le resistance”, when asked if he would be leaving the bureau rather than serve under a Trump presidency. Interestingly, no pro Trump texts or other evidence of bias in favor of Trump was found.
Broad Discretion
For every decision or strategy that had the effect of going easier on Clinton, the IG, although admitting that some of the decisions made by the FBI were “inconsistent with typical investigative strategy”, found a “reasonable” reason for the choices that were made.
As an example, the FBI did not empanel a Grand Jury to compel testimony. As a result of not having this power, witness testimony was voluntary. Therefore investigators were forced to offer deals, such as granting the computer specialist Paul Combetta, who deleted and infamously Beachbit Clinton’s emails, despite orders from Congress to preserve them, immunity in exchange for his testimony. He also lied to investigators with impunity, in stark contrast to the punishment of Michael Flynn.
The IG reasoned that not using a grand jury was reasonable because using one for testimony “involved concerns about exposing grand jurors to classified information”. Never mind that the Justice Department has well-established protocols for keeping top secrets under wraps while getting the relevant information to the grand jury, and that grand juries have been used before when there were issues of highly classified information, such as the Iran Contra affair.
The lack of subpoena power also required the FBI to work out a deal with Clinton to obtain her voluntary testimony. Consequently, Cheryl Mills, and Heather Samuelson, Clinton aides, who were fact witnesses and subjects in the probe, were allowed to act as her counsel during the interview, even though Clinton had separate counsel representing her in the investigation. This granted them the use of attorney- client privilege, which was beneficial to Clinton because it allowed them to invoke “privilege” over some of what they had discussed with her about the emails.
The IG report concluded that although “the decision to allow them to attend the interview was inconsistent with typical investigative strategy”, the interview didn’t influence the outcome of the investigation. Curiously it didn’t address the fact that their “privilege” allowed Mills and Samuelson to thwart testifying about the production of Clinton’s emails, of which there were, and are still unanswered questions.
It was also perplexing that the IG concluded that “appropriate” questions were asked, and Clinton’s testimony was challenged during the interview, when no recording or transcript of the interview was made, only a summary.
Andrew McCarthy of National Review made an interesting point. He states that the IG looked at each event as discrete, and unconnected. As an example lets say I let it be known that I hate “Mary”. Subsequently, over the course of a year “Mary” invites me to dinner numerous times. Every time I decline the invitation with a dubious, but not impossible reason. Granted I never say that I wouldn’t go because I hate her. But, a logical person, aware of my feelings would put these two events together and assume that my hatred for “Mary” was impacting my decision and consequent actions.
Using the same broad latitude of discretion that was used in this report the IG in this scenario would have concluded that I was refusing the dinner invite for legitimate reasons, and the fact that I hate “Mary” did not impact my decision-making.
Short of finding a message that read “I hate Trump so I am taking “X” action to help Clinton”, or short of reading their minds, I’m not sure what evidence would have satisfied this high bar to find that political bias influenced the outcome of the investigation.
Although the purpose of this report was to evaluate the Clinton email investigation it has implications for the FBI Trump/Russia probe, and subsequent Mueller investigation because many of the same individuals worked on all three investigations. This fact undermines the credibility of all three investigations.
James Comey
Mueller’s team is also investigating Trump for obstructing justice due to the firing of James Comey, the then head of the FBI conducting the Trump/Russia collusion probe. The damning evaluation of Comey provides numerous valid reasons for why Trump was justified in his dismissal of Comey.
Comey has admitted that he hid the subject matter of his infamous July 5thannouncement, in which he stated that no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges against Clinton, from the justice department, to make it impracticable for them to prevent him from delivering his statement. The IG concluded that this was “extraordinary and insubordinate for Comey to do…” and that they “found none of his reasons to be a persuasive basis for deviating from well- established Department policies…”
The IG was also highly critical of Comey’s decision to reveal 11 days before the election that they were reopening the Clinton email investigation. Comey has admitted that he did so in part because he believed that Clinton would win the election and that he didn’t want her to be perceived as being an illegitimate president.
The report found that sending the October 28 letter to Congress informing them of the newly discovered emails, against the recommendation of the justice department, to be “ad hoc decisionmaking based on his personal views…” It also concluded that he rejected “longstanding department policy or practice”
Peter Strzok
Strzok, had important roles in all three investigations. He was not only instrumental in the opening of the FBI Russia probe, he also had a lead role in the Clinton email investigation, and the special counsel investigation, until he was removed by Robert Mueller in December 2017, when the infamous texts started surfacing.
As the person running the Clinton email probe Strzok was implicated for the delay in taking action on the Clinton emails found on the laptop of Clinton aide Huma Abedin’s husband, Anthony Weiner. The emails were first discovered on September 26, 2016 by the FBI’s New York Field office. Two days later they notified FBI headquarters.
Action was not taken on these emails until the week of October 24, and only after the FBI New York office expressed concerns to the Southern District of New York, which in turn put pressure on them to act.
The IG concluded that action should have been taken in late September, or early October. Some have surmised that the newly discovered emails were placed on the back- burner, to protect Clinton’s election prospects. Although the IG did not find explicit texts or other documentary evidence stating that they were stalling to run out the clock in order to benefit Clinton, the IG also did not find a persuasive explanation for why the FBI sat on this new evidence.
The report concluded that Strzok prioritized the Trump/Russia probe over following up on the newly discovered emails. In light of the many messages sent by Strzok expressing extreme anti-Trump bias the IG could not say with “confidence that Strzok’s decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the Midyear-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias.”
Strzok was also responsible for changing the wording of Comey’s infamous exoneration statement from describing Clinton’s behavior as “grossly negligent” in relation to her handling of classified emails which would have been a crime, to “extremely careless”, which is not.
Bottom line -Strzok, the man running the Clinton email investigation hated Trump and did not want him to become president. Actively pursuing charging Clinton with a crime would have ensured his win.
Ramifications for the Mueller Probe
The IG’s equivocation over connecting the damning evidence of bias with action taken does not distract from the fact that the report lays out a case that softball tactics were employed in the probe of Clinton’s emails. The report also explicitly details venomous bias, among top FBI agents, against Trump, along with evidence of pro Hillary sentiments.
Although this report focused on the Clinton investigation, the ramifications for the current Mueller Russia probe are undeniable. The taint from Peter Strzok, and the other numerous extreme partisan agents, cannot be undone, and has impugned the integrity of the investigations into Russian collusion.
The Mueller probe is also tasked with discerning if Trump obstructed justice by firing James Comey. This report should make it impossible for Trump to be charged with obstructing justice as it provides ample valid reasons for Comey to have been fired.
The IG is also investigating aspects of the FBI’s handling of the Russia investigation. Hopefully this second IG report will be just as unsparing in details as this current one, and will expose the true extent of the bias and corruption within the FBI.
