Below you'll find a list of all posts that have been tagged as "Wall Street Journal"
January 15, 2008—September 30, 2013: The State Department has no permanent inspector general for the entire time Clinton is secretary of state.
Acting Inspector General Harold Geisel (Credit: public domain)
Instead, an acting inspector with close ties to State Department leadership fills the role. An "inspector general" is an internal watchdog tasked with discovering mismanagement and corruption. The position goes vacant in January 2008. President Obama doesn't nominate anyone to fill the position for more than four years, making it the longest time any department ever went without a permanent one.
Five months after Clinton leaves office, Obama nominates Steve Linick, who is confirmed as the new permanent inspector general three months later, on September 30, 2013.
In 2015, the Wall Street Journal will write, "The lack of a confirmed inspector general raises questions about oversight of the department under Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton. The department has been criticized for its failure to gather and archive the email records of Mrs. Clinton and other officials and for responses to public-record requests that lawmakers and advocacy groups say were insufficient… It isn't clear whether Mrs. Clinton had any role in the lack of a nomination."
The acting inspector general during Clinton's term, Harold Geisel, is banned from taking the job permanently due to conflict of interest rules. Matthew Harris, a professor who researches inspectors general, will later comment, "It's a convenient way to prevent oversight." Acting inspectors general "don't feel empowered; they don't have the backing of their people. They're in a position where they could be removed at any moment."
Representative Ed Royce (R), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, will later suggest, "A permanent IG [inspector general] would have objected to [Clinton's] efforts to circumvent congressional oversight by keeping her emails off the books."
The White House has yet to explain why it waited so long to nominate a replacement. (The Wall Street Journal, 3/24/2015)
acting inspector generalBarack Obamachecks and balancescommentaryCongressCongressional oversightcorruptionEd RoyceHarold GeiselHillary ClintonHouse Foreign Affairs Committeeinspector generalMatthew Harrismismanagementpossible conflict of interestregulationsrulessecretary of stateState DepartmentSteve LinickWall Street JournalWhite House
Around June 2008: Clinton's first private email server is set up in her house.
The Apple Power Macintosh G4 Server (Credit: public domain)
According to the FBI, around 2007, Justin Cooper purchased an Apple OS X server. Cooper is a personal aide to former President Bill Clinton at the time. On February 1, 2008, the domain names clintonemail.com, wjcoffice.com, and presidentclinton.com were registered, but apparently the server that uses them won't be operational until a few months later. The server is physically located in a house in Chappaqua, New York, where Bill and Hillary Clinton live.
The server consists of an Apple Power Macintosh G4 or G5 tower and an HP printer. According to Cooper, around June 2008, an Apple employee installs the server in the basement of the Chappaqua house. Cooper is the only person with administrative access to the server. However, the Clinton family and their house staff have physical access to it.
Hillary Clinton uses her att.blackberry.net email account as her primary email address until around mid-to-late January 2009 when she will switch to a newly created hdr22@clintonemail.com account hosted on this server. (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 9/2/2016)
2008 presidential campaignantivirusAppleApple Power MacintoshBill ClintonChappaqua (New York)cybersecurityemailsfirewallhackingHillary ClintonNew York (New York)New York Timesprivate serversecurityWall Street JournalWashington Post
Around June 2011: The State Department gets a say in CIA drone strikes in Pakistan, leading to email trouble for Clinton and others.
US Ambassador to Pakistan Cameron Munter (Credit: India Times)
For several years, the CIA has been conducting a secret drone program in Pakistan, targeting Islamist militants in the mountainous region near the border with Afghanistan. The Pakistani government has secretly allowed the program while publicly protesting it, because the Pakistani public is mostly against it. In 2011, Pakistani officials push back against the program due to the growing number of strikes and an increasing public backlash.
In June 2011, the Wall Street Journal reports that there is a debate about the scale of the program inside the US government. State Department and military officials argue that the CIA needs to be more selective with their strikes. Also, for the first time, State Department officials are given a say. The CIA begins notifying US ambassador to Pakistan Cameron Munter about planned drone strikes, and this information gets passed up the State Department to Clinton and other top officials. The department then gets to concur or not concur with the strike.
For the rest of Clinton's tenure until February 2013, the department objects to a planned strike only once or twice. But the strikes will often be discussed by Clinton and other State Department officials in unsecured email channels, and this will later be a focus of the FBI's Clinton investigation. (The Wall Street Journal, 6/9/2016) (The Wall Street Journal, 6/4/2011)
13 June 2016 addendaCameron MunterCentral Intelligence Agency (CIA)drone programdrone strikesPakistanState DepartmentWall Street Journal
After June 2011 to Late 2012: Clinton and other State Department officials sometimes discuss proposed drone strikes in Pakistan in unsecured emails.
A rally in Islamabad, Pakistan, to condemn US drone attacks in Pakistani tribal areas, on October 28, 2011. (Credit: The Associated Press)
According to a June 2016 Wall Street Journal article, there are a series of Clinton emails in these two years regarding the US drone program in Pakistan. Starting roughly around June 2011, the State Department is given the right to approve or disapprove of the CIA's drone strikes in Pakistan as part of the US government's attempt to mollify Pakistan's concerns so they will continue their secret support of the program.
However, this creates a communication problem, because advanced warning of strikes varies from several days to as little as half an hour. According to the Journal, "Under strict US classification rules, US officials have been barred from discussing strikes publicly and even privately outside of secure communications systems."
As a result, US intelligence officials want State officials to use a very secure system to discuss the strikes, called JWICS (Joint Worldwide Intelligence Community Systems). But few State officials have access to JWICS, even in Washington, DC, so they use another secure system commonly known as the "high side" (SIPR or, Secret Internet Protocol Router Network).
However, this can be slow as well as difficult to access outside of normal work hours. As a result, according to the Journal, on about a half-dozen different occasions, State officials use the "low side," which means unsecure computers, such as emailing from a smart phone. This is often said to take place at night, or on the weekend or holiday, or when people are traveling, or when a proposed drone strike is imminent. It is not clear why secure phone lines are not used instead.
The emails are usually vaguely worded so they don't mention the "CIA," "drones," or details about the militant targets, unnamed officials will later claim. These emails sometimes are informal discussions that take place in addition to more formal notifications done through secure communications. In some cases, these emails about specific drone strikes will later be deemed "top secret," making up many of Clinton's reported 22 top secret emails.
According to the Journal, unnamed US officials will later say that there "is no evidence Pakistani intelligence officials intercepted any of the low side State Department emails or used them to protect militants." (The Wall Street Journal, 6/9/2016)
13 June 2016 addenda22 top secret emailsCentral Intelligence Agency (CIA)classified emailsdrone programdrone strikesemailsJWICSPakistanSIPRState Departmenttop secret level emailsWall Street Journal
December 23–27, 2011: An email about a specific US drone strike is forwarded to Clinton.
Frank Ruggiero (Credit: public domain)
On December 23, 2011, US Ambassador to Pakistan Cameron Munter sends a short email to his bosses Frank Ruggiero, who is acting US special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Ruggiero's deputy Daniel Feldman. The email's subject heading is "(SBU)," which stands for "sensitive but unclassified." The single line email will later be mostly redacted, but according to a June 2016 Wall Street Journal article, Munter indicates that a specific US drone strike is planned.
Feldman then forwards the email to Clinton aides Jake Sullivan and Cheryl Mills with the comment, "I'm sure you know already, but just in case." There are two more emails between Feldman and Mills in the chain that day, mostly later redacted.
Then, on December 27, 2011, Mills resumes the chain with a short email to Feldman, asking, "What happened on this?"
After some more mostly redacted discussion, the full email chain is forwarded by Mills to Clinton later that day. Her response, if any, is unknown.
Nabila Rehman appears before Congress and holds a drawing depicting the drone strike that killed her grandmother in 2009. (Credit: Evan Vucci / The Associated Press)
The Wall Street Journal will later cite this chain as its only specific example of emails about the US drone program said to be a "key part" of the FBI's Clinton investigation. Apparently, many of the other emails about various drone strikes are later deemed "top secret," so their details can't be shared.
The Journal will claim this email chain is an example of officials having discussions about highly classified drone strikes via unsecured emails "in part because people were away from their offices for the [Christmas] holiday and didn't have access to a classified computer, officials said."
Munter incorrectly marks the original email "SBU," because the Journal will later note, "Under strict US classification rules, US officials have been barred from discussing strikes publicly and even privately outside of secure communications systems."
Many of the other emails discussing proposed drone strikes will be deemed "top secret," the highest classification level. (The Wall Street Journal, 6/9/2016) (US Department of State, 1/7/2016)
In Clinton's July 2016 FBI interview, she will be asked about this email chain, which reached her on December 27, 2011. "Clinton stated no policy or practice existed related to communicating around holidays, and it was often necessary to communicate in code or do the best you could to convey the information considering the email system you were using. In reference to the same email, Clinton believed if the foreign press was to obtain information from that email, it would not cause damage to the US Government."
It is impossible to judge the validity Clinton's comments, since so much of the entire chain remains redacted. (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 9/2/2016)
13 June 2016 addendaCameron MunterCheryl Millsclassified emailsClinton's FBI interviewDaniel Feldmandrone strikesFrank RuggieroHillary ClintonJake Sullivansecret level emailssensitive but unclassified (SBU)Wall Street Journal
Mid-November 2014: The State Department apparently successfully thwarts an attempt by Russian hackers to penetrate its email system.
The State Department apparently successfully thwarts an attempt by Russian hackers to penetrate its email system."' The entire computer network is quickly shut down for several days after evidence is found that a hacker entered the system. (The Washington Post, 11/16/2014)
It is alleged that the US government believes the Russian government is responsible. The attack begins when a department employee falls for "spear phishing," a trick in which a computer user is is led to click on a bogus link that loads malicious software onto the network. It is believed that only the department's unclassified network is infected, since the classified and unclassified networks are never allowed to reside on the same computer. But the damage is widespread, and thousands of computers in embassies and offices around the world are affected.
In February 2015, the Wall Street Journal will report that the department is still struggling to make sure all traces of the attack are gone from its network. (The Wall Street Journal, 2/18/2015)
In March 2015, Wired Magazine will later comment, "[A]t least, in that case, there was a response. If the same sort of highly resourced hackers had gone after the server in Clinton's basement, there's no guarantee that the same alarms would have gone off." (Wired, 3/4/2015)
cybersecurityemailshacking attemptpossible Russian hackingsecurityspear phishingState DepartmentWall Street Journal
February 1, 2015: Clinton's staff asks the New York Times and Wall Street Journal to report Hillary's economic policies in a "progressive" light.
Clinton campaign press secretary Nick Merrill writes an email to several Clinton staffers, describing two stories the Wall Street Journal and New York Times are preparing to publish that will be covering Clinton's economic policies.
Nick Merrill holds an umbrella for Clinton, as Jennifer Palmieri looks on, in Ashland, Ohio, on August 1, 2016. (Credit: Andrew Harnick / The Associated Press)
Merrill writes, "Both will have a dose of personnel name-gaming, and I've spoken to both to steer them towards progressive names, which they seem to both have on their own. I want to give both stories something on the record that addresses the core of the story, but also speaks some of the things we all felt needed a little proactive addressing, like inevitability and timing."
Merrill then suggests the core of the stories will be about, "Increasing access to opportunity and fighting for upward mobility has been an uninterrupted pursuit of hers in every job she's held. You heard it from her on the campaign trail last fall, where she laid out the challenges we face. She's casting a wide net, talking to a wide range of people on a range of specific topics. There's no red X on a calendar somewhere, but make no mistake, if she runs, she will take nothing for granted, she'll present bold ideas, and she will fight for every vote." (Wikileaks, 10/24/2016)
Amy Chozick (Credit: Google Plus)
One week later, the New York Times publishes an article by Amy Chozick, entitled "Economic Plan is a Quandry for Hillary Clinton's Campaign." As hoped, the core of the story Merrill mentions in his email is covered in the article and is included as a quote by Bill Clinton's previous treasury secretary:
"'It's not enough to address upward mobility without addressing inequality,' said Lawrence H. Summers, a Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration who is among those talking with Mrs. Clinton. 'The challenge, though, is to address inequality without embracing a politics of envy.'"
Chozick then "steers" readers to several other "progressive names" and writes, "Several of Mr. Clinton's former advisers, including Alan S. Blinder, Robert E. Rubin and Mr. Summers, maintain influence. But Mrs. Clinton has cast a wide net that also includes Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics who has written extensively about inequality; Alan B. Krueger, a professor at Princeton and co-author of 'Inequality in America'; and Peter R. Orszag, a former director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Obama. Teresa Ghilarducci, a labor economist who focuses on retirement issues, is also playing a prominent role." (New York Times, 2/7/2015)
Laura Meckler (Credit: Tout)
A few days after that, The Wall Street Journal publishes an article by Laura Meckler entitled, "Hillary Clinton Economic Plan to Chart Center-Left Course." The article appears to be less "steered" by the Clinton campaign, it doesn't include "a dose of personnel name-gaming" and offers a more balanced approach between what the liberal base of the Democratic party hopes for, as opposed to Clinton's more centrist economic positions. (Wall Street Journal, 2/12/2015)
Because one of the recipients of this email is Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, it will be released by Wikileaks in October 2016.
25 October 2016 addendaAmy ChozickHillary Clinton presidential campaign 2016John PodestaLaura MecklerNew York TimesNick Merrillpossible media collusionWall Street JournalWikiLeaks John Podesta emails
March 7, 2015—Mid-July 2016: Donations to a state senate election lead to potential conflicts of interests in three FBI investigations for a high-ranking FBI official.
The Clintons stand behind Terry McAuliffe during his inauguration as the Commonwealth of Virginia's 72nd governor. (Credit: Patrick Semansky / The Associated Press)
Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe is widely considered the best friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton, and was co-chair of one of Bill's presidential campaigns and the chair of Hillary's 2008 presidential campaign. In March 2016, McAuliffe says, "We're best friends, I've been family friends with the Clinton's for thirty years. It's a great relationship, we vacationed together for years, we're just very personal friends…" (The Valley's Music Place, 3/31/2016)
On March 7, 2015, McAuliffe and other state Democratic Party leaders meet with Dr. Jill McCabe and persuade her to run for a state senator seat in Virginia. Dr. McCabe is a hospital physician who has never run for political office before. This has potentially larger political implications, because her husband is Andrew McCabe, an FBI official who runs the FBI's Washington, DC, field office at the time.
Dr. Jill McCabe (Credit: Twitter)
FBI officials will later claim that after the March 7, 2015 meeting, Andrew McCabe seeks ethics advice from the FBI and follows it, avoiding involvement with public corruption cases in Virginia, and also avoiding any of his wife's campaign activities or events.
Five days before Jill McCabe is asked to run, on March 2, 2015, the New York Times publicly reveals Clinton's use of a private email address, and her use of a private email server is revealed two days later, starting a major and prolonged political controversy. Jill McCabe announces her candidacy on March 12, 2015.
On July 10, 2015, the FBI's Clinton email investigation formally begins, although it may have informally begun earlier.
Andrew McCabe and Jill McCabe pose at a campaign event in 2015. (Credit: Sharyl Attkisson)
Andrew McCabe's Washington, DC, field office provides personnel and resources to the investigation. At the end of July 2015, he is promoted to assistant deputy FBI director, the number three position in the FBI.
During the 2015 election season, McAuliffe's political action committee (PAC) donates $467,500 to Jill McCabe's campaign. Furthermore, the Virginia Democratic Party, "over which Mr. McAuliffe exerts considerable control," according to the Wall Street Journal, donates an additional $207,788 to her campaign. "That adds up to slightly more than $675,000 to her candidacy from entities either directly under Mr. McAuliffe's control or strongly influenced by him."
This represents more than a third of all the campaign funds McCabe raises in the election. She is the third-largest recipient of funds from McAuliffe's PAC that year.
Virginia State Senator Dick Black (Credit: Twitter)
On November 3, 2015, Jill McCabe loses the election to incumbent Republican Dick Black. Once the campaign is over, "[Andrew] McCabe and FBI officials felt the potential conflict-of-interest issues ended," according to the Journal.
In February 2016, Andrew McCabe is promoted to deputy FBI director, the second highest position in the FBI. In this role, he is part of the executive leadership team overseeing the Clinton email investigation, though FBI officials say any final decisions are made by FBI Director James Comey.
However, that is not the only potential conflict of interest. By February 2016, four FBI field offices are conducting investigations of the Clinton Foundation. McAuliffe was a Clinton Foundation board member until he resigned when he became the governor of Virginia in 2013. (The Wall Street Journal, 10/24/2016)
Also, at some point in 2015, if not earlier, the FBI begins conducting an investigation of McAuliffe. When the existence of this investigation is publicly leaked in May 2016, media reports suggest it may involve McAuliffe's financial relationship with a Chinese businessperson who has donated millions to the foundation. It is also reported that investigators have looked at McAuliffe's time as a board member of the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), a yearly conference run by the Clinton Foundation. (CNN, 5/24/2016)
Andrew McCabe (Credit: Getty Images)
In the spring of 2016, Andrew McCabe agrees to recuse himself from the McAuliffe investigation, due to McAuliffe's donations to Jill McCabe's election campaign. However, he doesn't recuse himself from the Clinton Foundation investigation or the Clinton email investigation, despite McAuliffe's close ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton. (The Wall Street Journal, 10/24/2016)
In mid-July 2016, the FBI seeks to reorganize the Clinton Foundation investigation. McCabe decides the FBI's New York office should take the lead, while the Washington office that he formerly headed should take the lead with the McAuliffe investigation. The Journal will later report, "Within the FBI, the decision was viewed with skepticism by some, who felt the probe would be stronger if the foundation and McAuliffe matters were combined." However, the decision is implemented.
McCabe also is involved in an effort to shut down the foundation investigation in August 2016, but his role is unclear.
In October 2016, McCabe's potential conflicts of interest will be revealed by two Wall Street Journal articles. (The Wall Street Journal, 10/30/2016) In early November 2016, the Journal will report that "some [in the FBI] have blamed [McCabe], claiming he sought to stop agents from pursuing the [Clinton Foundation] case this summer. His defenders deny that, and say it was the Justice Department that kept pushing back on the investigation." (The Wall Street Journal, 11/2/2016)
Around that time, James Kallstrom, the former head of the FBI's New York office, will say of McCabe, "The guy has no common sense. He should be demoted and taken out of the chain of command." (The American Spectator, 11/1/2016)
30 October 2016 addendaAndrew McCabeBill ClintonClinton FoundationClinton Global Initiative (CGI)Dick BlackFBI New York field officeFBI Washington DC field officeFBI's Clinton email investigationFBI's Clinton Foundation investigationFederal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)Hillary ClintonJames ComeyJames KallstromJill McCabepossible conflict of interestTerry McAuliffeVirginiaVirginia Democratic PartyWall Street Journal
Summer 2015: The FBI begins an investigation of the Clinton Foundation.
An FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation begins around the summer of 2015, after the publication of the controversial book Clinton Cash in May 2015. The author Peter Schweizer will be interviewed multiple times by the FBI. (The Wall Street Journal, 11/2/2016)
In October 2016, the Wall Street Journal will report: "The probe of the foundation began… to determine whether financial crimes or influence peddling occurred related to the charity." (The Wall Street Journal, 10/30/2016)
In November 2016, CNN will comment on the investigation starting due to Clinton Cash: "It's not uncommon for FBI probes to begin as a result of or be fueled by published news articles or books." (CNN, 11/2/2016)
The investigation will continue, but the Justice Department will not give the FBI subpoena powers, keeping the investigation limited and hobbled.
30 October 2016 addendaClinton CashClinton FoundationFBI's Clinton Foundation investigationFederal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)Justice Department (DoJ)Peter SchweizerWall Street Journal
February 2016: The Justice Department declines to give the FBI Clinton Foundation investigation the legal authority for more investigative powers, but the investigation continues anyway.
In the summer of 2015, the FBI begins investigating the Clinton Foundation. By early 2016, four FBI field offices (New York, Los Angeles, Washington and Little Rock, Arkansas) have been pursuing information about the foundation.
In February 2016, FBI officials make a presentation to the Justice Department, apparently trying to get more legal authority, such as subpoena power, which can only come from the Justice Department agreeing to empanel a grand jury. The FBI had gained evidence from at least two informants who came up in other investigations and were critical of the foundation. It also may have learned of a suspicious bank transaction by this time.
Assistant Attorney General, Leslie Caldwell (Credit: Jason Doiy)
The meeting is held in Washington, DC, and is attended by FBI officials, prosecutors from the Justice Department's public integrity section, and Leslie Caldwell, the head of the Justice Department's criminal division. Robert Capers, the US attorney for the Eastern District of New York, will later play a key role in the conflict between the FBI and Justice Department, but neither he nor prosecutors from his office attend. (The Wall Street Journal, 11/2/2016)
The Wall Street Journal will report on this in October 2016: "By all accounts, the meeting didn't go well. Some said that is because the FBI didn't present compelling evidence to justify more aggressive pursuit of the Clinton Foundation, and that the career anti-corruption prosecutors in the room simply believed it wasn't a very strong case. Others said that from the start, the Justice Department officials were stern, icy, and dismissive of the case. 'That was one of the weirdest meetings I've ever been to,' one participant told others afterward, according to people familiar with the matter."
The Journal will add, "Anti-corruption prosecutors at the Justice Department told the FBI at the meeting they wouldn't authorize more aggressive investigative techniques, such as subpoenas, formal witness interviews, or grand jury activity. But the FBI officials believed they were well within their authority to pursue the leads and methods already under way, these people said."
As a result, the FBI foundation investigation(s) will continue, but without subpoena power and other common investigative powers. (The Wall Street Journal, 10/30/2016)
Not long after the meeting, the Justice Department will allegedly send a message for all offices to "stand down," but that won't stop the investigation either.
31 October 2016 addendaClinton FoundationFBI's Clinton Foundation investigationFederal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)grand juryJustice Department (DoJ)Justice Department public integrity sectionLeslie CaldwellRobert CaperssubpoenaWall Street Journal
After February 2016: Justice Department officials allegedly tell FBI agents investigating the Clinton Foundation to "stand down," to no effect.
The Wall Street Journal Logo (Credit: public domain)
In February 2016, there is a key meeting between the FBI and Justice Department to determine the fate and direction of the FBI's Clinton Foundation investigation. The FBI wanted more investigative power to intensify their investigation, but the Justice Department refused to give it, claiming their case is weak.
The Wall Street Journal will later report that after this meeting, "Justice Department officials became increasingly frustrated that the [FBI] agents seemed to be disregarding or disobeying their instructions. Following the February meeting, officials at Justice Department headquarters sent a message to all the offices involved to 'stand down,' a person familiar with the matter said."
The Journal will explain that this means to "proceed more overtly" and "act discreetly," due to the sensitivities of conducting an investigation into the foundation closely linked to Hillary Clinton, who is a major Democratic candidate in the 2016 presidential election, while the election is in full swing.
However, the investigation will continue as before, though still without the additional powers only the Justice Department can grant. (The Wall Street Journal, 11/2/2016)
5 November 2016 addendaFBI's Clinton Foundation investigationFederal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)Justice Department (DoJ)Wall Street Journal
Mid-July 2016: The FBI reorganizes its Clinton Foundation investigation, despite the involvement of an FBI official with a potential conflict of interest.
On July 5, 2016, FBI Director James Comey announced that he would not recommend indicting anyone targeted in the FBI's Clinton email investigation. That effectively closed the investigation. The FBI still has an ongoing investigation in the Clinton Foundation, with four FBI field offices taking part.
Andrew McCabe (Credit: public domain)
About one week after Comey's announcement, the FBI seeks to refocus the Clinton Foundation investigation. Andrew McCabe is the associate deputy FBI director at the time, the number three position in the FBI, but by the end of the month he is promoted to deputy FBI director, the number two position. McCabe decides the FBI's New York office will take the lead, with assistance from the Little Rock, Arkansas office.
The Washington field office will instead focus on an investigation involving Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe (D). McAuliffe was a Clinton Foundation board member until he became governor in 2013, and some media reports indicate the investigation concerns a Chinese businessperson who donated millions of dollars to the foundation. McCabe recused himself from the McAuliffe investigation because political organizations linked to McAuliffe donated over $700,000 to the state senate election campaign of McCabe's wife in 2015. However, McCabe does not recuse himself from the Clinton Foundation investigation.
According to the Journal, "Within the FBI, the decision was viewed with skepticism by some, who felt the probe would be stronger if the foundation and McAuliffe matters were combined. Others, particularly Justice Department anti-corruption prosecutors, felt that both probes were weak, based largely on publicly available information, and had found little that would merit expanded investigative authority."
The Justice Department previously declined to empanel a grand jury for the foundation investigation, and still doesn't give it the additional investigative powers that would come with grand jury backing. (The Wall Street Journal, 10/30/2016)
CNN will add that as part of the reorganization, agents in the Los Angeles, Little Rock, and Washington, DC. field offices, are told to turn over their files to the FBI New York office. "Agents were told to continue their work. But the order to the other field offices angered agents there."
Additionally, during this meeting or in subsequent meetings over the next month, the New York office is told not to take any major steps in the investigation until after the US presidential election on November 8, 2016. CNN will report that "some agents [in New York] chafed at the decision that they had to sit and wait until after the election." (CNN, 11/2/2016)
31 October 2016 addendaAndrew McCabeClinton FoundationFBI Little Rock field officeFBI New York field officeFBI Washington DC field officeFBI's Clinton Foundation investigationgrand juryJustice Department (DoJ)Terry McAuliffeWall Street Journal
August 12, 2016: A Justice Department official allegedly attempts to shut down the FBI's Clinton Foundation investigation, but it continues.
Since 2015 or earlier, multiple FBI field offices have been involved in an investigation of the Clinton Foundation. However, in February 2016, the FBI appealed to the Justice Department for additional investigative powers, such as having a grand jury empaneled to gain subpoena power, but the department said no. The investigation continued anyway, without the additional powers the department can give.
Andrew McCabe, left, and Loretta Lynch, listen during a news conference, July 20, 2016. (Credit: Jacquelyn Martin / The Associated Press)
In October 2016, the Wall Street Journal will report that on August 12, 2016, an unnamed senior Justice Department official calls Andrew McCabe (who was promoted to deputy FBI director one month earlier) to voice his displeasure at finding that New York FBI agents are still openly pursuing the Clinton Foundation investigation during the election season, with Hillary Clinton being one of the major candidates.
McCabe allegedly replies that FBI agents still have the authority to pursue the issue as long as they don't use methods requiring Justice Department approvals.
The Journal will report, "The Justice Department official was 'very pissed off,' according to one person close to Mr. McCabe, and pressed him to explain why the FBI was still chasing a matter the department considered dormant. Others said the Justice Department was simply trying to make sure FBI agents were following longstanding policy not to make overt investigative moves that could be seen as trying to influence an election. Those rules discourage investigators from making any such moves before a primary or general election, and, at a minimum, checking with anti-corruption prosecutors before doing so."
McCabe allegedly asks the department official, "Are you telling me that I need to shut down a validly predicated investigation?"
After a pause, the official allegedly replies, "Of course not."
The Journal will further report, "For Mr. McCabe's defenders, the exchange showed how he was stuck between an FBI office eager to pour more resources into a case and Justice Department prosecutors who didn't think much of the case, one person said. Those people said that following the call, Mr. McCabe reiterated past instructions to FBI agents that they were to keep pursuing the work within the authority they had."
But according to "others further down the FBI chain of command," FBI agents "were given a much starker instruction on the case: 'Stand down.' When agents questioned why they weren't allowed to take more aggressive steps, they said they were told the order had come from the deputy director—Mr. McCabe. Others familiar with the matter deny Mr. McCabe or any other senior FBI official gave such a stand-down instruction."
According to the Journal, some agents within the FBI believe that McCabe and other FBI leaders weren't defending the investigation strongly enough, while others believe that McCabe's behavior was correct. Either way, the investigation continues, but still without that subpoena power that can only come from Justice Department support. (The Wall Street Journal, 10/30/2016)
McCabe has a conflict of interest with Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, who in turn is being investigated by the FBI for activities that could involve the Clinton Foundation.
31 October 2016 addendaAndrew McCabeClinton FoundationFBI New York field officeFBI's Clinton email investigationFBI's Clinton Foundation investigationFederal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)grand juryJustice Department (DoJ)Wall Street Journal
September 15, 2016: A former Justice Department official claims the FBI wasn't serious about its Clinton email investigation.
A Wall Street Journal editorial entitled "The FBI's Blind Clinton Trust" elicits a September 15, 2016 letter to the editor response from Richard W. Beckler, former Chief of the Criminal Fraud Section of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Richard Beckler (Credit: Bracewell Law)
Beckler writes, "Decisions to prosecute are made by the Justice Department. It is absolutely not the job of the FBI to make prosecutorial decisions. FBI Director James Comey didn't bother to attend Hillary Clinton's interview, though he was acting as the ostensible decision maker in the case. One would think he would want to test the witness's credibility in person. This was clearly no ordinary case and demanded his close attention."
Furthermore, despite what Comey says, "the FBI doesn't need to get a referral from Congress to investigate [Clinton's] false statements to Congress." He claims, "the FBI's 302 reports (handwritten notes by FBI agents during investigations) recorded by the FBI should have been turned over to Congress immediately and in their entirety."
Beckler continues, "Contrary to the [Justice Department]'s normal policy of announcing names of the prosecution team, Mr. Comey hasn't told anyone who the 'career' [Justice Department] attorneys were who supervised the FBI investigation. They have never been named."
He concludes, "After this long drawn-out FBI inquiry, why did Mr. Comey rush to make his determination and recommendation barely three days after the actual interview took place?" (Wall Street Journal, 09/15/16)
25 September 2016 addenda302 reportsClinton's FBI interviewcommentaryFederal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)James ComeyJustice Department, Criminal DivisionJustice Department, fraud sectionletter to the editorRichard W. BecklerWall Street Journal
October 11, 2016: Twenty-three former Republican Justice Department officials criticize Trump for threatening Clinton with jail.
During the second general election presidential debate in St. Louis, Donald Trump tells Hillary Clinton "you'll be in jail" if he wins the presidency. The threat has prompted a group of Republican former Justice Department officials to call for Trumps defeat in November 2016.
Donald I. Baker (Credit: George Washington University)
Donald Ayer, who served as deputy attorney general under George H. W. Bush, and Donald I. Baker, assistant attorney general for the antitrust division under Gerald Ford, organized the statement. It is signed by 23 former officials served under five Republican presidents from Richard Nixon to George W. Bush, and claims, "None of us will vote for Mr. Trump and all believe he must be defeated at the polls."
The statement reads: "We believe that Donald Trump's impulsive treatment, flair for controversy, vindictive approach to his opponents and alarming views outside the constitutional mainstream ill suit him to oversee the execution of the laws in a fair and evenhanded manner."
The former officials say Trump's threats are "shockingly contrary to the premises of our democracy, and conjures up images of foreign police states." Trump's "every word seems calculated to create an atmosphere of arbitrariness and unpredictability much better suited to an authoritarian regime."
William Ruckelshaus (Credit: Energy Foundation)
The Wall Street Journal writes, "One notable signer is former Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus, who, along with the late Attorney General Elliot Richardson, resigned in 1973 rather than carry out President Nixon's order to fire Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox in an episode known as the Saturday Night Massacre."
The letter also condemns Trump for proposing to re-institute waterboarding and inflict other forms of torture on enemy prisoners and to kill the families of terrorists, saying those demonstrate his "basic ignorance of the facts as well as the role of our legal system in the fight against terror." (Wall Street Journal, 10/11/2016)
12 October 2016 addenda2016 presidential campaignDonald AyersDonald BakerDonald TrumpElliot RichardsonHillary ClintonJustice Department (DoJ)Wall Street JournalWilliam Ruckelshaus
October 30, 2016: 650,000 emails have allegedly been recently discovered by the FBI, many belonging to Huma Abedin, though many could be duplicates or unrelated.
Abedin and Weiner at the Metropolitan Museum of Art Costume Institute Gala in May, 2016. (Credit: Reuters)
On October 28, 2016, FBI Director James Comey announced at least a partial reopening of the Clinton email investigation due to newly discovered evidence, but initial media accounts conflicted over what exactly was found. On this day, the Wall Street Journal reports: "Investigators found 650,000 emails on a laptop that they believe was used by former [Representative] Anthony Weiner and his estranged wife Huma Abedin, a close Clinton aide, and underlying metadata suggests thousands of those messages could have been sent to or from the private server that Mrs. Clinton used while she was secretary of state, according to people familiar with the matter."
The Journal claims that although the FBI has received a search warrant since Comey's announcement so the agents involved with the FBI's Clinton email investigation can look at the newly discovered emails, "It will take weeks, at a minimum, to determine whether those messages are work-related from the time Ms. Abedin served with Mrs. Clinton at the State Department; how many are duplicates of emails already reviewed by the FBI; and whether they include either classified information or important new evidence in the Clinton email probe."
The emails "stretched back years," and were found a computer laptop previously unknown by the Clinton email investigation. "Many of the 650,000 emails" are from Abedin's email accounts, according to anonymous sources. Metadata shows that "many messages, apparently in the thousands," were either sent to or from Clinton's private email server. (Both Abedin and Clinton had email accounts hosted on the server.)
The Journal also depicts a long-standing dispute between the FBI, wanting to aggressively pursue leads, and the Justice Department, which often fails to give the FBI the legal approval to do so. (The Wall Street Journal, 10/30/2016)
30 October 2016 addendaAbedin emails on Weiner's computerAnthony WeineremailsFBI's Anthony Weiner investigationFBI's Clinton email investigationFederal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)Hillary ClintonHuma AbedinJames ComeyJustice Department (DoJ)private serverreopened FBI Clinton email investigationState DepartmentWall Street Journal
October 30, 2016: The Wall Street Journal confirms there is an on-going FBI Clinton Foundation investigation, but the Justice Department hasn't given it investigative powers.
Little Rock FBI Field Office (Credit: public domain)
In January 2016, Fox News reported that the FBI had an on-going investigation into the Clinton Foundation, but this generally wasn't reported or discussed in other media outlets. In August 2016, the Daily Caller reported on the FBI's Clinton Foundation investigation, but this also wasn't generally reported otherwise. For instance, a CNN story that same month asserted the investigation didn't exist.
On this day, the Wall Street Journal confirms there is an on-going FBI Clinton Foundation investigation, and provides many new details about it. The investigation began some time before October 2015. By February 2016, four FBI field offices were collecting information about the foundation to see if there is evidence of financial crimes or influence-peddling:
The Los Angeles office developed an interest in the Clinton Foundation from an unrelated public-corruption case and has issued some subpoenas for bank records related to the foundation.
The Washington, DC, office is investigating financial relationships involving Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe (D), who has been a Clinton Foundation board member.
The New York office has done the most work regarding the foundation.
The Little Rock, Arkansas, office has had some role, probably due to the Clintons' ties in Arkansas, where Bill Clinton was governor.
FBI Field Office in New York, New York. (Credit: public domain)
In mid-July 2016, the New York office took charge of the investigation, with the Little Rock office providing assistance.
However, the Journal also reports that senior Justice Department officials have "repeatedly voiced skepticism of the strength of the evidence in [the FBI's foundation investigation], sought to condense what was at times a sprawling cross-country effort, and, according to some people familiar with the matter, told agents to limit their pursuit of the case."
Additionally, "Some investigators grew frustrated, viewing FBI leadership as uninterested in probing the charity, these people said. Others involved disagreed sharply, defending FBI bosses and saying [FBI Deputy Director Andrew] McCabe in particular was caught between an increasingly acrimonious fight for control between the Justice Department and FBI agents pursuing the Clinton Foundation case."
In February 2016, FBI agents presented their evidence on the foundation to senior Justice Department officials. But those officials decided not to give the investigation the legal backing to convene a grand jury, which means investigators don't have subpoena or search warrants power. However, the investigators have continued without that power, apparently collecting much of their evidence from publicly available information.
This situation has apparently continued ever since, with the investigation continuing but hobbled due to the lack of the legal powers given by a grand jury. According to the Journal paraphrasing an unnamed official, "the [New York] FBI office [is] eager to pour more resources into [the] case and Justice Department prosecutors [don't] think much of the case…" (The Wall Street Journal, 10/30/2016)
FBI Miami Field Office (Credit: public domain)
Also on October 30, 2016, the Daily Caller will allege there is a fifth FBI field office – the Miami, Florida office – involved in the investigation.
Additionally, later on the same day, the Clinton Foundation denies knowledge of any government investigation targeting them.
However, the Washington Post confirms the Wall Street Journal's claims. The Post emphasizes that the investigation has been blocked by the Justice Department's public integrity section prosecutors, who are not politically appointed. (The Washington Post, 10/30/2016)
30 October 2016 addendaAndrew McCabeClinton FoundationFBI Little Rock field officeFBI Los Angeles field officeFBI New York field officeFBI Washington DC field officeFBI's Clinton Foundation investigationFederal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)Justice Department (DoJ)Justice Department public integrity sectionpossible conflict of interestpossible quid pro quoWall Street Journal