quote:

In short, two Fox News sources [oh no comrades, fox news!] familiar with the federal criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton say career agents and lawyers attached to the case were "floored" when FBI Director James Comey announced his decision not to recommend criminal charges against the former Secretary of State in July. The "vast majority" of these people are said to believe that based on the evidence they reviewed, an indictment was warranted:

quote:

The decision to let Hillary Clinton off the hook for mishandling classified information has roiled the FBI and Department of Justice, with one person closely involved in the year-long probe telling FoxNews.com that career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged. The source, who spoke to FoxNews.com on the condition of anonymity, said FBI Director James Comey’s dramatic July 5 announcement that he would not recommend to the Attorney General’s office that the former secretary of state be charged left members of the investigative team dismayed and disgusted. More than 100 FBI agents and analysts worked around the clock with six attorneys from the DOJ’s National Security Division, Counter Espionage Section, to investigate the case. “No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute -- it was a top-down decision,” said the source, whose identity and role in the case has been verified by FoxNews.com. A high-ranking FBI official told Fox News that while it might not have been a unanimous decision, “It was unanimous that we all wanted her [Clinton’s] security clearance yanked.” “It is safe to say the vast majority felt she should be prosecuted,” the senior FBI official told Fox News. “We were floored while listening to the FBI briefing because Comey laid it all out, and then said ‘but we are doing nothing,’ which made no sense to us.”

Are these two sources accurately characterizing investigators' private sentiment? We can't definitively say one way or the other, but we do know that Comey felt compelled to defend himself in multiple internal emails and memos to the Bureau's rank-and-file. We also have this new interview with Peter Schweizer, whose sources in Washington served him well as he wrote Clinton Cash, which mainstream media outlets like the New York Times and the Washington Post built upon in their own reporting. In other words, despite Team Clinton's self-interested protestations to the contrary, his reporting has credibility:

quote:

"I talked to people who'd been in law enforcement at the federal level, and also prosecutors, who said the same thing. They did not know of a current FBI who was familiar with the case who did not think Hillary Clinton should face legal jeopardy because of her actions in the email case."

There is simply no question whatsoever over whether or not Mrs. Clinton's actions constituted grossly negligent handling of classified material. Comey admitted as much, calling her conduct "extremely careless" and "the definition of negligence." That's all the statute requires for prosecution. But because individuals are virtually never prosecuted without proof of intent on top of their negligence, Comey said it would have been a break from precedent to charge Mrs. Clinton. But that excuse was systematically dismantled by Trey Gowdy in two grillings of Comey, noting that Clinton's after-the-fact lies ("false exculpatory statements) are very strong indicators of intent, which Comey was forced to admit. More indications of intent have since dripped out with the release of more FBI notes, emails, and evidence. Meanwhile, the DOJ extended sweetheart immunity deals to people at the center of the scandal, effectively ensuring that nobody would pay a price for the deliberate compromising of top national secrets. No wonder officials familiar with the details of the probe are baffled and angry over their bosses' political decisions to let Hillary and her coterie of enablers off the hook. I'd like to hear more details and confirmation from the people being described by these sources. And I'm curious if any of them would protest what they view as a politically-motivated travesty of justice by resigning or becoming an on-the-record whistleblower...

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Oh the cockgarglers are in fine felch this morning. Particularly Felchgobbler44, now streamlining his toiletlicking with the hard hitting Faux Nuze and equally brain rotting Townhall. It has been proven repeatedly neither has a high ranking source within the FBI since the fake CIA guy Wayne Simmons was imprisoned, so they aint got a real one, and they aint got a fake one.

They havent got it right yet, but if the posting continues, they are bound to put a sentence together that has some reality.

quote:

It has been proven repeatedly neither has a high ranking source within the FBI...

quote:

FBI Director James Comey’s decision to not file charges against Hillary Clinton over her unauthorized and unsecure email server was controversial. It led to a backlash against him by conservatives that was also dotted with disbelief and shock. It led to him appearing before congressional hearings for further questions, given how damning his press conference was on July 5 about the agency’s findings…

the FBI is apparently at odds over their boss’ decision not to file charges. Fox News reported [oh no comrades, fox news!]from a high-level source that said that the agents involved in the email investigation were “disgusted” by Comey’s refusal to file charges, and that virtually everyone investigating thought that Clinton’s security clearance should be revoked. Guy wondered if any DOJ or FBI officials/agents would resign over their grievances with Comey. That remains to be seen. The latest news from the grapevine is that the FBI is revolting against Comey, and that agents view him as a “dirty cop,” according to a former U.S. attorney (via American Spectator):

quote:

“I know that inside the FBI there is a revolt,” Joseph diGenova tells The American Spectator. “There is a revolt against the director. The people inside the bureau believe the director is a dirty cop. They believe that he threw the [Hillary Clinton email] case. They do not know what he was promised in return. But the people inside the bureau who were involved in the case and who knew about the case are talking to former FBI people expressing their disgust at the conduct of the director.”

The loss of faith in the bureau chief stems in part from a dishonest rendering of the decision not to indict Mrs. Clinton as unanimous rather than unilateral and in part from the bureau’s decision to destroy evidence in the case and grant blanket immunity to Clinton underlings for no possible prosecutorial purpose.

“There is a consensus among the employees that the director has lost all credibility and that he cannot lead the bureau,” diGenova explains. “They are comparing him to L. Patrick Gray, the disgraced former FBI director who threw Watergate papers into the Potomac River. The resistance to the director has made the agency incapable of action. It has been described to me as a depression within the agency unlike anything that anyone has ever seen within the bureau. The director’s public explanation for the unorthodox investigation are viewed by people in the bureau as sophomoric and embarrassing.”…

The publication also adds that agents are now a bit on edge that Congress could subpoena them over Comey’s handling of the investigation.

We’ll keep you updated. But, regarding the dirty cop remark, things look like they’re getting worse over there.

quote:

Agents and attorneys at the FBI and State Department are furious about how FBI directory James Comey let Hillary Clinton off the hook and they are finally speaking out. However, if you get your news from the Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) networks you’ve heard nothing about it.

Fox News [oh no comrades, fox news!] and The New York Post have cited current and former agents in stories that paint a picture of an FBI and State Department full of hard-working employees who are irate at the way Clinton escaped prosecution over her e-mail scandal.

On Thursday, Fox News’s Malia Zimmerman and Adam Housley cited an unnamed source that claimed members of the investigative team were dismayed and disgusted. And back on October 6 the New York Post’s Paul Sperry cited retired agents that had charged “The FBI has politicized itself, and its reputation will suffer for a long time” and claimed the accommodations given to Clinton and her aides were “unprecedented.”…

Zimmerman and Housley’s piece also included those willing to go on the record:

quote:

The claim also is backed up by a report in the New York Post this week, which quotes a number of veteran FBI agents saying 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.”

“The FBI has politicized itself, and its reputation will suffer for a long time. I hold Director Comey responsible,” Dennis V. Hughes, the first chief of the FBI’s computer investigations unit, told the Post. Retired FBI agent Michael M. Biasello added to the report, saying, “Comey has singlehandedly ruined the reputation of the organization.” Especially angering the team, which painstakingly pieced together deleted emails and interviewed witnesses to prove that sensitive information was left unprotected, was the fact that Comey based his decision on a conclusion that a recommendation to charge would not be followed by DOJ prosecutors, even though the bureau’s role was merely to advise, Fox News was told.

“Basically, James Comey hijacked the DOJ’s role by saying ‘no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case,’” the Fox News source said. “The FBI does not decide who to prosecute and when, that is the sole province of a prosecutor -- that never happens. “I know zero prosecutors in the DOJ’s National Security Division who would not have taken the case to a grand jury,” the source added. “One was never even convened.”

quote:

Judge Andrew Napolitano said this morning that newly-released FBI documents show evidence of a bribe being offered by a senior State Department official to FBI agents.

Patrick F. Kennedy, the undersecretary of state for management, is reported to have pressured FBI agents to change the classification on sensitive documents found on Hillary Clinton's private email server.

The new revelations were contained in just-released FBI interview summaries from the Clinton email investigation.

In what was viewed by the FBI as a "quid pro quo," desirable overseas assignments for the agents were discussed.

The FBI document states:

"[Redacted] indicated that he had been contacted by Patrick Kennedy, Undersecretary of State, who had asked his assistance in altering the email's classification in exchange for a quid pro quo. [redacted] advised that in exchange for making the email unclassified State would reciprocate by allowing the FBI to place more agents in countries where they are presently forbidden."

Kennedy has emphatically denied there was any quid pro quo offered and the FBI said the classification markings were not altered.

Napolitano, Fox News' senior judicial analyst, said he believes the document points to several potential offenses.

"I've never seen this in my career, where an effort is made to change a document after it is evidence in a criminal prosecution. That is obstruction of justice, that is tampering with evidence, that's offering a bribe. Why wasn't someone charged with these crimes by the FBI?" he asked on America's Newsroom.

"The mere discussion of it is itself a crime. It is a crime to bribe someone, it is a crime to offer to bribe someone...

quote:

Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano reacted on The Kelly File to revelations that a friend of Hillary Clinton's, then an undersecretary of state for John F. Kerry, offered a "quid pro quo" to an FBI agent to change the classification marking on a document accumulated in the Clinton email scandal investigation.

"An FBI agent who was in charge of handling documents...in the Clinton investigation was approached by Patrick Kennedy [not the former Rhode Island Congressman]-- he makes the offer--'can you change the markings on this document?'." Napolitano told Megyn Kelly.

"Markings on documents are changed all the time," Napolitano said, explaining that changes are made so that lower-level bureaucrats can read them if they have reason to.

"They are never... lawfully changed after they've been subpoenaed, and when they've been accumulated in a criminal investigation," he said.

The FBI agent reported the offer to his superiors, Napolitano said, and did not change the classification of the document.

"The offering of the carrot," Napolitano said, describing the quid pro quo, "[was] an attempt to commit bribery."

"The FBI didn't see it that way. They didn't charge him with anything...[but] the evidence is there in the FBI document...he offered [them] something of value if [they] would alter evidence. So, that's an offer to bribe."

Napolitano and Kelly said Kennedy likely wanted the document's classification changed so that it could not be used as part of the email investigation and "[Clinton] could not be blamed for exposing a national security secret."

quote:

FBI agents say the bureau is alarmed over Director James Comey’s decision to not suggest that the Justice Department prosecute Hillary Clinton over her mishandling of classified information.

According to an interview transcript given to The Daily Caller, provided by an intermediary who spoke to two federal agents with the bureau last Friday, agents are frustrated by Comey’s leadership.

“This is a textbook case where a grand jury should have been convened, but was not. That is appalling,” an FBI special agent who has worked public corruption and criminal cases said of the decision. “We talk about it in the office and don’t know how Comey can keep going.”

The agent was also surprised that the bureau did not bother to search Clinton’s house during the investigation.

“We didn’t search their house. We always search the house. The search should not just have been for private electronics, which contained classified material, but even for printouts of such material,” he said.

“There should have been a complete search of their residence,” the agent pointed out. “That the FBI did not seize devices is unbelievable. The FBI even seizes devices that have been set on fire.”

Another special agent for the bureau who worked counter-terrorism and criminal cases said he is offended by Comey’s saying: “we” and “I’ve been an investigator.”

After graduating from law school, Comey became a law clerk to a U.S. District Judge in Manhattan and later became an associate in a law firm in the city. After becoming a U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, Comey’s career moved through the U.S. Attorney’s Office until he became Deputy Attorney General during the George W. Bush administration.

After Bush left office, Comey entered the private sector and became general counsel and Senior Vice President for Lockheed Martin, among other private sector posts. President Barack Obama appointed him to FBI director in 2013 replacing out going-director Robert Mueller.

“Comey was never an investigator or special agent. The special agents are trained investigators and they are insulted that Comey included them in ‘collective we’ statements in his testimony to imply that the SAs agreed that there was nothing there to prosecute,” the second agent said. “All the trained investigators agree that there is a lot to prosecuted but he stood in the way.”

He added, “The idea that [the Clinton/e-mail case] didn’t go to a grand jury is ridiculous.”

According to Washington D.C. attorney Joe DiGenova, more FBI agents will be talking about the problems at bureau and specifically the handling of the Clinton case by Comey when Congress comes back into session and decides to force them to testify by subpoena.

DiGenova told WMAL radio’s Drive at Five last week, “People are starting to talk. They’re calling their former friends outside the bureau asking for help. We were asked to day to provide legal representation to people inside the bureau and agreed to do so and to former agents who want to come forward and talk. Comey thought this was going to go away.”

He explained, “It’s not. People inside the bureau are furious. They are embarrassed. They feel like they are being led by a hack but more than that that they think he’s a crook. They think he’s fundamentally dishonest. They have no confidence in him. The bureau inside right now is a mess.”

He added, “The most important thing of all is that the agents have decided that they are going to talk.”

quote:

Many FBI agents believe Director James Comey has really hurt the organization with his kid-gloves handling of Hillary Clinton’s email scandal. Particularly galling to many in the Bureau, is Comey’s decision not to prosecute Clinton.

“This is pure political hackery,” says former United States Attorney for the District of Columbia Joe DiGenova. “Believe me, some of the people inside the bureau have tried to express themselves. They call him ‘Comey the Clouseau’ They’re trying to figure out a way to deal with this internally. Needless to say, he is not someone people want to see or be with inside the Bureau.”

The disgust over his decision not to hold Clinton accountable for her “gross negligence” in handling sensitive and classified emails by using a personal email server has demoralized the Bureau and with that, faith in Comey’s leadership has cratered.

“He caved. Completely. He decided that he was going to make a political decision, not a legal decision, not an investigatory decision. And as a result of that, right now, among the agents and just the general staff, there is a revolt. They believe that he is a dirty cop, running the FBI.”

DiGenova says if the Republicans hold on to majorities on the Senate and the House of Representatives, “there will be oversight.” But if they can’t hang on at least to the House, “there will be nothing.”