This commentary is a little longer than my average comments. I read the entire OIG report, all 500 plus pages, on the Clinton E-Mail investigation. My commentary on this just won’t fit in 500 words or less.
In his conclusion the OIG used a phrase of six critical words: “The damage caused by these employees’…”
A few powerful players at the top level polluted the entire investigation. The OIG was ultra cautious in concluding that he did not find “documentary or testimonial evidence” that there was political bias.
My conclusion after reading the full report is that political bias saturated this investigation like gravy on biscuits. This is not to cast a wide net over all of the FBI and DOJ personnel.
I want to share my observations of a few aspects of the report.
Director James Comey
With regard to political bias, I am willing to give Director Comey the benefit of the doubt. In his testimony and the testimony of others, it appears that Director Comey’s ultimate concern was the reputation of the FBI.
His problem was not political bias per se. His problem was (and still appears to be) a hyper-inflated sense that he is the only one in the universe who can determine what is “right.”
In July of 2016 when I watched Comey’s press conference, my first thought was, “Why is he making this announcement and not a US Attorney?” Comey’s decision to go on his own was pure and simple insubordination.
On page 245, the OIG report made a key point. “In our criminal justice system, the investigative and prosecutive functions are intentionally kept separate as a check on the government’s power to bring criminal charges.”
Comey willfully, knowingly, intentionally, tossed the checks and balances out the window. He made himself the chief arbiter of a decision that was never his to make.
In October, days before the election, Comey again made a decision to publicly re-open the Clinton e-mail investigation. In this case, DOJ was aware of his intention to notify Congress and requested that he not at that time. Again, Comey acted as if he alone had the integrity to make the “right” decision.
After President Trump fired Comey, he once again displayed his insubordination. He retained an official FBI work product after his termination of employment, and gave it to a college professor who had no business even knowing the document existed. The professor then leaked the document to the news media as a conduit for Comey.
Comey felt that his action was justified. It was not justified. It violated FBI policy, if not the law.
The FBI Director is part of the Executive Branch and as such is accountable to and subordinate to the Attorney General and the President. While Comey proclaimed his independence from outside meddling, in reality he was acting as a benevolent dictator. He should have been fired in July of 2016.
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page
The two lovebirds got a lot of attention over their text messages. Both held high positions of influence in the investigation. Incredulously, one of them, Peter Strzok is still employed by the FBI.
On July 31, 2016 Strzok sent a text to Page about the opening of the Russia investigation. He expressed his excitement to be on the investigation.
“And ____ this feels momentous. Because this matters. The other one did, too, but that was to ensure we didn’t ___ something up. This matters because this MATTERS. So super glad to be on this voyage with you.”
The most publicized exchange was on August 8, 2016:
Page: “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”
Strzok: “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.”
Strzok was not talking about organizing political activities to get out the vote for Hillary and assure her victory. He held a powerful role in an investigation of the Trump campaign. Based on his July 31 e-mail he appeared to believe at that time that the investigation would somehow stop Trump.
His belief is evident in a text one week later, on August 15, when Strzok wrote to Page:
“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office—that there’s no way he gets elected—but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40….”
On May 17, 2017, Robert Mueller was appointed as Special Counsel. On May 18, Strzok wrote to Page,
“For me, and this case, I personally have a sense of unfinished business. I unleashed it with MYE [the Clinton E-Mail Investigation]. Now I need to fix it and finish it.”
Strzok also wrote about his career path. “Who gives a ___, one more A[ssistant] D[irector]…[versus] [a]n investigation leading to impeachment?”
On May 22, Strzok wrote another message to Page about her career path as part of the Special Counsel’s team: “This is yours. Plus, leaving a S[pecial] C[ounsel] (having been an SC) resulting in an impeachment as an attorney is VERY different than leaving as an investigator….”
These text messages reveal more than just a bias. In his role, Strzok had at his disposal assets from the intelligence community, the law enforcement community, and the Department of Justice.
Peter Strzok was texting about stopping a candidate in the American electoral process. Then he was texting about removing the duly elected President of the United States.
Every FBI agent takes an oath of office that begins with these words, “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…” Peter Strzok, in particular, needs to look into the mirror because his text messages reveal him to a domestic enemy of the United States Constitution. It is a travesty that Strzok is still employed by the FBI. The new Director needs to clean house, or he needs to go the way of James Comey.
I have a lot more to write on this report. Watch for my next Note from Don Cole with more on the OIG report.
I appreciate you taking the time to read my thoughts. Please forward these to your friends and share on Facebook.
Sign up to below to get my commentaries sent directly to your in-box.
I promise, you won’t get a bunch of junk and I will not share your e-mail address with anyone. When you get an e-mail from me, you can be assured that it will be easy to read, informative, and usually short. Thank you again for reading.
by 
Two recent pardons are noteworthy. One was the posthumous pardon of Jack Johnson, former World Heavyweight Champion boxer. Johnson, an African American, was convicted in 1913 of a federal crime for taking his white girlfriend across state lines.
President Trump’s other noteworthy use of his pardon authority was to commute the life sentence of a non-violent drug offender, Alice Johnson. She had served 21 years on conspiracy to possess cocaine and attempted possession of cocaine.
