The first round goes to the disgraced former FBI Director James Comey for beating the rap concerning his leaking of classified information following a referral from Inspector General Michael Horowitz.
The Justice Department had apparently concluded that there wasn’t enough evidence that Comey intended to violate the law, according to multiple sources.
A source familiar with the case told Fox News, “Everyone at the DOJ involved in the decision said it wasn’t a close call,” one official said. “They all thought this could not be prosecuted.”
The incident involved Comey penning memos to himself describing his interactions with the President days before the President fired him. Comey in an act of revenge passed the memorialized memos to a friend, a Columbia University Law Professor named Daniel Richman, who then gave the memos to The New York Times. It’s also noteworthy to point out that Professor Richman worked for the FBI in some capacity.
Comey testified during his June 2017 hearing in front of congress, he deliberately leaked a memo from a key meeting with Trump to a friend after he was fired in order to prompt the appointment of a special counsel.
“I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter—I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel,” Comey testified.
“I was worried that the media was camping at the end of my driveway, my wife and I were going away,” Comey said. “I was worried it would be like feeding.
Horowitz had referred Comey for potential criminal prosecution regarding the leaked memos by the former FBI Director; however, the IG’s ongoing internal review concerning Comey and others has just begun.
Moreover, the DOJ’s decision in not prosecuting Comey in this particular instance stems from the fact that two of the memos were marked “confidential” and perhaps not deemed sensitive enough to convict under the “CLASSIFIED INFORMATION PROCEDURES ACT.”
However this particular faze of the IG investigation regarding the Comey leaks is separate from what may lie ahead for Comey, when Horowitz begins releasing the alleged Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) abuses, which would definitely carry criminal indictments if evidence shows that the warrants were obtained by fraudulent means.
A telltale sign that something important is about to take place, is in the sudden delay regarding the release of the IG Report, which was due out in July, as witnesses are now asking to be re-interviewed by Horowitz after learning that U.S. Attorney John Durham was tagged by Attorney General Bill Barr.
Durham, unlike Horowitz, is a no-nonsense federal prosecutor who has the power to criminally indict on his own, which is no doubt the reason why individuals that were originally interviewed by the IG have suddenly had a collective infusion of memory-recall.
Barr-appointed Durham to investigate the origins of the Russia collusion hoax that included a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant targeting the Trump campaign at the end of the 2016 election
At the heart of the investigations is who actually signed off on those warrants and more importantly what evidence was used in obtaining those warrants in the first place.
The “smoking gun” that has yet to be conclusively revealed is the unverified Trump dossier compiled by ex-MI6 spy Christopher Steele who was hired by Fusion GPS and paid for by the Clinton Campaign.
The investigation by Durham will prove once and for all if the Steele dossier was fraudulently presented to the FISA court as a pretext in securing warrants to illegally surveil a duly elected President.
Comey may have escaped criminal prosecution, for now, however his signature on a FISA warrant “if there” will seal his faith, along with others.