quote:

Maybe whoever is without spin should cast the first stone.

The investigators assumed their new boss would reward them for going to extremes to help her.

National Review
Victor Davis Hanson


Review the Clinton email scandal, the Steele dossier, the insertion of at least one FBI informant into the Trump campaign, the misleading of the FISA court by FBI and DOJ officials intent on monitoring U.S. citizens, and, now, the inspector general’s report. There emerges a common denominator: the surety by all involved that Hillary Clinton would be president, and the need to prepare for that fact.

Examine the IG’s transcript of a random, pre-election series of electronic chitchat between high-ranking FBI employees:

15:07:41, Agent 1: “ . . . I’m done interviewing the President — then type the 302. 18 hour day . . . ”

15:13:32, FBI Employee: “you interviewed the president?”

15:17:09, Agent 1: “you know — HRC” [Hillary Rodham Clinton]

15:17:18, Agent 1: “future pres”

15:17:22, Agent 1: “Trump cant win”

“Trump can’t win” explains the salty language also of the Page-Strzok text trove, where the two paramours talk of Trump supporters that they “can smell” and an “insurance” plan to preclude Trump’s nearly nonexistent chances. (“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration . . . that there’s no way [Trump] gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”)

Perhaps the most iconic example of deep-state bias was the following Page-Strzok exchange:

Page: “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”

Strzok: “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.”

When high-career FBI and DOJ officers go on to refer to American voters as smelly, “retarded,” ignorant, and feces (easily trumping Hillary’s own “deplorables” and “irredeemables” and Obama’s “clingers”), they do so because they assume their candor to each other will earn rewards rather than punishments. More generally, they count on their illegal and unethical behavior becoming known and thus résumé points rather than grounds for later firing and jail.

In such an incestuous Washington world, one presidential candidate, an abject outsider and sure loser, was a hopeless “idiot,” ”loathsome,” a ”menace” and a “disaster.” In contrast, as another (unnamed) FBI agent boasted to a female counterpart, “I’m . . . with her.” What he meant was not so much that he was obviously a Clinton partisan and a would-be born-again feminist, but rather that he was a partisan of someone who was going to shortly be president, and that he was an enemy of one who would pay a big price for his eccentric and uncouth bid.

So recalibrate the following questions:

Why would a seasoned careerist like Andrew McCabe allow his spouse to receive nearly $700,000 in campaign donations from Clinton-affiliated organizations, only later to become a chief investigator of the Clinton email scandal, or why would he so clumsily leak to the press and lie about it afterwards? Easy answer: He wisely played the odds and knew that his future FBI ascendency was assured, given that he had helped exonerate the soon-to-be president, Hillary Clinton. His only rub would be competing with other post-election sycophants who would all be vying for President Clinton’s patronage, each claiming that his own particular improper, illegal, or unethical behavior trumped that of the others.

Why would Loretta Lynch endanger her reputation with an adolescent stunt like agreeing to a weird jet-plane meeting on an Arizona tarmac with the old conniving schmoozer Bill Clinton? (What are the odds that two friends accidentally bump into each other in charter jets at the same time at one of the nation’s roughly 5,000 airports?) Answer? Such a concession was not entirely adolescent by Lynch’s savvy calculations. Not only was her improper behavior unlikely to become publicized; far more important, the Clintons, once Hillary was elected, would probably have either retained Lynch as AG or promoted her to the Supreme Court as a careerist reward for noble service rendered. We can imagine that Lynch would have reported to President Hillary that she had forced Comey to drop the word “investigation” and only with a wink and nod had “recused” herself from an investigation that she intended would lead to only one result.

Why would the last boy scout James Comey, in clumsy fashion, reinterpret a federal statute about handling classified communications so that it would suddenly include “intent” as a newly invented criterion for being found in violation of the law? Why, as investigator and prosecuting attorney, would he shut down, open up, and then shut down his investigation of Clinton at the height of the election season? Why would he for so long ignore the Wiener laptop evidence?

Comey later himself answered those questions by his admission that he assumed Clinton would be president. As he stated, he thought his (Potemkin) investigation would give her legitimacy after her exoneration.

A losing Hillary Clinton may now be mad at Comey, but that is only because the deep-state pollsters’ sure 90 percent odds of her winning proved laughable. Had she won, Hillary probably would at least have listened to Comey as he pleaded that his exoneration of her email impropriety and the way in which he had assigned partisans to her case were proof — along with her victory — that he deserved praise and rewards, not firing. Comey’s 2016 calculus was always that Clinton had likely done something wrong but would be president, while Trump probably had not broken the law but certainly would not be elected.

Why would Hillary, John Podesta, and the DNC be so childish as to hire the likes of a reckless egotist Christopher Steele who would leave a paper trial with their fingerprints over his bought fantasies and fabrications? Again, a President Hillary would probably soon have appreciated such slavish service. And more significantly, as a sure winner, she would have thought such dirt would help subject the pathetic loser Trump to a legal morass in his post-election bitter isolation. Who knows, Hillary might have cackled to her gang that their neat oppo-research file reminded her of her own cattle-futures gambit or the mysterious vaporization and reincarnation of the Rose Law Firm files.

Why would professionals such as the omnipresent Rod Rosenstein and the proper Sally Yates sign on to juvenile FISA-court requests for surveillance that were obviously misleading, if not constituting some sort of felonious obstruction of justice by deluding the court about the nature of the Steele dossier? (The application failed to disclose that the dossier was unverified, that the FBI had fired Steele for improper leaking, that the dossier itself was the source of circular “corroborating” news stories, and that it was paid for by Hillary Clinton.)

Answer? Again, Yates, Rosenstein, and Comey, along with other signatories of FISA requests, would now be rewarded with tenure and/or promotions for noble service to the cause. Bill might have guffawed that it all reminded him of the Marc Rich pardon caper or the minor inconvenience of being disbarred.

Nothing in the past of either Brennan or Comey, both of whom previously lied with impunity and while under oath to Congress, gave them any reason to fear any legal consequences for either unethical or illegal behavior.
Why would supposed intelligence pros like Comey, John Brennan, and James Clapper stoop to traffic in the Steele dossier, and in Comey’s case, even become a party to inserting at least one informant into an ongoing political campaign?

Lots of answers. One, Trump’s was not a political campaign, but rather a sure losing political campaign. Two, Trump himself would not just go down to defeat, but was likely to be ruined after the election as he experienced a Manafort-like fate of endless leaked negative stories in the media, a litany of made-up charges designed to have him plea-bargain to a felony or two, and millions in never-ending legal fees. Three, nothing in the past of either Brennan or Comey, both of whom had previously lied with impunity and while under oath to Congress, gave them any reason to fear any legal consequences for either unethical or illegal behavior. Again, in careerist terms, their behavior was logical; what was abjectly illogical was that Trump won.

Why would supposed progressive humanitarians and civil libertarians such as Susan Rice and Samantha Power request unmasking of hundreds of American citizens and somehow expect such unredacted names to reappear in dark contexts right before the 2016 election? Aside from the fact that neither Rice nor Power is a humanitarian or a civil libertarian, such behavior would springboard a rapprochement with the Clintons. Service beyond the call of duty, indeed, even risking criminal exposure through leaking unmasked but still classified names, could not be ignored even by a vindictive Hillary Clinton, who had prior reason to distrust both.

What then would be stupid in careerist terms? Had James Comey and the Obama DOJ run their investigation of Hillary Clinton the same way that Robert Mueller is currently conducting his hounding of Donald Trump, or had Robert Mueller conducted a post-election, Comey-like faux inquiry into Donald Trump, it would be the epitome of administrative-state stupidity.

It is tiring to hear sermons about the integrity of the FBI and DOJ, as if their elite leadership in Washington has no more influence over an organization than a general does over his army. Of course, the vast majority of employees in the field are both competent and just. But too many of their Washington leaders see themselves in grandiose terms, as subject to no law other than the demands of their own egos.

That same mindset of exemption explains why Mueller did not disclose to the public immediately why he removed Page and Strzok from his investigation, and why their staggered and initially clandestine departures were in fact related. And why, too, Andrew Weissmann, Jeannie Rhee, and Aaron Zebley were seen to have no possible conflict of interests even though one of them was not shy about his earlier disdain for Trump and his enthusiasm for Clinton, while the other two had either in the past defended a Clinton aide or the Clinton Foundation. Again, the way the orthodox state works is that the mere suggestion that such progressive attorneys have conflicts of interests is branded heresy and earns outrage — but never alters the fact that they do in fact have real ethical conflicts.

The problem with all the current scandals is that half the country, including the half that runs the media and the administrative state, thinks that any means are justified to achieve the ethical and noble end of aborting Donald’ Trump’s presidency. What one half of the country sees as unethical behavior is assumed by blue America to be noble service beyond the call of duty. When a Page or Strzok or Andrew McCabe broke protocols and likely the law, 50 percent of the population saw something like James Comey’s version of a “higher duty.”

For all the investigations and IG reports, for all the revelations of scandals and wrongdoing, there will probably in the end be little consequence, simply because to those who matter, such illegality is seen as nobility. Many at the highest echelons of the FBI and DOJ broke laws. But Trump broke a far higher and far more important unwritten law — one forbidding any presidential candidate and future president to be and act like Donald J. Trump.

Link

I liked the Hanson article above.

Two minor points

1. When Rod Rosenstein signed the 3rd (and last) extension of the FISA warrant against Carter Page, it was July 2017.

President Trump had been in the WH for 6 months. I am not sure when and how President Trump first found out about the full surveillance of the "Russian agent" Carter Page. (Being sarcastic - I don't think we have seen anything to believe Carter Page was a Russian agent)

2. It is not clear when the FBI found out that Clinton campaign paid for the dossier. The Perkins Coie letter that made the public aware was dated October 2017. (Just as the last FISA warrant expired).

If Devin Nunes had not subpoenaed the bank records for Fusion GPS, we would not know it was the Clinton campaign and DNC that funded the dossier.

Not long ago, James Comey actually said "to this day" he doesn't know that Clinton funded the dossier.

One would expect a competent FBI to have figured out very quickly who funded the dossier.

As of November 2017, Glen Simpson of Fusion GPS
testified that the FBI had NEVER talked to him about the dossier. What is wrong w that picture ?

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
I liked the Hanson article above.

Two minor points

1. When Rod Rosenstein signed the 3rd (and last) extension of the FISA warrant against Carter Page, it was July 2017.

President Trump had been in the WH for 6 months. I am not sure when and how President Trump first found out about the full surveillance of the "Russian agent" Carter Page. (Being sarcastic - I don't think we have seen anything to believe Carter Page was a Russian agent)

2. It is not clear when the FBI found out that Clinton campaign paid for the dossier. The Perkins Coie letter that made the public aware was dated October 2017. (Just as the last FISA warrant expired).

If Devin Nunes had not subpoenaed the bank records for Fusion GPS, we would not know it was the Clinton campaign and DNC that funded the dossier.

Not long ago, James Comey actually said "to this day" he doesn't know that Clinton funded the dossier.

One would expect a competent FBI to have figured out very quickly who funded the dossier.

As of November 2017, Glen Simpson of Fusion GPS
testified that the FBI had NEVER talked to him about the dossier. What is wrong w that picture ?

None so dumb as those who do not want to know.

Jonathon Turley

Watching Monday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the Hillary Clinton email investigation, it often seemed like the Justice Department inspector general (IG) produced not one but two diametrically opposed reports. Republicans cited the finding of bias and irregularities in the investigation, while Democrats cited the failure to find any decision that was clearly caused by bias. Everyone seems to have gotten something from the report … everything but answers. As with past scandals, that is not likely to change. Indeed, the principle lesson learned from the IG report appears to be the wrong one, to ensure that the public never again gets a glimpse into how such investigations are handled.

During the hearing, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) asked both FBI Director Christopher Wray and IG Michael Horowitz if the FBI was looking into alleged leaks to former Trump campaign adviser and current Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani during the 2016 campaign. Wray responded that “one of the main lessons of this report” was to no longer confirm such investigations, a position that Horowitz echoed. That was a troubling conclusion that produced little response from the committee’s members.

It is often the case that Congress asks for the Justice Department to investigate serious matters of alleged misconduct. It will often hold off on pursuing such allegations further, in deference to the FBI. There is no ethical or legal reason why the Justice Department cannot confirm that it is looking into such allegations, any more than it would in the case of investigations of alleged crimes ranging from police abuse or civil rights violations to bombings. Indeed, the confirmation of an independent investigation can assure both Congress and the public that alleged crimes or misconduct by establishment figures are not given special protection.

Yet, Horowitz and Wray said the “lesson” of the report is that it would never again confirm or deny such investigations. Hopefully, they were inartfully saying that such disclosures should come from the Justice Department and not the FBI. However, there is reason to be concerned. If history is any guide, the FBI scandal could be used to avoid future disclosures rather than embracing serious reforms.

It is not true that confirmations of investigations are improper on their face. Fired FBI Director James Comey’s misconduct was not his confirmation of the investigation but his opining on uncharged conduct in a press conference and circumventing the Justice Department. In fairness to Comey, the Clinton email scandal put him and his agency in a difficult position. Congress had asked for an investigation, which was being openly discussed by both campaigns and the media. Comey promised to keep Congress informed of the progress in the investigation and Congress, in turn, deferred to his investigation in its own oversight efforts.

Comey promised to inform Congress if the investigation changed, and did so when the investigation was reopened upon the discovery of additional emails on the laptop of former Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y,), husband of close Clinton aide Huma Abedin. When he did so, Comey stressed that the reopening of the investigation did not mean that the FBI believed there was evidence of criminal conduct. While I have been highly critical of many of Comey’s actions, I do not fault him on that effort. It was his conduct in the press conference and, later, during the Trump administration, that raised serious ethical and legal concerns.

It was not the disclosure to Congress but the reason for the lateness of the disclosure that was the problem. Lead FBI investigator Peter Strzok made the Clinton investigation a lower priority than the Trump investigation. This was a decision that the IG expressly found highly suspicious. Strzok also was reportedly responsible, with others, in delaying action on the Weiner discovery. Strzok just happens to be the source of some of the most disturbing emails promising that Trump would not be allowed to be president and discussing an “insurance policy” to prevent him from ever taking office.

Many people have been shocked by the disclosure of the false statements, bias and mistakes in the investigation. This includes the redaction of nonclassified material that was clearly removed because it was embarrassing to top FBI officials. It includes an array of false statements and glaring contradictions from officials in giving information to both Congress and federal investigators. It includes a long list of highly biased political statements from not just the chief investigator for the Clinton scandal but numerous other FBI agents. It includes an estimated 50 FBI officials suspected of improper media contacts, including the receipt of gifts from journalists. Yet, members have stressed that this is just one investigation and not the norm.

Of course, we do not know the extent of such misconduct in other cases because Congress rarely exercises its oversight in this way in reviewing investigations. Judging from the statements yesterday, Congress is unlikely to do so again any time soon. The FBI has long sought to insulate itself from serious oversight by claiming classified status or law enforcement privileges. Now, however, it has succeeded in making such insularity a “lesson” learned. One would think that the outrageous conduct disclosed in this report would lead to the lesson that we need more such scrutiny and transparency. Instead, the lesson is that it was transparency that caused the controversy.

That lesson has been eagerly embraced by Democrats in Congress, who used to be advocates for greater transparency and greater oversight over intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Democratic members routinely appear on television expressing outrage that anyone would question the integrity of FBI officials or demand the disclosure of documents. Some members have expressed anger at the notion that the House Intelligence Committee would enforce its oversight authority through its contempt powers after the Justice Department failed to turn over critical documents for review.

The party of Frank Church now sounds like the party of J. Edgar Hoover. This week, Comey and his fired former deputy director, Andrew McCabe, refused to testify before the Senate committee to answer the many questions following the IG report. McCabe invoked the privilege against self-incrimination, while Comey simply refused and continued his lucrative book tour discussing “ethical leadership” with himself as principle model. When Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) asked the committee to compel their appearance, ranking minority member Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) withheld her needed consent.

If this stonewalling is successful, it will guarantee that the public is left with glaring contradictions in the record and few real answers. This includes diametrically opposing factual accounts by key FBI officials where someone is clearly lying. The FBI has not hesitated to charge others for misleading statements, but it seems to shrug off these conflicts in testimony by its own. For those of us who have criticized the intelligence committees as little more than paper tigers, these investigations show the value of aggressive oversight and transparency. Yet, that clearly is not the lesson learned by the FBI or many members of Congress.

Link

Okay I just stumbled on this and laughed. This guy gives his colorful opinion on the IG report. Language is NSFW.

https://youtu.be/_ZvovKwFaGo

By V. Hanson and Posted by JALLEN

quote:

It is tiring to hear sermons about the integrity of the FBI and DOJ, as if their elite leadership in Washington has no more influence over an organization than a general does over his army. Of course, the vast majority of employees in the field are both competent and just.

I thank Hanson makes several important points. I disagree with his statement that the vast majority of Federal employees are competent and just.

I think the vast majority of civil service employees are probably barely average in competence. As for the "just" part, all of these employees are bureaucrats, they are certain to follow the bureaucratic line of least resistance. They know, unless they are really stupid, that the Democratic Party is their friend. They know that most bureaucrats at higher levels are in fact Progressives.

Today the bulk of the DOJ and FBI leadership is still heldover from the last administration. Trump has not yet offered a full slate of political appointees and many he has submitted are being held-up by the Senate Democrats.

quote:

Originally posted by oldRoger:
By V. Hanson and Posted by JALLEN

quote:

It is tiring to hear sermons about the integrity of the FBI and DOJ, as if their elite leadership in Washington has no more influence over an organization than a general does over his army. Of course, the vast majority of employees in the field are both competent and just.

I thank Hanson makes several important points. I disagree with his statement that the vast majority of Federal employees are competent and just.

I think the vast majority of civil service employees are probably barely average in competence. As for the "just" part, all of these employees are bureaucrats, they are certain to follow the bureaucratic line of least resistance. They know, unless they are really stupid, that the Democratic Party is their friend. They know that most bureaucrats at higher levels are in fact Progressives.

Today the bulk of the DOJ and FBI leadership is still heldover from the last administration. Trump has not yet offered a full slate of political appointees and many he has submitted are being held-up by the Senate Democrats.

What they know is what their bosses think, like, want, and they know there is nothing gained by swimming upstream alone.

quote:

What they know is what their bosses think, like, want, and they know there is nothing gained by swimming upstream alone.

Exactly---so much for the "just" part of their performance. I suppose just covers political neutrality as well.
As for competence, I think most really competent people are unwilling to suffer in the stifling bureaucratic environment which is the large federal departments.
Imagine if you will, 200,000 people in the Department of State who must fill their time each day performing tasks which could be handily be done by about 1000 before noon.

quote:

Originally posted by oldRoger:

quote:

What they know is what their bosses think, like, want, and they know there is nothing gained by swimming upstream alone.

Exactly---so much for the "just" part of their performance. I suppose just covers political neutrality as well.
As for competence, I think most really competent people are unwilling to suffer in the stifling bureaucratic environment which is the large federal departments.
Imagine if you will, 200,000 people in the Department of State who must fill their time each day performing tasks which could be handily be done by about 1000 before noon.

Masterly inactivity requires considerable skill that not everyone can master.

The second most important goal of a bureaucrat is to not make mistakes. The most important goal is to make sure nobody finds out a mistake was made.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/06...-security-clearance/

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Thursday that former FBI official Peter Strzok has lost his security clearance amid an internal disciplinary review.

“Mr. Strzok, as I understand, has lost his security clearance,” Sessions told radio host Howie Carr.

Strzok was escorted out of FBI headquarters on Friday, the day after the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released its long-awaited report about the FBI’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation.

quote:

The party of Frank Church now sounds like the party of J. Edgar Hoover.

Two great articles by Hanson and Turkey, thanks for posting, JAllen.

Is there a Democrat in office who is actually seeking the truth in these issues versus covering up for Obama and Clinton? That’s a serious question.

quote:

Originally posted by sjtill:

quote:

The party of Frank Church now sounds like the party of J. Edgar Hoover.

Two great articles by Hanson and Turkey, thanks for posting, JAllen.

Is there a Democrat in office who is actually seeking the truth in these issues versus covering up for Obama and Clinton? That’s a serious question.

No,they are saving all their wrath to go after Republicans. You have to hand it to the Democrats,they hardly ever devour their own.And they get away with it.

quote:

Originally posted by sjtill:

quote:

The party of Frank Church now sounds like the party of J. Edgar Hoover.

Two great articles by Hanson and Turkey, thanks for posting, JAllen.

Is there a Democrat in office who is actually seeking the truth in these issues versus covering up for Obama and Clinton? That’s a serious question.

Well, I continue to believe that there are no Democrats. The doper hippy dirtball draft dodger bunch went in with Communist Party USA decades ago, and gradually ran off the old style Democrats. Their all God Damned Commies now, especially since the Clinton Family took over.

They have managed to maintain the aura and name. Face it, “communist” still has high negatives. Lots of people will support communist measures if you slip it passed as Democratic. They would be horrified to be called Communists, but there they are.

Everything now is marketing, public perception, even reality!

Strzok lost his clearance.

https://sigforum.com/eve/forums...35/m/1930017834/p/20

Why is Loretta Lynch getting away with it?

Buried in Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz’s report on the Clinton email investigation lies a disturbing passage concerning information obtained by the FBI alleging that Attorney General Loretta Lynch attempted to put her thumb on the scales of justice to exonerate Hillary Clinton.

“Comey said that he also was concerned about an issue specific to Lynch,” Horowitz reports. “As discussed in more detail in the classified appendix to this report, Comey told the OIG that the FBI had obtained highly classified information in March 2016 that included allegations of partisan bias or attempts to impede the Midyear investigation by Lynch.”

What, specifically, did the “highly classified information” indicate? It is “highly classified,” so we naturally remain in the dark. What justified making the information “highly classified”? Nuclear secrets? A list of U.S. spies abroad? War plans to invade Canada? We do not know. But in an age when the Justice Department assails words that merely embarrass with redacting markers, the words “highly classified” provoke curiosity rather than close questions.

Comey’s manner of dismissing the information does not inspire confidence. “When asked about this information,” the report explains, “Comey stated that he knew it was not credible on its face because it was not consistent with his personal experience with Lynch.”

Allegations that Loretta Lynch played favorites did not jibe with the former FBI director’s experiences with the former attorney general?

Comey’s “personal experience” with Lynch includes the attorney general successfully pressuring him to call his investigation of Hillary Clinton a “matter.”

He writes in his recent memoir, “The attorney general seemed to be directing me to align with the Clinton campaign strategy. Her ‘just do it’ response to my question indicated that she had no legal or procedural justification for her request, at least not one grounded in our practices or traditions. Otherwise, I assume, she would have said so.” Comey noted that a Justice Department official humorously called the FBI the “Federal Bureau of Matters” in response to Lynch’s politicized order.

Lynch also held an allegedly impromptu meeting with Bill Clinton, spouse of the subject of the FBI’s investigation matter, at the airport in Phoenix. The parties supposedly discussed grandkids and other light matters during the unusual meeting. But the mere existence of the meeting put Comey in a terrible spot and compromised public trust in the investigation.

Comey’s own behavior, dubbed “insubordinate” in the inspector general’s report, in bypassing Lynch in making key decisions regarding the Clinton investigation indicates that his “personal experience” with Lynch also did not contradict the idea of her attempting to influence his bureau’s findings for political reasons.

Perhaps the “highly classified” information contains state secrets rather than merely embarrassing individual ones. And perhaps the information, not unlike much raw intelligence shared with the FBI, strikes trained eyes as lacking credibility.

But given the inherent pitfalls in a Justice Department tasked with investigating itself, and numerous instances detailed in the IG’s report that indicate that politics rather than justice guided federal employees, reflexively trusting that the disparaging intelligence accusing Lynch of bias should remain classified and does not appear credible seems a fool’s errand.
Hopefully Congress, constitutionally tasked with oversight, sees the actual classified material. The public, for reasons legitimate or concocted, likely never glimpses it.

If some high government official could include the “highly classified” material in a private email intercepted by foreign actors, then inquiring minds could finally know. But that kind of reckless behavior never happens, right?

Link

back on page 9 there are several posts about Lynch and "highly classified"


"A REP senator asked about a highly classified report regarding Loretta Lynch and Clinton staffer Amanda Renteria. Horowitz said they are working w intel community to get this issue at a lower classification so it can be addressed and shared. Seems like a very touchy subject"

more on page 9

“The FBI agent on the Hillary Clinton email investigation who traded anti-Trump texts with her FBI colleague lover is pictured here for the first time since her name was revealed by congress.

Sally Moyer, 44, who texted 'f**k Trump,' called President Trump's voters 'retarded' and vowed to quit 'on the spot' if he won the election, was seen leaving her home early Friday morning wearing a floral top and dark pants.

She shook her head and declined to discuss the controversy with a DailyMail.com reporter, and ducked quickly into her nearby car in the rain without an umbrella before driving off…”

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic...entity-revealed.html

^^^ I couldn't tell from the pictures - was she walking around with both of her guns?

House Judiciary chair Goodlatte has issued subpoena for Strzok to testify 27 June 2018.