New emails bolster GOP claims of FBI, DOJ 'coordination' on Clinton case response

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
51,092
17,705
1,743
#1
Emails reviewed by Fox News from February 2016 suggest the FBI and DOJ worked together to craft a response to a key development in the Hillary Clinton email investigation, amid newly raised Republican concerns about a “concerning level of coordination” between the two agencies during the probe.
The emails concern the period after 22 messages with "Top Secret" information were found on the former secretary of state's personal email server.
Republican Rep. Mark Meadows cited them in a letter earlier this week claiming former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony to Congress – in which he downplayed FBI-DOJ coordination on the Clinton case – may be at odds with documents suggesting “frequent” coordination.

Comey specifically said in public testimony that he did not coordinate with the DOJ for his July 2016 public recommendation not to pursue charges against Clinton. Meadows, however, pointed to a series of messages he claims indicate potential coordination at several “crucial moments of the investigation” – including the July statement and the period in February. While the FBI is part of the Justice Department and communication between the two agencies is inevitable, Meadows’ letter also suggests some at the FBI were concerned about the perception it was not acting independently in a politically explosive case.
The February messages reviewed by Fox News start on Feb. 8, 2016, when Gregory Starr, then the assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, told FBI Head of Counterintelligence Bill Priestap that the State Department was prepared to punish those responsible for the misplaced messages.
"The Department of State is prepared to take appropriate administrative action for any instances of mishandling of classified information in accordance with our own internal processes," Starr wrote.
However, the official added that the department did not want to hinder the ongoing FBI investigation and, if instructed, would postpone the "administrative action" over the emails until after the bureau's case had concluded.
Five days later, on Feb. 13, an unidentified senior Justice Department official wrote to FBI agent Peter Strzok, Jonathan Moffa of the FBI’s criminal division and the bureau's Office of General Counsel, as well as members of the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Eastern District of Virginia.
"Wanted to make sure that DOJ is kept in the loop as response is drafted," wrote the unnamed official in the Justice Department's National Security Division. "We have discussed a bit more here at CES and have some additional thoughts on the best response on the admin action question. Can we make sure we discuss as a group as response is put together?"
"CES" appears to refer to the Justice Department's "counterintelligence and export control section." That section was led by David Laufman, who left the department this past February citing personal reasons.
The State Department took no immediate administrative action over the 22 "Top Secret" emails on Clinton's email server. Many of those involved in the matter had left the department by the time the FBI investigation closed in July 2016.
Meadows has gotten support for his inquiry from House Oversight Committee chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C.
On Wednesday, Gowdy asked Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, FBI Director Christopher Wray and Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz to review allegations of coordination between the FBI and the Justice Department in the Clinton investigation.
FBI spokesman Andrew Ames told Fox News the bureau had no comment on the newly uncovered emails and added that the FBI would respond to Gowdy "as appropriate."
The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...oj-coordination-on-clinton-case-response.html
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
51,092
17,705
1,743
#6
Perhaps at no time in our history have those with the responsibility of upholding the law in this country given as much reason to question their loyalty to the rule of law.
 
Oct 7, 2008
1,018
213
693
#7
Newly released memos from former FBI director James Comey indicate that an early 2017 briefing for Trump on the contents of an unverified dossier was part of a setup to enable media to report on the the most salacious details of the dossier.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/20...ng-of-trump-was-a-setup/#.Wtltps8yEI8.twitter
Did you even read the article you just posted or did you just read the insanely misleading headline and subhead? Jeez, no wonder so many people on this board are so far gone with the types of media you guys consume.
 

Cowboy2U

Federal Marshal
Mar 31, 2008
10,865
1,612
1,743
#8
Did you even read the article you just posted or did you just read the insanely misleading headline and subhead? Jeez, no wonder so many people on this board are so far gone with the types of media you guys consume.
Appreciate your analysis crazy Joe. Another lemming over the cliff.
 
Oct 7, 2008
1,018
213
693
#9
Appreciate your analysis crazy Joe. Another lemming over the cliff.
-The headline says "Comey's memos indicate dossier briefing of Trump was a setup."

-The first paragraph she says "Comey specifically mentioned CNN had the dossier and wanted a 'news hook'" - this is what Comey told Trump, zero indication of a setup.

-Third paragraph - “I said media like CNN had them and were looking for a news hook,” this is Comey telling Trump media outlets had the dossier and might run with the story. This is called a heads up, not a setup.

-Fifth paragraph- “I explained again why I had thought it important that he know about it,” Comey wrote. “I also explained that one of the reasons we told him was that the media, CNN in particular, was telling us they were about to run with it.” This is still Comey warning Trump. Nothing even close to a setup.

-Eighth paragraph, they explain the source of the dossier, once again leaving out (as every right wing outlet conveniently does) that it was initially funded by Republicans. Still nothing remotely resembling the "setup" they promised in the headline and subhead.

-Ninth paragraph, here's some truth finally. Comey leaked memos to the press after he was fired (decent chance of obstruction of justice here as Trump admitted in an interview he fired Comey over "that Russia thing". Or we could go with their official reason which was that Comey was too tough on Hillary Clinton in their handling of the email investigation. Remember that!? - of course it's all left out) Anyways, still nothing about a setup.

-Third to the last paragraph. Oh! Oh! Oh! Look guys they're finally trying to use the four word quote they pulled from the memos, "looking for a news hook" as evidence for their entire conspiracy theory that this was all a setup! The meeting to tell Trump about the news hook was all just a setup to give CNN a news hook! Comey only warned Trump that CNN was going to run this story so they could run this story! And we've got Comey saying the words "news hook" to prove it! What marvelous investigative reporting. Who would have thought that you could completely prove a conspiracy against a sitting president by the entire U.S. intelligence world with one little four word quote!
 
Oct 7, 2008
1,018
213
693
#10
Appreciate your analysis crazy Joe. Another lemming over the cliff.
The other funny thing is if Comey hadn't warned Trump that CNN was about to run the story about the dossier, we'd be reading this same article from the Federalist saying Comey setup Trump because he knew CNN was about to run the story and didn't warn him.
 

State

Russian Bot
A/V Subscriber
Mar 15, 2007
13,593
7,981
1,743
Working on the Railroad
#13
-The headline says "Comey's memos indicate dossier briefing of Trump was a setup."

-The first paragraph she says "Comey specifically mentioned CNN had the dossier and wanted a 'news hook'" - this is what Comey told Trump, zero indication of a setup.

-Third paragraph - “I said media like CNN had them and were looking for a news hook,” this is Comey telling Trump media outlets had the dossier and might run with the story. This is called a heads up, not a setup.

-Fifth paragraph- “I explained again why I had thought it important that he know about it,” Comey wrote. “I also explained that one of the reasons we told him was that the media, CNN in particular, was telling us they were about to run with it.” This is still Comey warning Trump. Nothing even close to a setup.

-Eighth paragraph, they explain the source of the dossier, once again leaving out (as every right wing outlet conveniently does) that it was initially funded by Republicans. Still nothing remotely resembling the "setup" they promised in the headline and subhead.

-Ninth paragraph, here's some truth finally. Comey leaked memos to the press after he was fired (decent chance of obstruction of justice here as Trump admitted in an interview he fired Comey over "that Russia thing". Or we could go with their official reason which was that Comey was too tough on Hillary Clinton in their handling of the email investigation. Remember that!? - of course it's all left out) Anyways, still nothing about a setup.

-Third to the last paragraph. Oh! Oh! Oh! Look guys they're finally trying to use the four word quote they pulled from the memos, "looking for a news hook" as evidence for their entire conspiracy theory that this was all a setup! The meeting to tell Trump about the news hook was all just a setup to give CNN a news hook! Comey only warned Trump that CNN was going to run this story so they could run this story! And we've got Comey saying the words "news hook" to prove it! What marvelous investigative reporting. Who would have thought that you could completely prove a conspiracy against a sitting president by the entire U.S. intelligence world with one little four word quote!
You're saying it like it's crazy, but it's plausible. No mention of the story in the media until Comey briefed Trump. The story was leaked from Comey's side. CNN used that leaked briefing to legitimize the story.
 
Oct 7, 2008
1,018
213
693
#14
You're saying it like it's crazy, but it's plausible. No mention of the story in the media until Comey briefed Trump. The story was leaked from Comey's side. CNN used that leaked briefing to legitimize the story.
Anything's plausible, there's just no evidence and the "journalist" set up her article like it was absolute fact. Came across this article and laughed when I got to the bottom and they came to the same conclusion I did: "The easiest way to see through these defenses is to imagine the alternative. Suppose that Comey decided not to tell Trump about the Steele dossier, even though its findings had been taken seriously by U.S. intelligence, and both Congress and the former president had already been briefed on it. Would Trump’s defenders today be holding up Comey’s silence as evidence that he did the right thing by withholding this information from the new president? Would they see it as a point in Comey’s favor, evidence that he really did have a good faith interest in helping Trump? No, of course not. The backlash would be far worse. They would be charging Comey with having participated in the deep state conspiracy by keeping Trump in the dark about the investigation that posed such a serious threat."

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...elieve-comey-used-pee-tape-to-trap-trump.html
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
51,092
17,705
1,743
#15
Anything's plausible, there's just no evidence and the "journalist" set up her article like it was absolute fact. Came across this article and laughed when I got to the bottom and they came to the same conclusion I did: "The easiest way to see through these defenses is to imagine the alternative. Suppose that Comey decided not to tell Trump about the Steele dossier, even though its findings had been taken seriously by U.S. intelligence, and both Congress and the former president had already been briefed on it. Would Trump’s defenders today be holding up Comey’s silence as evidence that he did the right thing by withholding this information from the new president? Would they see it as a point in Comey’s favor, evidence that he really did have a good faith interest in helping Trump? No, of course not. The backlash would be far worse. They would be charging Comey with having participated in the deep state conspiracy by keeping Trump in the dark about the investigation that posed such a serious threat."

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...elieve-comey-used-pee-tape-to-trap-trump.html
Since when is evidence of a concern. Just make it up, right?


If I’m not mistaken, US intelligence knew it was suspect which is why they sugar coated it for the FISA court!
 

State

Russian Bot
A/V Subscriber
Mar 15, 2007
13,593
7,981
1,743
Working on the Railroad
#16
Anything's plausible, there's just no evidence and the "journalist" set up her article like it was absolute fact. Came across this article and laughed when I got to the bottom and they came to the same conclusion I did: "The easiest way to see through these defenses is to imagine the alternative. Suppose that Comey decided not to tell Trump about the Steele dossier, even though its findings had been taken seriously by U.S. intelligence, and both Congress and the former president had already been briefed on it. Would Trump’s defenders today be holding up Comey’s silence as evidence that he did the right thing by withholding this information from the new president? Would they see it as a point in Comey’s favor, evidence that he really did have a good faith interest in helping Trump? No, of course not. The backlash would be far worse. They would be charging Comey with having participated in the deep state conspiracy by keeping Trump in the dark about the investigation that posed such a serious threat."

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...elieve-comey-used-pee-tape-to-trap-trump.html
I don't believe it was Comey's intention in briefing him, but I could easily believe others aware of the meeting saw it as that opportunity.
 
Oct 7, 2008
1,018
213
693
#17
I don't believe it was Comey's intention in briefing him, but I could easily believe others aware of the meeting saw it as that opportunity.
Yeah, Comey doesn't strike me as someone who's super corrupt just someone who likes the spotlight a little too much. I know the people who worked for him at the FBI loved the guy.