Comey “Burned” by his own words…..
“By not safeguarding sensitive information obtained during the course of his FBI employment, and by using it to create public pressure for official action, Comey set a dangerous example for the over 35,000 current FBI employees”
Full PDF Report Here
As Comey himself explained in his March 20, 2017 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, he was unable to provide details about the nature or scope of the FBI’s ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election because
“the FBI is very careful in how we handle information about our cases and about the people we are investigating…. Our ability to share details with the Congress and the American people is limited when those investigations are still open, which I hope makes sense. We need to protect people’s privacy…. We just cannot do our work well or fairly if we start talking about it while we’re doing it.”
However, after his removal as FBI Director two months later, Comey provided a copy of Memo 4, which Comey had kept without authorization, to Richman with instructions to share the contents with a reporter for The New York Times. Memo 4 included information that was related to both the FBI’s ongoing investigation of Flynn and, by Comey’s own account, information that he believed and alleged constituted evidence of an attempt to obstruct the ongoing Flynn investigation; later that same day, The New York Times published an article about Memo 4 entitled, “ Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation.”
The responsibility to protect sensitive law enforcement information falls in large part to the employees of the FBI who have access to it through their daily duties. On occasion, some of these employees may disagree with decisions by prosecutors, judges, or higher ranking FBI and Department officials about the actions to take or not take in criminal and counterintelligence matters.
They may even, in some situations, distrust the legitimacy of those supervisory, prosecutorial, or judicial decisions. But even when these employees believe that their most strongly-held personal convictions might be served by an unauthorized disclosure, the FBI depends on them not to disclose sensitive information.
Former Director Comey failed to live up to this responsibility. By not safeguarding sensitive information obtained during the course of his FBI employment, and by using it to create public pressure for official action, Comey set a dangerous example for the over 35,000 current FBI employees—and the many thousands more former FBI employees—who similarly have access to or knowledge of non-public information.
Comey said he was compelled to take these actions “if I love this country…and I love the Department of Justice, and I love the FBI.” However, were current or former FBI employees to follow the former Director’s example and disclose sensitive information in service of their own strongly held personal convictions, the FBI would be unable to dispatch its law enforcement duties properly, as Comey himself noted in his March 20, 2017 congressional testimony.
Comey expressed a similar concern to President Trump, according to Memo 4, in discussing leaks of FBI information, telling Trump that the FBI’s ability to conduct its work is compromised “if people run around telling the press what we do.” This is no doubt part of the reason why Comey’s closest advisors used the words “surprised,” “stunned,” “shocked,” and “disappointment” to describe their reactions to learning what Comey had done.
We have previously faulted Comey for acting unilaterally and inconsistent with Department policy .103 Comey’s unauthorized disclosure of sensitive law enforcement information about the Flynn investigation merits similar criticism. In a country built on the rule of law, it is of utmost importance that all FBI employees adhere to Department and FBI policies, particularly when confronted by what appear to be extraordinary circumstances or compelling personal convictions.
Comey had several other lawful options available to him to advocate for the appointment of a Special Counsel, which he told us was his goal in making the disclosure. What was not permitted was the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive investigative information, obtained during the course of FBI employment, in order to achieve a personally desired outcome.
Many say this warrant will bring an end to 8chan and QAnon.
I have an idea that another set of events will play out in relation to this story. If one looks at the FBI as a “cleaned” house with Deep State mostly removed, its possible that the Deep State ties to this posting and the anons that were “applauding” the shooting event will be revealed. The question is if 8chan has any “forensic” data such as trace-rout data and IP addresses as the post was taken down by 8chan withing 9 minutes and as a result the data may not have been saved.
What one must understand is that the “bad guys” will get on this board and other places and pose as “members” of what ever group the Deep State is trying to demonize. This most easily seen in the Smollett case of being beat up by “Trump” Supporters. If this is a case of C_A or some other group doing devius actions here then the FBI should use whatever means they have to find out.
So we shall see in the coming days what the outcome of this investigation reveals. I would also say that the results will tell us much about the condition of the FBI.
The warrant issued to find out who was involved in “applauding” the shooter of “Poway, Synagogue Shooting”. WIKI link on this event. HERE
Zero hedge reporting this: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-16/watch-out-8chan-fbi-issued-search-warrant-anyone-who-commented-poway-synagogue
more 8chan captured pages
Boom week pointing at James Comey will be 1st to be indicted, and we can look to Rep. Doug Collins to be the first to announce.
Boom time baker
TRUTH TO LIGHT.
NO SLEEP IN DC.
Treason doesn’t pay well in the end.