Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

FBI Agents Blame Comey for “Permanent Damage” to the Agency’s Reputation

FBI Agents Blame Comey for “Permanent Damage” to the Agency’s Reputation

Oh, and FBI files show evidence of two missing boxes filled with Hillary emails

As we are learning that the FBI files reveal “missing bankers’ boxes filled with the former secretary of state’s emails.,” veteran FBI agents are expressing their concern that Comey’s approach to the Hillary case has “damaged the reputation” of the FBI due to his insistence that the agency politicize the investigation and its results.

Fox News reports:

Buried in the 189 pages of heavily redacted FBI witness interviews from the Hillary Clinton email investigation are details of yet another mystery — about two missing “bankers boxes” filled with the former secretary of state’s emails.

The interviews released earlier this month, known as 302s, also reveal the serious allegation that senior State Department official Patrick Kennedy applied pressure to subordinates to change the classified email codes so they would be shielded from Congress and the public.

The details about the boxes are contained in five pages of the FBI file – with a staggering 111 redactions – that summarize the statements of a State Department witness who worked in the “Office of Information Programs and Services (IPS).” The employee told the FBI that, “Initially, IPS officials were told there were 14 bankers boxes of former Secretary of State Hillary CLINTON’s emails at CLINTON’s Friendship Heights office.” Friendship Heights is a neighborhood that straddles the Northwest neighborhood of the District of Columbia and Maryland.

The State Department witness further explained to the FBI that “on or about December 5, 2014, IPS personnel picked up only 12 bankers boxes of CLINTON’s emails from Williams & Connolly.”

The officials were not sure if the boxes “were consolidated or what could have happened to the two other boxes. “

This is the kind of thing that left veteran FBI agents fuming since the reputation the FBI has spent decades rebuilding has been tarnished, perhaps permanently.

The New York Post reports:

Veteran FBI agents say FBI Director James Comey has permanently damaged the bureau’s reputation for uncompromising investigations with his “cowardly” whitewash of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information using an unauthorized private email server.

Feeling the heat from congressional critics, Comey last week argued that the case was investigated by career FBI agents, “So if I blew it, they blew it, too.”

But agents say Comey tied investigators’ hands by agreeing to unheard-of ground rules and other demands by the lawyers for Clinton and her aides that limited their investigation.

“In my 25 years with the bureau, I never had any ground rules in my interviews,” said retired agent Dennis V. Hughes, the first chief of the FBI’s computer investigations unit.

Among their many concerns is the way that Hillary herself was given undoubtedly preferred and special treatment.

The New York Post continues:

What’s more, Comey cut a deal to give Clinton a “voluntary” witness interview on a major holiday, and even let her ex-chief of staff sit in on the interview as a lawyer, even though she, too, was under investigation.

Clinton’s interview, the culmination of a yearlong investigation, lasted just 3½ hours. Despite some 40 bouts of amnesia, she wasn’t called back for questioning; and three days later, Comey cleared her of criminal wrongdoing.

“The FBI has politicized itself, and its reputation will suffer for a long time,” Hughes said. “I hold Director Comey responsible.”

Agreed retired FBI agent Michael M. Biasello: “Comey has singlehandedly ruined the reputation of the organization.”

The accommodations afforded Clinton and her aides are “unprecedented,” Biasello added, “which is another way of saying this outcome was by design.” He called Comey’s decision not to seek charges “cowardly.”

“Each month for 27 years, I received oral and computer admonishments concerning the proper protocol for handling top secret and other classified material, and was informed of the harsh penalties, to include prosecution and incarceration,” for mishandling such material, he pointed out. “Had myself or my colleagues engaged in behavior of the magnitude of Hillary Clinton, as described by Comey, we would be serving time in Leavenworth.”

Former FBI official I.C. Smith knows a thing or two about Clinton corruption. After working at FBI headquarters as a section chief in the National Security Division, he retired as special agent in charge of the Little Rock, Ark., field office, where he investigated top Clinton fundraisers for public corruption and even Chinese espionage.

“FBI agents upset with Comey’s decision have every reason to feel that way,” Smith said. “Clearly there was a different standard applied to Clinton.”

Considering that agents involved in the investigation were required to sign rarely-used nondisclosure agreements, what can be done?

“I have no doubt resourceful prosecutors and FBI agents could have come up with some charge that she would have been subject to prosecution,” the 25-year veteran added. “What she did is absolutely abhorrent for anyone who has access to classified information.”

Smith said Congress should subpoena the case’s agents to testify about the direction they received from Comey and their supervisors: “It would be interesting to see what the results would be if those involved with the investigation were questioned under oath.”

Comey made the 25 agents who worked on the case sign nondisclosure agreements. But others say morale has sunk inside the bureau.

“The director is giving the bureau a bad rap with all the gaps in the investigation,” one agent in the Washington field office said. “There’s a perception that the FBI has been politicized and let down the country.”

Senator Grassley explained in July that he obtained a “Case Briefing Acknowledgement Addendum” that suggests the NDAs would not apply to testimony to Congress.

Fox News reported at the time:

Responding one day after the FBI director said he would not recommend criminal charges, Grassley pointed to Comey’s conclusions that a limited number of emails had classified markings, thousands of work related emails were not turned over by Clinton to the State Department despite a sworn declaration to a federal court and her public assurances, as well as “potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information.”

“In light of all these inconsistencies, it is even more troubling that the FBI tried to gag its agents with a non-disclosure agreement on this matter, in violation of whistleblower protection statutes,”  Grassley said in the strongly worded letter.  “…you indicated that agents working on this case were required to sign a non-disclosure agreement that failed to exempt protected whistleblowing. Only after I wrote to you did you advise your FBI agents that they are still free to speak with Congress regarding waste, fraud, and abuse.”

The “Case Briefing Acknowledgement Addendum” provided to Senator Grassley after the initial FBI response July 1 makes clear the agreement does not supersede or conflict with “communications to Congress” and “the reporting to an Inspector General of a violation, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, or….any other whistleblower protection.”

Grassley also noted the timing of the FBI’s response five months after his original request for information on the NDAs, with a partial response July 1, and full response on July 5 2016, the same day the FBI made a public recommendation at bureau headquarters against criminal charges.

Hopefully, Congress will follow through and subpoena the case agents; their testimony would indeed prove interesting.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Over several decades, I’ve known about a dozen FBI agents. They were uniformly men of extraordinary integrity, intelligence, and dedication.

That kind of person will not be passive in the face of this travesty.

    persecutor in reply to Ragspierre. | October 7, 2016 at 4:18 pm

    Rags, they have pensions and families who are depending on them now and in the future. I too have worked with some FBI people as well as plenty of State and local law enforcement who are dedicated and full of integrity, but even they admit there is no percentage in committing career suicide when the boss doesn’t have your back.

Only retired agents with no skin in the game are apparently aghast at the “investigation”, and active ones aren’t rushing to agree if they have pensions they wish to collect in due time. No surprise there, just like I’m not surprised at the lack of resignations from the ranks who were pawned by, or were willing accomplices of Comey.
J Edgar is smiling at Comey from below.

    DaveGinOly in reply to persecutor. | October 7, 2016 at 7:21 pm

    I don’t think J. Edgar would be smiling. He would have taken the opportunity to string up a major political figure, demonstrating to everyone in D.C. who was actually in charge. The only way Hillary would have escaped Hoover is if she could provide him with something valuable in turn for protection from prosecution. Hoover would always go with either a show of power, or an exercise of it over someone he could control. Comey did neither of these things. He just turned turtle.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to DaveGinOly. | October 7, 2016 at 9:24 pm

      Hoover would have taken Hillary out in 2008 – and Obama, too. There’d be no 2016 Hillary.

      persecutor in reply to DaveGinOly. | October 8, 2016 at 12:42 pm

      No, J.Edgar was a master extortionist who knew that everybody has secrets and he knew that a secret’s value was directly proportional to the power the blackmailee possessed.

Do you think he *really* cares? He’s smart enough to have known the repercussions from this slimy deal, yet he went ahead. He took the money rather than resign on principle. Why? Because, contrary to his silly claims in House testimony, he *is* a weasel. Note to all you clingers out there: the fix was in from the get go.

I’m no historian, but I am old, and I have never seen the level of corruption inside the beltway that we are seeing now. And it pervades *every* part of the government. Think about it — not even the VA is honest. The VA for goodness sake! If there were one agency of the guvmnt that one would think would be honest, it would be the agency charged with caring for our veterans. NOT!

It will take something like an internal insurrection to cast light on the extent of the rot. Congress is content with statements of outrage followed by absolutely nothing. Somebody will have to take great risks and make great sacrifices.

An Article V Convention of States may be the only way to neuter the rutting wild boar that is the Federal Government.

    MSO in reply to Paul. | October 7, 2016 at 7:22 pm

    I wouldn’t trust our current politicians with the power to permanently alter our constitution especially since a large percentage of them seek to undermine it instead of defending it.

    Asset seizure, abuse of eminent domain, crony capitalism, seven years since the last budget was passed into law, secret warrants issued by secret courts, IRS abuse of electioneering, etc.

    Hey guys, here’s the constitution. Have fun now!

Lots of energy went into hiding and covering things up when these people were paid to do their jobs with ethics and integrity. This cover up enables, aids and abets criminal behavior. I doubt that any of this outrage will have any of them backing up their talk by walking the walk. Their bennies are more important than doing the right thing for the country.

Not just the FBI politicized. Everything is politicized.

This crowd is worse than Nixon, and Obama is right there with them.

If Hilliary and Bill have this much power & influence now, just imagine how it would be if they get back into the White House.

Henry Hawkins | October 7, 2016 at 5:25 pm

The investigating FBI agents had to sign NDAs. Aren’t there disqualifying clauses in NDAs, where they are voided under certain conditions, like conspiracy to tank an investigation? There must be some number of agents who witnessed or otherwise learned of obstruction of justice during the ‘investigation’. Revelation will not come from the top, so maybe a whistleblower or three will come out.

Ah, there’s the rub.

There are no federal agencies to whom they could come out. They’ve all been co-opted by the Obama administration.

    And that includes Congress. As soon as they testified, the Democrats for sure, and probably the GOPe, would provide copies of everything.

    Arminius in reply to Henry Hawkins. | October 8, 2016 at 8:41 am

    Not only are there no federal agencies any potential whistleblor can turn to, there’s no MSM outlet they can turn to if they wanted to anonymously go public. Considering the press is the propaganda arm of the DNC/Clinton crime family Inc.

    It’s only a reporter’s duty to protect their sources when the story can harm a Republican. It’s a combination of blasphemy and heresy to do a report on one of patron saints of the church of Big Leftist Government they all worship in. If any agent were careless enough to go to the MSM with evidence that Comey deliberately shackled the investigators (as he clearly did) on orders from Obama via Lynch for rank partisan purposes to protect the Democratic party nominee the fact that the source attempted to “betray” their precious would be the story, as opposed to the content of the evidence and the source’s story as it would be if Bush was still in office and they were intervening in an investigation to protect Romney. If any agent involved in the investigation wants to slip documents to the press or even just talk to the press, they’re going to have to go to the British press.

    Arminius in reply to Henry Hawkins. | October 8, 2016 at 2:11 pm

    Considering the entire goal from the start was to conduct a whitewash and let Clnton walk, as evidenced by the fact Clinton’s aides didn’t have their immunity agreements revoked as required when they violated them by lying to investigators (immunity agreements require those who are immunized to cooperate fully with investigators remain in force), I think we can all be sure that they DoJ lawyers worded those case briefing acknowledgment agreements so that “conspiracy to tank an investigation” would not render them null and void. It would have defeated the entire purpose of gagging those agents in order to protect Hillary Clinton from the legal and political consequences of her crimes.

Don’t worry, those other two boxes of emails will show up in the White House residence quarters in a closet with Hillary’s fingerprints on them, and nothing will be done then either.

(For those of you young kids who don’t get the reference, Google “Rose law billing records”)

The agency has been politicized at least since the Ruby Ridge affair. The DoJ report on that the FBI performance was scathing. Of course all the bad guys got promoted so what can we learn from that?

    Mac45 in reply to snopercod. | October 7, 2016 at 7:48 pm

    I’m glad that you asked about Ruby Ridge. Most people have glaring misconceptions of that series of events.

    Randy Weaver was an indicted federal felon. He never showed up for a hearing and was a federal felony fugitive. And, he was heavily armed and barricaded atop a small mountain. The US Marshal’s Service, the lead agency involved, negotiated with Weaver for over a year, in an effort to get him to surrender. And he refused. All the people with him on the mountain KNEW that he was a fugitive. And, they were all armed to resist the lawful actions of federal law enforcement agents to arrest Weaver.

    The FBI did not even get involved until the Deputy Marshal was shot and killed, by either Weaver’s son or his friend, at the Y.

    There were both operational and tactical errors made by the FBI, in this incident. But, all the civilian casualties in this incident were armed felons wanted by the authorities, not innocent third parties. Randy Weaver was the one directly responsible for their deaths, by his refusal to obey the law and surrender to the authorities, who were bending over backwards to accommodate him and allow him to peacefully surrender.

    One final thing, the DOJ is FAR more political than the FBI has ever been. A major portion of the DOJ exists solely to further the political agenda of the leaders of the government. The whole purpose of the DOJ’s analysis of the actions of the FBI, at Ruby Ridge, was to give the DOJ and the administration political cover from all the ink-stained hand wringing being done by the liberal press, at the time.

      jack burns in reply to Mac45. | October 7, 2016 at 7:56 pm

      Vick Weaver was “armed” with a 10 month old baby in her arms.

        tom swift in reply to jack burns. | October 7, 2016 at 11:00 pm

        And, if Mr Memory serves, the prosecution of the man who killed her was thrown out by a judge who announced that he wouldn’t have the government tried in his court.

        A national disgrace all around.

        alaskabob in reply to jack burns. | October 11, 2016 at 2:11 am

        I firmly believe Lon Horiuchi sighted on the wife and waited for the guy running back to the cabin to cross his sight. A two-fer. A FBI sniper who fires without regard for background at under 100 yards is intentional not a mistake. The FBI used to be admired but now respect comes from fear….tainted by BATFE and DOJ(SJW).

      snopercod in reply to Mac45. | October 7, 2016 at 8:11 pm

      Obviously you haven’t read the report. It focused on the shoddy investigation, mishandling of evidence, and the shoot-on-sight order for a guy whose only crime was sawing off a shotgun at the request of an agent provocateur.

        At the request and to the specifications of an agent provocateur, who carefully specified 1/4 inch too short.

          Richard Aubrey in reply to SDN. | October 8, 2016 at 4:21 pm

          WRT Ruby Ridge and Waco. I watched the hearings. What the feds stipulated to would have surprised the most paranoid survivalist.
          The local USDA dated Weaver’s requirement to appear a month early. IOW, Weaver was in violation before the thing went into the mail room. Hence the marshals. They encountered Weaver’s son and friend hunting. They killed the dog–cop perk and not taxable, either–starting a fire fight. A marshal was killed, as was Weaver’s son.
          The MSM kept referring to a “compound” to make it sound like a fortified position, but it was a couple of buildings. The shoot on sight order was so popular that nobody could be found who signed it. I’ve fired a lot of guns, mostly on the taxpayer’s dime, and I can guarantee you that when Horiuchi blew Vicki Weaver’s head off, Vicki Weaver’s head was square in his sight picture. It gets worse, but Mac45 doesn’t think everybody knows better. Hey, was Weaver’s son a wanted felon?

      alaskabob in reply to Mac45. | October 11, 2016 at 2:03 am

      Let’s see…entrapment…. The excuse by the Feds? No over-riding legal authority..as in since no judge was there to rule on constitutionality ok to use deadly force. I know people who personally knew Weaver and like Koresh, could have been arrested quietly in town. No commando raid with unmarked Feds was needed. Your description is bogus…unless your name is Larry Potts and you were promoted for heading up Ruby Ridge and Waco assaults.

Any LE agent has four choices in a situation such as this; leave the agency, go public, go along or quietly attempt to change the existing situation from within. The first happens regularly, especially with younger personnel who are not heavily vested in the pension system. The second will see you unemployed and probably unemployable in LE. The third may well see you unemployed later and, possibly, indicted. The last position allows the employee to actually change the existing situation over time.

Now all LEAs are political, to some extent. That is because the heads of these agencies are either elected officials, political appointees, or political hacks.

    SDN in reply to Mac45. | October 7, 2016 at 11:18 pm

    “The last position allows the employee to actually change the existing situation over time.”

    You keep lying to yourself there, Fed.

    But your “I vas only folloving orders” defense died at Nuremburg, along with the Nazis who spouted it. Don’t think it will work any better for you.

Efrem Zimbalist, Jr is spinning in his grave.

OK, this is from Russia Today, so…

Russian server co. head on DNC hack: ‘No idea’ why FBI still has not contacted us
https://www.rt.com/news/361382-russia-servers-dnc-hack/

Fomenko’s web hosting service, King Servers, was identified by American cybersecurity company ThreatConnect as the platform for the attack on emails of the Democratic National Committee. Six out of the eight IP addresses used by the hackers were hosted on King Servers, ThreatConnect claimed in September.

But the 26-year-old from Biysk, in western Siberia, is far from being scared or unwilling to cooperate. In fact, he recently told the New York Times that “If the FBI asks, we are ready to supply the IP addresses, the logs.” However, he says, “Nobody is asking… It’s like nobody wants to sort this out.”

Another matter where “nobody wants to sort this out.”

Henry Hawkins | October 7, 2016 at 9:28 pm

A boatload of politicians and media pundits told us Comey was a stand-up guy, a square shooter, a real professional. Guess we should have considered the source on that.

I feel like Diogenes.

There’s nothing worse than a liar who realizes we know he’s a liar but continues to double down on the lies.

At least Baghdad Bob was entertaining.

    Barry in reply to Sanddog. | October 8, 2016 at 12:20 am

    The comey’s of the country are, and have been, laughing at us for a long time. They don’t care that we know they are lying.

    This is just the tip of the iceberg in our government. All that indignation you see professed? Fake, just cover for the proles. With a few exceptions, the entire government is nothing more than a criminal enterprise.

I believe a Ceausescu moment is coming. I want to be around for it.

Can Congress indict and prosecute on its own? Because if they can’t this is all for naught, DoJ won’t prosecute any of them no matter how loudly Congress asks. Even if they did prosecute none of it is direct evidence against Clinton herself unless one of the involved agents retained some of it as their poison pill, and even then it’s only useful if given directly to Congress. If DoJ seized it destruction would be immediate.

The FBI’s reputation was already damaged by the fiascos of Ruby Ridge, Waco, Oklahoma City and TWA 800. So what if one more stain is shown. They started going downhill durimg the Johnson years and have gotten worse as the years have gone by.

Sometimes perception equals reality. Like now.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend