Posted on 06/01/2019 3:29:24 PM PDT by ransomnote
Full Title: This Republican Has An Idea About The Identity Of The Senior FBI Official Who Was Leaking Confidential Material
Republican Congressman Doug Collins (R-GA), the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, wants to know whom the identity of the senior FBI official who was leaking confidential information to the media. Katie wrote about the Department of Justice Inspector General’s report on the matter, where it said a deputy assistant director at the FBI illegally disclosed sealed court material to the press. The person in question received gifts from the media in return. The person was never charged:
The OIG investigation concluded that the DAD engaged in misconduct when the DAD: (1) disclosed to the media the existence of information that had been filed under seal in federal court, in violation of 18 USC § 401, Contempt of Court; (2) provided without authorization FBI law enforcement sensitive information to reporters on multiple occasions; and (3) had dozens of official contacts with the media without authorization, in violation of FBI policy," OIG released in an investigative summary. "The OIG also found that the DAD engaged in misconduct when the DAD accepted a ticket, valued at approximately $225, to attend a media-sponsored dinner, as a gift from a member of the media, in violation of federal regulations and FBI policy."
OIG opened an investigation after receiving a number of tips the DAD was illegally leaking information the media and accepting gifts.
Katie laid out the breadcrumbs as well. Fired FBI Peter Strzok, who reportedly was a key player in the Hillary Clinton email probe and signed off on the FBI’s counterintelligence probe that eventually became the probe helmed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, is listed as being the Deputy Assistant Director of the Espionage Section in September of 2016. In fact, he’s the only name that appears next to that title in the report.
Rep. Collins laid out his reasoning why he thinks definitively that Strzok is the individual in question, writing to DOJ IG Michael Horowitz (via Washington Examiner):
Rep. Doug Collins, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, wrote letters to Attorney General William Barr and Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz on Thursday with questions about the DOJ watchdog's investigation into FBI misconduct.
In his letter to Horowitz, Collins asked about a one-page report released on Wednesday that found a now-former FBI deputy assistant director “engaged in misconduct” by disclosing information to the media that had been filed under seal in federal court, maintaining dozens of unauthorized contacts with reporters, and accepting a $225 ticket from a member of the media to attend a dinner sponsored by the media.
[…]
"While the DAD is not named in the Summary, there are several indications the DAD in question is former FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok," Collins said. "For example, the 2018 Report noted, 'Peter Strzok is an experienced counterintelligence agent who was promoted to Deputy Assistant Director (DAD) of the Espionage Section in September 2016.' The 2018 Report also said, '[m]ost troubling, on October 29, 2016, Strzok forwarded from his FBI account to his personal email account an email about the proposed search warrant the Midyear team was seeking on the Weiner laptop. This email included a draft of the search warrant affidavit, which contained information from the Weiner investigation that appears to have been under seal at the time in the Southern District of New York . . .'"
Collins asked Horowitz if Strzok is the individual referenced in the report and pressed the inspector general and Barr on whether prosecution was declined. Despite the FBI official's violations of bureau policy, the inspector general said “prosecution of the [deputy assistant director] was declined" and the matter was being referred to the FBI for "appropriate action."
Strzok and his mistress, former bureau lawyer Lisa Page, are at the epicenter of the allegations of bias and misconduct at the FBI over the 2016 election. The two shared tens of thousands of texts that exhibited the worst professional form from the FBI. They were anti-Trump and meant exactly what they said; Strzok tried to pass on that there was no bias in these communications and that they showed his patriotism. They discussed an “insurance policy” with disgraced ex-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who Katie also noted leaked to the press and lied under oath about it. His conduct has been referred to for criminal prosecution. That “insurance policy” is reportedly the Trump dossier, an unverified piece of political opposition research that was funded by the Democrats, which was used to secure a FISA spy warrant against Trump foreign policy adviser Carter Page. Alas, the FISA abuse allegations stemming from Spygate.
“Who gives a flying fig anymore?
No one will ever be charged and certainly no one of any significance.
This whole sordid affair nothing more than grist for the mill.”
************************************************************
I’m afraid I agree. I believe Barr is going to straddle the fence, and fool the right into thinking he’s really, really trying. He’ll keep his ear to the ground to make sure how he’s coming along on that front. The media would erupt if things got out of hand.
The media protects the Swamp, so like the Hillary crime fest, the media will ensure not one of the “good guys” see a day of prison time. The only ones the media will allow to serve time are on Trumps side.
This is Barr’s second stint as AG. He’s not there to burnish his resume for a higher paying private sector gig. He took a huge pay cut to become AG yet again. This is his last gig. This excerpt from Barr’s CBS interview suggests that he is not particularly concerned about his reputation, going forward:
WILLIAM BARR: Well in a way I did expect it.
JAN CRAWFORD: You did?
WILLIAM BARR: Yeah, because I realize we live in a crazy hyper-partisan period of time and I knew that it would only be a matter of time if I was behaving responsibly and calling them as I see them, that I would be attacked because nowadays people don’t care about the merits and the substance. They only care about who it helps, who benefits, whether my side benefits or the other side benefits, everything is gauged by politics. And as I say, that’s antithetical to the way the department runs and any attorney general in this period is going to end up losing a lot of political capital and I realize that and that is one of the reasons that I ultimately was persuaded that I should take it on because I think at my stage in life it really doesn’t make any difference.
JAN CRAWFORD: You are at the end of your career, or?
WILLIAM BARR: I am at the end of my career. I’ve you know—
JAN CRAWFORD: Does it, I mean, it’s the reputation that you have worked your whole life on though?
WILLIAM BARR: Yeah, but everyone dies and I am not, you know, I don’t believe in the Homeric idea that you know, immortality comes by, you know, having odes sung about you over the centuries, you know?
JAN CRAWFORD: So you don’t regret taking the job?
WILLIAM BARR: No.
JAN CRAWFORD: Not even today?
WILLIAM BARR: I’d rather, in many ways, I’d rather be back to my old life but I think that I love the Department of Justice, I love the FBI, I think it’s important that we not, in this period of intense partisan feeling, destroy our institutions. I think one of the ironies today is that people are saying that it’s President Trump that’s shredding our institutions. I really see no evidence of that, it is hard, and I really haven’t seen bill of particulars as to how that’s being done. From my perspective the idea of resisting a democratically elected president and basically throwing everything at him and you know, really changing the norms on the grounds that we have to stop this president, that is where the shredding of our norms and our institutions is occurring.
JAN CRAWFORD: And you think that happened even with the investigation into the campaign, potentially?
WILLIAM BARR: I am concerned about that.]
They told us Comey was a ‘strait shooter’, that was BS.
They told us Mueller was the ‘gold standard’, that was BS.
They told us men & women are ‘equal’, that was BS.
Seems they tell us stuff they ‘need’ us to believe because simple observation proves ‘them’ wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.