Obama Justice Dept.’s attempts to influence investigations exposed in McCabe probe

a reply to: Grambler

Do we really think that Comey was "disturbed" at the suggestion to call it a "matter?" I don't. He's ok with everything else he did, but he draws the line at "matter?" No.

originally posted by: KansasGirl
a reply to: Grambler

Do we really think that Comey was "disturbed" at the suggestion to call it a "matter?" I don't. He's ok with everything else he did, but he draws the line at "matter?" No.

Of course he probably wasnt. He is just trying to cover himself because he knew that it would come out.

If he was disturbed, he wouldnt have called it a matter, and would have started keeping notes like he did with trump.

It is clear that Comey was a man motivated by personal interests and bias for Hillary and against Trump, and that influenced his decisions.

Just like many other in Obamas agencies.

Yet for some reason, the dems, the MSM and many other anti trumpers who have said we need a special counsel to look into trump and that should go back decades, and that we need to raid his lawyers office all in the name of solving any corruption are absolutely silent on this.

It just goes to shwo what has been eveidnet form the get go; the concern oover corruption was fake all along for most of these people, instead its just an excuse to get trump by any means neccessary.

And in doing so, they have aligned themselves with the intel community that a mere decade ago they protested.

a reply to: Grambler

Agreed.

a reply to: Grambler

I am just waiting for all of the people celebrating any investigation of trump to come in on this thread and express their outrage at the Obama DOJ, and demand a special counsel to look at it. They will be here any second...

[ looks at watch ] I don't think they're coming. Anyone surprised?





Bueller?
...Bueller?
.......Bueller?

The next installment of the I.G. Report will be a bombshell.

a reply to: Grambler

Wasn't the Person at the DOJ who was mad at the FBI's investigation of the CF last name the same as a Well Known Democratic Party person? I can't seem to find where I read that, but it is whomever was the that ASAG or some such title.

I meant to research if they were actually related but now can't find the name.

Matthew Axelrod is the DOJ person who was Mad at the FBI.

From what I can see, he's not David Axelrod's Son.

Is there a relation?

originally posted by: KansasGirl
a reply to: Grambler

Do we really think that Comey was "disturbed" at the suggestion to call it a "matter?" I don't. He's ok with everything else he did, but he draws the line at "matter?" No.

He was so disturbed by Lynch and her conflict of interest and decision to not recuse herself (because of this conversation and unverified, classified) reports), that he made notes reflecting the conversation, added some classified material, and then leaked it to a buddy with the intent of having it published in the press in order to start a special counsel.

McCabe was so disturbed by the call from the PADAG that he called senior agents in for a secret society meeting and they crafted an insurance plan to make sure they didn't let it happen again.

What more do you want?!

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: Grambler

I am just waiting for all of the people celebrating any investigation of trump to come in on this thread and express their outrage at the Obama DOJ, and demand a special counsel to look at it. They will be here any second...

[ looks at watch ] I don't think they're coming. Anyone surprised?





Bueller?
...Bueller?
.......Bueller?

The best part is that you can see some of them posting on ATS right now, so its not like they havent seen the story.

They will wait for one member to come on, or for the MSM to get the official line out before they comment on it.

Look for such brilliant comments as saying the source is fake news and biased, McCabe is just a liar now (after having celebrated him in the past weeks) its perfectly normal for the DOJ to do this (even though as fbi people in the article says it is not) there is no proof anyone but axelrod knew so its no big deal, this is just a distraction from trump being corrupt, and just in general trump is evil so who cares.

I think I covered most of the usual talking points.

Oh, and we already had "Sean Hannitty blah blah blah" forgot that one!

This kind of corruption is all over in our government. It is not a party thing, Republicans have used it as well as Democrats. I do not think that something this important should have been attempted to be covered up by the Justice department though. In my mind I do think that this did have an impact on the FBI though, it did probably influence them to deter the investigation and overlook some stuff they should not have overlooked. A sort of compromise being made to use as leverage when the FBI needed justice department help to cover up their own mistakes or misgivings.

Yes, I suspect this did happen, also I believe there were more calls than this but those other calls are being suppressed from our view because they did influence the results. Look at the correspondence of other heads of these departments. Remember that a phone call could have been made instead of a text or memo, that is easier to cover up. But there would be tell tale reminders in later texts between the guilty parties of this confirming or reminding the other people of the favor.

a reply to: Grambler

A few things are being glossed over/left out/missed here. The existence of the call isn't new information. In fact, it's actually a principal detail McCabe authorized the SC to reveal to the Devlin Barrett and it was published in the Oct 30th article that's at the center of McCabe's issues.

Here's how it was reported in WSJ (it's excerpted in the IG report):

“Are you telling me that I need to shut down a validly predicated investigation?” Mr. McCabe asked, according to people familiar with the conversation. After a pause, the official replied “Of course not,” these people said.4

This is being framed as the PADAG trying to kill the investigation but McCabe's own statements suggest something entirely different:

He told the inspector general that during the Aug. 12, 2016, call the principal associate deputy attorney general expressed concerns about FBI agents taking overt steps in the Clinton Foundation investigation during the presidential campaign.

The PADAG called because unlike with the investigation involving Trump's associates, which was held closely to the vest, the FBI agents running the CF investigation were "taking overt steps" during the election. The call was used in the McCabe disclosure to Devlin Barrett to present the idea that McCabe was impartial (oh look how he's resisting pressure!) and here it's being framed as evidence of "Obama's DOJ" (because you know, Obama personally oversaw everything at every level in the federal government) trying to quash the investigation into the CF.

Now since the thrust of the OP seems to be ensuring that nobody is a hypocrite, let's recall what was going on here and how Trump supporters and right-wing media were treating it.

NYT - F.B.I.’s Email Disclosure Broke a Pattern Followed Even This Summer

WASHINGTON — The F.B.I. and Justice Department faced a hard decision in two investigations this past summer that had the potential to rock the presidential election. The first case involved Donald J. Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, and secretive business dealings in Ukraine. The second focused on Hillary Clinton’s relationships with donors to her family foundation.

At the urging of the Justice Department, the F.B.I. agreed not to issue subpoenas or take other steps that would make the cases public so close to the election, according to federal law enforcement officials.

In August, around the same time the decision was made to keep the Manafort investigation at a low simmer, the F.B.I. grappled with whether to issue subpoenas in the Clinton Foundation case, which, like the Manafort matter, was in its preliminary stages. The investigation, based in New York, had not developed much evidence and was based mostly on information that had surfaced in news stories and the book “Clinton Cash,” according to several law enforcement officials briefed on the case.

In meetings, the Justice Department and senior F.B.I. officials agreed that making the Clinton Foundation investigation public could influence the presidential race and suggest they were favoring Mr. Trump. But waiting, they acknowledged, could open them up to criticism from Republicans, who were demanding an investigation.

They agreed to keep the case open but wait until after the election to determine their next steps. The move infuriated some agents, who thought that the F.B.I.’s leaders were reining them in because of politics.

So here we have an FBI investigation that was opened on the basis of what amounts to oppo research paid for by Robert Mercer. The FBI's investigation was opened by the New York field office, with agents interviewing Breitbart editor Peter Schweizer on multiple occasions about his Mercer-funded book.

While this is happening, just like with the developing investigation into Manafort (and the Papadopolous sparked investigation which was kept utterly secret), it was agreed to keep the investigations low key as to not influence the election.

Basically, the investigations linked to either candidate were to be open and more or less passive.

Except that's not what happened, is it? The NY field office was running amok and leaking left and right. This to me is what makes all the yammering about the "deep state" by Trump supporters laughable. When it was the FBI agents at the NY field office who were leaking to damage Clinton, it was graciously received by Trump supporters and the right-wing media.

How soon Trump supporters forgot the months just before the election with headlines about how the FBI agents were "in revolt." Trump supporters, spurred on by regular updates from Trump surrogate Rudy Giuliani, cheered on what they saw as a patriotic faction of the FBI trying to save America from corrupt Clinton.

The PADAG was right to call McCabe just as he would have been if the FBI was behaving the same way in regard to the ongoing Trump-related investigations.

The reality here is that when the partisans in the FBI's New York bureau opened an investigation into Clinton during the election based on oppo research paid for by Trump's biggest donor, and then provided non-stop leaks about it to Fox News and others to damage Clinton, there was no outrage by Trump supporters.

There was no sanctimonious screeching about bias, no alarm about the "deep state" injecting itself into politics, not one eyelash batted about the FBI opening an investigation into a candidate based on oppo research paid for by Trump's biggest donor and no f's given about leaks to the media.

In fact, it was the opposite. It was lauded. Funny how the NY field office was blatantly doing everything it could to damage Clinton but the supposed "deep state" anti-Trump cabal within the FBI (desperate to see Trump lose) wasn't doing the exact same in regards to Trump.

So if you're looking to admonish people for hypocrisy or to make sure everyone is treating things fairly, you might want to start there.

a reply to: Grambler

A good live feed from JW happening right now www.youtube.com...

Looks like this fella was a Sally Yates lackey.

(warning: NYTimes puppet article)
Former Deputy at the Justice Dept. Joins Linklaters Law Firm

😐

I hope JW posts a copy of their live feed . Keep a eye out for it because it was one of their bests so far ..

Judicial Watch will be hosting a special educational panel on Tuesday, April 24, from noon to 1 pm ET to discuss “The Deep State Update.” The expert panelists currently include: Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) -Committee on the Judiciary -Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Vince Coglianese -Host “Mornings on the Mall” WMAL Radio -Editorial Director, Daily Caller Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer -Vice President for Strategic Coordination and Operations -London Center for Policy Research Michael Bekesha -Attorney -Judicial Watch Moderator: Tom Fitton -President Judicial Watch

a reply to: theantediluvian

Firstly the article in the OP cites people that were at the FBi that found this call to be very troubling and indicative of the DOJ trying to influence the direction of the investigation, which is unacceptable.

It also says McCabe himself was very troubled by the call.

Now keep in mind, when comey was troubled by Trump, he kept notes, shared them inside the fbi, and ultimately leaked them. When top brass at the FBi were troubled by the doj in this case, and in the situation of lynch instructing them to call the investigation a matter, they did no such thing.

you think this call was justifiable because of leaks?

How hilarious! Yet all of the leaks against trump from the intel community were not troubling at all. Does that mean that you would have been ok with Sessions or one of his associates at the doj calling and pressuring the FBI over the trump investigation over leaks? Of course not!

In fact, people would have screamed obstruction, as they already have been.

I read nowhere in the IG report or from McCabe that this was over leaks, in fact he suggests he found the call to be very troubling.

So where are you getting your info?

As far as Clinton cash being the impetus for the investigation, so what?

You have no problem with a secret at the time paid for dossier funded by Hillary (and lied about) using a former foreign spy, using kremlin connected agents being used in big part to get a fisa warrant to spy on trump associates, so why is that an issue for you here?

Did Schwiezer lie about who funded him? Did the FBI order surveillance on Hillary associates based on it? Did Schwiezer give an interview with fox news, and then that fox article was used to buttress the credibility of the Clinton cash book?

Oh, thats right, no to all of that.

As for cheering for leaks, I never did that.

Its a very simple issue, we have a special counsel into trump because of claims of obstruction of justice and him trying to influence the Russia investigation, so why wouldnt you be for a special counsel looking at these claims of obstruction?

In fact you say the DOJ was right to obstruct here by making that phone call!!!

The hypocrisy is becoming real thick.


Lastly as to you saying the Papadopolous investigation was kept secret, yeah, except for Obama going around the world telling allies that Trump may be involved with shady business with Putin.

So not that secret at all, was it?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ketsuko


If they can abuse the legal and justice systems with a sitting president, imagine what they could do the any of us who are nothing to them or nothing on the worlds stage.

Ummm...no knock FBI swat raids...oops got the wrong house scenario's come to mind...

Too bad your dead and can't protesteth too much...but what the hell...it's for the common good...right...?




YouSir

a reply to: Grambler

Look like you were right, concerning Ante's post.

its perfectly normal for the DOJ to do this (even though as fbi people in the article says it is not)

The PADAG was right to call McCabe just as he would have been if the FBI was behaving the same way in regard to the ongoing Trump-related investigations.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler

A few things are being glossed over/left out/missed here. The existence of the call isn't new information. In fact, it's actually a principal detail McCabe authorized the SC to reveal to the Devlin Barrett and it was published in the Oct 30th article that's at the center of McCabe's issues.

Here's how it was reported in WSJ (it's excerpted in the IG report):

“Are you telling me that I need to shut down a validly predicated investigation?” Mr. McCabe asked, according to people familiar with the conversation. After a pause, the official replied “Of course not,” these people said.4

This is being framed as the PADAG trying to kill the investigation but McCabe's own statements suggest something entirely different:

He told the inspector general that during the Aug. 12, 2016, call the principal associate deputy attorney general expressed concerns about FBI agents taking overt steps in the Clinton Foundation investigation during the presidential campaign.

The PADAG called because unlike with the investigation involving Trump's associates, which was held closely to the vest, the FBI agents running the CF investigation were "taking overt steps" during the election. The call was used in the McCabe disclosure to Devlin Barrett to present the idea that McCabe was impartial (oh look how he's resisting pressure!) and here it's being framed as evidence of "Obama's DOJ" (because you know, Obama personally oversaw everything at every level in the federal government) trying to quash the investigation into the CF.

Now since the thrust of the OP seems to be ensuring that nobody is a hypocrite, let's recall what was going on here and how Trump supporters and right-wing media were treating it.

NYT - F.B.I.’s Email Disclosure Broke a Pattern Followed Even This Summer

WASHINGTON — The F.B.I. and Justice Department faced a hard decision in two investigations this past summer that had the potential to rock the presidential election. The first case involved Donald J. Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, and secretive business dealings in Ukraine. The second focused on Hillary Clinton’s relationships with donors to her family foundation.

At the urging of the Justice Department, the F.B.I. agreed not to issue subpoenas or take other steps that would make the cases public so close to the election, according to federal law enforcement officials.

In August, around the same time the decision was made to keep the Manafort investigation at a low simmer, the F.B.I. grappled with whether to issue subpoenas in the Clinton Foundation case, which, like the Manafort matter, was in its preliminary stages. The investigation, based in New York, had not developed much evidence and was based mostly on information that had surfaced in news stories and the book “Clinton Cash,” according to several law enforcement officials briefed on the case.

In meetings, the Justice Department and senior F.B.I. officials agreed that making the Clinton Foundation investigation public could influence the presidential race and suggest they were favoring Mr. Trump. But waiting, they acknowledged, could open them up to criticism from Republicans, who were demanding an investigation.

They agreed to keep the case open but wait until after the election to determine their next steps. The move infuriated some agents, who thought that the F.B.I.’s leaders were reining them in because of politics.

So here we have an FBI investigation that was opened on the basis of what amounts to oppo research paid for by Robert Mercer. The FBI's investigation was opened by the New York field office, with agents interviewing Breitbart editor Peter Schweizer on multiple occasions about his Mercer-funded book.

While this is happening, just like with the developing investigation into Manafort (and the Papadopolous sparked investigation which was kept utterly secret), it was agreed to keep the investigations low key as to not influence the election.

Basically, the investigations linked to either candidate were to be open and more or less passive.

Except that's not what happened, is it? The NY field office was running amok and leaking left and right. This to me is what makes all the yammering about the "deep state" by Trump supporters laughable. When it was the FBI agents at the NY field office who were leaking to damage Clinton, it was graciously received by Trump supporters and the right-wing media.

How soon Trump supporters forgot the months just before the election with headlines about how the FBI agents were "in revolt." Trump supporters, spurred on by regular updates from Trump surrogate Rudy Giuliani, cheered on what they saw as a patriotic faction of the FBI trying to save America from corrupt Clinton.

The PADAG was right to call McCabe just as he would have been if the FBI was behaving the same way in regard to the ongoing Trump-related investigations.

The reality here is that when the partisans in the FBI's New York bureau opened an investigation into Clinton during the election based on oppo research paid for by Trump's biggest donor, and then provided non-stop leaks about it to Fox News and others to damage Clinton, there was no outrage by Trump supporters.

There was no sanctimonious screeching about bias, no alarm about the "deep state" injecting itself into politics, not one eyelash batted about the FBI opening an investigation into a candidate based on oppo research paid for by Trump's biggest donor and no f's given about leaks to the media.

In fact, it was the opposite. It was lauded. Funny how the NY field office was blatantly doing everything it could to damage Clinton but the supposed "deep state" anti-Trump cabal within the FBI (desperate to see Trump lose) wasn't doing the exact same in regards to Trump.

So if you're looking to admonish people for hypocrisy or to make sure everyone is treating things fairly, you might want to start there.

And I don't ever see you bringing up bias with all the Clinton donors being part of Mueller's team.

Funny you should talk about realities and facts.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
a reply to: Grambler

Look like you were right, concerning Ante's post.

its perfectly normal for the DOJ to do this (even though as fbi people in the article says it is not)

The PADAG was right to call McCabe just as he would have been if the FBI was behaving the same way in regard to the ongoing Trump-related investigations.

Yep clear as day.

To me the issue boils down to a simple question:

If a special counsel and all of the trimmings that came with it was justified by trumps supposed attempts to influence the russian investigations, why isnt one justified when Obamas doj tried to influence investigations into hillary?

For some people, it seems like its ok, in fact a good thing that Obamas doj took this unprecedented step (according to fbi people in the article in the OP), but if trump or his team does anything similar, then it is a massive problem that warrants a special counsel looking back decades to find a crime on trump.

As a Libertarian-hybrid of some sort I sure wish Liberals would follow in the footsteps of some of the best liberal voices and journalists out there.

To bad Michael Hastings is gone, but we still have Glenn Greenwald.

Those two don't/didn't let their politics get in the way of holding TPTB accountable or letting our constitutional rights be trounced by anyone.

Are there ANY Democrats here that care about the weaponization and criminal activities within the DOJ and IC and larger political spectrum at large?

a reply to: The GUT

EX Democrat here! Lol. Does that count?