Tag: FBI

Categories
Quick Analysis

Inspector General Report Reveals Wrongdoing, Part 2

PART 2: Should key FBI personnel with conflicts of interests have recused themselves from the Clinton investigation? The long-awaited Department of Justice’s Inspector General Report on questionable actions by the Federal Bureau of Investigation has been released. Our analysis of the Report found that while it acknowledges that some of the FBI’s personnel engaged in biased statements and actions, and while family members of key personnel obtained substantial donations or jobs from the Clintons, ultimately, it maintains,  no significant harm was done to the administration of justice. The decision to essentially let Clinton off the hook for her negligent handling of national security emails, and, although not within the scope of the report,  the decision to NOT prosecute her for her role in the sale of uranium interests to Russia followed by significant contributions to her foundation from Russia, cannot be ignored.

We strongly disagree with the conclusions of the report, which essentially says that although the appearance of impropriety is evident and best practices were not followed, not actual harm was done. Clearly, key personnel and leaders within the FBI whitewashed former Secretary Clinton’s wrongdoing and did so with the specific purpose of influencing the 2016 election.

We provide key excerpts. We have added boldface to outline key points

Summary Excerpts from Inspector General Report on Actions by the FBI in the 2016 Election:

Recusal Issues

The reasons might be any; the only cheap solution is to find reliable price for levitra air conditioning repair in Dunwoody. That’s because your body on line viagra can close off the infected prostate, keeping away the helpful effects of the treatment. Along with it creatine is also recommended since it prescription free cialis helps the muscles lengthen and relax. Treating ED In addition to healthy changes, online pharmacy cialis you may require medicines that help promote erection only on sexual stimulation. Former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe: As we describe in Chapter Thirteen, in 2015, McCabe’s spouse, Dr. Jill McCabe, ran for a Virginia State Senate seat. During the campaign, Dr. McCabe’s campaign committee received substantial monetary and in-kind contributions, totaling $675,288 or approximately 40 percent of the total contributions raised by Dr. McCabe for her state senate campaign, from then Governor McAuliffe’s Political Action Committee (PAC) and from the Virginia Democratic Party. In addition, on June 26, 2015, Hillary Clinton was the featured speaker at a fundraiser in Virginia hosted by the Virginia Democratic Party and attended by Governor McAuliffe. At the time his wife sought to run for state senate, McCabe was the Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office (WFO) and sought ethics advice from FBI ethics officials and attorneys. We found that FBI ethics officials and attorneys did not fully appreciate the potential significant implications to McCabe and the FBI from campaign donations to Dr. McCabe’s campaign. The FBI did not implement any review of campaign donations to assess potential conflicts or appearance issues that could arise from the donations. On this issue, we believe McCabe did what he was supposed to do by notifying those responsible in the FBI for ethics issues and seeking their guidance. After McCabe became FBI Deputy Director in February 2016, McCabe had an active role in the supervision of the Midyear investigation, and oversight of the Clinton Foundation investigation, until he recused himself from these investigations on November 1, 2016. McCabe voluntarily recused himself on November 1, at Comey’s urging, as the result of an October 23 article in the Wall Street Journal identifying the substantial donations from McAuliffe’s PAC and the Virginia Democratic Party to Dr. McCabe. With respect to these investigations, we agreed with the FBI’s chief ethics official that McCabe was not at any time required to recuse under the relevant authorities. However, voluntary recusal is always permissible with the approval of a supervisor or ethics official, which is what McCabe did on November 1. Had the FBI put in place a system for reviewing campaign donations to Dr. McCabe, which were public under Virginia law, the sizable donations from McAuliffe’s PAC and the Virginia Democratic Party may have triggered prior consideration of the very appearance concerns raised in the October 23 WSJ article. Finally, we also found that McCabe did not fully comply with this recusal in a few instances related to the Clinton Foundation investigation.

Former Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik: In Chapter Fourteen, we found that Kadzik demonstrated poor judgment by failing to recuse himself from Clinton-related matters under federal ethics regulations prior to November 2, 2016. Kadzik did not recognize the appearance of a conflict that he created when he initiated an effort to obtain employment for his son with the Clinton campaign while participating in Department discussions and communications about Clinton-related matters. Kadzik also created an appearance of a conflict when he sent the Chairman of the Clinton Campaign and a longtime friend, John Podesta, the “Heads up” email that included the schedule for the release of former Secretary Clinton’s emails proposed to the court in a FOIA litigation without knowing whether the information had yet been filed and made public. His willingness to do so raised a reasonable question about his ability to act impartially on Clinton-related matters in connection with his official duties. Additionally, although Department leadership determined that Kadzik should be recused from Clintonrelated matters upon learning of his “Heads up” email to Podesta, we found that Kadzik failed to strictly 20 adhere to this recusal. Lastly, because the government information in the “Heads up” email had in fact been released publically, we did not find that Kadzik released non-public information or misused his official position.

 

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

FBI Admits Clinton Wrongdoing But Won’t Press Charges

NOTE: today’s previously announced column, The Campaign vs. Free Speech, can be read at http://www.usagovpolicy.com/nyanalysis/campaign-vs-free-speech-continues/

FBI Director James B. Comey’s decision not  to indict Hillary Clinton should not be reviewed in terms of its effect on the 2016 campaign. Far more important is its effect on the federal system of justice, and its increasing susceptibility to political influence. We have reviewed points raised during his statement, and how they should be interpreted:

Comey acknowledges wrongdoing by Clinton, and the resulting danger to the United States:

“From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent… there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information… For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail. ” None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

The Director acknowledges a cover-up by Clinton:

“It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.”

Comey acknowledges that laws were broken:

“…there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information…”

And finally, the Director acknowledges that another person would receive punishment:

“To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences.”

Summarizing the above, the FBI:

  • Admits that Clinton handled top secret information with reckless disregard for the safety of the nation;
  • Admits that the former Secretary of State attempted to cover-up her misdeed;
  • Admits that laws were probably broken;
  • And acknowledges that someone else doing precisely what Clinton did would face punishment.

This allows customers the ability buy browse that super generic cialis at much reduced prices and gives them the opportunity to restore their potency at a greatly affordable rate. These new versions are convenient forms of traditional viagra generic canada pill. Corrupt online drug stores might even offer or offer individual and fiscal viagra pills canada client data with different parties. The drug works to improve the blood circulation in http://midwayfire.com/minutes/Approved%20minutes%202-12-13.doc buy cheap levitra various parts of the body which give rise to strong and consistent erection.
The decision was handed down just days after an inappropriate meeting between Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton, which the FBI sought to hide by banning journalists and photographers from covering the matter. The FBI is part of the Department of Justice, and Director Comey reports to Lynch.

Imagine this scenario:

A District Attorney has a friendly meeting with the spouse of a suspect under investigation. A few days later, despite admitting that harm was done to the public, laws were broken, and a cover-up of evidence took place, an announcement is made that no charges would be pressed, even though punishment was appropriate. Local cops prevented news reporters from trying to cover the meeting.

It’s obvious the public would be outraged, the District Attorney would be removed, and an indictment of the suspect would proceed.

The Clinton-Lynch case, however, is protected by partisanship, the heavy hand of the White House, and a media which is heavily biased in favor of Clinton’s candidacy. It may escape the full fury from the Republican Party, whose leaders are so distracted by the civil war between Trump’s supporters and detractors that they can’t effectively do what an opposition party is supposed to do. However, Republican leaders in Congress are planning to demand that Comey testify regarding his decision.

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama Attacks Journalists, Again

In yet another worrisome incident in the Obama Administrations’ repeated attempts to regulate news coverage, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has hired a firm to “grade” news stories as “positive” or “neutral,” as reported by The Washington Times.

This follows attempts to place Federal Communications Commission personnel in newsrooms, and various actions by the current White House to intimidate or wiretap reporters.

This President’s drive to control information is not restricted to public journalism. As previously reported by the New York Analysis of Policy & Government, it has frequently and unlawfully  used the official, government-financed White House web site as a political organ.

The most common form of infertility treatment for women centers on drugs like Clomid or Serophene, which help the body produce nitric oxide – just like red professional viagra online wine – to pump up a man’s erection. Opting for an infertility treatment is sometimes a daunting decision for couples. slovak-republic.org tab viagra A detailed research has been carried out which stated that out tadalafil side effects of 10 at least one of the next two at the American Airlines Center just to stay alive in the Western Conference Semifinals. Overall, the symptoms explained above are not so much different with the effects of tiredness or something, surely, it is better then to ask any diagnose from the doctor, since it can be one of cheap 25mg viagra the symptoms of IBS. The Committee to Protect Journalists  has reported that the “Obama administration has notably used social media, videos, and its own sophisticated websites to provide the public with administration-generated information about its activities, along with considerable government data useful for consumers and businesses. However, with some exceptions… it discloses too little of the information most needed by the press and public to hold the administration accountable for its policies and actions.”

Ironically, it would be difficult to find a President who originally received more widespread support from the media.  He has, in fact, been treated far more gently than his predecessors. Compare the raucous questioning from the White House press corps of the last two presidents, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.  Indeed, press coverage of Mr. Bush was so negative that the term “Bush derangement syndrome” was coined. Explicit details of Mr. Clinton’s personal foibles dominated the news cycle.

Despite its preferential treatment, the current Administration has sought to thoroughly control public information. Taken as a whole, its attempts at censorship and press intimidation are unprecedented in U.S. history, and extraordinary in the danger they pose to free speech.