About the IG Report ...

ICYMI the IG report came out today.

POLITICS

06/14/2018 10:55 am ET 

DOJ Watchdog Report Takeaway: FBI Hurt Hillary Clinton, Not Donald Trump

It’s a message that might get lost as Trump and his supporters weaponize a new inspector general’s report.

By Ryan J. Reilly

AFP via Getty Images

WASHINGTON ― The Justice Department’s internal watchdog just served up a hefty dose of reality to President Donald Trump and his allies.

On Thursday afternoon, Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz released a report 17 months in the making on the FBI’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation during the 2016 election.

Amid the unfolding special counsel investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election, Trump and his supporters have been waging war against the FBI and Justice Department. The new report is sure to give them fresh material.

But one takeaway from the document stands out: Despite Republican suggestions that anti-Trump forces within the FBI worked against Trump, the bureau’s public actions during the campaign hurt Clinton and helped Trump.
SNIP

Read the whole report here:

2016 Election Final Report 06-14-18 by Anonymous FBZLGr on Scribd

Read more >>>>

And Hillary chimed in! LOL!!!

But my emails. https://t.co/G7TIWDEG0p

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 14, 2018

Redacted Warrant is Unsealed Thanks to Randol Schoenberg Who Sees No "Probable Cause"

E. Randol Schoenberg's initiative to see the warrant to search Anthony Weiner's laptop for items other than those the original warrant sought was based on a sense that something was wrong.

“It’s more likely something criminal happened in the obtaining of the search warrant than… Hillary Clinton did something wrong,”
“I like tilting at windmills, and sometimes it turns out not to be as crazy as everybody thinks,” “Maybe I’m right that there’s some big story behind this, maybe I’m wrong…Sticking to your convictions, trying to think differently from everyone else is what I like to do.”

Schoenberg, known for successful restitution to original owners of items stolen by the Nazis during WWII, has an instinct for concealed injustice - a great quality in a lawyer with the eyes of a watchdog.

Here is an article Randol posted on Facebook today after the warrant was finally released (h/t to Judge Kevin Castel in NY).

U.S.

Lawyer ‘Appalled,’ Sees No Probable Cause For Clinton FBI Search Warrant

By Josh Saul On 12/20/16

The search warrant that gave FBI agents access to a cache of Hillary Clinton emails just nine days before the recent presidential election was unsealed Tuesday. It shows that FBI agents obtained the warrant by telling a federal judge they believed the emails contained classified information that broke the law.
“There is probable cause to believe the subject laptop contains evidence, contraband, fruits, and/or other items illegally possessed in violation of [federal law],” reads the signed affidavit of an FBI agent, filed October 30 in support of the search warrant for the silver Dell laptop belonging to Anthony Weiner, the former congressman and estranged husband of top Clinton aide Huma Abedin.
“There is also probable cause to believe that the correspondence between them located on the subject laptop contains classified information which was produced by and is owned by the U.S. government,” reads the heavily redacted affidavit for the warrant.
SNIP
In a statement Tuesday afternoon, Schoenberg said the search warrant showed no probable cause that would justify Comey notifying Congress, adding that he was “appalled” by the lack of cause presented in the affidavit.
“I see nothing at all in the search warrant application that would give rise to probable cause, nothing that would make anyone suspect that there was anything on the laptop beyond what the FBI had already searched and determined not to be evidence of a crime, nothing to suggest that there would be anything other than routine correspondence between Secretary Clinton and her longtime aide Huma Abedin,” Schoenberg said in the statement.
Read more >>>>

Schoenberg also shared this article on Facebook with portions of the warrant copied.
The damage is done and most likely cannot be undone.  But to be able to see how the system worked possibly/probably to sabotage the popular candidate? Priceless!
Many thanks, Randy! We love you for this! The Resistance takes many forms and requires folks from all walks with a wide variety of expertise, skills, networks, and instincts.  You, Randy, are one in a million - or probably more than a million.  You Rock!  Waiting to see what the next step is.  We are dancing behind you all the way!

Update on the Laptop Warrant Request: Federal Judge Orders it Unsealed

Randol Schoenberg's effort is bearing results!  Thank you, Randy!

U.S. judge orders unsealing of Clinton email probe search warrant

Reuters

By Nate Raymond

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A U.S. judge on Monday ordered the unsealing of the application used to obtain a search warrant that allowed the FBI to gain access to emails related to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's private server before the Nov. 8 election.
U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel in Manhattan directed the release by Tuesday of redacted materials used to obtain a search warrant after Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey informed Congress of newly discovered emails on Oct. 28.
Read more >>>>

Step Two: Federal Judge Requests Warrant

Last week, E. Randol Schoenberg filed suit to see the warrant to examine Anthony Weiner's laptop for Hillary Clinton's emails.  Now a federal judge has responded to that request and is requesting the warrant.

Federal judge wants to see Clinton emails search warrant

Tribune news servicesContact Reporter

A federal judge directed the U.S. government Tuesday to show him any search warrant application used to gain access to a new batch of Hillary Clinton's emails just before the election.
Judge P. Kevin Castel asked a government lawyer to turn over any pertinent documents by late Thursday in case he decides any portion of the materials must be made public. He also recommended the government advise what redactions are necessary should he rule that portions of documents must be disclosed publicly.
E. Randol Schoenberg, a Los Angeles-based lawyer who specializes in recovering works of art stolen by the Nazis, sued to obtain any search warrant and related papers used by the FBI to obtain the emails from a computer belonging to Anthony Weiner, the estranged husband of Huma Abedin, one of Clinton's top aides. Schoenberg's lawsuit followed a Freedom of Information Act request for the documents.
Weiner, a Democrat, resigned his seat in Congress after sexually explicit texts and social media posts to various women. He is under investigation by federal authorities for online communications he had with a 15-year-old girl.
Read more >>>>

If the 4th Amendment was violated, we deserve to know.
More on this topic.

Judge wants to see the search warrant application that led to review of Hillary Clinton's emails days before the election

Nate Raymond, Reuters

Probe of FBI’s Election Antics Put on Fast Track

December 13, 2016 ADAM KLASFELD

Thank you, E. Randol Schoenberg, a fighter for justice, and Judge P. Kevin Castel!

We are in uncharted waters. If there was a violation of the 4th Amendment compounded with a violation of the Hatch Act, what are the implications for the legitimacy of this election?

Hillary Clinton at Kent State

Hillary spoke out today on the issue of the FBI's investigation of Trump's Russian relations.  What?  You didn't know the FBI was investigating Trump?  Could that possibly be because Director Comey is applying a double standard by sending a letter to GOP committee chairs about an investigation related to Hillary's email while refusing to speak about the investigation of Trump's Russian ties? (I don't mean neckties made in Russia.)  Hillary told the audience that it is important to choose the candidate who knows the difference between our allies and our adversaries.

FBI's Comey opposed naming Russians, citing election timing: Source http://cnb.cx/2eNoVpJ  (via @EamonJavers)

In Kent, Clinton Says Trump Cannot Be Trusted With Our National Security, Lays Out Vision for An America That is ‘Stronger Together’

 

In a speech in Kent, Ohio on Monday, Hillary Clinton continued to highlight the stakes on this election, making the case that Donald Trump is not only unfit to be commander-in-chief but also a clear danger to our national security. Trump cannot be trusted to command our nuclear arsenal, would lose his cool during a national security crisis and has a foreign policy vision contrary to America's values and geopolitical goals, Clinton said. Trump also has a history of praise for dictators like Saddam Hussein and ties to strongmen like Vladimir Putin, she added, whose government is trying to influence our election and put its thumb on the scale for Donald Trump.

Clinton was introduced by Bruce Blair, a former U.S. Air Force Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missile launch control officer who appeared in an ad for her campaign. The ad, titled "Silo," highlighted the solemn responsibility of commanding our nuclear arsenal -- all the more reason Donald Trump can never sit in the Situation Room.

Clinton laid out a different vision that is "about lifting people up, not tearing each other down" and "says we’re stronger together." She added, "Millions of people across our country are standing up and saying: We believe in an America that is great because it is good. That is Democrats, Republicans and Independents. Because we believe in an America where women are respected. An America where veterans are honored, parents are supported, and workers are paid fairly … an America where marriage is a right and discrimination is wrong…. an America that leads in the world and lives up to our values… where everyone counts and everyone has a place. Where the American dream is big enough for everyone. This goes way beyond policies and partisanship.  We’re talking about what it really means to be an American in the 21st century. About the basic lessons we want to teach boys and girls, kids and grandkids." Clinton closed by asking attendees to safeguard our future, security and values by voting early and helping to ensure the largest turnout in our nation’s history. Clinton's remarks, as transcribed, are below: “Hello, Kent State! And Happy Halloween everybody! It’s great to be back in Ohio – even if, even if the World Series is making life very stressful for Cubs fans everywhere. I want to thank Bruce Blair for that introduction, and for his service to our nation.  I think every American should hear your story over the next 8 days before they vote. I also want to thank everyone who was part of the pre-program. In particular, let me thank Senator Sherrod Brown, such a great senator, my dear friend and great congressman Tim Ryan, State Representative John Boccieri, State Representative Kathleen Clyde, and let me thank the Kent Clarks, the acapella group that sang during the pre-program! My friends, we are about to enter the final week of this election, so I wanted to come back to Ohio, one of the most competitive and consequential battlegrounds in the country, to talk about what’s at stake in this election. But let me start with this.  I’m sure a lot of you may be asking what this new email story is about and why in the world the FBI would decide to jump into an election with no evidence of any wrongdoing with just days to go. That’s a good question! And first of all, for those of you who are concerned about my using personal email, I understand and as I've said, I'm not making excuses. I said it was a mistake and I regret it and now they apparently want to look at emails of one of my staffers and by all means, they should look at them. And I am sure they will reach the same conclusion they did when they looked at my emails for the last year. There is no case here. And they said it wasn’t even a close call and I think most people have decided a long time ago what they think about all of this. Now what people are focused on is choosing the next President and Commander-in-Chief of the United States of America. And did any of you see the debates? Well, I think it was important because I had a chance to talk about my 30 years of public service and my plans for our country. And then people could weigh that against what my opponent has done and said. I am running against a man who says he doesn’t understand why we can't use nuclear weapons. He actually said, ‘Then why are we making them?’ And he wants more countries to have nuclear weapons. Japan, South Korea, even Saudi Arabia.  Imagine nuclear weapons smack in the middle of the Middle East. And if you’re telling yourself he’ll surround himself with smart people who’ll stop these crazy ideas, remember this: When he asked who he consults on foreign policy, Donald Trump said he didn’t need to consult because he said and I quote, ‘I have a very good brain.’  He said he knows more about ISIS than our generals do. No, he does not. And of course, the people Donald Trump has had around him include two men whose activities are reportedly being investigated for their ties to Russia -- Vladimir Putin and Putin’s allies. So, in these last days, let’s not get distracted from the real choice in this election and the consequences for your future. I started saying last June, I believe, that Donald Trump has proven himself temperamentally unfit and totally unqualified to be President and Commander-in-Chief. And I've got to tell you, I did not take any pleasure in saying that. I have known, I have known for years now people who ran for President, Republicans and Democrats. And I had my differences with Republicans and even with Democrats, but I never doubted their fitness to serve. Donald Trump is different. That’s as serious as it gets. So today, I want to talk about our national security. Because when the election is over and people wake up on November 9th, we will have picked the person who will carry the responsibility for all these weighty decisions. And that should really convince anyone how high the stakes really are in this election. And I just want to focus on three of the most crucial questions facing the next President: Can you be trusted to command our nuclear arsenal and make literally life and death decisions about war and peace? How do you handle a crisis? And do you know the difference between our allies and our adversaries? We’ll start with nuclear weapons. Now, I know there are some who will say that any discussion of this topic could be fear-mongering, but I don’t think so and in part of what you just heard from Bruce Blair. When dozens of retired nuclear launch officers publicly state that Donald Trump should, and I quote, ‘not have his finger on the button,’ then this is a topic that can’t be avoided. And as I've said, Donald has repeatedly suggested that more countries should have nuclear weapons. He must not realize or care that the more nuclear material there is in the world, the more likely terrorists are to get their hands on it -- or that someone will miscalculate and start a war that can’t be stopped. And when a few more countries go nuclear, their neighbors will feel pressure to do so as well. One of the reasons I worked so hard to impose sanctions on Iran so that we could get them to the negotiating table was so we would not have a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and I am proud that we put a lid on Iran's nuclear weapons program. But even the prospect of an actual nuclear war doesn’t seem to bother Donald Trump. ‘Good luck, enjoy yourselves, folks,’ was what he had to say about a potential nuclear conflict in Asia. I wonder if he knows that a single nuclear warhead can kill millions of people.  These are weapons today far more powerful than the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II.  To talk so casually, so cavalierly about mass annihilation is truly appalling. President Ronald Reagan once said -- and he worked hard for arms control and I admired what he did working with the Soviet Union -- and he once said he feared, and this is a quote from President Reagan, ‘some fool or some maniac or some accident triggering the kind of war that is the end of the line for all of us.’  That has been the fear and the commitment of Democratic and Republican presidents since the dawn of the Atomic Age. So what would he think about Donald Trump, who says he wants to be, and I quote, ‘unpredictable’ about using the most powerful weapons ever produced? And here’s the thing with nuclear weapons – as Bruce told you, when the President gives the order, that’s it.  There’s no veto for Congress, no veto by the Joint Chiefs. The officers in the silos have no choice but to fire. And that can take as little as four minutes. That’s why all those retired launch officers stepped forward and said Donald Trump should never be put in charge of our nuclear arsenal. Earlier you heard from one of them, Bruce Blair, and his story is worth remembering. In 1973, Bruce was a young military officer working in an underground bunker in Montana.  His job was to launch as many as 50 nuclear weapons if the President ever gave the order. Then one night in October, as the United States and the Soviet Union squared off over an escalating conflict in the Middle East, the emergency message he had trained for arrived: prepare for nuclear war. Like other American officers in bunkers and submarines and bombers around the world, Bruce and his colleagues started the process because that was their duty.  They unlocked the safe, took out the launch codes and the keys, and then strapped into their chairs to brace for the shockwaves that would come if a Russian warhead detonated above them. Then they waited for the final order from the President. Thankfully, it never came. But when Bruce looks at Donald Trump, and sees his hair-trigger temper, and he thinks about what it felt like inside that bunker that night. As I’ve said many times, a man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons. And that brings me to the second question I think voters should pose to both candidates: How do you handle a crisis? We’ve seen in this campaign that Donald Trump loses his cool at the slightest provocation. When he’s gotten a tough question from a reporter. When he’s challenged in a debate. When he sees a protestor at a rally.  When he’s confronted with his own words. So imagine him in the Oval Office facing a real crisis. Imagine his advisors afraid to tell him what he doesn’t want to hear, racing against his legendarily short attention span to lay out life-and-death choices too complex to be reduced to a single tweet. And then imagine him plunging us into a war because somebody got under his very thin skin. Now thankfully, he’s never been in a position where he had to help make life-and-death decisions for our country.  But there was one national crisis where we did get a good look at how Donald Trump handles himself.  Donald is a New Yorker, and his finest moment in this campaign was when he defended New York against Ted Cruz's attacks in a debate. And then he invoked the days after 9/11, when New Yorkers really came together and took care of each other.  And I couldn’t agree more. That’s why it was so upsetting to learn what Donald was actually doing on 9/11. After the world watched with horror as the Twin Towers fell, he called in to a New York TV station. And even on that horrible day, when thousands of people lost their lives, he couldn’t stop himself from pointing out that now, because the towers had fallen, a building he owned was now the tallest in Lower Manhattan. What kind of a person brags at a moment like that? I'll tell you: someone who should never set foot in the Oval Office and serve as Commander in Chief. For me, I take this very personally, my friends.  Because I was one of New York’s senators along with Chuck Schumer on 9/11. He and I were on the ground the very next day, meeting with the Governor, the Mayor, emergency officials. And I will never forget the sight of Ground Zero. The thick smoke made it hard to breathe or see. Some of the firefighters and other first responders we met had been on duty nonstop since the planes hit the towers. They had all lost friends.  In a makeshift command center, we were briefed on the damage, and it was clear we were going to need a lot of help to recover New York, and we were going to have to really make it our absolute mission to not only rebuild New York but to keep America safe. That's what I did for eight years as a senator. I never stopped fighting to keep our country safer and to ensure that first responders got the medical care they needed. And I think it's important to reflect on what each of us has done in moments like that. Because a lot of the crises that come at a president are not predicted. They happen. I'll tell you a quick story. It was after President-elect Obama asked me to be secretary of state but before the inauguration. And I got a call to come to an emergency meeting in the White House in the Situation Room. And the new Obama national security team was on one side of table, and the outgoing Bush national security team was on the other side. And the Bush Administration had gotten credible intelligence that there was going to be an attack at our inauguration. So even before we were sworn in to do our jobs, we were faced with helping to make such a consequential decision. It really matters what your experience has, what your values are, whether you can be counted on to make that decision. You learn a lot about people in moments like that. And as I sat there with the pressure on, having to think through in my own head, how we evaluated this intelligence, how we did everything we could to preserve our inauguration of our first African American president on the Mall in Washington. We made the decision to go forward, obviously. Some of you might have been there. But we also did everything we could to double our efforts to find out about the intelligence and to secure the hundreds of thousands of people who would be there. So you have to ask yourself: in a crisis, who would you trust?  Who will listen to good advice, keep a level head and make the right call?  Because that’s the person you want as our president and Commander in Chief. Now let’s get to the third question for all of the voters to consider about each of us. Do you know the difference between our allies and our adversaries? Now this may seem like an easy question. If you got it on an exam, I think you'd be able to answer it. But apparently it's hard for Donald. He has picked fights with our friends. I mean the President of Mexico, the British prime minister, the German chancellor, pretty much the entire nation of Japan… and he even picked a fight with the Pope. And at the same time he is praising tyrants and dictators like Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Un in North Korea and Bashar al-Assad for their supposed strong leadership.  He even praised the Chinese government for massacring protesters in Tiananmen Square. Trump has repeatedly suggested he would abandon our allies in Europe and Asia. He has called NATO, quote, ‘obsolete.’ Obsolete?  NATO is the greatest military alliance in the history of the world.  And it's based on something called Article V, which says, ‘An attack on one is an attack on all.’ And Article V has only been invoked one time: when our allies came to our defense after 9/11. We still have NATO allies fighting side by side, working side by side with American troops in Afghanistan. They joined us in going after Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. Now we’re supposed to tell them we won’t have their back? And by the way—right now, our NATO allies are helping identify and track terrorists who threaten America and Europe.  They’re hosting radar and missile defense installations that protect us against potential threats from Iran and elsewhere. And as our NATO forces in Afghanistan stand shoulder-to-shoulder with American troops, they share the risks and burdens. Now they're moving into the Baltic States to deter Russian aggression. Treating our allies like the small businesses and contractors that Trump exploited and stiffed in Atlantic City – hanging them out to dry -- would make our country and our world less safe.  And it would play right into the hands of Russia and China, which are envious of our alliances and eager to see them weaken or fail. But maybe that’s the point. Because what's most striking about all of this -- and I would argue most important for voters to consider – is the relationship between Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. As former Secretary Madeleine Albright put it, and I quote her, ‘We have never seen a mind meld of the kind between the Russian leadership and a candidate for the presidency of the United States.’ Michael Morell, who ran the CIA and grew up just a few miles from here, has said that Putin is manipulating Donald. Putin is a trained intelligence officer from the old KGB.  He knows he can use flattery to get into Donald’s head -- to make Donald the Kremlin’s puppet. And It seems to be working. Donald has signaled to Putin that he will let Russia do whatever it wants, from Ukraine to Syria and beyond. He’s even said Putin is a stronger leader than President Obama. And it gets worse. The U.S. intelligence community has now confirmed that the Russian government, which means Putin, is directing cyber-attacks against targets in the United States to influence the outcome of our election. So ask yourself, why would Putin be trying to get Donald Trump elected President?  Could it be because of all of the nice things Donald has said about him, or the fact that he’s promised to adopt pro-Kremlin policies, or maybe because of his extensive business dealings with Russian oligarchs with ties to Putin? Since Donald still won’t release his tax returns, and don't hold your breath, we don’t the full extent of his business relationships --but what we do know is disturbing. And we know this: We are dealing with something unprecedented in the history of our country. A foreign adversary trying to influence our presidential election. That should scare everyone, Democrat, Republican, and Independent. With the election just eight days away, this can’t wait any longer. Donald Trump should immediately disclose all of his ties and connections to the Kremlin and its associates. The American people deserve to know the full extent of these links and how they relate to what the Russians are doing in our election. When you step back and take it all in, it’s no surprise that 50 Republican national security experts wrote an open letter saying that they will not vote for Donald Trump, because he would be – in their words – ‘the most reckless President in American history.’ It’s no surprise that not a single former President, Secretary of State or Defense, or National Security Advisor from either party has endorsed him. It’s no surprise that Bob Gates, who served eight presidents over 50 years, Democrats and Republicans alike, has said Trump is, and I quote, ‘beyond repair… stubbornly uninformed about the world and how to lead our country and government… temperamentally unsuited to lead our men and women in uniform… unqualified and unfit to be commander-in-chief.’ I hope you and voters across Ohio and America will think about all of these national security issues when you cast your vote in this election.  Think about what it takes to lead -- and how we want to secure the safety of our country, our children and our grandchildren. And who is best to do that. So make no mistake, that really is what is on the ballot this year. It’s not just my name and Donald Trump’s name. It’s our future. Our security. Our values. It’s who we are as a country. Donald Trump has a dark and divisive vision for America that could tear our country apart. But the good news is: There’s another vision for America.  Instead of dark and divisive, it’s hopeful and inclusive and optimistic and unified. And it is big-hearted, not small-minded.  It’s about lifting people up, not tearing each other down. It’s a vision that says, as I believe in my heart that we are stronger together. Millions of people across our country are standing up and saying: We believe in an America that is great because it is good. That is Democrats, Republicans and Independents. Because we believe in an America where women are respected. An America where veterans are honored, parents are supported, and workers are paid fairly … an America where marriage is a right and discrimination is wrong…. an America that leads in the world and lives up to our values… where everyone counts and everyone has a place. Where the American dream is big enough for everyone. This goes way beyond policies and partisanship.  We’re talking about what it really means to be an American in the 21st century. About the basic lessons we want to teach boys and girls, kids and grandkids. It turns out, if you dig deep enough, through all the mud of politics, eventually you hit something hard and true.  A foundation of fundamental values that unite us as Americans – basic beliefs about equality and opportunity and freedom and common decency. That’s something to defend – and to build on. And, in the end, that’s what this election is all about. Here in Ohio, you can make the difference.  Early voting has already begun. So now is the time. Every phone call you make, every door you knock, moves us forward. You can go to hillaryclinton.com, and sign up to volunteer.  Or text J-O-I-N to 4-7-2-4-6 to do the same. Sometimes -- if you have studied history -- you know the fate of the greatest nations comes down to single moments in time. This is one of those make-or-break moments for the United States.  And it truly is in your hands, as it should be. When your kids and grandkids ask you what you did in 2016, when everything was on the line, I hope you will be able to say: I voted for a better, stronger, fairer America. A place where our future will be created and charted by people will have confidence that that the best days of America are still ahead of us. Particularly young people who I believe absolutely should help make that future! So let's come together, let us make clear that we are going to stand up for an America that we believe in because that America believes in us. And we are going to prove once and for all that love trumps hate. Thank you.”

Hillary Clinton ‏@HillaryClinton

Instead of dark and divisive, our vision for America is hopeful and inclusive. Big-hearted, not small-minded. It’s about lifting people up.

Hillary Clinton ‏@HillaryClinton

Donald Trump has repeatedly suggested that more countries should have nuclear weapons. Japan, South Korea, even Saudi Arabia.

Hillary Clinton ‏@HillaryClinton

“[Launching a nuclear weapon] can take as little as 4 minutes. 4 minutes. That’s why...Trump should never be put in charge.” —Hillary

Hillary Clinton ‏@HillaryClinton

A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons.

Hillary Clinton ‏@HillaryClinton

What kind of a person brags on 9/11 that, now that the Twin Towers had fallen, a building he owned was the tallest in Lower Manhattan?

Hillary Clinton ‏@HillaryClinton

"Ask yourself: In a crisis, who would you trust? Who would listen to good advice, keep a level head, and make the right call?” —Hillary

Hillary Clinton ‏@HillaryClinton

U.S. intelligence has confirmed the Russian government is directing cyberattacks against the U.S. to influence the outcome of our election.

Hillary Clinton ‏@HillaryClinton

Why would Putin want Trump to win? The nice things he’s said about him? His promise to adopt pro-Kremlin policies? Or his business dealings?

Hillary Clinton ‏@HillaryClinton

"With the election just 8 days away...Trump should immediately disclose all of his ties and connections to the Kremlin and its associates."

Hillary Clinton ‏@HillaryClinton

"That’s what’s on the ballot this year. It’s not just my name and Donald Trump’s name. It’s our future. Our security. Our values." —Hillary

Hillary Clinton ‏@HillaryClinton

Sometimes the fate of the greatest nations comes down to single moments in time. This is one of those moments.

Now more than ever, Hillary and Democrats need your support.  Please donate before the FEC deadline at midnight.

Vow to VOTE! >>>>

OUTRAGEOUS! Putin's Puppy Dog Tells Russia to Spy on Hillary Clinton

I watched the entire press conference and have never seen or heard anything from any candidate for any office as outrageous and treacherous as this.  Never!  Brian Fallon called it a bridge too far. It is ... way too far!  If you watch this, notice that he is mouth-breathing into the mic and at times seems to be panting.  Something is very wrong with this guy.  Donald Trump is Putin's puppy dog.

Statement from Jake Sullivan on Donald Trump’s Press Conference Today

After Donald Trump’s comments at his press conference today Hillary for America Senior Policy Advisor Jake Sullivan released the following statement:
“This has to be the first time that a major presidential candidate has actively encouraged a foreign power to conduct espionage against his political opponent. That’s not hyperbole, those are just the facts. This has gone from being a matter of curiosity, and a matter of politics, to being a national security issue.”

Nick Merrill shared these two articles.
From Business Insider.

It looks like Russia hired internet trolls to pose as pro-Trump Americans

Natasha Bertrand

From WaPo by Jennifer Rubin no less.

Republicans have a problem: Trump-Putin

By Jennifer Rubin

It is not like we have nothing better to do right now, but Malcolm Nance just brought up sedition as defined in the U.S. Code.  How ironic that Trump's lawyer was Roy Cohn.

18 U.S. Code Chapter 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Let's make sure this sick puppy never gets into the White House!

Clarification on Classification: It Was All About the Cs

Some of the recovered emails that the FBI investigators combed through had what could have been noticed or missed depending upon how far down a chain of emails you scrolled or how quickly your eye scanned the text. (c) To discern the marking you had first to know what it indicated and second had to read carefully and thoroughly through the email chain since the marking might have appeared in an early version of an email and might have been removed in later texts, or the marking might not have been removed when it should have been. Did you see it?  In testimony to the Oversight Committee, FBI Director James Comey stated that paragraphs or sentences bearing this mark were not offset with indentation.

(c) Now you see it.

At yesterday's State Department press briefing, these little (c)s were the subject of a great deal of interest.  John Kirby is the State Department spokesperson.

QUESTION: Firstly, the marking of a parentheses “C” – where does that come from? What law designates a parentheses “C” as a valid classification marking?
MR KIRBY: I don’t know.
QUESTION: Can you check on that, so that we know?
MR KIRBY: I don’t know that it is governed by law, but I’ll be happy to check and see.
QUESTION: Okay. Well, if it isn’t, I would be interested to know how it’s indeed classified.
MR KIRBY: Not everything in terms of procedure is governed by legislation, Brad. But I’ll check and see where – if that’s covered in any way.
QUESTION: Well, I looked at Executive Order 13526, which seems to be – well, which proclaims to be the rule on classified national security information. And it doesn’t talk about anything about parentheses “C”s or anything like that. It talks about three valid terms – Secret, Top Secret, and Confidential. And it explicitly says any other marking is invalid. So if you could figure that out, that’d be great.
And then secondly --
MR KIRBY: I would – let me just – I will do what I can, Brad.
QUESTION: Yeah, okay.
MR KIRBY: But I mean, you’re – the issue of classification and markings is not a State Department responsibility in the government. I mean, we obviously have our responsibilities to obey the executive order, but I don’t want to set us up as the authority to speak to every issue of marking that the U.S. Government follows.
QUESTION: Well, I don’t know that the U.S. Government follows this writ large. It seems that you follow it. But I’d like to know why, or based on what.
MR KIRBY: I’ll check.
QUESTION: Secondly, on the category of classification, I think yesterday you said it was to protect the idea of a call or to not get ahead of the Secretary’s decision-making process. Again, there are strict rules, as I see them, for classification, what can be classified – WMDs and critical infrastructure, covert intelligence. Can you tell me what protecting the Secretary’s decision-making process falls under?

At this point, the email in question marked with a (c) involved the scheduling of a call sheet.  There was a proposed call to perhaps be scheduled or perhaps not to a head of state offering condolences.

MR KIRBY: I don’t have the advantage of having that document in front of me, Brad. And I’m not an expert on it; I’m not going to pretend to be or purport to be. I’m happy to further research your question.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: Happy to do that. But as I said yesterday, this was a – this is a fairly common practice and it’s designed to try to treat with care and prudence and not to close down decision space of the Secretary in advance of a recommended call – in case, for instance, that call doesn’t get made or it gets made under a different set of circumstances. So the degree to which it’s governed by regulation or order, I don’t know. And again, I’m happy to look. But I --
QUESTION: I have one more you might need to look into.
MR KIRBY: But – but I – but I think we need to take 10 steps back, take a deep breath, and look at this in perspective. This is a practice which many people use here as a way to try to protect what we believe is sensitive information and to try to preserve decision space for the Secretary of State in advance of, in this case, making a call. So look, I mean, we could have the debate over and over again --
QUESTION: Let me just have my last question. It also under classification rules say you have to put a specific date or event for declassification that must be stated. It doesn’t say when the Secretary decides and there’s a cognitive process inside the Secretary’s brain to make a call that that ends the classification. So can you tell me where this practice on kind of ad hoc expiration comes from as well?
MR KIRBY: I’ll ask the question, Brad.
QUESTION: And then --
MR KIRBY: I have to tell you, though – I mean, I’ll ask these questions; they’re fair questions.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR KIRBY: But again, we’re talking about people trying to do the best they can to protect some sensitive information and protect decision space for the Secretary, and we’re – and of the entire universe of documents, we’re talking about an extraordinarily small amount. So I don’t – I am – again, I’m not pushing back and I will be happy – first of all, I’m happy to admit what I don’t know, happy to go try to find out for you, but I do think it’s important to keep this whole matter in some sense of perspective here in terms of the universe of the issue.
QUESTION: I do. But here’s why I think it’s relevant, and I’ll pose this as a statement/question.
MR KIRBY: There’s a surprise.
QUESTION: We had a discussion earlier this week where you forcibly rejected the notion that there’s a lax culture when it comes to classification in this agency, and now you’re saying that there are practices here that don’t – maybe don’t ascribe to any guidelines or rules, but just are done as a matter of practice for protecting decision-making processes or what, when there are strict guidelines on how you are supposed to classify things. And I don’t quite see what’s wrong with the law, as it is for the entire government --
MR KIRBY: Well, let’s not presume --
QUESTION: -- that we need this separate process.
MR KIRBY: First of all – so first of all, let me go --
QUESTION: And why --
MR KIRBY: Let me go research it --
QUESTION: Yeah, yeah.
MR KIRBY: -- and we’ll find out if there’s some sort of violation here. But when I refer to questions about a lax culture, it was a broad-brush statement that was made about a lax security culture at the entire State Department – which, as I said the other day, we don’t subscribe to. We don’t share that assessment. Now, you could look at it your way and say, “Well, if we’re not following the rules, then that proves the point.” I would look at it the other way, is that you have people that are trying to take extraordinary care in a pre-decisional environment for the Secretary of State and to preserve what could be sensitive information in advance of a call that might not be taking place. That to me doesn’t connote a culture of negligence and lackadaisical disregard for sensitive information. It actually, to me, says the opposite.
So let’s just agree that I’m going to go ahead and try to see what I can do to put some fidelity on these questions, but I am – still stand by my comment the other day that a broad-brush assessment that the State Department is lax, doesn’t have a healthy security conscience here, is simply without base.

So this (c) marking is a common practice at the department, elsewhere referred to as a "standard practice" and may simply indicate that at the moment there is a suggestion to make this call but we are not making it public unless/until the secretary decides to make or not make the call.  In other words, it may be temporary.

QUESTION: Okay, great. Second thing: Going back to the discussion that you had yesterday and just now with regard to the practice of putting a “C” on such a memo prior to a decision that has been made for the secretary to place such a call, the – one of the emails talks about having a call at 7:30 a.m. or at some other point during the course of the day. Is it your view that the decision to make the call – this is the one about the condolences to the president of Malawi. Is it your view that the decision to make the call had indeed been made when those emails were sent and you were just talking about what time it would be?
MR KIRBY: I have no idea. There’s no way for me to know that.
QUESTION: Well, if you don’t know whether the decision to make the call had been made at that point, then how do you know the information wasn’t – wasn’t not just marked classified but actually classified when the secretary sent it – when the secretary’s aide sent it?
MR KIRBY: I don’t know – I don’t know how to answer your question. What I said yesterday – I’m not going to get into litigating each and every one of these emails. What I said yesterday is oftentimes it is practice to mark them Confidential in advance of a decision to make a call, and then once the decision is made they’re made Sensitive but Unclassified and they’re provided to the Secretary in a way that he or she can then use as they’re on the phone, and that – that by all appearances, it appears to us that the remnant “C”, if you will, on this particular email call sheet was human error because it appears to me from the traffic that the secretary had been asking, had been wanting the call sheet, which would, I think, indicate that the secretary was at that time intending on making the call.
But I can’t say that for sure because I wasn’t here and I wasn’t involved in the email traffic itself. So I’m being careful about how I’m wording this because we’re making assumptions here that I simply don’t know for a fact are true. But that’s why we believe in this case it was – it was simply human error in terms of the transmission of that particular subparagraph labeled “C”.
QUESTION: Okay. So it’s your assumption that the secretary had at that point made the decision, hence the information would no longer have been classified, hence the marking was a rogue or --
MR KIRBY: A human error.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR KIRBY: A mistake. That’s our assumption, Arshad. But again, not having been here and party to that entire exchange, I don’t know that for – to be a fact 100 percent.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: I have one more on this if people are – want to go on. I just wanted to ask if, in the event the secretary decides not to make the call, when does the classification expire?
MR KIRBY: I don’t know, Brad.
QUESTION: Well, isn’t that useful information given that there are strict rules as well on classification cannot be indefinite in this country?
MR KIRBY: We’re – I’m not going to get into a circular argument with you here on this. I told you I will look at the regulation.
QUESTION: Yeah, okay.
MR KIRBY: I will do the best I can to answer your questions, Brad. But all I’m trying to do is put some perspective on this.
QUESTION: It was – it’s a very confusing policy. That’s why there are so many questions.
MR KIRBY: I didn’t – it’s a – I didn’t call it a policy. I said oftentimes it is standard practice --
QUESTION: Practice. It’s a very confusing practice.
MR KIRBY: -- for it to be deemed Confidential in advance of the secretary making a decision – hang on, Goyal – making a decision, and then it is rendered SBU so that the secretary can use the document in an unclassified setting to make the call. And again, I am not an expert enough to debate the expiration of the classified setting, the markings on it. I will do the best I can to answer your questions. I think, again, taking a couple of steps back, look at this in broad terms – it is staff members working hard to try to protect decision space for the secretary in case that call doesn’t get made.
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: And maybe we don’t want that out there that we decided no, we’re not going to call that foreign leader, we don’t think it’s okay to send him a condolence message. And that’s not information necessarily that we want to have in the unclass environment. And so you have people that are doing the best they can to try to protect decision space for the secretary and to protect – and to protect what we still would render as sensitive information. Again, that doesn’t connote to me a culture of laxity and negligence and --
QUESTION: Oh, I mean, I didn’t ask that on this question. But if you classify something and it’s to protect the possibility that maybe the secretary doesn’t make the call, that information still has to become public at some point. Whether you don’t want it to or don’t think it should be is regardless. It’s public information after a point of declassification.
MR KIRBY: No it doesn’t.
QUESTION: That’s how it works in this country.
MR KIRBY: It doesn’t automatically become public; it becomes declassified at a certain point.
QUESTION: It becomes declassified.
MR KIRBY: That doesn’t mean it has to be put in the public domain.
QUESTION: Well, it becomes declassified at a certain point, isn’t that right?
MR KIRBY: Eventually Classified information will have an expiration on it.
QUESTION: But in this case there was no expiration, so it just kind of was undefined.
MR KIRBY: Well, you and I don’t know that, do we? Because what we have is an email that was put on the unclass side. It was taken to – put on the unclass side, and one marking on one paragraph was labeled “C,” which we believe was a human error. But you and I haven’t seen what was the actual Confidential call sheet that was prepared before it was transferred over to the unclass side, so I don’t know how you and I could know what markings were on that call sheet or what dates were put on there, if any.
QUESTION: I don’t know --
MR KIRBY: Right.
QUESTION: -- but I also didn’t know that this sentence comes from a Classified – a fully Classified document. I don’t think anyone had told me that before.
MR KIRBY: I said yesterday that call sheets are generally --
QUESTION: So this sentence --
MR KIRBY: -- considered Confidential, and that doesn’t mean that --
QUESTION: This sentence was lifted from a Classified document and put into an Unclassified document?
MR KIRBY: No, Brad. I mean, the call sheets are generally held at a Confidential level in advance of the secretary making a decision to make a call. Not every paragraph of that have to be Confidential. Like, you could still have a Confidential document with four paragraphs, right, and maybe three of those paragraphs are Confidential but one’s Unclassified. So, again, I haven’t seen the actual call sheet that was drafted, so I can’t tell you for sure that every paragraph in there was labeled Confidential with a “C” or Unclassified with a “U.” All I do know is that the email that was processed through FOIA and released contained one paragraph – I think it was actually a sentence; it was like the purpose of the call, I think – that was – that the “C” marking was retained when it was transmitted over an unclass system to former Secretary Clinton. Again, we believe that that was simply human error as the call sheet was moved over to a format that the secretary could use. That “C” should’ve been removed; it wasn’t, because – I mean, the line was really – it was the purpose of the call, I believe is what it was, and so you can see if that’s the document being moved over, that’s the paragraph being moved over, it should have been – the “C” marking should have been taken off.

The bottom line is that, in picking needles out of the haystack, the FBI investigators, reading tediously carefully, found a few of these (c)s  - perhaps remnant (c)s - in texts of strings of emails. None of the emails had headings using the three valid terms – Secret, Top Secret, and Confidential according to Executive Order 13526. The FBI found three emails with this mark.  The State Department as of yesterday only knew of two of the three. (To see more of yesterday's press briefing, click here.)

Hillary's campaign released this statement on the subject.

FBI’s Comey: Emails Reported as “Marked Classified” Were Improperly Marked and Could Be Reasonably Judged as Not Classified

In a key development at today's House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing, FBI Director James Comey clarified an apparent inconsistency between his remarks earlier this week and Secretary Hillary Clinton's long-running public statements.

Clinton has long stated that none of the emails she sent or received were marked classified at the time. Comey, however, said Monday that there was a "very small number" of emails that bore markings.

Moments ago, Comey reconciled this apparent contradiction. He acknowledged for the first time that there were only three such emails, and that in each case the emails contained only "partial" markings -- meaning, he acknowledged, that they were improperly marked and that as a result, the materials could have been reasonably judged as not classified.

Comey's statements add to the findings announced by the State Department yesterday. At a press briefing, a State Department spokesman said the markings on these emails were the result of "human error" and did not belong in these emails, as the underlying contents were not classified.

Below is the full exchange just now between Director Comey and Rep. Matt Cartwright:

KEY EXCHANGE WITH DIRECTOR COMEY AND REP. CARTWRIGHT

MATT CARTWRIGHT: You were asked about markings on a few documents, I have the manual here, marking national classified security information. And I don’t think you were given a full chance to talk about those three documents with the little c’s on them. Were they properly documented? Were they properly marked according to the manual?
JAMES COMEY: No.
MATT CARTWRIGHT: According to the manual, and I ask unanimous consent to enter this into the record Mr. Chairman

CHAIRMAN: Without objection so ordered.

MATT CARTWRIGHT: According to the manual, if you're going to classify something, there has to be a header on the document? Right?

JAMES COMEY: Correct.

MATT CARTWRIGHT: Was there a header on the three documents that we've discussed today that had the little c in the text someplace?

JAMES COMEY: No. There were three e-mails, the c was in the body, in the text, but there was no header on the email or in the text.

MATT CARTWRIGHT: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert about what's classified and what's not classified and we're following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?

 JAMES COMEY: That would be a reasonable inference.

Last night, several readers contacted me concerned about the news that the State Department has reopened its investigation into the matter of the emails and the server.  This is an internal inquiry that was underway and was suspended while the FBI investigation was ongoing.  It is set to continue, as it was expected to, now that the FBI investigation is complete and Justice Department has issued its decision.

Hillary For America Comments on the Comey Hearing and More ...

Hillary's campaign released a statement regarding FBI Director James Comey's testimony before the House Oversight Committee today.

Hillary for America Statement on FBI Director Comey’s Testimony Before House Committee

Hillary for America National Press Secretary Brian Fallon released the following statement Thursday following FBI Director James Comey’s appearance before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee: “Despite the partisan motivations of this hearing, we are glad it took place and that Director Comey had the opportunity to expand upon his remarks from earlier this week. Director Comey’s testimony clearly knocked down a number of false Republican talking points and reconciled apparent contradictions between his previous remarks and Hillary Clinton’s public statements. The Director’s explanations shut the door on any remaining conspiracy theories once and for all. While Republicans may try to keep this issue alive, this hearing proved those efforts will only backfire.”

15 Facts From Comey

FBI Director’s Testimony Backs Up Clinton, Debunks Republican Conspiracy Theories

Today, House Republicans brought FBI Director James Comey in to testify – after the conclusion of a year-long investigation – in hopes of uncovering new details to damage Hillary Clinton. Instead, Comey’s testimony only debunked GOP talking points and further substantiated Clinton’s case.
Here are 15 key takeaways:

1.  Emails reported as "marked classified" were improperly marked.

MATT CARTWRIGHT:  I don't think you were given a full chance to talk about those three documents with the little ‘C’s’ on them. Were they properly documented? Were they properly marked according to the manual? COMEY: No.

2. And those emails could be reasonably judged as not classified.

MATT CARTWRIGHT: If Secretary Clinton were an expert about what's classified and not classified and we're following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?  |  COMEY: That would be a reasonable inference.

3. There’s no evidence Clinton ever knew she had received classified information or intended to retain it on her server.

COMEY: There is in my view not evidence beyond certainly probable cause, not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt she knew she was receiving classified information or she intended to retain it on her server.

4. Guccifer admitted his claim he had hacked Clinton’s server was a lie.

BLAKE FARENTHOLD: And [Guccifer] claimed he gained access to Sid Blumenthal's e-mail account and traced him back to Secretary Clinton's private server. Can you confirm that Guccifer never gained access to her server.  |  COMEY: He admitted that was a lie.

5. And there is no evidence that Clinton’s server has ever been successfully hacked.

COMEY: We were not able to conclude [any hacking attempts] were successful.

6. The FBI’s investigation was not influenced by outside officials.

COMEY: "They didn't influence it in any way."

7. Clinton’s case is nothing like the case of General David Petraeus.

COMEY: The Petraeus case to my mind illustrates perfectly the kind of cases the Department of Justice is willing to prosecute. Even there, they prosecuted him for a misdemeanor. In that case, you had vast quantities of highly classified information, including special sensitive compartmented information, that's the reference to code words. Vast quantity of it not only shared with someone without authority to have it but we found it in a search warrant hidden under the insulation in his attic and then he lied to us about it during the investigation. So you have obstruction of justice, you have intentional misconduct, and a vast quantity of information. He admitted he knew that was the wrong thing to do. That is a perfect illustration of the kind of cases that get prosecuted. In my mind, it illustrates importantly the distinction to this case.

8. Clinton’s case is nothing like the case of CIA Director John Deutch.

COMEY: The Deutch case illustrates [the difference between Clinton’s case and others who were prosecuted] perfectly. I mean he took huge amount of documents. Almost all at the TSSC I level. Had them in hard copy in his house, had them on an unclassified system connected to the internet, attempted to destroy some when he got caught. Admitted I knew I wasn't supposed to be doing this. You have clear intent, huge amounts of documents, obstruction of justice. Those are the kinds of cases that get prosecuted. That's what I said. I meant it when I said it. In my experience which is three decades no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case. I know that frustrates people but that's the way the law is and that's the way the practice is at the Department of Justice.
9. Clinton’s case is nothing like the case of Navy Commander Bryan Nishimura
COMEY: Nishimura was prosecuted under the misdemeanor statute 1924 on facts that are very different. If you want me to go through them, I'll go through them but they are very different.

10. The FBI’s conclusion that there was no case against Clinton was unanimous.

WILL HURD: Was this unanimous opinion within the FBI on your decision?  |  COMEY: Well the whole F.B.I. wasn't involved but the team of agents, investigators, analysts, technologists — yes.

11. Clinton’s email setup was, as she has always said, a matter of convenience.

COMEY: Our best information is she set it up as a matter of convenience. It was an already existing system that her husband had and she decided to have a domain on that system.

12. Clinton did not instruct lawyers who performed the sorting of her emails.

JIM JORDAN: Did Secretary Clinton know her legal team deleted those emails they kept from us?  |  COMEY: I don't believe so. | JORDAN: Did Secretary Clinton approve those emails being deleted?  |  COMEY: I don't think there was any specific instruction or conversation between the Secretary and her lawyers about that.  |  JORDAN: Did you ask that question?  |  COMEY: Yes.  |  JORDAN: Did Secretary Clinton know her lawyers cleaned devices in such a way as to preclude forensic discovery?  |  COMEY: I don't think she did.  |  JORDAN: Did you ask that question?  |  COMEY: Yes.

13. Hillary Clinton did not lie to the FBI.

COMEY: We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI.

14. Clinton was not even evasive with the FBI.

COMEY: I don't think the [FBI] agents assessed she was evasive [in their 3.5 hour interview with Hillary Clinton.]

15. There is no truth to the idea that others are prosecuted for what Clinton did.

COMEY: There's all kinds of folks watching this at home who are being told, ‘well, lots of other cases were prosecuted and she wasn't.’ I want them to know, that's not true!

The Republicans on that committee have been gunning for Hillary Clinton for years.  Time and again they have proven themselves to be the gang that couldn't shoot straight.

Flashback: Chaffetz and Gowdy Disclosed Sensitive Information, Outed a CIA Source

Chaffetz Flagrantly Used Personal Email

• ABC News: Rep. Jason Chaffetz's Business Card Lists His Gmail Address: “Hillary Clinton isn't the only official who uses a non-government email address. A business card obtained by ABC News shows that Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, lists his Gmail address on his official House card.”

On Multiple Occasions, Chaffetz Inappropriately Disclosed Sensitive Information

• Washington Post, 7/15/11: Homeland Security to Chaffetz: Stop the leaks of sensitive information “The Department of Homeland Security has complained to Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) about what it says was an inappropriate disclosure of sensitive security information to the press by the House transportation panel that he chairs….a clearly miffed Department of Homeland Security Deputy Counsel Joseph B. Maher told Chaffetz that “sensitive security information” provided to his subcommittee by the Transportation Security Administration was illegally disclosed to the press.”

• Washington Post’s Dana Milbank, 10/10/12: Chaffetz Revealed CIA Information During A Televised Congressional Hearing: "When House Republicans called a hearing in the middle of their long recess, you knew it would be something big, and indeed it was: They accidentally blew the CIA’s cover. [...] Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) was the first to unmask the spooks.
  "Now that Chaffetz had alerted potential bad guys that something valuable was in the photo, the chairman, Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), attempted to lock the barn door through which the horse had just bolted. 'I would direct that that chart be taken down,' he said, although it already had been on C-SPAN. 'In this hearing room, we’re not going to point out details of what may still in fact be a facility of the United States government or more facilities.' May still be a facility? The plot thickened — and Chaffetz gave more hints. 'I believe that the markings on that map were terribly inappropriate,” he said, adding that “the activities there could cost lives.'"

Similarly, Trey Gowdy Released The Name Of A CIA Source During The Benghazi Committee

• POLITICO, 10/19/15: Gowdy appears to accidentally release CIA source's name: “House Benghazi Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy appears to have accidentally released the name of a CIA source in the midst of a back-and-forth with Democrats about how sensitive the information was and whether its presence in former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email account constituted a security breach.”

• New Republic’s Brian Beutler, 10/9/15: Rep. Gowdy engaged in “flagrant misconduct” when he “fabricated a redaction in Clinton’s emails to make it look like she’d endangered a spy.”

• Washington Post’s Dana Milbank, 10/20/15: Rep. Gowdy “made the sensational allegation” that Hillary Clinton burned a CIA Source, then completed the “comedy of errors” by publicly releasing the person’s name.

I remember that October 10, 2012 session so well. Chaffetz and the Republicans were lording it over the Dems on the committee because they had gone on a junket to Libya that they not only did not invite the Dems to, they didn't even tell them they were going.  Showing off for having been there,  Chaffetz made a big scene when an aerial photo of "the annex" was shown.  He started saying that when he was there he was told never, never to discuss that building, and, in his flash of hubris, the world knew that "the annex" was actually a CIA operations base.  In exposing that information, Chaffetz clumsily shot himself and his party in the foot.  Their incessant cry asking why the Benghazi consulate remained open when other consulates had closed was answered with three letters.  There was also an active CIA operation in Benghazi.

Perusing the #ComeyHearing on Twitter, I saw Watergate come up in a few tweets.  To be clear, the only commonality between Watergate and this Benghazi come emails come server expedition is this: both the break-in at the DNC Watergate headquarters and the Republican Oversight Committee fishing expedition were Republican efforts to influence a presidential election.