Newly available records do not fully comply with congressional House subpoenas, and barring new developments Friday, recent documents from the FBI and Justice Department do not meet deadlines set by a House resolution, according to a source close to the discussions.
Three House Republican committee chairmen, Trey Gowdy on Oversight, Devin Nunes on Intelligence and Bob Goodlatte on Judiciary, requested the records, with one subpoena issued as long ago as August of last year.
The source said House staffers — who reviewed records Thursday at the Justice Department (DOJ) because lawmakers were out of town for the holiday recess — concluded that Justice and the FBI have still not provided information and records about FBI activities before the investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 elections officially opened on July 31 of that year.
“The House Judiciary Committee has been in contact daily with the Justice Department to ensure they produce all the documents subpoenaed by the committee earlier this year,” a Republican House Judiciary Committee aide said. “The Justice Department has produced more documents over the past weeks and has requested more time to produce additional documents. This request seems to be reasonable, and we expect the department to comply with the terms of the subpoena.”
An Intelligence Committee spokesperson told Fox News, “The DOJ gave the committee some, but not all, of the outstanding documents, so they are not in compliance.”
A Justice Department official emphasized last weekend that the DOJ and FBI had told both chambers’ intelligence committees that records, previously limited to congressional leadership known as Gang of Eight, were now available to lawmakers and cleared staff. The records were widely reported to include documents about the FBI’s alleged use of confidential sources to contact Trump campaign aides during the 2016 campaign.
In April, a subpoena was issued for a key set of records, focused on FBI activities before the bureau’s Russia case officially opened.
“What put this in motion? And of course, was what put this into motion, was something that is politically motivated, or was it based on legit law enforcement evidence?” said Thomas Dupree, former deputy assistant attorney general under President George W. Bush. “Based on [last week’s congressional] hearing and the back-and-forth we have seen over the last few months, we are in an extremely unusual, and in my view disturbing, situation, where there has been a complete breakdown and a fracture of trust.”
FBI Director Christopher Wray and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein were on Capitol Hill last week, and faced new pressure to comply after the passage, along party lines, of a nonbinding House resolution calling on Rosenstein to provide withheld documents. The resolution had the effect of putting all House members on the record.
Those who have worked with Rosenstein emphasize he is in a difficult position because, they say, it is not routine to provide records from ongoing investigations.
“I know Rod and I think he’s an honorable person and I think anybody in that position would take it personally if they’re going to say, ‘You personally have been obstructing Congress or holding things back,’’’ said Robert Driscoll, former assistant attorney general. “He views himself as a point of a spear in a process and the one who has to interact with Congress.”
Separately on Thursday, Nunes referred 15 names for public testimony to the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees. The majority are directly linked to the infamous Steele Dossier, as well as the firm Fusion GPS that was paid by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign to compile the research.
A Justice Department spokesperson declined to answer Fox’s questions, adding that Justice would respond to the House committees directly.
Catherine Herridge is an award-winning Chief Intelligence correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC) based in Washington, D.C. She covers intelligence, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Herridge joined FNC in 1996 as a London-based correspondent.
A secret memo marked “URGENT” detailed how the House Democratic Caucus’s server went “missing” soon after it became evidence in a cybersecurity probe. The secret memo also said more than “40 House offices may have been victims of IT security violations.”
In the memo, Congress’s top law enforcement official, Sergeant-at-Arms Paul Irving, along with Chief Administrative Officer Phil Kiko, wrote, “We have concluded that the employees [Democratic systems administrator Imran Awan and his family] are an ongoing and serious risk to the House of Representatives, possibly threatening the integrity of our information systems and thereby members’ capacity to serve constituents.”
The memo, addressed to the Committee on House Administration (CHA) and dated Feb. 3, 2017, was recently reviewed and transcribed by The Daily Caller News Foundation. The letter bolsters TheDCNF’s previous reporting about the missingserver and evidence of fraudon Capitol Hill.
It details how the caucus server, run by then-caucus Chairman Rep. Xavier Becerra, was secretly copied by authorities after the House Inspector General (IG) identified suspicious activity on it, but the Awans’ physical access was not blocked.
But after, the report reads, the server appears to have been secretly replaced with one that looked similar.
The memo called for firing the Pakistani-born aides, revoking all their computer accounts, and changing the locks on any door they had access to.
Rep. Louie Gohmert — a Texas Republican on the House Committee on the Judiciary who has done oversight work on the case — said the missing server contained copies of Congress members’ emails.
“They put 40 members of Congress’s data on one server … That server, with that serial number, has disappeared,” he said.
Multiple sources connected to the investigation told TheDCNF that shortly after an IG report came out identifying the House Democratic Caucus server as key evidence in a criminal probe, the evidence was stolen.
“They [the Awans] deliberately turned over a fake server” to falsify evidence, one official close to the CHA alleged. “It was a breach. The data was completely out of [members’] possession.”
The six-page letter says:
• In September of 2016 … the CHA and [IG] briefed the former Chairman of the Democratic Caucus about suspicious activity related to their server that the [IG] identified. As a result, the former Chairman of the Democratic Caucus directed the CAO to copy the data from their server and two computers.
• The CHA directed the IG to refer the matter to the US Capitol Police. The USCP initiated an investigation that continues to this day.
• In late 2016, the former Chairman of the Democratic Caucus announced his intention to resign from Congress to assume a new position. The CAO and [sergeant-at-arms] worked with the Chairman to account for his inventory, including the one server.
• While reviewing the inventory, the CAO discovered that the serial number of the server did not match that of the one imaged in September. [Investigators] also discovered that the server in question [the replacement server] was still operating under the employee’s control, contrary to the explicit instructions of the former chairman to turn over all equipment and fully cooperate with the inquiry and investigation. [A House source said the “employee” was Abid Awan.]
• The USCP interviewed relevant staff regarding the missing server.
• On January 24, 2017, the CAO acquired the [replacement] server from the control of the employees and transferred that server to the USCP.
President Donald Trump referenced the Democratic Caucus’ missing server in a tweet. But because the letter to the CHA was kept secret, many news outlets have not grasped that the House’s top cop documented a “missing server” connected to the Democratic Caucus.
The timeline laid out in the letter also shows that Becerra — now California’s Democratic attorney general — failed to ensure that the Awans didn’t have access to House computer systems during the 2016 election, which was wrought with cybersecurity scandals.
“The Caucus Chief of Staff requested one of the shared employees to not provide IT services or access their computers,” it read. “This shared employee continued.” It’s unclear why that request was not granted or why it was a request rather than an order.
A House official close to the probe said the employee was Abid, who was not on Becerra or the Caucus’s payroll. The official said Becerra Chief of Staff Sean McCluskie apparently knew Abid was accessing Caucus servers. According to payroll records, Abid’s sister-in-law, Hina Alvi, was the Caucus’ systems administrator.
Becerra has refused to comment, citing an ongoing criminal investigation.
The February 2017 memo itemizes “numerous and egregious violations of House IT security” by members of the Awan family, including using Congress members’ usernames and “the unauthorized storage of sensitive House information outside the House.”
“These employees accessed user accounts and computers for offices that did not employ them, without the knowledge and permission of the impacted Member’s office,” it said, adding, “4 of the employees accessed the Democratic Caucus computers 5,735 times.” More than 100 office computers were open to access from people not on the office’s staff, it said.
Chris Gowen — a former aide to Hillary Clinton who is now serving as Imran’s attorney — told TheDCNF, “There is no missing server and never was.”
He didn’t provide any support for his claim, which is contrary to evidence Kiko and Irving presented to Congress.
The memo said the CHA possesses voluminous evidence, including, “Interview notes with House Members’ Chiefs of Staff,” and “Logon activity and computer access logs.” Prosecutors have not brought charges.
The Awans were banned from Congress’s computer network the day the letter was sent, and Kiko held a briefing to convey the message to chiefs of staff for members who employed them.
But Democrats claim they were never told about any of the cybersecurity issues itemized in the urgent memo. Rep. Jackie Speier — a California Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence who employed Imran and his wife, Hina Alvi — said she never heard of any missing server.
Joaquin Castro of Texas — another Democratic intelligence committee member who employed one of the Awans — told TheDCNF that Kiko never told him of any cybersecurity issues whatsoever and that the Awan probe was instead described as a theft issue.
Indeed, the CHA issued only one public statement on the case and titled it the “House Theft Investigation” — wording that avoids cybersecurity words while political news coverage raged about other cybersecurity issues in the 2016 election.
Yet even the alleged theft has not resulted in criminal charges — even though the letter also says House authorities have “purchase orders and vouchers” that allegedly show procurement fraud, as well as testimony from a Democratic chief of staff to Rep. Yvette Clarke, who warned of procurement fraud.
The FBI arrested Imran at the airport in July 2017 for alleged bank fraud that occurred six months prior, and Democrats have since claimed that the case is about nothing but bank fraud. Bank fraud does not explain why the Awans were kicked off the House network concurrent with the urgent memo, which did not cite bank fraud.
A Democratic IT aide who alleged that Imran solicited a bribe from him told TheDCNF he believes members of Congress are playing dumb and covering the matter up. Wendy Anderson, a former chief of staff to New York Rep. Yvette Clarke, told House investigators that she suspected that her predecessor, Shelley Davis, was working with Abid on a theft scheme, but Clarke refused to fire Abid until outside investigators got involved, TheDCNF reported.
Eighteen months after the evidence was recounted in the urgent memo, prosecution appears to have stalled for reasons not publicly explained. Imran is in court July 3 for a possible plea deal in the bank fraud case. Gohmert said the FBI has refused to accept evidence demonstrating alleged House misconduct, and some witnesses with first-hand knowledge say the bureau has not interviewed them.
Imran Awan: A Continuing DCNF Investigative Group Series
The Awans and their associates collected more than $5 million in pay from congressional offices, often drawing chief-of-staff level pay though there is reason to believe many didn’t even show up. The House’s internal probe found they logged into servers they had no affiliation with, used members’ usernames, covered their tracks, and persisted even after being fired.
The money is broken down by year, congressional office and family member paid:
Imran, Abid and Jamal Awan and Hina Alvi, Natalia Sova, Rao Abbas, Hasseb Rana, and Muhammad Awan.
His Name Is So Damn Fitting Because He Is Truly A Dick
ICE is a “group of incompetents” and should focus on drug interdiction, not immigration enforcement, says the second-ranking Democratic Senator, Sen. Dick Durbin.
“Look at ICE — what a group of incompetents,” he told CNN on Saturday, adding:
At this point, they are focused more on toddlers than terrorists. They want, instead of deporting felons, they want to deport families that are being persecuted by criminal gangs … instead of focussing on stopping bad drugs coming in and stopping dirty drug money from going out, they’re focussed on separating kids from their families.
Durbin sought to capture progressives’ anger at President Donald Trump’s zero-tolerance policy for illegal immigration, saying:
Be part of this election, don’t stay home and curse the television … Come on out, use your citizens’ right to vote. That is the most important thing … I think the American people are going to speak loudly.
CNN
✔@CNN
“Look at ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement), what a group of incompetents. At this point they’re focused more on toddlers than terrorists,” says Sen. Dick Durbin at rally in Chicago https://cnn.it/2Kkgl2x
With the worst drug crisis in our nation’s history, ICE and DHS should spend their resources on keeping drugs out and stopping drug money from being exported to gangs and cartels south of the border.
Senator Dick Durbin
✔@SenatorDurbin
It’s clear that ICE is unprepared and seemingly unwilling to reunite the infants and kids they forcibly removed at the border. We need a different solution to this humanitarian crisis.
ICE now has more than 20,000 employees in more than 400 offices in the United States and 46 foreign countries. The agency has an annual budget of approximately $6 billion, primarily devoted to three operational directorates – Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) and Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA). A fourth directorate – Management and Administration – supports the three operational branches to advance the ICE mission.
ICE’s efforts are focused on enforcing popular immigration laws, such as the laws requiring the removal of illegal migrants:
In FY2017, ICE ERO conducted 143,470 overall administrative arrests, which is the highest number of administrative arrests over the past three fiscal years. Of these arrests, 92 percent had a criminal conviction, a pending criminal charge, were an ICE fugitive or were processed with a reinstated final order. In FY2017, ICE conducted 226,119 removals. While this is a slight overall decrease from the prior fiscal year, the proportion of removals resulting from ICE arrests increased from 65,332, or 27 percent of total removals in FY2016 to 81,603, or 36 percent of total removals, in FY2017. These results clearly demonstrate profound, positive impact of the EO.
Without ICE, companies would be able to hire low-wage illegals instead of Americans, foreign children would crowd Americans’ kids from a good education, and real-estate costs would spike as foreigners rush to live in the peaceful, high-trust society built by Americans.
Durbin’s call for ICE to end enforcement was echoed by a statement from House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi. She “believes that ICE has been on the wrong end of far too many inhumane and unconstitutional practices to be allowed to continue without an immediate and fundamental overhaul,” said spokesman Drew Hammill, according to a report in the Washington Post.
“We do not think that protecting our border means putting children in cages,” Pelosi said June 28.
Durbin’s advocacy for mass-migration and for younger ‘dreamer’ illegals has caused the Democrats much political pain. He pushed forthe abortive budget-shutdown in January 2018, and for the “Gang of Eight” amnesty bill in 2013 which helped the Democrats lose nine seats in 2014.
The Democrats’ top leader in the Senate, Sen. Chuck Schumer, is keeping his distance from the “Abolish ICE” campaign, even as the unpopular demand has been embraced by several Democratic Senators who may run for President in 2020.
He is instead using his Twitter account to tout Democrats’ promises on healthcare, guns, gay status, and claims that President Donald Trump is tied to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
On the Abolish ICE campaign, Schumer is instead calling for a “czar” to focus media attention on “reunifying families.” That topic polls better for Democrats than ending immigration enforcement.
Chuck Schumer
✔@SenSchumer
The president has the power to appoint a czar to marshal & organize the agencies in charge of reunifying families. He should exercise that power, listen to all those marching today & clean up the mess he made w/ his slapdash family separation policy. #FamiliesBelongTogetherMarch
Democratic activists say the “Abolish ICE” campaign is not intended to open the borderswhich are guarded by the Customs and Border Protection agency. Instead, the activists say they hope to block ICE from deporting the economic migrants or refugees who get across the border, and who are seeking jobs and apartments as well as schools for their children.
But that no-deportations policy would allow many companies to hire illegals instead of Americans. That subsequent rush of millions of migrants would force down wages for Americans and for legal immigrants, spike stock values on Wall Street, force up rents and housing prices, and also overcrowd public K-12 schools.
The inspector general’s report on the FBI’s probe of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server when she was secretary of state has already documented just how riddled the bureau was with bias against Donald Trump when he was the Republican candidate for president.
Now, one conservative commentator is suggesting the report holds proof that the corruption went all the way to the top of the Justice Department.
In a Twitter post last week, Paul Sperry, who has written extensively about the FBI in columns published by the New York Post, hinted that Inspector General Michael Horowitz could have solid grounds to show “obstruction” in the Clinton email case – by none other than former Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
Sperry wrote that Horowitz testified on Capitol Hill about parts of his report that remain classified, and Sperry had a guess as to some of what it contained.
BREAKING: IG Horowitz testifies material implicating Lynch in possible obstruction of Hillary email case is contained in classified section of his report and that he will work with Congress to declassify it. Here is the possible smoking gun:
“BREAKING: IG Horowitz testifies material implicating Lynch in possible obstruction of Hillary email case is contained in classified section of his report and that he will work with Congress to declassify it,” Sperry wrote. “Here is the smoking gun …”
Sperry linked to one of his own columns in the Post from July 2017 that described a document indicating that Lynch had assured Clinton’s presidential campaign that she would make sure the FBI did not “go too far” in its investigation of the email case.
From even public information about the case, it’s pretty clear that Lynch kept a tight rein on it.
Did Loretta Lynch rein in the FBI’s Hillary Clinton investigation?
Former FBI Director James Comey has publicly testified that Lynch wanted him to refer to the Clinton probe as a “matter” rather than an “investigation.” (Comey pretended he was “confused” and “concerned” by the semantic choice. Can a man who made it to the top of the FBI be that obtuse? The answer is “no.”)
But if the IG report really does contain proof that Lynch put a limit on the FBI’s investigation to benefit the woman most of the political world expected to be elected president of the United States in November 2016, it puts things in a different light.
Lynch’s now infamous meeting with former President Bill Clinton on an airport tarmac in Arizona on June 27, 2016, has never been adequately explained. The then-attorney general’s story that the two had crossed paths by accident never passed the laugh test.
On Sunday, The Washington Times reported that Clinton himself told investigators he only went to see Lynch on her Justice Department airplane because he did not want to be rude when he found out the two were parked at the same facility.
That doesn’t seem likely, to put it mildly.
What seems very possible, though, is that Lynch was keenly interested in keeping her job as the attorney general. And that Bill Clinton was interested in sounding her out about how much control she was exercising over the investigation into Hillary Clinton. Bill Clinton might have been in a position to guarantee Lynch would stay on as attorney general if Hillary won the election — or remind Lynch of a guarantee already made.
Does the still-classified section of the IG report hold proof that Lynch was willing to keep the FBI from going “too far” in investigating Hillary?
Democrats and the liberal media have been claiming – ludicrously – that Horowitz’s damning report actually cleared the FBI. It actually exposed the agency as filled with bias, staffed by agents who thought nothing of using the bureau’s awesome powers to try to rig a presidential election.
That was bad enough. But the biggest shoe might still be waiting to drop.
Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers’ newsfeeds and is instead promoting mainstream media sources. When you share to your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you.
Everyone Associated With Hillary Clinton Is A Liar.
The Justice Department inspector general report released Friday revealed more personal messages between FBI agents working on the Clinton email probe that suggest a cooked outcome.
The report released new messages from an FBI agent who was one of four case officers handling the “day-to-day” activities of the investigation, and one of two FBI agents who interviewed Clinton.
In one exchange in February 2016, the FBI agent, identified only as “Agent 1,” talked to another FBI employee about interviewing Hillary Clinton’s personal IT staffer. The FBI employee asked how the interview went.
Agent 1 replied: “Awesome. Lied his ass off.”
He continued: “Went from never inside the scif [sensitive compartmented information facility] at [Clinton’s residence], to looked in when it was being constructed, to remove the trash twice, to troubleshot the secure fax with HRC a couple times, to everytime there was a secure fax i did it with HRC. Ridic,”
Lying to investigators is a federal crime, one that former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn is being charged with, as well as former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos. However, the FBI employee joked it “would be funny” if the guy was charged.
The FBI employee replied: “would be funny if he was the only guy charged n this deal.”
Agent 1 responded that even though he lied, “aint noone gonna do s–t.”
He wrote: “I know. For 1001. Even if he said the truth and didnt have a clearance when handling the secure fax — aint noone gonna do s–t”
The report revealed other exchanges that revealed Agent 1’s belief that the outcome of the probe was cooked, in text messages he sent to a fellow FBI agent on the case with whom he was also involved in a relationship.
He advocated against even interviewing Clinton. “We have nothing—shouldn’t even be interviewing”
He also messaged: “My god … I’m actually starting to have embarrassment sprinkled on my disappointment. … Ever been forced to do something you adamantly opposed.”
In a later message, he wrote: “done interviewing the president” in reference to Clinton.
Agent 5 sent a message to him on February 9, 2016, complaining about the investigative work she was being given. He wrote her back:
“Yeah, I hear you. You guys have a shitty task, in a shitty environment. To look for something conjured in a place where you cant find it, for a case that doesnt matter and is predestined.”
On election day, he sent her, “You should know; … that I’m … with her.”
He also called the investigation “the most meaningless thing I’ve ever done,” a “continued waste of resources and time and focus.”
“Its just so obvious how pointless this exercise is …” he wrote.
He later told inspector general investigators that he was “embarrassed” his messages were read and denied it affected his actions in the investigation.
“You know, guys, I just, I think this was primarily used as a personal conversation venting mode for me. I’m embarrassed for it,” he said.
FIVE ANTI-TRUMP FBI OFFICIALS REFERRED FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION OVER PRIVATE MESSAGES
Five FBI officials, including Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, have been referred to the bureau for possible disciplinary action over anti-Trump text messages.
In addition to Strzok and Page, the three other officials referred for disciplinary action are two FBI agents and an attorney who worked on the special counsel’s Russia investigation. The investigation will focus on whether the employees violated the FBI’s Offense Codes and Penalty Guidelines.
“The conduct of the five FBI employees … has brought discredit to themselves, sowed doubt about the FBI’s handling of the Midyear investigation, and impacted the reputation of the FBI,” reads the report.
“In its review of collected materials, the OIG found that several FBI employees had exchanged text messages, instant messages, or both, that included political statements hostile to or favoring particular candidates, and appeared to mix political opinion with discussions” about the Hillary Clinton email probe.
Anti-Trump exchanges between Strzok and Page have been well documented. The pair, who were having an extramarital affair, frequently criticized Trump while they were both working on the FBI’s Russia investigation.
“F Trump,” Page, an FBI attorney, wrote in one message to Strzok, the bureau’s deputy chief of counterintelligence.
Strzok was removed from the special counsel’s investigation last July after the OIG discovered the messages.
Thursday’s report reveals for the first time that three other FBI officials exchanged anti-Trump and pro-Clinton messages. One FBI lawyer who worked on the Clinton investigation and served as the bureau’s top attorney on the Russia probe said he felt “numb” by Trump’s November 2016 election win.
And on Nov. 22, 2016, he wrote “Viva le Resistance” when asked about Trump.
The lawyer, who has not been identified, joined Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team last May but left in late February 2018 after the OIG revealed the private messages.
The OIG report also flags messages exchanged between two agents referred to as “Agent 1” and “Agent 5.” Both worked on the Clinton investigation but not on the Trump-Russia probe.
Agent 1 was one of the agents who, along with Strzok, interviewed Hillary Clinton in July 2016.
“I’m done interviewing the President,” the agent wrote, referring jokingly to then-candidate Clinton.
In another exchange, the agent wrote that they were “Not sure if Trump or the [FBI’s] fifth floor is worse.”
Agent 5 responded “I’m so sick of both.”
The agents also suggested in text messages on Election Day that there would be riots if Trump defeated Clinton.
“You think HRC is gonna win right? You think we should get nails and some boards in case she doesnt,” Agent 1 wrote.
“She better win… otherwise i’m gonna be walking around with both of my guns,” Agent 5 responded.
Though the OIG, led by Michael Horowitz, blasted the FBI officials over the messages, the agency said it “found no evidence to connect the political views expressed by these employees with the specific investigative decisions” in the Clinton email probe.
The report did not assess whether Strzok, Page or the other agents displayed bias that affected their work on the Trump-Russia investigation.
Internet Responds To Hillary’s Three Word Fit At James Comey
Hillary Clinton threw an absolute fit when it was revealed in the IG report that James Comey had himself had a private email with which he had conducted some business.
It got over a half a million likes and was cheered by many on the left. Despite the fact that it basically amounts to a “he did it too!” which doesn’t excuse her. Not to mention what she did was far worse because she created a private server specifically to avoid government oversight of her emails, she sent and received classified emails, she exposed the server to attack and it was in fact breached with secret info taken by foreign actors, and she wiped the server and her assistants destroyed their phones.
