Upcoming OIG Report Likely To Trigger Second Special Counsel; Comey, Lynch And Clinton In Crosshairs

While most of the MSM fixated last week on whether or not President Trump eats McDonald's in bed while watching Gorilla TV, a flurry of investigative bombshells involving Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and conduct by the FBI's top brass during the 2016 election splashed across the headlines. As a quick review: 

  • The DOJ is "taking a fresh look" into the Hillary Clinton email 'matter' 
  • The FBI has launched a new investigation into the Clinton Foundation the day after the Clinton's Chappaqua property catches fire
  • Former FBI Director James Comey's full Clinton memo was released, revealing felony evidence of changes which "decriminalized" Hillary Clinton's behavior. Oh, and every one of the memos he leaked to his Cornell professor buddy was classifiedper a sworn statement by the FBI's "chief FOIA officer" in a sworn declaration obtained by Judicial Watch.
  • The House Intelligence Committee will be granted access to "all remaining investigative documents," unredacted, along with all witnesses sought per a deal reached between Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Nunes 
  • Opposition research firm Fusion GPS was forced to hand over banking records detailing various clients and their intermediary law firms, including the Clinton Campaign and a Russian money launderer whose lawyer was none other than Natalia Veselnitskaya of Trump Tower meeting fame

Most of these wheels which appear to be in motion are the result of corresponding groundwork laid on Capitol Hill you may not be aware of, including what might be the most important document in the entire process, expected in a little over a week. 

On January 15, the DOJ's internal watchdog - the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), is expected to present their findings to Congressional investigators regarding a wide variety of alleged bias and malfeasance by the FBI, the Clinton campaign, and the Obama Administration - both during and after the 2016 election. Moreover, the man heading up the OIG investigation, Michael Horowitz, fought the Obama Administration to regain investigative powers which were restricted by former Attorney General Eric Holder during the Fast and Furious scandal. 

As you will read below, this highly anticipated report is likely to be the legal impetus behind a second Special Counsel - as detailed by an independent researcher from New York who goes by the Twitter handle "TrumpSoldier" (@DaveNYviii). His reporting, conveyed below, is a deep dig into the OIG's ongoing investigation, how Congress and the OIG have worked in tandem to pave the way for a Special Counsel, and how Michael Horowitz went to war with the Obama Administration to restore the OIG's powers

Who is Michael Horowitz? 


Michael Horowitz testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Horowitz was appointed head of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) in April, 2012 - after the Obama administration hobbled the OIG's investigative powers in 2011 during the "Fast and Furious" scandal. The changes forced the various Inspectors General for all government agencies to request information while conducting investigations, as opposed to the authority to demand it. This allowed Holder (and other agency heads) to bog down OIG requests in bureaucratic red tape, and in some cases, deny them outright. 

What did Horowitz do? As one twitter commentators puts it, he went to war...

In March of 2015, Horowitz's office prepared a report for Congress  titled Open and Unimplemented IG Recommendations. It laid the Obama Admin bare before Congress - illustrating among other things how the administration was wasting tens-of-billions of dollars by ignoring the recommendations made by the OIG. 




After several attempts by congress to restore the OIG's investigative powers, Rep. Jason Chaffetz successfully introduced H.R.6450 - the Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2016 - signed by a defeated lame duck President Obama into law on December 16th, 2016cementing an alliance between Horrowitz and both houses of Congress. 

See here for a complete overview of the OIG's new and restored powers. And while the public won't get to see classified details of the OIG report, Mr. Horowitz is also big on public disclosure: 

Horowitz's efforts to roll back Eric Holder's restrictions on the OIG sealed the working relationship between Congress and the Inspector General's ofice, and they most certainly appear to be on the same page. Moreover, brand new FBI Director Christopher Wray seems to be on the same page as well. Click here and keep scrolling for that and more insight into what's going on behind the scenes. 

Here's a preview: 

Which brings us back to the OIG report expected by Congress a week from Monday.

On January 12 of last year, Inspector Horowitz announced an OIG investigation based on "requests from numerous Chairmen and Ranking Members of Congressional oversight committees, various organizations (such as Judicial Watch?), and members of the public." 

The initial focus ranged from the FBI's handling of the Clinton email investigation, to whether or not Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe should have been recused from the investigation (ostensibly over $700,000 his wife's campaign took from Clinton crony Terry McAuliffe around the time of the email investigation), to potential collusion with the Clinton campaign and the timing of various FOIA releases. 



Courtesy @DaveNYviii

On July 27, 2017 the House Judiciary Committee called on the DOJ to appoint a Special Counsel, detailing their concerns in 14 questions pertaining to "actions taken by previously public figures like Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Director James Comey, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton." 

The questions range from Loretta Lynch directing Mr. Comey to mislead the American people on the nature of the Clinton investigation, Secretary Clinton's mishandling of classified information and the (mis)handling of her email investigation by the FBI, the DOJ's failure to empanel a grand jury to investigate Clinton, and questions about the Clinton Foundation, Uranium One, and whether the FBI relied on the "Trump-Russia" dossier created by Fusion GPS. 

On September 26, 2017, The House Judiciary Committee repeated their call to the DOJ for a special counsel, pointing out that former FBI Director James Comey lied to Congress when he said that he decided not to recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton until after she was interviewed, when in fact Comey had drafted her exoneration before said interview. 

And now, the OIG report can tie all of this together - as it will solidify requests by Congressional committees, while also satisfying a legal requirement for the Department of Justice to impartially appoint a Special Counsel.

As illustrated below by TrumpSoldier, the report will go from the Office of the Inspector General to both investigative committees of Congress, along with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and is expected on January 15. 



DOJ Flowchart, Courtesy TrumpSoldier (@DaveNYviii)

Once congress has reviewed the OIG report, the House and Senate Judiciary Committees will use it to supplement their investigations, which will result in hearings with the end goal of requesting or demanding a Special Counsel investigation. The DOJ can appoint a Special Counsel at any point, or wait for Congress to demand one. If a request for a Special Counsel is ignored, Congress can pass legislation to force an the appointment. 

And while the DOJ could act on the OIG report and investigate / prosecute themselves without a Special Counsel, it is highly unlikely that Congress would stand for that given the subjects of the investigation. 

The OIG report could be in the hands of the DOJ as soon as January 8 for review, however it is unclear whether their response will be included in the copy of the report issued to Congressional investigators on January 15. Their comments are key. As TrumpSoldier points out in his analysis, the DOJ can take various actions regarding "Policy, personnel, procedures, and re-opening of investigations. In short, just about everything (Immunity agreements can also be rescinded).

Meanwhile, recent events appear to correspond with bullet points in both the original OIG investigation letter and the 7/27/2017 letter forwarded to the Inspector General: 

With the wheels set in motion last week seemingly align with Congressional requests and the OIG mandate, and the upcoming OIG report likely to serve as a foundational opinion, the DOJ will finally be empowered to move forward with an impartially appointed Special Counsel with a mandate to investigate whether or not we should "lock her up" (along with members of her motley crew). Maybe that's why Sessions has been sitting on his hands? 


nmewn ExcapedPOI Mon, 01/08/2018 - 06:59 Permalink

The focus here (in the English language) is the word "or" as in "or in adhering to their Enemies,"

So however one chooses to interpret it with regard to actual meaning of "war", the previous administration has made it clear Russia is the enemy and the simple two letter word "or" makes it clear giving the word traitor equal weight to adhere as if it were a shooting war between the nations. 

Furthermore even with what we know now Steele, Hillary, Strzok, Priestap, Ohr, Wilson etal were trading/adhering to "the enemy" vis a vis the political opposition research Steele dossier/paper and Podesta & Hillary in particular financially benefited from contact and trade with the Russians.

Leaving aside legalities and the meanings of words...taking it to a conceptual level alone...there are certain expectations & responsibilities American citizens have with each other, it violates the spirit of the Constitution & the BoR's to abuse ones authority (by virtue of them being a "public servant") to use their public position for personal or political gain, the citizens trust is broken.

They have become a traitor in that respect as well.

In reply to by ExcapedPOI

greenskeeper carl Keyser Mon, 01/08/2018 - 01:20 Permalink

Interesting. Didn't know that. If true, just another example of 'the fix is in'. I don't know why people on here keep getting their hopes up that anything is going to happen to these people. They've skated, time after time, since I've been paying attention. It's like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football. Over and over again, they keep falling for the same trick.

In reply to by Keyser

Lordflin greenskeeper carl Mon, 01/08/2018 - 09:21 Permalink

These people have had government under their thumb since the Clinton's were running Arkansas, and daddy Bush was air lifting cocaine through the airport at Mena, Arkansas. Daddy Bush, as I am certain you must know, was head of the CIA at the time.

Since Reagan we have had three rounds of Bush's, two rounds of Clinton's, and two rounds of Obamas... this is the first time in nearly thirty years these people have not been in direct control.


In reply to by greenskeeper carl

WFO Koba the Dread Sun, 01/07/2018 - 15:40 Permalink

My copy and paste didn't format properly, but you can go to the link at the bottom and dig around yourself. Fast and Furious involved property and death of a US Agent - it can still be prosecuted. Benghazi happened during armed conflict and UN sanctioned. There are plenty of ways to charge the perps.

At one time, it could be said with some conviction that Sect



“appears to have only been used in cases that involved conduct during or shortly after World War

II” and none since.


That i

s no longer the case.


In 2008, Congress amended the section to make it clear that the provision covers misconduct

during both declared wars and periods of armed conflict for which Congress has explicitly

authorized use of the Armed Forces.


The same amen

dment extended the period of suspension

from three to five years.


The provision applies to crimes related to conduct of the conflict as

well as those that are not.


The offense, however, must “involve the defrauding of the United

States in [some] pecuniar

y manner or in a manner concerning property.”


The provision’s five


year clock begins to run with the end of the war or conflict, but there is some difference of

opinion over whether a formal termination must come first.



In reply to by Koba the Dread

Winston Churchill WFO Sun, 01/07/2018 - 15:14 Permalink

Most SoLs only start running upon discovery of the crime,not the date it was committed.

Boiler plate in most State and Federal Statutes.

Nobody is out of the woods on any of the numerous crimes coming to light.

The wording of the Treason statute limits it to times of war, a declared war,not something the USA

has done for 75 years,so its a mute law.

In reply to by WFO

phaedrus 1952 Winston Churchill Sun, 01/07/2018 - 18:36 Permalink

Two items of some interest ...

IG Horowitz, a man of demonstrated integrity, has between 450 and 500 investigators on this matter for the past year.

Secondly, and most peculiarly, the 1.2 million documents the OIG has amassed in this investigation (as was mentioned in one of the above video clips) exactly coincides with the 1.2 million number this Q guy mentioned cryptically in one of his posts prior to the public mentioning.

To further this whole Q matter, and potential future legal proceedings, Q posted a few odd numbers.

Some other guy made the connection that the numbers matched provisions in the US Code of law that define treason and how military courts could assert jurisdiction.


This line of thought seems to be further buttressed by the wild speculations surrounding an enhanced Gitmo these past weeks/months.

In reply to by Winston Churchill

lakecity55 WFO Mon, 01/08/2018 - 05:44 Permalink

Very compelling article.

I had long suspected the prior administration of trying to frame Trump.
We now realize Hillary was not being sarcastic or hysterical when she reportedly said "...we'll all hang" if Trump was elected.

Trump would, once in the WH, come to see how the Obama Regime did everything it could to derail the Elections.

Due to the absolute corruption of the Clinton DoS and its pay-for-play relationship to their "Foundation."
Obama has never liked the Clintons; he realized, however, that her money-making scams would land all of them in trouble if Trump were elected and he found out.

I submit Bath House was forced to cover for Hillary in order to cover his own rear end.

Remember, Watergate started out small and moved slowly for a long time. Then the dam burst with the unintentional revelation Nixon had taped everything.

Many people say the Clintons are above prosecution. "Too big to jail." While they have had almost unlimited Power, this sort of Power also eventually leads to ruin.

I suspect things are only now heating up.
Also, think of how much Hillary probably promised certain Oligarchs if she was 'elected' as 'planned.' Could one of these Big Shots be sabotaging her now that she cannot deliver on her promises?


In reply to by WFO

TeethVillage88s CuttingEdge Mon, 01/08/2018 - 09:37 Permalink

How is Tennessee Valley Authority Budget Growth and Collapse NOT a story?!

Total--Tennessee Valley Authority Outlays 2016 = Moved Off Table from Independent Agencies! Disappeared
Total--Tennessee Valley Authority Outlays 2015 = $43.8 Billion
Total--Tennessee Valley Authority Outlays 2014 = $46.6 Billion
Total--Tennessee Valley Authority Outlays 2013 = $65.8 Billion (what is happening here)
Total--Tennessee Valley Authority Outlays 2011 = $38 Billion
Total--Tennessee Valley Authority Outlays 2009 = $32.7 Billion
Total--Tennessee Valley Authority Outlays 2007 = $19.4 Billion
Total--Tennessee Valley Authority Outlays 2005 = $20.9 Billion
Total--Tennessee Valley Authority Outlays 2003 = $13.9 Billion
Total--Tennessee Valley Authority Outlays 2001 = $11.3 Billion
Total--Tennessee Valley Authority Outlays 2000 = $8.3 Billion
Total--Tennessee Valley Authority Outlays 1998 = 9 Billion

Total past 10 Years Federal Funding Tennessee Valley Authority =$265.9 Billion

See Treasury.gov Table 5 of Final Monthly Treasury Report 30 Sep 2013 (MTS)

In reply to by CuttingEdge

phaedrus 1952 chubbar Sun, 01/07/2018 - 18:55 Permalink

I strongly suspect a big part of the maddeningly slow tempo of all this is to ensure as much as possible a fair, objective, legal process has been followed so the liberal voters can not flip out over claims of partisan witchunting.

Obama, Rice, Lynch, Eric Holder, Jeh Johnson are all Afro American.

To see all these individuals - once held in high esteem - being perp walked could spark widespread outrage.

Back to Q again ...

He made a series of strange references to blacks being strongly attached to the Democratic party.

Like many of his posts, it seemed weird.

However, if these former high ranking officials are on the cusp of an epic fall, perhaps the country would best be served by an over abundance of certainty as to the seriousness and clarity of their guilt.

In reply to by chubbar

Winston Churchill tmosley Sun, 01/07/2018 - 17:13 Permalink

Somebody BIG has to go down soon.

This is an election year.

Your timetable is for an average case,not one where costs are not a consideration,overtime and manning

be damned to bring it to the prosecutors.So think timing on a political calendar, not a judicial one.

Govt. is usually glacially slow,but they can move incredibly fast as well, they just don't like to under

normal circumstances.

In reply to by tmosley

pc_babe macholatte Sun, 01/07/2018 - 18:27 Permalink

Just Clinton & Lynch?

... how about comey, brennan, clapper, yates, obama, rice, mcCabe, farkas, priestap, coats, the ohr's, page, storkz, simpson, carlin, carter, biden, powers. wiesmann, mcDonough, baker ...

the whole damn choom gang!

In reply to by macholatte