By: Vachel Lindsay @_VachelLindsay_ [1]

An extremely interesting letter.

There now THREE separate OIG investigations – (1) the McCabe probe (released today) (2) the ‘election review’ (the big Kahuna) (scheduled for a May release) and (3) the FISC review (release date unknown).


BREAKING: IG Horowitz tells Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman
@ChuckGrassley the IG report on the 2016 Presidential Election, DoJ, and FBI will be released in May (of this year).
READ [3]

The McCabe probe, revealing the SOB to be the corrupt, lying SOB we always knew the SOB was, originated on 27 August, 2017 on a referral from the FBI.

Wray took over as Director of the FBI on 2 August. Those who falsely accuse Wray of being a ‘black hat’, take note. He ISN’T.

The Big Kahuna is now scheduled for a May release. Why?

Horowitz refers to important new information and documentation that ‘recently came to our attention’, leading to interviews.

I’m taking that as ‘recent’ to today (the date of the IG letter). I wonder what the information and documentation might be?

We will now find out in just 2-3 weeks.

The separate FISC investigation is referred to in the footnote on page 1.

Remember, AG Sessions set up a separate DOJ prosecutorial arm, to work in parallel with the OIG’s investigative work, back in 2017.


Huber is the senior prosecutor of a number of DOJ prosecutors, investigating (quote) : “certain issues”…involving the sale of Uranium One and.. unlawful dealings related to the Clinton Foundation.’

We can now add the FISC crimes. No doubt there’s other probes ongoing

I’ve no doubt that Grand Juries were convened months ago, by Sessions’ team of prosecutors. So for those worried about indictments etc, bear in mind that many have probably already been issued (presently under seal).

And that’s the point.

IMO a better way of looking at Sessions investigation/enforcement machine is as a huge dragnet, that swallows up new evidence and bad actors, triages them via the OIG, then refers the relevant crooks for indictment via GJ.

Sessions has built a very powerful ‘justice’ weapon.

That’s why I don’t really concern myself too much with dates. What we are seeing is an unfolding PROCESS, meticulously planned. The Strzok/Page leaks, McCabe report today, what’s coming – it’s a cascading series of bombshells, aimed at taking down the Obama/Clinton crooks.

Team Trump, esp Sessions, has full control over the momentum and pressure.

The hysterical tweets of Obama and Clintons people, as well as the unhinged stories their media slaves are publishing, shows you how much they’re panicking.

They are ALL going down. NO DEALS.

They all thought Crooked Hillary was going to win, didn’t they? Their arrogance will prove to be their undoing, BIGLY.


The McCabe report is the beginning, not the end of the IG report.

The best part of this letter is how this clearly shows that McCabe’s own people outed him & said we need the OIG to continue this investigation. Second, anyone who wants to bash Sessions or OIG READ this & look at the timeline. Marathon not a sprint.

Point being, Horowitz is well-respected inside-the-beltway, and has survived both Republican & Democrat Administrations because his integrity is not in question. I worked for DOJ for 23 years. And always found him to be more than fair. His investigation isn’t some partisan hack job.


Congress gets DOJ inspector general’s critical report on FBI’s McCabe

The Department of Justice’s inspector general on Friday sent to Congress a report sharply criticizing former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe for unauthorized disclosures to the media ahead of the 2016 election and lacking candor with investigators, including then-FBI Director James Comey.

The report from the department’s internal watchdog formed the basis of Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ firing of McCabe last month, less than 48 hours before his scheduled retirement, a decision that pleased President Donald Trump and White House allies who have long portrayed McCabe as compromised by anti-Trump bias.

The report revealed sharply different recollections of the episode by McCabe and Comey — and suggested McCabe misled Comey about it. And it also suggests Inspector General Michael Horowitz found Comey’s account to be more credible. Yet Trump, who’s mounting a public effort to undermine Comey ahead of the former FBI director’s book publicity tour, used the findings of the report to suggest Comey and McCabe were indistinguishable.

Among the IG report’s findings is that McCabe was less than forthcoming with Comey about his October 2016 authorization of two FBI officials to disclose information to a Wall Street Journal reporter working on an article about FBI investigations involving Hillary Clinton.

The report expected to be sent to Congress on Friday is only a portion of a larger review Horowitz announced in January 2017, covering a broad range of issues about potential misconduct at the FBI and Justice Department in advance of the 2016 presidential election. Horowitz said late last year that he anticipated completing that report in March or April of this year. But lawmakers now say they expect the full report in May. [5]


McCabe did some serious “lack of candor” (LYING):


(1) attempted to throw the FBI General Counsel (GC) under the bus — did not know what the GC was doing or saying to the WSJ as he was out of town;
(2) attempted to throw the DOJ Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General (PADAG) — inferring the leak came from there;
(3) does not know who leaked to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ);
(4) calls the New York FBI office’s Assistant Director In Charge (NY-ADIC) reprimanding the office for leaking FBI investigation data to the media;
(5) calls the Washington FBI office’s Assistant Director In Charge (W-ADIC) reprimanding the office for leaking FBI investigation data to the media;
(6) learned that the OIG possessed telephone records with the GC – revealing several calls, 2 lengthy calls with McCabe, discussing the media report and pending follow-up being written (all during the week of his out of town trip);
(7) (once aware of emails and telephone records) — now admits that he authorized the leak and refutes the INSD-SSA1, INSD-SSA2, and INSD-SC (INSD – FBI Inspector Division) reporting statements that he had denied knowing who leaked to the WSJ — they and McCabe have a different understanding;
(8) now recalls that he authorized the leaks and Comey later learned and “did not react negatively” and it was “good” to rebut the disinformation to counter the FBI looking bad;
(9) Comey’s testimony interviews with the OIG revealed that he had refused to answer Congress questions about FBI investigations — because the FBI does not report on or deny ongoing investigations — that doing so is not in the interest of the agency — and he stated that McCabe had NOT “in form or fashion” admitted or advised that he had authorized the leak to Barrett at the WSJ — McCabe denies this;
(10) in denying Comey’s investigation OIG responses — he calls his leaked information authorization conversation with Comey and that “Comey was distracted at the time because of his need on October 31 to deal with the Weiner laptop and Clinton E-mail Investigation” (and the Clinton Foundation investigation) — he reveals that when Comey later learned of his leak authorization — that Comey “did not react negatively” and it was “good” to rebut the disinformation against the FBI;
(11) argues to that Comey “would have every incentive to distance himself from this disclosure” due to McCabe’s belief that the OIG is reviewing Comey’s disclosure of other information to the media;
(12) McCabe and his attorney complained that the OIG investigation draft “paints Director Comey as a white knight carefully guarding FBI information, while overlooking that Mr. McCabe’s account is more credible and that he has a “concrete recollection” of telling Comey he authorized the leak;
(13) he falsely claims one of the INSD-SSA agents took him by the arm and asked a couple more questions after ending an interview with them — action disputed by both INSD-SSA1 and INSD-SSA2;
(14) he and his attorney even attempted to throw the OIG under the bus concerning the OIG interview with McCabe — they argue that in asking McCabe about the October 27-30 texts between Special Counsel and DAD regarding the WSJ article — that the OIG engaged in improper and unethical conduct, and violated an allegedly explicit agreement with McCabe that when he was interviewed by the OIG on July 28 he would not be questioned outside the presence of counsel with respect to matters for which he was being investigated. McCabe provides no evidence in support of his claim, and based on the OIG’s review of the available evidence, including the transcript of McCabe’s recorded OIG interview on July 28 and the OIG’s contemporaneous notes, as described below, McCabe’s claim is contradicted by the investigative record — the said record validates that McCabe at all times had discretion to have an attorney present and he was advised (recorded) that he could stop any interview should he become uncomfortable — in fact McCabe’s counsel was present in a November 29 interview and no questions or issues were raised by McCabe or the attorney.

Summary by Ann Rose Laurence


[1] Twitter -Vachel Lindsay

[2] Twitter – GOPAnalyst

[3] Judiciary.Senate.gov

[4] Fox News

[5] Politico