Sunday, October 4, 2020

UPDATED: Comey And The Obama White House--Bombshells To Come?

The last we heard from disgraced former FBI Director Jim Comey, he was wracking his memory for the Senate Judiciary Committee and coming up empty. The famous note taker couldn't remember anything that would have interested anyone, even regarding matters that are now pretty much public knowledge. For example, the referral the CIA sent to the FBI in which the FBI was informed that "the Russians" might be aware of Hillary's Russia Hoax caper--even before it went into full swing.

Fortunately, Comey's 'Huh?' responses are unlikely to be the last word on some of those matters.

For example.

Jay Sekulow's American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) has been doing some digging with the help of FOIA and just got back some very interesting results. What they show, among other things, is James Comey in direct communication with Neil Eggleston, Obama's White House Counsel (and long time Clintonista). Those direct communications began in September, 2016, and continued up until the afternoon of January 19, 2017. Yes, January 19 was the day before Donald J. Trump was inaugurated. That's a pretty admirable example of the good old American work ethic, and one assumes that the only reason Eggleston didn't send more emails to Comey on the very day of Trump's inauguration was because ... he was busy coaching (or writing?) Susan Rice's email-to-self that morning--Susan Rice: The WH Counsel Told Me To Write It.

Sekulow wants you to know something else about the results of his FOIA work--which isn't complete yet. These results came as a result of a FOIA request for documents regarding FBI spies in the Trump White House. Uh, that makes those results even more suggestive than they already are.

What did Comey do with Eggleston's January 19, 2017, email (which included Andy McCabe and two redacted names on the address list)? Comey thought this email--and the attached, totally redacted, TOP SECRET letter from Eggleston--was the kind of thing that his (Comey's) General Counsel, James Baker, should also see--so Comey forwarded it to Baker. I point this out in particular because Shipwreckedcrew has claimed that the FBI's Office of General Counsel is mostly concerned with very boring stuff like Bureau car accidents. On the contrary, James Baker--long reported to be cooperating with John Durham--was very much Comey's right hand guy.

Who else knows about all this, has seen the redacted letter and any other relevant documents? I'm betting AG Bill Barr has. Uh oh!

Now I'm going to do the lazy thing. First, here's a video of Jordan Sekulow discussing all this. The first 16 minutes are what you want to watch, and there's no beating around the bush--it's pretty much all substantive:

Next, here's the link for the email from Eggleston to Comey.

And now here's the ACLJ discussion of not only the January 19, 2017, email but also of some of the emails going back to September, 2016.

First, the discussion of the January 19, 2017, email. You'll see that the discussion tracks the video very closely:

We sent a FOIA request regarding former FBI Director Comey’s spies inside the White House: Anthony Ferrante, Jordan Rae Kelly, and Tashina Gauhar. It’s important to remember that one of those was the liaison to the FBI. One held a tech job and somehow got to stay in the White House. And one was at the National Security Council.

We filed our FOIA request and a lawsuit on these spies and we received an interesting reply. Our FOIA wound up uncovering an email that was sent from President Obama’s White House Counsel to multiple names. Some of the recipients’ names were redacted but some were not. The unredacted ones were former FBI Director Jim Comey and former Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe.

This email was sent on Thursday, January 19th at 3:00 PM Eastern Time. What’s interesting about that date?  It was the day before President Trump was sworn in as the next President of the United States.

The classification of the email is TOP SECRET. The White House Counsel said in the email: “Director and Deputy Director – Please see the attached letter. Thanks, Neil.” The attached letter is then sent from former FBI Director Jim Comey at 9:52 PM to his general counsel at the FBI, James Baker to review.

Now they’re refusing to give us the attachment, so guess what –  we’re taking the FBI to court. What TOP SECRET information did they have to send from the Obama White House Counsel to the FBI Director and Deputy FBI Director the night before President Trump was inaugurated? The American people have the right to know.

Interestingly, this is also coming to light just as former FBI Director Jim Comey is giving testimony before the Senate, where he said he doesn’t remember anything about the CIA asking the FBI to investigate whether or not it was Hillary Clinton’s campaign that was actually colluding with the Russians, in an action reportedly approved by Secretary Clinton. Even President Obama was briefed about it by then CIA Director John Brennan, and yet somehow former FBI Director Jim Comey can’t recall any of that.

Next, the earlier emails are discussed:

We also received additional documents we believe the American people need to see – FBI records directly tying the Obama-Biden White House to the scheme to take down President Trump. These records also tie former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former Deputy (and later) Acting Attorney General Sally Yates to the “get Trump” scheme as well. Here is what we obtained:

On September 30, 2016, Obama White House Counsel Neil Eggleston emailed James Comey and Andrew McCabe, and copied Lisa Page and Natalie H. Quillian (note: Quillian was advisor to Obama Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, and she is now Deputy Campaign Manager for none other than presidential candidate Joe Biden), a “TOP SECRET” email with no subject line, saying:

“Jim and Andy (cc’ing Tash [Tashina Gauhar] to print for Loretta and Sally, both traveling) – This responds to recent outreach from the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) regarding the FBI’s proposal to conduct a full-content review of [redacted – marked B7D, which regards disclosure of confidential source]. We have had the opportunity to review a memorandum from Deputy Director McCabe to Deputy Attorney General Yates, shared by your staff with mine, which sets out the scope and justification for the proposed review.”

The next paragraph is marked TS for Top Secret, and redacted. And the next paragraph is redacted as well.

The Obama White House’s email then reads:

“Notwithstanding this concern, we stand ready to work with the FBI and DOJ, as we have previously, to discuss possible ways forward. To that end, we are available to meet with DOJ and FBI leadership to discuss next steps.” 

[In other words, ongoing cooperation among DoJ, FBI and the Obama WH--the White House Counsel and Obama's Chief of Staff--were judged to be responsive to ACLJ's FOIA request.]

That night, on September 30, 2016, at 8:22 PM, McCabe forwards the email to Comey, Baker, and James Rybicki (Comey’s Chief of Staff), marked “TOP SECRET//NOFORN” and says:

Interesting response from Neil. I was not aware that we had shared our request to the DAG with the WH… We should discuss where/how we should reach back to set up a meeting.”

(Note, the “we” was underlined in McCabe’s original email.)

Then, a few days later, on October 3, McCabe responds to Eggleston in an email marked “TOP SECRET//NOFORN,” copying Comey, Lisa Page, and Quillian, and says:

Neil, I understand your concerns with our request and am happy to come over with a small team to discuss with you the specifics at your earliest convenience. Please let me know a POC my staff can contact to set up a meeting.”

What was the FBI “full-content review” it proposed to the Obama-Biden White House? (We know the FBI used codenames like this for high profile cases; for example, referring to the Clinton investigation as the “Midyear Exam”.)

Why did the Obama-Biden White House express a “concern” but then offer to proceed and cooperate with the FBI anyway?

Why did McCabe tell Comey he wasn’t sure they had shared their “request to the DAG [Sally Yates]” with the White House?

So many questions. But also an answer:  Obama’s White House Counsel was colluding with Comey and McCabe’s FBI.  What were they up to?

So many questions--as Comey likes to say--and wouldn't we all like to know the answers! One guess might run along these lines.

Since the "full content review" concerned the disclosure of a  confidential source, is it possible that the FBI was proposing to DoJ (Tashina Gauhar, Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates) and the White House that a confidential source be disclosed--deployed against Trump? Would that source have been ... Christopher Steele? Just speculating.

Will Bill Barr be sharing the answers any time soon? We can hope. Coming on the heels of the revelation that Brennan briefed Obama personally regarding Hillary's Russia Hoax plans--an possible Russian knowledge of those plans--this is all fraught with great interest.,

UPDATE 1: To clarify ...

The redaction code "B7D" means that the paragraph was redacted so as NOT to disclose a confidential source. My speculation that the FBI and DoJ may have been contemplating actually disclosing a source derives in part from the White House reaction--that they had "concerns" but were open to work on a "way forward." Remember, these FOIA productions were relevant to and in response to very specific inquiries. It's still speculation, but ...

UPDATE 2: As with the Barnett 302--in which the names of some Team Mueller lawyers were provided while others were redacted--we're left to wonder whether the redacted email addressees may be cooperating with Durham. Any of the DoJ people might find it well worth their while to pin the lion's share of the blame on Comey and McCabe.

I say Durham because this appears to fall within his investigative purview--before the inauguration and well before Mueller. Further, at first glance this doesn't appear to have anything directly to do with Flynn.


  1. I'm sure Comey's performance has had some influence on McCabe's decision to back out of testifying.

    1. Presumably McCabe's lawyer watched and got some idea of the types of questions that would be asked--and advised his client not to go through with it.

      The problem with going through with that kind of testimony isn't so much that perjury can be proven--just because you said you couldn't remember. The real problem is that you could severely limit your possible testimony at a trial, should you wish to take the stand.

    2. "Presumably McCabe's lawyer watched and got some idea of the types of questions that would be asked--and advised his client not to go through with it."

      cc Comey's lawyer. Not that I have any sympathy.

    3. Mark, can you elaborate on "The real problem is that you could severely limit your possible testimony at a trial...."
      You severely limit your possible testimony, so as to avoid a perjury charge, or to not come off as (non-credibly) evasive?
      And you wish to avoid that, to be the most valuable possible witness to whoever called you to the stand, to preserve your leverage with that party?
      Or what?

    4. Yes - I had the same questions as aNanyMouse.

  2. First, the paper trail left behind by the coup conspirators is huge, detailed, and utterly damning.

    Second, Comey knows this and still insists on using the "I'm a stupid idiot" strategy in his defensive narrative. That is also stupid on a world-class level. My God, how did this guy become the Director of the FBI?

    Last, even if Comey comes to his senses and ultimately flips for Durham, he has become a worthless witness on the stand because he is a known pathological liar and everyone hates him implicitly.

    Now that is a unique problem for Barr and Durham to solve.

    1. I believe Comey’s stupid idiot bit is intended to bring others at his level down with him.

  3. The way some of the memos read, I get the feeling we are seeing CYA memos, and they may not, in fact reflect what was actually happening.

    The stuff about "I understand your concerns and can bring a team over with me to discuss" reeks of a plausible cover story" for full blown face-to-face conspiracy orchestration between FBI/DOJ and WH, which doesn't leave a paper trail.

    It's the same feeling I get when I read a memo by Susan Rice written two weeks after a Oval Office meeting, in which she gratuitously jams the phrase "do it by the book" into the memo more than once.

    Too cute by half.

    1. They definitely appear to be dancing around the meat of the matter.

    2. "I understand your concerns and can bring a team over with me to discuss"

      The old, "I feel for you, but I just can't reach you," gambit.
      Tom S.

  4. Mark, I assume the ACLJ's FOIA request is driving this and not assistance from DOJ Counsel Baker. Would one assume Durham has already seen the attachment though? Also, I understand your point about in Update #2 about those names redacted may be cooperating however is it possible those names might still be others who are under Durham's eyes for collusion et al others who may have been involved e.g. Susan Rice or former AG Lynch? I feel Lynch's involvement pre January 2017 is relevant especially with her orders not to touch HRC.

    1. I think it's pretty safe to assume that Durham has seen this stuff. As for redactions, my assumption is that if the person is named they're either in the clear or a definite target, e.g., Comey and McCabe. If they're redacted, then they're either witnesses (cooperating) or being scrutinized as possible targets--Durham's not sure yet. At this point, the likelihood points toward cooperating, because I think Durham has a pretty clear notion of who was complicit and who was more or less a bystander.

  5. Slightly OT

    Does anyone else find it 'amusing' that the documentary evidence (texts, emails, transcripts, memos) which proves the conspiracy behind Obamagate is being withheld and redacted for 'national security reasons' while the failure to produce this evidence threatens to destroy our nation.

    As is protecting the CIA's sources within MI6 or the Australian Secret Intelligence Service justifies destroying the USA.

    There won't be any USA left for the CIA to protect the national security of.

    Or maybe its just business as usual.

    1. Well, there's USA and then there's US Against deplorables. Which side has the DS picked.

      It would be laughable, except, since it is real, it doesn't require a suspension of disbelief.
      Tom S.

    2. @Cassander... have to believe this will all be known post election. Too critical to not sweep away. Biggest blemish on the Constitution ever.

  6. I think you'll find that MANY of us are following this closer and have more in-depth knowledge than those we believe are investigating the whole cabal.

  7. More OT

    What happens if Biden 'wins' the election and then Durham names him as a conspirator (presumably unindicted) in the coup?

    1. The only legal (and unlikely) chance would seem to be, a revolt by Electors pledged to him.
      Barring that, I'll bet that a group of Francos would take the bull by the horns.

    2. @Cassander... bite your tongue. No President Harris please. Lurch left intensified.

    3. Do the Republicans take the House and hold the Senate? Do they have half the gall of the Democrats? This is clearly a high crime.
      Tom S.

    4. If he wins, Durham will indict him.

    5. He won't be able to. The line attys. won't participate, lest they get placed on the Dems' list of Enemies of the People.

  8. Then Kamala becomes Pres. Same outcome, different than planned day.

  9. "I point this out in particular because Shipwreckedcrew has claimed that the FBI's Office of General Counsel is mostly concerned with very boring stuff like Bureau car accidents."

    What about train wrecks?

  10. Related:

    >> <<

    Linn Wood drops a hint about Comey being named in a civil defamation case ....