Sensitive Matters and Sudden Ignorance at the DOJ

New emails reveal possible chicanery, while desperation drives experts to play the fool.

Like George Constanza’s mom once told her sad sack of a son on Seinfeld, “Every day it’s something new with you!”

And so it goes with the soap opera at the Department of Justice, where career officials—and their defenders in the mainstream media—are scrambling to come up with the least implausible explanation for why the Trump campaign seemed to have more government moles in it than the Gambino crime family. This comes fresh on the heels of the president calling out the DOJ for treating him much like Dean Wormer treated the Deltas, with the Obama administration pulling some double-secret probation moves for what increasingly appears to be politics dressed up as national security:

This has, incredibly enough, led to the specter of analysts—you know, those people who get paid handsomely by cable news networks to explain the arcana of how government works—feigning complete and total ignorance when it comes to their supposed area of expertise. For instance, here’s Ali H. Soufan, whose Twitter bio describes him as a former FBI special agent:

Say what? Then what exactly does the president talk about when he rings up the DOJ? Maybe he really took Loretta Lynch at her word when she claimed that her runway confab with Bill Clinton was all about the grandchildren and had nothing to do with the DOJ’s ongoing investigation into Hillary’s emails—but as a career FBI guy, he should know better. And he does know better, which is why stuff like this is so nefarious. It amounts to a disinformation campaign on the part of the media to confuse the public on what’s really going on and cast Donald Trump as the villain trying to tear down the Constitutional order, when, in fact, the Obama administration repeatedly and brazenly abused its powers.

Such as when it apparently assembled a hit squad of FBI and DOJ higher-ups to go after Trump:

Newly-examined emails among high-ranking U.S. intel officials at the time—including then-Director James Comey and his chief of staff James Rybicki—reference a “sensitive matter team.”

Based on the context of the emails, the “sensitive matter” appears to be the Trump-Russia narrative, and political opposition research funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. The research— known as the “Steele dossier”— was peddled to the press and secretly used, in part, to justify controversial FBI wiretaps against at least one Trump associate.

Sounds strangely as if they were trying to compartmentalize the investigation to keep the “wrong” people from finding out about it—like maybe those who would see such as investigation as problematic, if not downright corrupt.

According to Sen. Johnson’s letter, Comey chief of staff Rybicki emailed unidentified recipients on the morning of Jan. 6, 2017 stating, “[Director Comey] is coming to HQ briefly now for an update on the sensitive matter team.”

Later in the day, Comey briefed President-elect Trump on a few of the salacious, unverified allegations in the Steele dossier. The next day, Comey reported on his briefing in an email to FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, FBI General Counsel James Baker and Chief of Staff Rybicki. (All four men have since resigned or been fired from the FBI.)

“I said there was something [Director of National Intelligence James] Clapper wanted me to speak to [President Elect Trump] about alone or in a very small group,” Comey wrote in the email. “I then executed the session exactly as I had planned…I said media like CNN had them and were looking for a news hook.” (Clapper now works as a CNN contributor.)

You mean a hook such as the president getting briefed about certain salacious details?

A day later, Jan. 8, FBI Deputy Director McCabe emailed Comey and Rybicki with the subject title: “Flood is coming.”

“CNN is close to going forward with the sensitive story,” McCabe wrote. “The trigger for them is they know the material was discussed in the [presidential] brief and presented in an attachment.”

Call me paranoid, but this looks an awful lot like the FBI and the DOJ coordinating with CNN to put out a story they knew to be unverified oppo research for the express purpose of damaging Trump. Does that make me a conspiracy theorist?

Clearly, there is a rot that has settled into our institutions of law and order—and Donald Trump is entirely justified in calling for an investigation into it. More critically, he would be remiss in his duties as the chief law enforcement executive if he didn’t. The question is, will he just keep tweeting about this sensitive matter—or will he order an immediate declassification of all the materials associated with it?

The public deserves to know the truth about what really happened. Indeed, the health of the republic depends upon it.

Comments
No. 1-11
cynicalnerd
cynicalnerd

@JaneKMiller ^^^ This. Just. This. ^^^ It's rare indeed that I witness such a flawless blend of tin-foil hat paranoia, hypocritical projection and batcrap insanity. Either you are a master at being a leftist concern troll or you need to ask the nice folks in the clean white coats to come and take you away (HA HA) to the funny farm.

JaneKMiller
JaneKMiller

@Thomas -- Countering Russian spies into our democratic process is a good thing. If Hillary had Russian spies in her campaign then it would be perfectly valid for the FBI to try to defend us.

Of course this isn't going to make any sense to Trumpsters. They live under the following premises:

1) Trump is the Ultimate Good and has only our best interests at heart.

2) The Putin helped Trump win the election, which therefore means Putin is also the Ultimate Good.

3) The FBI and the CIA were agencies that were chartered to fight Putin, which means they are the enemy.

Hence Trump is able to reverse the meaning of a FBI informant being used in the Trump campaign: instead of defending the USA, as they were, Trump convinces these idiots that they were attacking the USA.

We're not very far from a full Russian take-over of our country, ladies and gentlemen. Putin's two biggest enemies are the FBI and the CIA, and one of our political parties here is in an all-our war with them.

cynicalnerd
cynicalnerd

@Reaganite The rules were by and large suspended during Obama's reign, the only way that they are going to be reinstated is if those who enabled such behavior or committed said illegal actions are dismissed from their positions and are prosecuted for it.

Ps. Jane, I find the comments of Troll and the other puerile insults hilarious, especially from the Johnny-come-lately Jackwagons.

Reaganite
Reaganite

Spot on, Marc. You are a breath of fresh air at the Resurgent. Too many here don't know the real game. Fewer still know the rules to that game. Pray that you never come up on their radar and that you never get the call I did to inform me that the U.S. Constitution no longer matters.

Thomas Swander
Thomas Swander

JaneK, once again I'll help you out. Since we all agree spying on Presidential campaigns is a good thing, let's have some "informants" in the 2018 House and Senate campaigns of the Democrats. And to top that, we'll imbed some in the 2020 Democratic Presidential campaign. See, problem solved.

Stories