Straight to the Point | The Case Against Comey

Investigative reporter Catherine Herridge presents evidence and interviews with former FBI agents alleging serious misconduct by senior FBI leadership (especially former Director James Comey) in multiple Trump-related investigations (Crossfire Hurricane, Mar-a-Lago, Jan 6, Carter Page FISA, etc.).

(Transcribed by TurboScribe.ai. Go Unlimited to remove this message.)

This week with the future of the criminal case against former FBI Director James Comey in question, we take a closer look at the evidence, including the discovery of burn bags at FBI headquarters containing sensitive records about the Trump investigations. I reached out to my network of contacts and spoke with six former FBI agents. Between them, they have more than nine decades of law enforcement experience.

We're digging into these records and the FBI probe codenamed Arctic Frost and more. So let's get straight to the point. Did the FBI do these investigations by the book? No.

No question. No question. These FBI records about the burn bags came to light during the criminal prosecution of former FBI Director James Comey.

These burn bags contained records from Mar-a-Lago, January 6th, and the FBI Russia probe. Someone has access to those different cases, a very limited source. So limited source or a very senior person.

Right. Is the fact that there was an investigator level briefing for journalists at the New York Times? That is highly, if it's not illegal, I don't know what it is. What would happen to you as an FBI agent if you used a special government employee to pass on information to the press? I would be fired and brought up on criminal charges.

Absolutely. I've seen people brought up on criminal charges for way less than that. The original referral from the CIA about intelligence related to the 2016 election was found in a storage closet adjacent to the FBI director's office.

Interesting. Interesting? The CIA warns the FBI and then at the same time they're applying to the National Security Court using information, which is opposition research. Right.

It's very coordinated to me. When you have intelligence community, plus the DOJ, plus the FBI, you can ruin somebody's life by just open investigation on them. Did the FBI do these investigations by the book? Yes or no? No.

No question? No question. We sat down with Andy Lim, who spent two decades with the FBI, doing violent and organized crime as well as terrorism. These FBI records about the burn bags came to light during the criminal prosecution of former FBI director James Comey.

These records show the burn bags were identified at FBI headquarters in room 9582. You worked at headquarters. Where is room 9582? It's on the ninth floor.

Based on these records, do you believe the FBI knows who put those burn bags in the room? They could because if you have access control and you keep the log, you can tell who's been to that room. You can look at the period you think the burn bag might be put in there. Kind of a small group of people, probably.

Small group of people. Did the FBI do these investigations by the book, yes or no? No. No question in your mind? No, there's no question in my mind because investigations aren't typically carried out by executives in the FBI.

They're carried out by agents and supervisors and squads. Former FBI agent Jonathan Gilliam also went on the record about the burn bags and what he describes as irregularities. It confirms that there are records related to Mar-a-Lago, January 6th, and the Crossfire hurricane probe.

As a trained investigator, what does that tell you? It tells me that somebody was doing a sweep and putting things in these burn bags that didn't follow the standard and usual process that you would see. I want to drill down a little deeper into the records. It says that these burn bags contained records from Mar-a-Lago, January 6th, and the FBI Russia probe codenamed Crossfire Hurricane.

What do you make of that? Well, it looks like someone has access to those different cases. So I would say it comes from probably a very limited source. So a limited source or a very senior person? Right.

So this is unusual. This is not routine. It is.

It's not routine. Is there anything else that stands out about the burn bag records? It's interesting to me that why people did not destroy it. And to me, it seemed like it's either the person knows that it's a serious offense and they don't want to be a criminal, or they want to let whoever came behind to see the records.

So that this was wrong, and they want to remain anonymous. So they want to just put it out, put it somewhere so that somebody can discover it. It's possible a whistleblower or FBI employee wanted to preserve these records so that the Trump administration could tackle it.

Right. Could be. I don't know the motive, obviously.

The records also say that the original referral from the CIA about intelligence related to the 2016 election was found in a storage closet adjacent to the FBI director's office. Interesting. Interesting? How many people would have access to that storage closet? Well, as you know, the director is on the seventh floor, and the seventh floor is basically all the senior leadership there.

Why would a record as sensitive as a CIA referral be in a storage closet? It could possibly that the person put it there know that destroying records, official records, is a crime. You're saying whoever put the record there may have been worried about the criminal consequences of destroying government records versus, oops, I lost it. Right.

Yeah. Or misplaced it somewhere. Or misplaced it.

I went back and tried to connect the dots, and I found a CIA referral that was declassified, as I recall, by John Radcliffe, who's now the CIA director, but at the time was the director of national intelligence. And then what it says here is it's talking about intelligence that's been picked up about a Hillary Clinton campaign plan relating to President Trump and portraying him as a puppet of Russia. Right.

Is a CIA referral the kind of document that would be on very close hold? I would say so, because this is probably very, very sensitive, and I wouldn't be surprised that it's a limited distribution. Limited distribution. This record says it was missing for several years.

You're smiling when I say this. Why are you smiling? Well, because, you know, the Bureau, we don't misplace records very often. Gilliam believes a very limited number of FBI personnel, such as then director James Comey, had access to the CIA referral.

Well, it seems like national security information. And if that's the case, it had to do with Russian hackers. That is not information that you would just want to be out.

It would also be a secret compartmentalized information, most likely that only certain people would be allowed to have or handle that information. And that narrows it down even further as to who could have had possession of that. To be clear, you've never seen anything like this in the 20 years you worked at the FBI? No.

Like I say, you know, if I need to dispose of the document, I would just shred it personally. I wouldn't even have somebody do it for me. Yeah, it's a very, it's very odd.

There's another set of records here. This is an FBI leak investigation called Arctic Haze. It's a leak investigation into a New York Times story.

The New York Times story profiled director Comey's handling of the Clinton email investigation and the controversial decisions that he made. Is the fact that there was an investigator-level briefing for journalists at the New York Times about the Clinton case? That is highly, you know, if it's not illegal, I don't know what it is. It's not by the book? It's not by the book.

The Arctic Haze records also confirm Comey's Columbia Law School professor was a so-called special government employee at the Bureau. To be clear, you've never known a senior leader within the FBI to use a special government employee to pass along information to the media, as James Comey apparently did with his Columbia Law professor? I've never seen it from my level. I've never heard of such a thing.

So it's unusual, again, falling right in line with everything else. What would happen to you as an FBI agent if you used a special government employee to pass on information to the press? If I went out and gave the media information that was classified or had to do with the case, I would be fired and brought up on criminal charges. Absolutely.

I've seen people brought up on criminal charges for way less than that. And the Bureau does not play when it comes to its investigators who break the rules and policies and laws. The FISA court or the National Security Court is a very, very small court.

Most Americans don't know a lot about it. But in this case, the FBI, under Director Comey, went to the National Security Court and said, we want to have surveillance warrants on this Trump campaign, H. Carter Page. The application for the surveillance, it's citing a news article and a Western intelligence source.

Have you ever seen a surveillance application that cites a news story? No. When I did my FISA in the terrorism cases, the only information that I use to support my applications are intelligence community intelligence report or third country intelligence report. I never use a news article because, as you know, news article does not go through any kind of vetting.

That crosses a lot of red lines as an investigator. Right. I mean, that's not evidence.

I just made it up. You have kind of a look of shock on your face about it. Yeah.

It's shocking to me that somebody can do something like that. Another thing too, I think the first FISA application on Carter Page is signed by Director Comey. So in my 20 some odd years as a special agent working cases, I never heard a case being signed by the director, the application, affidavit signed by the director.

Why is it significant to you that Director Comey signed this surveillance application? It could be, in my opinion, influence the judge and say, hey, this comes from not just anybody, but from the director. So you need to green light it. Yeah.

That to me, that's what it seemed to me. I don't know. But it's very significant.

It is to me. I've never seen a director signing an affidavit before. It just seems to me, I'm not a trained investigator like you, but what it looks like, the CIA warns the FBI in September of 2016 that there may be an op going on.

They need to kind of be aware. And then at the same time, they're applying to the National Security Court using information, which is opposition research. It's very coordinated to me.

And that's why I think it's also in public domain that DNI Clapper tried to get everybody on the same sheet of music. I have a Clapper email right here. This was sent in December of 2016.

And he goes on to say, this one project has to be a team sport. So- It's coordination, sorry. Right.

We need to all be on the same page. Right. The head of the NSA, Admiral Mike Rogers, he pushes back.

Right. It's very clear. He basically say, I have not seen the intelligence that we should change our assessment, right? I mean, initially they have assessments that say the Russian has nothing to do with it.

They're not trying to change the vote. That was the initial assessment. And I think Admiral Rogers is saying, hey, if you want to change to different assessment, my people and my team does not have the information, the underlying intelligence to support that claim.

You have experience in law enforcement and you have experience in the intelligence community. What would it take for the head of the National Security Agency, Admiral Rogers, to push back against the other agencies? I think it took a lot of courage from Admiral Rogers, because he basically telling his boss he's disagree with. There's another email that I wanted to get your assessment of.

In January of 2017, it was sent by then National Security Advisor Susan Rice to herself. It documents a White House meeting with President Obama and others about Russia and President Trump. And she says, President Obama emphasized that things must be done by the book.

And then she says, Director Comey affirmed that he's proceeding by the book. What do you make of this email? I don't know about you or anybody else, but I'm not in the habit of sending an email to myself. As a trained investigator, is this evidence of consciousness of guilt behavior, that things were not being done by the book? Because then you can point to the email and say, we all talk about doing things by the book.

And I even have an email to prove it to you. It makes no sense to me that someone would do something like that. It's very unusual.

A lot of unusual stuff. That's kind of the theme. Everything seems irregular.

Is that a fair assessment? I would say so. I would say so. I also have here some of the Arctic Frost records.

As you know, whistleblowers have come forward with records from an FBI case codenamed Arctic Frost. It laid the foundation for special counsel Jack Smith's electors case against President Trump. Based on the records, nearly 200 subpoenas were issued.

They got something called toll records. For a layperson, what are toll records? Toll records are basically metadata that your phone, the phone company has. The phone company can tell when you use that phone, who do you call, how long the call lasts.

Even location. Yes. Where the call was placed.

You would have metadata from the receiver of the call as well. You know where that person is too. There's a conventional narrative, a mainstream narrative, that toll records are not very intrusive or revealing.

Is that accurate? No. I would disagree with that. As I said, if I don't have enough predication to move on to a full investigation, what I usually do, because getting a toll record, you know, the standard is not very high to me.

I can just ask for the toll records, and then I can connect it up between my subject and who else that person's talking to. From the analysis of the toll record, you can get a pretty good picture of how often they talk, how long do they talk, when do they talk. As you know, do you talk on the weekend, during working hours, after hours, you know, how late in the night they talk.

As someone who has devoted their life to public service in the FBI and law enforcement, how do you feel about that? I'm very concerned because, as you know, I think me in particular, having working from the inside, know how powerful the FBI is, right? And you should look at my credential. I have the authority to collect evidence and to arrest people. These are very, very serious authority that we have.

And, you know, you can ruin somebody's life by just open investigation on them. Whatever your politics, it appears to be a terrible misuse of government power. I think so.

You know, I mean, especially when you have the intelligence community, plus the DOJ, plus the FBI, right? I mean, that's a tremendous amount of power that's being applied. I've worked in Washington, D.C. for more than two decades. I came here in October of 2001 after the 9-11 terrorist attacks.

I have a fairly robust network of law enforcement and national security contacts, and I wanted to share some of that expertise with you. So you have more information, you can make informed decisions and judgments about the mainstream narrative that the FBI probes into President Trump were done by the book. We'll see you next time on Straight to the Point.

(Transcribed by TurboScribe.ai. Go Unlimited to remove this message.)

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.