(THREAD) In Part 2 of my thread on Comey's efforts to the defend the FBI, I explain how the just-released IG report confirms that Comey's defense of the FBI *wrongly* implies a pro-Clinton—rather than pro-Trump—FBI conspiracy to influence the election. Hope you'll read and share. 
1/ This thread formally incorporates the 50+ tweets to be found in Part 1 of this discussion:
2/ I wrote in Part 1 that IG Horowitz has inadvertently given the impression of a pro-Clinton conspiracy at the FBI by selectively releasing a sub-report on McCabe rather than releasing the full IG report all at once. I've said Comey's narrative inadvertently has the same effect.
3/ The question now becomes whether we find any indication in the selectively released IG subreport that IG Horowitz *knows* and *plans to release findings about* the pro-Trump conspiracy at the FBI that forced McCabe and Comey to make the pre-election decisions they did.
We do.
We do.
4/ We know Horowitz is investigating pro-Trump leaks designed to influence the election not just because Comey has confirmed it but because that material is already included (in brief) in the selectively released IG sub-report that came out a few days ago: oig.justice.gov/reports/2018/o…
5/ IG Horowitz writes that "McCabe told the OIG [Office of the Inspector General] that during the October 2016 time frame it was his 'perception that there was a lot of information coming out of likely the [FBI's] New York field office' that was ending up in the news"—i.e. leaks.
6/ Even if it were *only* the then-Deputy FBI Director telling Inspector General Horowitz that the New York field office of the FBI was illegally leaking investigatory information in the weeks leading up the 2016 presidential election, Horowitz would *have* to investigate it.
7/ In fact, Horowitz received much more information on this subject than just McCabe's claims. (And, I should add, Comey's claims—as Comey indicated an active FBI investigation into that subject during his sworn testimony before Congress, and said the IG was looking at it also.)
8/ On page 6 of the IG sub-report, Horowitz writes that "McCabe told the OIG that he 'had some heated back-and-forths' with the New York Assistant Director in Charge over the issue of media leaks."
We know from Trump advisor Rudy Giuliani that some of those leaks were to him.
We know from Trump advisor Rudy Giuliani that some of those leaks were to him.
9/ We know that *other* leaks McCabe yelled at the NYC field office about went to "True Pundit"—a pro-Trump fake news site repeatedly amplified by Team Trump (particularly Flynn and Don Jr.—though Don subsequently deleted at least one such retweet to hide it from investigators).
10/ We know McCabe was concerned about the True Pundit leaks because—as I mentioned in Part 1 of this thread—he wrote Comey that "heavyweight" FBI sources were leaking to True Pundit on October 24, 2016. Judicial Watch discovered that email via a FOIA lawsuit a few months ago.
11/ So let's be clear: even as McCabe was facing allegations from the conservative Wall Street Journal and the pro-Trump fake news website "True Pundit" that he was in the bag for Clinton, he was fighting off a known and conspicuous pro-Trump conspiracy of leakers at the NYC FBI.
12/ Moreover, *Jim Comey* was aware of this conspicuous pro-Trump conspiracy of leakers at the NYC FBI by October 24, 2016 at the very *latest*—as that was the day McCabe emailed him to warn him that "heavyweight" leakers at the New York field office of the FBI were aiding Trump.
13/ Back to the IG sub-report: on page 7, it says that, on October 26, the ATTORNEY GENERAL HERSELF chewed out the New York field office of the FBI for its October 2016 leaks to media. She focused most on the Garner case, but likely because she was recused from the Clinton case.
14/ Not only was McCabe on the October 26, 2016 conference call, he told the OIG he'd "never heard [AG Lynch] use more forceful language" on any subject. So now we know Inspector General Horowitz *had* to interview Loretta Lynch about pro-Trump pre-election NY field office leaks.
15/ The ferocity of the Attorney General's attacks on the pro-Trump leaks coming out of the NYC field office of the FBI in the weeks leading up to the election was confirmed by the NY Assistant Director in Charge, who told the OIG that AG Lynch "ripped [into] him" on the subject.
16/ So now we know that, in a future report, Inspector General Horowitz will reveal the details of interviews—on the topic of pro-Trump pre-election leaks from the NYC field office of the FBI—with *at least* four top people at DOJ/FBI:
1) McCabe
2) Comey
3) Lynch
4) the NY-ADIC
1) McCabe
2) Comey
3) Lynch
4) the NY-ADIC
17/ Two things happened immediately after—that is, just *hours* after—Attorney General Lynch "ripped" the NYC FBI office for its pro-Trump leaks.
First, Andrew McCabe informed Comey that the NYC office had up to 650,000 Clinton emails on Anthony Weiner's seized PC. And second...
First, Andrew McCabe informed Comey that the NYC office had up to 650,000 Clinton emails on Anthony Weiner's seized PC. And second...
18/ ...McCabe informed the NY-ADIC and the FBI Executive Assistant Director (EAD) that he was recusing himself from the Clinton Foundation investigation.
In other words, AG Lynch "ripping" pro-Trump leakers at the FBI may well have been *the* turning point in the 2016 election.
In other words, AG Lynch "ripping" pro-Trump leakers at the FBI may well have been *the* turning point in the 2016 election.
19/ If indeed McCabe "sat on" the "new" Clinton emails from October 3 to 26, we now can guess what caused him to notify Comey of the emails: them being in the custody of the NYC office. As the AG had *just* issued an edict for FBI brass to be aware of and responsive to NYC leaks.
20/ So *something* about the calls he had on October 26 caused McCabe to appreciate—in a way he hadn't when emailing Comey about allegations he was conflicted on October 23-24—that he had to remove himself from *all* Clinton probes. Which meant turning the NYC case over to Comey.
21/ Because the AG *also* would've addressed the October 23 WSJ article (which was highly critical of McCabe) when she spoke to McCabe and the NY-ADIC on October 26, that call essentially had *two* purposes: to chastise pro-Trump *and* (allegedly) pro-Clinton elements at the FBI.
22/ Apparently, both sides got the message. Giuliani changed his story beginning the day after the October 26 (AG-NYAIC-McCabe) call, saying he'd never spoken to active agents. Meanwhile, Prince—and, it seems, Bannon, Flynn, and Trump Jr.—cooked up a plan to peddle *fake* emails.
23/ And just as the rogue FBI agents in the NYC office clearly viewed the AG conference call on October 26 as an excuse to tell Giuliani to be more careful, the allegedly "pro-Clinton" guy at the FBI—McCabe—decided that very day to excuse himself from everything Clinton-related.
24/ And *that's* why Comey ended up with the "new" NY-DC Clinton case on his lap on October 26—because AG Lynch saw a war between the NYC office and McCabe in which both sides were wrong and (at least) one conflicted (the pro-Trump rogue agents). So it all got kicked up to Comey.
25/ And James Comey, seeing the mess that everyone below him had made of the case, made the worst mistake of his life—violating longstanding FBI policies against discussing ongoing investigations *and* interfering with elections in an effort to preserve the reputation of the FBI.
CONCLUSION/ The two sides of the NY-DC battle—rogue pro-Trump agents in NY and McCabe in DC—were *not* equally guilty. The pro-Trump agents were breaking the law to influence an election; McCabe was following FBI policy on ongoing investigations *and* on interfering in elections.
CONCLUSION2/ What everyone misses is that even if McCabe DID sit on the emails, he was doing so BECAUSE ANYTHING THEY FOUND WAS GOING TO BE ILLEGALLY LEAKED by rogue pro-Trump agents in New York. The only way for McCabe to abide by FBI policies was to make those leaks impossible.
CONCLUSION3/ McCabe made the illegal pro-Trump leaks impossible by putting review of the Clinton emails on hold until after they could no longer be an election issue—which FBI policies *strictly forbade them* from being. Plus there was *no* reason to think they'd change anything.
CONCLUSION4/ This, then, is the SECOND point everyone misses: based upon the explicit reasons Comey gave for not charging Clinton, there was VIRTUALLY NO CHANCE any new emails would change the FBI's position. The ONLY utility of the emails was to influence the election for Trump.
CONCLUSION5/ Now you know why Comey *stands by* McCabe, though McCabe left Comey in the dark on the emails: McCabe and Comey—up to the Comey Letter, at least—were trying to protect the FBI *and* follow FBI rules. Meanwhile, pro-Trump rogue agents were trying to steal an election.
PS/ Per the IG, by October 27 Comey was keeping McCabe off Clinton-related calls, confirming Comey now had the case and McCabe was seen as—if by appearance only—conflicted.
And Giuliani now knew he couldn't get real emails leaked to him, so Team Trump began peddling fake emails.
And Giuliani now knew he couldn't get real emails leaked to him, so Team Trump began peddling fake emails.
