In this post:
1. Comey abused agency disciplinary structures to repress honest agents who criticized his misdeeds.
2. Comey ordered negotiators with Assange to “stand down.”
3. Obama ordered cyber experts to “stand down” by limiting the number of people defending against cyber threats.
4. The DNC’s legal pleadings contradict each other.
Fired FBI Director James Comey had Special Agents in Charge (SAC’s) retaliate against field agents who spoke out against his mishandling of the Clinton email investigation.
In fact, some of the outspoken agents had Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigations opened on them as punishment.
…Investigative reporter, Paul Sperry says Comey retaliated against field agents who spoke out against his mishandling of the Clinton email investigation!
Sperry tweeted: BREAKING: Comey had SACs retaliate against field agents who spoke out about his mishandling of the Clinton email investigation. Some critical agents had OPR investigations opened on them.
How Comey gave the order to “stand down” and refuse to negotiate with Assange
Comment: The following is a perfect example of why John Solomon’s “soft journalism” writing is worse than standard “hard journalism” writing with an Inverted Pyramid of Facts.
The core of the story is that Assange tried to negotiate with the White House, and Assange leaked Vault 7 when negotiations broke down.
Lightly Edited Quote:
the Trump administration [tried] to get Assange to agree to “risk mitigation” — essentially, limiting some classified CIA information he might release in the future.
The effort resulted in the drafting of a limited immunity deal that might have temporarily freed the WikiLeaks founder from a London embassy where he has been exiled for years, according to interviews and a trove of internal DOJ documents turned over to Senate investigators. Read the draft immunity deal proffer that the Justice Department was considering for Assange here.
But an unexpected intervention by Comey — relayed through Warner — soured the negotiations, multiple sources tell me. Assange eventually unleashed a series of leaks that U.S. officials say damaged their cyber warfare capabilities for a long time to come.
This yarn begins in January 2017 when Assange’s legal team approached Waldman — known for his government connections — to see if the new Trump administration would negotiate with the WikiLeaks founder, holed up in Ecuador’s London embassy.
…“He told me he had just talked with Comey and that, while the government was appreciative of my efforts, my instructions were to stand down, to end the discussions with Assange,” Waldman told me.
Waldman couldn’t believe a U.S. senator and the FBI chief were sending a different signal, so he went back to Laufman, who assured him the negotiations were still on. “What Laufman said to me after he heard I was told to ‘stand down’ by Warner and Comey was, ‘That’s bullshit. You are not standing down and neither am I,’” Waldman recalled.
A source familiar with Warner’s interactions says the senator’s contact on the Assange matter was limited and was shared with Senate Intelligence chairman Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.). But the source acknowledges that Warner consulted Comey and passed along the “stand down” instructions to Waldman: “That did happen.”
Multiple sources tell me the FBI’s counterintelligence team was aware and engaged in the Justice Department’s strategy but could not explain what motivated Comey to send a different message around the negotiations through Warner. A lawyer for Comey did not immediately return calls seeking comment.
While the negotiations survived the Warner-Comey intervention, the episode sowed distrust in Assange’s camp.
“The constructive, principled discussions with DOJ that occurred over nearly two months were complicated by the confusing ‘stand down’ message,” Waldman recalled.
Comment: This story refers to “Russian” threats. It is not likely that the cyber threat actually originated in Russia.
Former Obama administration National Security Council cybersecurity coordinator Michael Daniel confirmed on Wednesday that a “stand down” order was given to counter Russian cyberattacks during the 2016 election.
During a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho, asked Daniel about a passage in the book Russian Roluette. The passage was about a staffer from Daniel’s team, Daniel Prieto, retelling the time that Obama’s national security adviser Susan Rice told Daniel and his team to halt their efforts and to “stand down” in countering Russia’s cyberattacks.
Daniel was quoted saying to his team that they had to stop working on options to counter the Russian attack: “We’ve been told to stand down.” Prieto is quoted as being “incredulous and in disbelief” and asking, “Why the hell are we standing down?”
“That is an accurate rendering of the conversation at the staff meeting but the larger context is something that we can discuss in the classified session,” Daniel said. “But I can say there were many concerns about how many people were involved in the development of the options so the decision at that point was to neck down the number of people that were involved in our ongoing response options. It’s not accurate to say all activities ceased at that point. ”
Disobedient Media has consistently reported on the DNC Fraud Lawsuit and the disturbing, sometimes bizarre events surrounding the case. Though the suit was initially dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, that ruling is in the process of an appeal in the 11th Circuit appellate court.
Last week, the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the suit submitted a supplemental authority letter in the case, arguing that the DNC’s suit against Russia was relevant to the DNC Fraud Lawsuit. The cited relevance was due to arguments made by DNC defense counsel that stated donors did not contribute funds based on the promise of impartiality by the DNC towards Democratic Party primary candidates.
However, as the Beck’s submission points out, the DNC appears to have contradicted their defense by arguing in their separate suit against Russia, the Trump campaign and Wikileaks that the DNC experienced a severe drop in donations in the wake of WikiLeaks’ publication of evidence that the DNC rigged the 2016 Democratic Primary. Bloomberg reports that Democrats raised half as much as Republicans in 2017: In other words, primary source evidence of the DNC’s partiality towards Hillary Clinton has resulted in a steep decline in public donations.
As reported in April by CBS News, the DNC filed its own lawsuit against the “Russian government, WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign, arguing that the parties conspired to influence the 2016 presidential campaign in a way that damaged the Democratic Party.” That legacy press has consistently failed to point out the irony of the DNC’s claim is a stain on the deeply marred facade of American ‘journalism.’
The latest submission by Elizabeth Beck in the DNC Fraud lawsuit appeal, pictured below, states: “The complaint filed by the Democratic National Committee (“DNC,” also known as DNC Services Corporation, and a Defendant/Appellee in the instant appeal before this Court) in the Russia Lawsuit contains allegations made by the DNC which are relevant to the case at bar.”
The letter submitted by Elizabeth Beck goes on to state:
“Appellees/Defendants DNC Services Corporation and Congresswoman Deborah “Debbie” Wasserman Schultz (“Appellees”) have denied that the class members donated “in reliance on anything that Defendants said or did,”(Doc. 44, page 8), claimed in open court that it was implausible and “just doesn’t really make logical sense” that Appellees induced class members to donate to the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, (April 25, 2017 hearing transcript, 68:14-21), speculated that “[t]here are many Bernie Sanders donors who gave because they thought the system was rigged…or…unfair,” (id. 96:9-12), suggested that it is “more logical” that voters would be more inclined to donate if they knew the system was “rigged.” (id. 97:23-98:3, 107:9-13) and stated in their Response Brief that Appellants cannot show a connection between Appellees’ conduct and Appellants’ financial injury (Response Br. at 20).”
“Appellants submit that the DNC’s complaint in the Russia Lawsuit contradicts these allegations and arguments that Appellees have submitted in this instant appeal, as the DNC now claim in the Russia Lawsuit that donations have dramatically dropped.“
To reiterate this point: Attorneys for the plaintiffs in the DNC Fraud lawsuit argue that, in a separate suit filed by the DNC against Russia, the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks, the claims of DNC regarding financial damage contradict the DNC’s defense counsel in the Fraud lawsuit.
Such a contradiction comes as little surprise to those who have observed the progression of the DNC’s willingness to admit their corruption in open court. The Democratic Party’s shamelessness was particularly visible earlier this year when lawyers representing the DNC and Wasserman-Schultz argued that the First Amendment protected the party’s primary rigging.
Again: DNC representatives have argued that the DNC had no established fiduciary duty to the plaintiffs or the classes of donors and registered voters they seek to represent, and that the donations were not given under the premise of impartiality – which is then contradicted by the DNC’s own admission that donations to the DNC have plummeted. That political corruption and hypocrisy in the US has escalated past the point of entertainment into the realm of the truly absurd is evidenced by current DNC Chairman Tom Perez’s straight-faced claim that:
“Russia launched an all-out assault on our democracy, and it found a willing and active partner in Donald Trump’s campaign… This constituted an act of unprecedented treachery: the campaign of a nominee for president of the United States in league with a hostile foreign power to bolster its own chance to win the presidency.”
That the Chairman of the DNC would make such claims while the DNC’s legal counsel has defended the party’s assault on democracy during the Fraud lawsuit litigation, boggles the mind. Disobedient Media previously reported that during the DNC Fraud Lawsuit proceedings, DNC defense council Bruce Spiva infamously argued that the party had the right to pick a candidate. Spiva said in court:
“But here, where you have a party that’s saying, We’re gonna, you know, choose our standard bearer, and we’re gonna follow these general rules of the road, which we are voluntarily deciding, we could have — and we could have voluntarily decided that, Look, we’re gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way. That’s not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also been their right…”
Disobedient Media will continue to report on the DNC Fraud lawsuit as it progresses.