About that July FBI Hillary Interview

The FBI released a summary of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s July 2, 2016 interview with the FBI concerning allegations that classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on a personal e-mail server she used during her tenure. We also are releasing a factual summary of the FBI’s investigation into this matter. We are making these materials available to the public in the interest of transparency and in response to numerous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Appropriate redactions have been made for classified information or other material exempt from disclosure under FOIA.

 

Hillary Clinton Emails FBI Report OCR by LawNewz on Scribd

There is a lot here but also know that many pages have full redactions. Parts 1-16 can be found here.

Accompanying Mrs. Clinton into the meeting were her lawyer David E. Kendall; Cheryl D. Mills and Heather Samuelson, longtime aides who are also lawyers; and two lawyers from Mr. Kendall’s firm, Williams & Connolly, Katherine Turner and Amy Saharia. Eight officials from the F.B.I. and the Department of Justice conducted the interview, according to a person who was familiar with the substance of the session but declined to be named because the meeting was private. We do know however that Peter Stzrok was in attendance in the lead in the interview.

The campaign has prioritized assisting the F.B.I., but it declined to cooperate with a State Department inspector general’s audit of Mrs. Clinton’s email practices.

Those findings, delivered to members of Congress in May, undermined some of Mrs. Clinton’s initial statements defending her use of the server.

The report said there was “no evidence” that she had requested or received approval for the server, despite having “an obligation to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business.”

Federal law deems it a crime to “knowingly” mishandle classified information outside secure government channels or to permit the practice through “gross negligence.”

The week prior to this FBI interview, was the time that Bill Clinton met Loretta Lynch on the tarmac at the Phoenix airport.

***  Image result for peter strzok Peter Strzok

Peter Strzok, also worked with FBI director James Comey on the Clinton email investigation. In fact, he was so deeply involved in the Clinton investigation that he is said to have interviewed Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, and to have been present when the FBI interviewed Clinton. According to CNN, he was part of the team responsible for altering the FBI’s conclusion that Clinton was “grossly negligent” in handling classified emails (a finding that could have triggered criminal liability) to “extremely careless” — a determination that allowed her to escape prosecution entirely.

*** We all know that the Russians not only intruded and continue to intrude into our political process as noted by the fake accounts and the bot operations in social media, such is the case in many foreign nations allied with the United States. Mueller’s investigative operation while countless Republicans and conservatives want the process terminated, it should be argued that these two FBI agents at a minimum were attempting to affect the election outcome significantly more than what Russia attempted to do. Let that sink in for a moment or two.

Much like the work of an inspector general, the Mueller team will recommend cases for prosecution which has already happened, however, there will be recommendations going forward to further examine the money trail, the people, the activities and further the intrusions such that going into the mid-term elections and into the general election in 2020, the United States is much more aware and possibly prepared to ward off any outside interference.

We also cannot forget John Podesta as a major player. If was completely honest and candid the first time, he would not have had to make a second appearance.

The House Intelligence Committee on Monday afternoon interviewed John Podesta in a return appearance for the former Clinton campaign chairman, according to Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas).

The committee was “following up on questions we had as a result of subsequent revelations with respect to Fusion and Glenn Simpson,” Conaway said, an apparent reference to the recent disclosure that Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) helped fund a controversial dossier of opposition research into then-candidate Donald Trump.

Podesta “answered all our questions,” Conaway said, but declined to comment further.

Podesta has, in the past, been of interest to the committee over the hack of his personal email account by suspected Russian operatives.

*** Meanwhile, the former Podesta Group appears to have a new name and some new and old players.

Two more former lobbyists from the Podesta Group are striking out on their own after Tony Podesta’s firm imploded last month.

The lobbyists, Oscar Ramirez and Dana Thompson, are teaming up with Josh Lamel, who recently left BGR Group, to start InSight Public Affairs.

Ramirez and Thompson had originally planned to join Cogent Strategies, the new firm that the Podesta Group’s longtime Chief Executive Kimberley Fritts started last month. Their pictures were included on the firm’s website when it launched.

“From a client-service perspective and an everyday work perspective, it seemed natural” to join Cogent, Thompson said in an interview on Friday.

But Thompson and Ramirez continued to consider their next moves in the wake of the Podesta Group’s collapse and decided they’d rather start a firm of their own. They teamed with Lamel, who had left the BGR Group, a top Washington lobbying firm, in October with plans to open a shop of his own.

While many former Podesta Group staffers have joined Cogent, others have scattered to other lobbying firms or started their own shops. Those who have opted to strike out on their own include Paul Brathwaite, who launched Federal Street Strategies, and Josh Lahey, who teamed up with Colin Hayes, a former Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee staff director, to start Lot Sixteen.

InSight Public Affairs will do lobbying and other public affairs work for a variety of clients with a focus on the tech and telecommunications sectors. “A large chunk of our business is going to be working with clients that are part of the innovation economy,” Ramirez said, including the clean energy industry, tech startups and financial and educational technology firms.

Around and around we go….

 

Shame on FBI’er Peter Strzok, Fail!

The FBI agent who was kicked off of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia team over the summer for sending pro-Clinton and anti-Trump text messages took part in the Jan. 24 interview with then-national security adviser Michael Flynn, it was reported on Monday.

Peter Strzok, a former FBI section chief in the bureau’s counterintelligence division, conducted the interview of Flynn at the White House, according to Circa reporter Sara Carter.

Flynn pleaded guilty on Friday to lying to the FBI during that interview. He acknowledged giving false statements about conversations he had with Russia’s ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the presidential transition period. More here.

*** Image result for peter strzok lisa page photo

Peter Stzrok reviewed and cleared the Anthony Weiner-Huma Abedin emails in RECORD TIME before the election and said he FOUND NOTHING. A source familiar with FBI supervisory agent Peter Stzrok’s involvement in the Hillary Clinton server investigation confirmed CNN’s report that he changed ‘grossly negligent’ to ‘extremely careless.

FBI Agent Strzok was also involved part of review over Abedin/Weiners emails found with classified information and data. He was also connected with the dossier.

It is important to understand there is a high probability that he and Andrew McCabe coordinated all the investigations and made recommendations of which Director Comey accepted without challenge. Can it be that the Clinton operation actually coordinated all the associated investigations due to the fact that Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s wife, Jill,  was very close to Terry McAuliffe including an estimated $700,000 in campaign funds for the wife to run for a local political run in Virginia?

McAuliffe, who chaired Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid, said that despite the loss, he is ready to work with president-elect Donald Trump. He said he sent Trump a congratulatory letter the day after the election, and looks forward to Trump’s plans to improve the nation’s infrastructure.

Clinton and McAuliffe have had long and closely entwined careers. McAuliffe put up $1.35 million as collateral on Clinton’s mortgage to buy their home in Chappaqua, N.Y. The Clintons, in turn, have provided McAuliffe a large network for his business and political enterprises.

***

All kinds of Hillary bundlers donated to Jill McCabe’s campaign, people inside the Hillary campaign itself including power positions. Check out the names and amounts here.

Now an Inspector General is reviewing the whole matter of Peter Stzrok and that report is estimated for release in March of 2018.

TheHill: A government watchdog confirmed Saturday that it is reviewing allegations involving agency officials amid reports that special counsel Robert Mueller’s team removed an FBI agent after an investigation into the agent potentially sending anti-Trump text messages.

The Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) indicated that its probe into the communications of agency officials is part of the watchdog’s larger review of the FBI’s actions before and after the 2016 presidential election.

“The OIG has been reviewing allegations involving communications between certain individuals, and will report its findings regarding those allegations promptly upon completion of the review of them,” the OIG said in a statement.

The OIG said its review comes as a result of its January 2017 statement that it would look into actions by the Justice Department and FBI in its handling of the investigations during the 2016 election.

In the statement, the watchdog said it had set out to “consider whether certain underlying investigative decisions were based on improper considerations and that we also would include issues that might arise during the course of the review.”

Mueller’s investigation saw its most dramatic turn yet on Friday, when Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his communications with Russian officials that took place during the presidential transition.

 

Why Not Release the Files on Historical Govt Scandals

We almost got ‘all’ the documents declassified and released on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Even so, many of the pages had redactions. The true reason as to why remains fleeting.

So, what other files of historical federal or political scandals should be released?

How about the ATF gunwalking scandal?

The IRS targeting scandal maybe?

The Obama/Blagojevich pay to play case?

What about all the details behind who invaded Sharyl Attkisson’s computer?

Do we know everything about Tony Rezko?

Oh, how about the Iran-Contra Affair?

Old enough to remember the Savings and Loan Scandal?

Image result for savings and loan scandal thousands of banks

Maybe the Abscam case perhaps?

Ah yes, after many books, what about Watergate and Deep Throat?

Ted Kennedy and Chappaquiddick?

Image result for kennedy chappaquiddick

Each day brings us a little more detail on constant scandals or corruption within the Federal government. What is to be learned from declassification and full release is detail bringing American citizens closer to understanding the wider and deeper scale of lies, coverups and just where we can assume always we only get snippets of truth, where context is fleeting.

So, what about that pesky full release of Jeffrey Epstein and the Lolita Express? Do we even have a full understanding of cyber attacks?

No dynasty is more filled with scandal than the Clinton machine. Benghazi, the secret server Huma Abedin or the Clinton Foundation are just part of that list. You know there are many deaths associated with that name as well as corruption but remember the Whitewater scandal?

The nation’s second-most powerful court sided with the government Friday in its decision not to release draft indictments prepared against Hillary Clinton during the Whitewater scandal of the mid-1990s.

A unanimous three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said the conservative group Judicial Watch failed to show “exception interests” that would warrant disclosure of the documents.

The watchdog group filed a Freedom of Information Act Request with the National Archives and Records Administration in 2015 for two draft indictments that reportedly arose from the Office of Independent Counsel investigation into the Clinton’s real estate investments in Arkansas and contributions made to the real estate entity Whitewater Development Corporation.

Judicial Watch claims the indictments show Clinton’s involvement in alleged fraudulent transactions.

But the National Archives denied their request and said Clinton’s privacy interests outweigh the public’s interest in the matter.

In fighting the agency’s decision, Judicial Watch argued that Clinton’s privacy interests are minimal given her previous positions as first lady, United States senator and then secretary of State.

Judge Judith Rogers disagreed.

“As indicated during oral argument, it is difficult to imagine circumstances where a draft indictment could ever be disclosed without seriously infringing an individual’s privacy interest,” she wrote in affirming the lower court’s decision to keep the documents concealed.

“Having never been formally ‘accused of criminal conduct’ by the Independent Counsel, Mrs. Clinton, no less than an individual who has been charged but not convicted, is ‘entitled to move on with her life without having the public reminded of her alleged but never proven transgressions.’”

***

There are a mere 23 pages that are in dispute under the secret protection by the National Archives and Records Administration where a lawsuit was brought by Judicial Watch. Timing is everything, the lawsuit was filed in October of 2015….ah interesting, the early part of the presidential campaign season…hummm.

What Federal scandal files do you want to have access to without the redactions? There are always more explosive details that have remained secret on cases. We need to further understand all the players, the timelines and most especially the context.

 

DoJ Issues an Arrest Warrant of Jose Zarate, Steinle’s Killer

The Department of Justice issued an arrest warrant in the U.S. District Court in Texas for Jose Garcia Zarate for a supervised release violation.

Image result for jose zarate photo

His original criminal complaint filed in May of 2016, shows that Zarate’s criminal history in the United States goes back to 1993.

San Francisco owns this, meanwhile:

The San Francisco Superior Court knew this case would be such a big event, they issued a MEDIA GUIDE.

Zarate was acquitted of first and second degree murder, involuntary manslaughter and found not guilty of an assault with a weapon. He was only guilty of possessing a firearm by a felon.

Now under the Department of Justice, ICE will take custody of of Mr. Garcia where U.S. Marshals will transport him under the arrest warrant pursuant to the Western District of Texas. This arrest warrant was originally issued in 2015 and has been amended since that time with additional charges.

Image result for kate steinle photo

While we grieve for Kate and her family:

The timeline since he was acquitted for the murder of Kate Steinle:

SAN FRANCISCO — Latest on the trial of a Mexican man in a killing on a San Francisco pier (all times local):

1:45 p.m.

A federal judge in Texas has unsealed an arrest warrant for the Mexican man found not guilty of killing a woman on a San Francisco pier.

U.S. District Judge Alia Moses unsealed the warrant for Jose Ines Garcia Zarate on Friday. It was issued in July 2015 after Garcia Zarate was arrested in the slaying of Kate Steinle days earlier on a San Francisco pier.

Garcia Zarate had been convicted in federal court of illegally re-entering the U.S. and was on supervised release at the time of Steinle’s slaying. Federal officials allege the Steinle shooting violated the terms of his supervision.

The Justice Department has said it will look at possible illegal re-entry and/or violation of supervised release charges against Garcia Zarate after jurors in San Francisco acquitted him of murder in Steinle’s shooting.

12:15 p.m.

The office of Mayor Ed Lee issued a statement that San Francisco is and always will be a “Sanctuary City” as thousands of Twitter users bashed a verdict finding a Mexican man not guilty of killing a woman.

Lee did not elaborate in the statement issued Friday.

Two former city supervisors also defended San Francisco’s sanctuary policy, which prohibits local cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

California state Sen. Scott Wiener says that public safety is improved when people who are in the country illegally can go to police without fear of deportation.

David Campos, who now chairs the San Francisco Democratic Party, said the jury system worked.

Jose Ines Garcia Zarate was released from jail despite a federal immigration detainer request in 2015 and months later, he shot and killed Kate Steinle on a city pier.

9:30 a.m.

The Justice Department is considering bringing federal charges against a Mexican man found not guilty of killing a woman on a San Francisco pier.

Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores tells Fox News that the U.S. Attorney General’s Office is looking at every option to prosecute Jose Ines Garcia Zarate “to the fullest extent available under the law because.”

A Department of Justice official says federal prosecutors will look at possible illegal re-entry and/or violation of supervised release charges.

A San Francisco jury on Thursday found Garcia Zarate not guilty of killing Kate Steinle in a case that touched off a national immigration debate.

Deport Those Chinese Operatives Now

Have you read the newly released book titled ‘Bully of Asia’ by Steven W. Mosher? China is the single largest threat to global stability and Russia and Iran in second and third place.

Have you heard of the Thucydides Trap? China is an ascending power and just who is paying attention? Have you studied the fact that China is a major enabler of North Korea’s aggression behavior including the most recent launch of the intercontinental ballistic missile?

China is a thief. China has dispatched operatives throughout the West under the guise of cultural exchanges, students, temporary workers and journalists. It is all about espionage and cyberwar.

Image result for china spies photo

Hey State Department and DHS, get these operatives outta here. By the way, are there any sanctions on China with regard to PLA Unit 61398?

photo

Have you wondered what happened to that Obama Asia Pivot that he announced in 2011? The United States needs to pivot again and now.

Why?

This Beijing-Linked Billionaire Is Funding Policy Research at Washington’s Most Influential Institutions

The Chinese Communist Party is quietly reshaping public opinion and policy abroad.

FP: The Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), located just a short walk from Dupont Circle in Washington, D.C., is one of the top international relations schools in the United States. Its graduates feed into a variety of government agencies, from the State Department to the CIA, and the military. Its China studies program is especially well known; many graduates come away with expert knowledge of the language, culture, and politics of the United States’ most important strategic competitor.

In August, SAIS announced a new endowed professorship in the China Studies department as well as a new research project called the Pacific Community Initiative, which aims to examine “what China’s broader role in Asia and the world means for its neighbors and partners.”

What the SAIS press release did not say is that the money for the new initiatives came in part from the China-United States Exchange Foundation (CUSEF), a Hong Kong-based nonprofit. CUSEF is a registered foreign agent bankrolled by a high-ranking Chinese government official with close ties to a sprawling Chinese Communist Party apparatus that handles influence operations abroad, known as the “united front.”

The China-U.S. Exchange Foundation’s partnership with a premier U.S. academic institution comes amid a Chinese Communist Party push to strengthen its influence over policy debate around the globe. The Chinese government has sought to repress ideas it doesn’t like and to amplify those it does, and its efforts have met with growing success.

Even as Washington is embroiled in a debate over Russian influence in U.S. elections, it’s China that has proved adept at inserting itself in American politics.

“The Chinese approach to influence operation is a bit different than the Russian one,” said Peter Mattis, a fellow at the Jamestown Foundation. “The Russian one is much more about an operational objective and they work backward from that objective, saying, ‘How do we achieve that?’” But on the Chinese side, Mattis said, “they focus on relationships — and not on the relationships having specific takeaway value, but that someday, some way, those relationships might become valuable.”

The Chinese seek a kind of “ecological change,” he explained. “If they cultivate enough people in the right places, they start to change the debate without having to directly inject their own voice.”

The China-U.S. Exchange Foundation was founded in 2008 by Tung Chee-hwa, a Hong Kong shipping magnate who later served as the chief executive of the former British colony, where he championed the benefits of close ties to Beijing. Tung’s Hong Kong-based nonprofit conducts academic and professional exchanges, bringing U.S. journalists, scholars, and political and military leaders to mainland China. It also has funded research projects at numerous U.S. institutions, including the Brookings Institution, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Atlantic Council, the Center for American Progress, the East-West Institute, the Carter Center, and the Carnegie Endowment for Peace.

Tung’s foundation’s ties to the united front are indirect, but important. Tung currently serves as the vice chairman of one of the united front’s most important entities — the so-called Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, which is one of China’s two rubber-stamp assemblies.

The body is one of Beijing’s most crucial tentacles for extending influence.

In its newest project with SAIS, the foundation describes the Pacific Community Initiative as a “joint research project.” David Lampton, director of the university’s China Studies Program, said in an August press release that the new professor “will also be responsible for running our Pacific Community Initiative and work closely with the China-U.S. Exchange Foundation in Hong Kong.”

Lampton also confirmed that CUSEF funded the new programs. “Both the Initiative and the Professorship were made possible through the support of the China-U.S. Exchange Foundation,” he said in an emailed statement to Foreign Policy.

But he denied that CUSEF had attached any intellectual strings to its funding.

“There are absolutely no conditions or limitations imposed upon the Pacific Community Initiative or our faculty members by reason of a gift or otherwise,” Lampton told FP. “We have full confidence in the academic integrity and independence of these endeavors.”

CUSEF denies it acts as a vehicle for Beijing’s ideological agenda or has “any connections” to the united front. “We do not aim to promote or support the policies of any one government,” wrote a spokesperson for the foundation in an email.

This isn’t the first time SAIS and the foundation have worked together; they co-sponsored a conference on China’s economy in Hong Kong in March 2016, according to the school’s website. But a professorship and a major research project offer an opportunity for broader reach — the kind of global influence that Chinese President Xi Jinping has made a centerpiece of his policies. In October, at the meeting of the Communist Party that sets the national agenda for the next five years, Xi called for an expansion of the party’s overseas influence work, referring to the united front as a “magic weapon” of party power.

That quest to shape the global view of China isn’t the same thing as soft power, said James Leibold, a professor at La Trobe University in Melbourne who researches Chinese influence in Australia, where Beijing’s recent influence operations have sparked a national controversy.

China is an authoritarian state where the Communist Party rules with an iron fist, Leibold said — and that is what Beijing is trying to export.

“What we’re talking about here is not Chinese influence per se, but the influence of the Chinese Communist Party.”

In a joint project like the one at SAIS, that influence can be subtle rather than being heavy-handed, said Jamestown’s Mattis. “It’s the ability to privilege certain views over others, to create a platform for someone to speak,” he said. “When you have a role in selecting the platform and generating what I presume they hope are some of the bigger reports on U.S.-China relations in the next few years, that’s important.”

One goal of the joint research project is, in fact, to “yield a white paper to be submitted for endorsement by both the U.S. and Chinese governments,” a CUSEF spokesperson wrote in an emailed statement to FP.

While CUSEF representatives stress that it is not an agent of the Chinese Communist Party, the foundation has cooperated on projects with the the People’s Liberation Army and uses the same Washington public relations firm that the Chinese Embassy does.

One of those PLA projects is the Sanya Initiative, an exchange program that brings together U.S. and Chinese former high-ranking military leaders. On the Chinese side, the Sanya Initiative is led by a bureau of the PLA that engages in political warfare and influence operations, according to Mark Stokes, executive director of the Project 2049 Institute.

Sometimes the results of such high-level exchanges aren’t subtle. In February 2008, PLA participants in the Sanya Initiative asked their U.S. counterparts to persuade the Pentagon to delay publishing a forthcoming report about China’s military buildup, according to a segment excised from the 2011 annual report of the congressional U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.

The U.S. members complied, though their request was not successful.

Exchanges and partnerships are not CUSEF’s only initiatives. As a registered foreign agent, in 2016 it spent just under $668,000 on lobbying, hiring the Podesta Group and other firms to lobby Congress on the topic of “China-U.S. relations.” The foundation has spent $510,000 on lobbying to date in 2017.

CUSEF also keeps on retainer the consulting and public relations firm BLJ Worldwide LTD, the same firm the Chinese Embassy in the United States uses. According to FARA filings, CUSEF currently pays the firm $29,700 a month to promote the foundation’s work and run a pro-Beijing website called China US Focus.

Whether through websites, partnerships, or endowments, China has learned to wrap its message in a palatable wrapper of U.S. academics and intellectuals, according to Mattis.

“Who better to influence Americans than other Americans?” he said.