Seditious conspiracy and other Obama administration parlor games

By Paul Ackerman | Sep 05, 2019

The trickle of information just now beginning to be made public by Inspector General of the Justice Department Michael Horowitz provides a glimpse into the mind of former FBI Director James Comey and the methods he used to further a seditious conspiracy among Obama administration holdovers and other deep-state actors. U.S. statute states "If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both," as found on the Legal Information Institute website of Cornell Law School.

The IG’s report is no bombshell reading, but it is an important first step in unraveling the most serious political criminal acts, which are ongoing to this day, in American history. This trickle should become a deluge as the IG finishes and releases his next report outlining the abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act/Court procedures used by the Obama administration DOJ/FBI which illegally surveilled American citizens for the clear purpose of undermining a political opponent, and then when that failed, attempted to depose a duly elected president. Watergate does not even rise to kindergarten level compared to this cabal.

Despite Saint Comey’s self-imposed halo, the IG’s investigators found many egregiously dishonest actions taken by Comey during the period of January 2017 through April 2017. This period was the narrow focus of their investigation; the production of memorandums “memorializing” his meetings with President-elect and then (after inauguration) President Trump, the illegal leaking of certain memos to outside persons, the illegal concealment/retention of same, and once they were discovered at his residence, the specious declaration that these memos were his personal property.

The press release by the Inspector General’s Office outlines the findings in greatly simplified terms. “As described in today’s report, the OIG concluded that the memos were official FBI records. The OIG determined that Comey violated applicable policies and his FBI Employment Agreement by providing one of the unclassified memos that contained official FBI information, including sensitive investigative information, to his friend with instructions for the friend to share the contents of the memo with a reporter. Additionally, the OIG determined that Comey, while FBI Director, kept copies of four of the seven memos in a personal safe at his home and, after his removal as FBI Director, violated FBI policies and his FBI Employment Agreement by failing to notify the FBI that he had retained them, or to seek authorization to retain them. Comey likewise violated applicable policies and his FBI Employment Agreement by providing copies, following his removal as FBI Director, of the four memos he had kept in his home to his three private attorneys without FBI authorization. Comey also failed to fulfill his obligation to immediately alert the FBI about his disclosures to his private attorneys once he became aware that the FBI, after Comey’s removal, had determined that one of the memos included several words, the names of foreign countries being discussed by the President, that were classified at the CONFIDENTIAL level.”

The report itself is quite useful, as one can easily see the self-serving CYA efforts made by all these FBI and DOJ apparatchiks in answering the questions that must have been put before them by the IG’s investigators. They turn into pretzels trying to recall who had what memo copies when, where they put them or sent them, or even who had them to start with. Recognize a few here? Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, James Rybicki, E.W. Priestap, Sally Yates, Andrew McCabe. They all (and many more) had their hands on copies of the memos being investigated, mostly, it seems, by way of figuring out ways of disseminating the self-serving opinions of James Comey found therein to others within their orbit.

Many of the names will resurface in future reports as the FISA abuse ties many – if not all -- of them to the closely held meeting with President Obama Jan. 5, 2017, to set in motion the illegal intelligence efforts to cripple and hopefully depose the president-elect.

As reported in a Feb. 15, 2018, story by Andrew McCarthy on the National Review website, National Security Adviser Susan Rice, in her last 15 minutes in the White House Jan. 20, 2017, thoughtfully memorialized the Jan. 5 meeting by emailing herself a memo (“reminding” herself) that along with her, the following people attended the meeting with Obama: FBI Director James Comey, NSA director Michael Rogers, CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Vice President Joe Biden, and Acting Attorney General Sally Yates. Obama asked Rice, Comey, and Yates to stay after the others left, ostensibly to tell these DOJ/FBI grandees that they were to handle this Russian collusion “investigation” into the Trump administration “by the book.” If there has ever been a more transparent example of covering your ass for the future, it has not been exposed yet.

It took Acting AG Sally Yates less than two weeks to make claims that new National Security Adviser Gen. Mike Flynn was “compromised” by the Russians. This was on the basis that she had knowledge of an illegally leaked transcript of an NSA/CIA phone call intercept in which Flynn, following protocol for a new administration, was speaking with Sergei Kislyak, the Russian ambassador. This in a way started the Russia-hoax ball rolling, culminating in Saint Comey having a nightmare that woke him up at 2 a.m. with the intuition that in order to save the “nation,” he must leak a memo to the New York Times and get his best friend and mentor, Robert Mueller, appointed as special counsel to try and finish off the president whom Comey wanted removed.

Two years later, with the August report from the Inspector General's Office, we are just beginning to see who the real criminals are, and they are mostly at the top levels of the deep state.

Comments (1)
Posted by: Ronald Horvath | Sep 05, 2019 18:22

This is typical of the right wing's descent into paranoid madness (trying to keep up with our deranged "president.")  The "trickle of information just now beginning to be made public by Inspector General of the Justice Department Michael Horowitz" is simply designed to cloud the true issue of trump's misconduct and a loyal pubic servant's attempt to bring it all to light.  Here's a more "enlightened" view.

Opinion |

The DOJ’s inspector general buries the real news, By Jennifer Rubin


With William P. Barr as President Trump’s attorney general, one must always keep in mind that everything out of this Justice Department will be spun, shaded or, in the case of Robert S. Mueller III’s report, misrepresented with the sole purpose of exonerating Trump of any malfeasance and attacking his political opponents. Unfortunately, the media, as it did with Barr’s letter and news conference about the Mueller report, too often accepts the spin without examining the underlying documents.


That seems to be what is happening with the newly released inspector general’s report examining former FBI director James B. Comey’s release of memos documenting Trump’s attempt to secure his personal loyalty and to go easy on Trump’s fired ex-national security adviser Michael Flynn. At the time, Trump accused Comey of breaking the law. He tweeted: “James Comey leaked CLASSIFIED INFORMATION to the media. That is so illegal!” Trump’s minions in the right-wing media ran with it. The problem is that it was false.

Enter Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz. His report reiterates that DOJ declined prosecution — which by Trump’s own standards is an exoneration. The DOJ could not find that Comey broke the law. The president lied when he accused Comey of violating laws protecting classified information. In a lengthy recap of the memos, Comey’s copying of the memos, his providing memos to the press via a friend and Comey’s testimony, the inspector general repeats several times that there was no prosecution.


That finding is buried in the Trump-Barr cloud of spin, which looks at whether Comey, in attempting to document gross misconduct by the president of the United States, did not follow department procedure. Former federal prosecutor Joyce White Vance tells me, “This debunks the myth from the right that Comey would be prosecuted for his actions. The conclusion of the report questions the ethics of his conduct, but not its legality.”


One of the memos, Memo 4, contained information covering evidence of obstruction of justice. Horowitz finds a violation of an internal regulation that requires a laborious approval process for release of this type of document in Comey’s giving copies of Memo 4 to the press and to his attorneys along with three other memos. Comey, who was already fired, chose to inform the country of the president’s actions. The inspector general did not find that the memos contained classified information (meaning, they did not), but rather that they related to the Flynn investigation and to Trump’s attempted obstruction. In fact, the memos only lightly touched on Flynn; they related to the president’s illegality in handling the Flynn matter. The inspector general nevertheless concludes Comey violated department policy by not getting a sign-off for release to the media.


Former DOJ spokesman Matthew Miller skewered Horowitz for complaining that Comey’s actions put public pressure on the FBI to investigate presidential wrongdoing. “Comey did what he did because the president was actively trying to dismantle DOJ’s normal way of operating,” Miller tweeted. “The AG and the DAG were both complicit, so Comey had nowhere else to take his concerns. It must be nice to live in the context-free world inhabited by the IG.” Miller argues that this is akin to faulting Comey "for speeding on his way to tell the village that a fire was coming. Such a narrowly-scoped view of the world.”


The headlines will dutifully report Horowitz’s finding that Comey didn’t get sign off under DOJ rules. It would be helpful if they pointed out that the IG reaffirmed Trump’s lies about illegality. It would be even better if the media, which received the Comey documents and wrote stories critical to educating the public about Trump’s obstruction, reminds readers of the context for Comey’s actions.

If you wish to comment, please login.