Judicial Watch's Weekly Update: JW
Uncovers More Comey Corruption

FBI Documents Detail That Comey Had Trump FBI Docs At His
Home!
As the Justice Department reportedly takes a step to give James Comey a pass for illegal
activity, Judicial Watch is uncovering the details of these crimes.
We received six pages of records from the FBI showing that in
June 2017, a month after Comey was fired by President Donald Trump, FBI
agents visited his home and collected “as evidence” four memos that
allegedly detail conversations he had with President Trump. One of his
memos was written on June 6, a month after he was fired.
Comey was fired by Trump on May 9, 2017. The memos are
dated February 14, 2017; March 30, 2017; and April 11, 2017. Another is
dated “last night at 6:30 pm.”
The FBI documents also revealed that Comey recalled writing two other memos
after conversations with Trump that he claimed were “missing.” The FBI
visit and interview took place on June 7, the day before Comey admitted
leaking the memos in testimony to Congress.
The new documents include a June 9 2017 FBI Collected Item Log that
states:
On June 7, 2017, at approximately 10:15 A.M., Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) Special Agents (SA) [redacted] and [redacted] collected
memorandums (memos) as evidence from James Comey at his residence at
[redacted]. The memos collected described as follows:
- One memo dated February 4, 2017, two pages;
- One memo dated March 30, 2017, two pages;
- One memo dated April 11, 2017, one page;
- One memo dated “last night at 6:30 pm,” four pages
We also received a newly declassified FBI document dated June 16, 2017 in
which FBI agents describe Comey telling them that he had written two
additional Trump meeting memos that he could no longer find:
Former FBI Director James Comey was
interviewed at his residence at [redacted]. This interview was scheduled in
advance, for the purpose of providing certain classified memoranda (memos)
to Comey for review. After being advised of the identity of the
interviewing Agents and the nature of the interview, Comey provided the
following information:
After reviewing the memos, Comey spontaneously stated, to the best of his
recollection, two were missing:
In the first occurrence, Comey said at an unknown date and time, between
January 7, 2017, which Comey believed was the date of his briefing at Trump
Tower, and Trump’s inauguration on January 20th, 2017, Comey received a
phone call from President Elect Donald J. Trump. The originating telephone
number may have had a New York area code. Following the telephone
conversation, Comey drafted and e-mailed a memo to James Rybicki and FBI
Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.
In the second instance, Comey was on his way to a FBI leadership conference
in Leesburg, Virginia (March 9, 2017) when he was diverted to Liberty
Crossing to respond to a request from Trump to contact him. Comey contacted
Trump from Liberty Crossing on a Top Secret telephone line. The
conversation was “all business” and related to [redacted]. Comey is
less sure he drafted a memo for his conversation but if he did, he may have
sent it on the FBI’s Top Secret network.
We obtained the records in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Justice Department that sought
all records of communications relating to Comey’s providing memoranda of
his conversations with President Trump to Special Counsel Robert Mueller
and his team. (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of
Justice (No. 1:18-cv-00932)).
These extraordinary FBI docs further confirm that James Comey should never
have had FBI files on President Trump at his home and that the FBI failed
to secure and protect these private and classified files. Comey’s illegal
leaking these FBI files as part of his vendetta against President Trump
(directly resulting in the corrupt appointment of Robert Mueller) ought to
be the subject of a criminal investigation. I know there are reports that
Attorney General Barr declined to pursue an extraordinary criminal referral
from the Inspector General of the Justice Department on this very issue.
General Barr should reconsider.
On June 8, 2017, Comey testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee
that he leaked memos of his conversations with President Trump “because
(he) thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.”
Columbia University Law professor Daniel Richman, a friend of
Comey’s, reportedly “turned over copies of the former FBI
director’s explosive memos … to the FBI, sidestepping a request by
congressional committees to deliver the materials to Capitol Hill.”
The Justice Department previously argued to the court in a separate case that Comey’s leak of the memo
regarding former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn was unauthorized
and compared it to WikiLeaks. Comey admitted to Congress regarding the “Flynn”
memo, “I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a
reporter [for The New York Times] … I asked him to because
I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special
counsel.” The New York Times published a report about
the memo on May 16, 2017. Special Counsel Robert Mueller was appointed the
following day.
The Hill noted in a July 9, 2017 report that, “More than half of the memos former
FBI Director James Comey wrote as personal recollections of his
conversations with President Trump about the Russia investigation have been
determined to contain classified information, according to interviews with
officials familiar with the documents.”
The issue over whether to prosecute aside, Judicial Watch will continue to
pursue the truth and accountability for the corrupt Comey.
Judicial Watch Goes To Court on FBI Stonewall and
Cover-Up
We were in the courtroom of U.S. District Court Judge Reggie B. Walton this
week for a hearing regarding the rate of production of emails, text
messages, and other communications between former FBI official Peter Strzok
and former FBI attorney Lisa Page (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of
Justice (No. 1:18-cv-00154)).
“Upon further consideration,” Judge Walton had written, “the
Court is concerned that the processing rate adopted by the Court may be
inadequate.” The Court’s July 24 order follows a joint status report by the FBI and us disclosing
that only 6,000 of almost 20,000 responsive records have been processed
since May 2018.
The hearing came in our January 2018 Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) lawsuit for all communications between Strzok and
Page (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of
Justice (No. 1:18-cv-00154)).
As you know, Strzok and Page were key investigators in the Clinton email
and Russia collusion investigations. Strzok was removed from the Mueller
investigative team in July 2017 and reassigned to a human resources
position after it was discovered that he and Page, who worked for FBI
Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and with whom Strzok was carrying on an
extramarital affair, exchanged pro-Clinton and anti-Trump text messages.
Page resigned in May 2018. Strzok was dismissed from the FBI in August 2018.
The FBI has been slow rolling the release of Page-Strzok communications and
is still hiding all their infamous text messages. We hope the Court
recognizes the pubic interest in ensuring the FBI quickly releases key
documents about the biggest scandal in American history – the Spygate
abuses targeting President Trump.
Here’s the background.
On May 21, 2018, Judge Walton ordered the FBI to begin processing thousands of
pages of previously undisclosed records between FBI officials Strzok and
Page.
In June, we uncovered documents in this case including emails showing
the FBI’s attempts to muddle former FBI Director James Comey’s
testimony on the Hillary Clinton email investigation and collusion between
the FBI and the media.
Other documents revealed then-FBI General Counsel James
Baker instructing FBI officials to expedite the release of FBI
investigative material to Hillary Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall in
August 2016. Kendall and the FBI’s top lawyer discussed quickly obtaining
Clinton’s “302” report of the FBI/DOJ interview.
In February, we uncovered documents showing an evident cover-up of a chart
of potential violations of law by former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton. Also, we received documents exposing that Baker discussed the
investigation of Clinton-related emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop with
Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall. Baker then forwarded the conversation to
his FBI colleagues.
In September 2018, we uncovered documents showing email exchanges between fired
FBI official Peter Strzok and FBI attorney Lisa Page revealing that FBI
officials used unsecure devices in discussing how the U.S. could improve
the sharing of sensitive data with the European Union top executive
governing commission. The documents also reveal that high-ranking FBI
officials were not properly read-in to top-secret programs.
And in July 2018, we received documents from the Department of Justice revealing
former top FBI official Peter Strzok and FBI attorney Lisa Page’s
profanity-laced disdain for FBI hierarchy and policies.
You can see why the FBI wants to take as long as two years to release the
Strzok-Page materials. The Court, at the conclusion of the hearing
this week, ordered Judicial Watch and the Justice Department to work
together to help ensure that we can get key documents in a more timely
way.
I will keep updated as events develop.
U.S. Wastes $907 Million Tax Dollars on Useless “Nutrition
Education”
Waste, fraud and abuse is the operation motto for many government programs.
Our Corruption Chronicles blog has the details on more extraordinary waste of your tax
dollars:
Besides spending tens of billions of
dollars on fraud-infested programs to feed the poor, the U.S. government
wastes an additional $907 million to give recipients useless “nutrition
education” courses with rates of effectiveness that cannot be assessed.
It marks the latest scandal to rock the government’s famously bloated and
corrupt food stamp program as well as a multi-billion-dollar sister project
that feeds millions of low-income women and their children.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) operates and funds both programs
and spends a fortune on them annually. The grand master is food stamps,
renamed Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by the Obama
administration to eliminate the welfare stigma. Under Obama the food stamp
tab reached a ghastly $80.4 billion in one year to provide a record 46
million people with the welfare benefit. The Trump administration has
reduced it a bit, but not by much. The latest USDA figures reveal the food stamp budget is hovering
north of $60 billion annually to feed around 44 million people. That’s
still a chunk of change. Uncle Sam spends $5.3 billion a year on the other program, which is
known as Women Infants and Children (WIC). It serves around 7 million
recipients and claims to “ safeguard the health of low-income women, infants,
and children younger than 5 who are at nutritional risk.”
Besides doling out huge sums of taxpayer dollars to feed this large
demographic, the USDA dedicates extra money to school the beneficiaries
about nutritional matters. The classes and counseling are conducted in
daycares, grocery stores, public housing, health clinics, food banks,
recreation centers and other public facilities throughout the country.
In fiscal year 2017 this cost $907 million, according to a federal audit that concludes the effectiveness of
the so-called “SNAPEd” cannot be aggregated or reviewed. States, which
are responsible for distributing food stamps, also provide information
about the educational programs in a way that “hinders the USDA’s
ability to assess the effectiveness” and “determine whether SNAPEd is
achieving its goals,” according to the audit, which was conducted by the
investigative arm of Congress, the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
That’s diplomatic, sugar coating for it’s a waste. The congressional
watchdog further reveals that it already reviewed the USDA’s dubious
nutrition education efforts a decade and a half ago and found
“challenges” across the agency.
The GAO report breaks down the expenses and offers some details about the
actual courses. The USDA spent $422 million to educate WIC recipients about
good nutrition and $404 million to school those who get food stamps. An
additional $51 million went to an “expanded food and nutrition education
program,” $16 million to “team nutrition” and $13 million to a
“food insecurity nutrition incentive grant program.” Those wondering
how it all works may find answers in this line from the GAO: “Sometimes
multiple nutrition education programs operate in the same setting. For
example, SNAP-Ed may provide classes for students while Team Nutrition may
distribute teacher training materials and nutrition education curricula to
the same school.” The bottom line is that most of the USDA’s nutrition
education programs target interventions to low income populations,
according to the audit.
Why does the USDA waste such large sums on this nonsense? Because another
government agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),
claims that the diet of many Americans lacks adequate sources of good
nutrition and that contributes to costly chronic health conditions. In
typical government fashion, the solution is to throw money at the so-called
problem with no follow through. The goal, according to the USDA, is to help
educate Americans on nutrition and improve their dietary choices. The
agency considers it an important intervention that also involves social
marketing as well as policy and environmental changes. More than 4 million
people participated in the “direct education interventions” last year,
yet it remains unclear what impact the costly sessions had.
Fraud and waste have been pervasive in the government’s food stamp
program for years and Judicial Watch has reported on it extensively. The Obama
administration left the program in disarray, but the problems have
continued in the Trump administration. Just last year authorities in north
Florida arrested nearly 200 people for operating a sophisticated ring in
which millions of dollars in food stamps were
fraudulently exchanged for cash and drugs. More than 22,000 fraudulent
transactions totaling $3.7 million were documented by a task force of local
and federal authorities.
Until next week,

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton
|