Anti-Trump: How Many Conflicts of Interest in FBI and on Mueller’s Team

Exactly how many pro-Clinton anti-Trump people work for the FBI and Robert Mueller?

We may not know the exact answer to that question, but we have certainly uncovered more Democrat operatives who worked on the plot to thwart Donald Trump and the later attempted coup to depose him.

There is no other way to interpret the IG report except that the Democrats from the bottom to the top are crooks. And in all areas of government.

Further, Obama’s scandal-free administration was anything but.

take our poll - story continues below

Will the Democrats try to impeach President Trump now that they control the House?

  • Will the Democrats try to impeach President Trump now that they control the House?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Black Sphere updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: President Trump Finds Another LEAKER: You’re Fired!

Nevertheless, in typical Obama-remnant swamp speak, the FBI touted that the inspector general “found no evidence to connect the political views expressed by these employees with the specific investigative decisions.”

What a euphemistic way of saying, “Even though we know what they said, we can’t prove they acted upon their biased anti-Trump views.”

How did Comey put it: “…can’t judge the intent”? How convenient.

At least the inspector general referred five employees for investigation into whether the messages violated the FBI’s Offense Codes and Penalty Guidelines. I can hardly wait on this outcome.

FBI Director Wray wouldn’t offer any names of agency employees who had been referred. However, it’s clear that we are only at the beginning of the investigation into the most crooked FBI in American history.

Take a look at the people we know committed high crimes and misdemeanors against the Republic, and it makes the Russians look like Boy Scouts…excuse me, “Scouts”.

Peter Strzok and Lisa Page

Keep in mind that up to now we only had the text of Lisa Page, saying the FBI wanted to stop Donald Trump. Many question why we didn’t get Strzok’s response. Now we know why. The texts were damning, to say the least.

According to the report, Page texted Strzok in August 2016 and said: “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”

“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,” Strzok responded.

Strzok was a lead investigator on the Clinton case and later worked the Russia investigation before being removed from that assignment.

Even after the FBI found these damning texts, both Page and Strzok were not fired. Who knows what other malfeasance these two could have committed as they maintained their jobs.

Their connection to others within the bureau remained. Undoubtedly they knew of many other anti-Trump, pro-Hillary Clinton agents, so who knows what other malfeasance they accomplished.

Peter Kadzik as reported by Fox News:

The Justice Department inspector general report released Thursday faulted a former DOJ official for sending then-Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta a “heads up” about the release schedule for Clinton’s emails — as he also tried to get his son a job with the campaign.

Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report found that former Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik demonstrated “poor judgment” in failing to recognize appearances of a conflict of interest or properly recuse himself from investigations related to Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign.

The report, which looked at the FBI and DOJ’s handling of the Clinton email investigation, found that Kadzik asked Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon in April 2015 for a job for his son — while Kadzik was involved in discussions about Clinton-related matters.

“Hope all is well with you, [Fallon’s wife], the kids, and the candidate,” Kadzik said in response to an email from Fallon. “Let me know if you or someone else needs a great assistant; my 25 year old son is ready for [Clinton].” A job was not offered to Kadzik’s son.

The IG report said Kadzik should have recused himself from Clinton matters at that point or disclosed the circumstances to supervisors, which he did not.

Less than a month later, Kadzik emailed Podesta informing him of the schedule for the release of Clinton’s emails. Kadzik and Podesta have a “long standing personal and professional relationship,” after Kadzik served as Podesta’s lawyer in 1998 during Independent Counsel Ken Starr’s investigation into President Bill Clinton.

The May 2015 email, titled “heads up,” was later released by WikiLeaks in the days leading up to the 2016 election. The email read:

“There is a [House Judiciary Committee] oversight hearing today where the head of our Civil Division will testify. Likely to get questions on State Department emails. Another filing in the FOIA case went in last night or will file in this am that indicates it will be awhile (2016) before the State Department posts the [Clinton] emails.”

While the information had been released publicly, the report found that Kadzik did not know if the information had been filed or made public when he sent the email.

“His willingness to do so raised a reasonable question about his ability to act impartially on Clinton-related matters in connection with his official duties,” the report said, although it concluded that because the information was public, Kadzik did not misuse his official position.

DOJ leadership later decided in November 2016 that Kadzik should be recused after the email became public. But Horowitz’s office found that Kadzik “failed to strictly adhere to this recusal” and forwarded several Clinton-related emails within the department.

Two unnamed FBI agents, according to The Blaze:

conversation between the two anonymous employees on the morning of Nov. 9, 2016 (the day after Donald Trump won the presidential election), indicates a mood of remorse over investigating Hillary Clinton, and a distain for Americans who voted for President Trump.

One of the employees, an attorney, is referred to in the probe only as “FBI Attorney 2.” The other “FBI Employee” was not involved in the Clinton investigation, but had quite a bit to say. Here is the exchange between the two:

09:38:14, FBI Attorney 2: “I am numb.”

09:55:35, FBI Employee: “I can’t stop crying.”

10:00:13 FBI Attorney 2: “That makes me even more sad.”

10:43:20 FBI Employee: “Like, what happened?”

10:43:37, FBI Employee: “You promised me this wouldn’t happen. YOU PROMISED.”

10:43:43 FBI Employee: “Okay, that might have been a lie…”

10:43:46 FBI Employee: “I’m very upset.”

10:43:47 FBI Employee: “haha”

10:51:48 FBI Attorney 2: “I don’t know. We broke the momentum.”

11:00:03 FBI Employee: “That is not so.”

11:02:22 FBI Employee: “All the people who were initially voting for her would not, and were not, swayed by any decision the FBI put out. Trump’s supporters are all poor to middle class, uneducated, lazy *POS that think that he will magically grant them jobs for doing nothing. They probably didn’t watch the debates, aren’t fully educated on his policies, and are stupidly wrapped up in his unmerited enthusiasm.”

Then the attorney responded: “And it’s just hard not to feel like the FBI caused some of this. It was razor thin in some states…plus, my god damned name is all over the legal documents investigating his staff.”

In case you didn’t read that closely the first time, the attorney said: “My god damned name is all over the legal documents investigating his staff.”

Not to worry. Because the FBI remains intact.

The Inspector General’s report concluded that while there were political leanings evident in the conversations, there was no bias in how the Hillary Clinton email probe was handled.

There certainly wasn’t bias, as the FBI was all-in for Hillary Clinton.

Loretta Lynch

In the report, Horowitz also criticized then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s infamous meeting on an Arizona tarmac with former President Bill Clinton just days before the FBI decided it would not recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton.

The report said investigators “found no evidence” of an “inappropriate discussion.” But it found that Lynch’s “failure to recognize the appearance problem created by former President Clinton’s visit and to take action to cut the visit short was an error in judgment.”

How would the IG find evidence of an “inappropriate discussion”. It’s not like Bill Clinton and Lynch recorded the discussion. The fact of these two people being in the mere presence of each other is all the evidence sane people need to draw the rightful conclusion of Clinton attempting to influence the decision.

What are the chances of this meeting occurring naturally?

Moreover, two attorneys would certainly know the ramifications of meeting together for any reason, when one of the attorneys is investigation the wife of the other.

Andrew McCabe

Andy the Leaker. One of many in the FBI.

A related review already has put former top FBI official Andrew McCabe in legal jeopardy. The Justice Department’s internal watchdog sent a criminal referral for McCabe in April to the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington.

That was in response to Horowitz’s finding that McCabe leaked information to the press and later lied about it to Comey and federal investigators, prompting Sessions to fire him in March. The Washington Post reported that Comey has since been questioned by the U.S. attorney’s office as part of a McCabe investigation.

In his report Thursday, Horowitz also reviewed the circumstances of whether McCabe should have recused himself earlier from the Clinton probe because of his family’s ties to the Democratic Party.

McCabe’s wife took campaign money from a group tied to then-Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a Clinton ally, during her unsuccessful run for office in Virginia in 2015. McCabe did not recuse himself until a week before the 2016 election.

Horowitz said McCabe “did not fully comply with his recusal in a few instances” related to the Clinton Foundation investigation. He also said the FBI’s ethics officials and attorneys “did not fully appreciate the potential significant implications” to McCabe and the FBI from campaign contributions to his wife’s campaign.

So not only should McCabe have recused himself immediately, we then find out that he leaked information to the press in hopes of damaging Trump or Trump’s satellites.

James Comey

The IG continues to cover Comey’s ass, as it softened the blow on what Comey actually did. All trails lead to a cover-up for Hillary Clinton, as pro-Clinton bias reeks throughout the FBI, and all other agencies in this report.

Horowitz’s investigation looked at a variety of other allegations, including whether it was improper for Comey to make a public announcement recommending against prosecution over the Clinton email arrangement while calling her actions “extremely careless.”

“We found that it was extraordinary and insubordinate for Comey to conceal his intentions from his superiors, the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, for the admitted purpose of preventing them from telling him not to make the statement, and to instruct his subordinates in the FBI to do the same,” Horowitz’s report says.

But Comey is on the hook for much more.

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.