Sunday, June 17, 2018

Separation of Families? OR Defense Against Human trafficking and Protection of Vulnerable Minors at the Border

Separation of Families? 

OR Defense Against Human trafficking and Minors at the Border

I propose DNA testing at the Border Facilities to ensure children supposedly separated from "their parents" are truly the children of the adults who claim them.

“It is intolerable that human trafficking — modern-day slavery — could occur in our own backyard,” said Senator Rob Portman, Republican of Ohio and the chairman of the subcommittee. “But what makes the Marion cases even more alarming is that a U.S. government agency was responsible for delivering some of the victims into the hands of their abusers.”

 The Department of Health and Human Services placed more than a dozen immigrant children in the custody of human traffickers after it failed to conduct background checks of caregivers, according to a Senate report released on Thursday. 

The drug cartels, locally referred to as "la mafia", control an extensive network of human traffickers and informants. They extort for money, kidnap and kill migrants at will. The locals think they have infiltrated the local branches of the police and government structures. 

A cross-border baby trafficking ring allegedly operated by welfare officials in northern Mexico — and then covered up by state prosecutors — is highlighting the issue of human trafficking in the country.

The infant trafficking ring reportedly involved officials from the Sonora state child welfare agency using their access to vulnerable single mothers to obtain babies they then sold in Mexico for up to 150,000 pesos, or $8,875. Babies were also allegedly sold in the United States for up to $20,000.
Has the child been used to gain sympathy at the border to gain a free pass into the country?

Has a person 
lured a minor into the U.S. by promising a better life and the chance to attend school, but then been coerced into labor after their arrival. 

  • Examples: Shandra Woworuntu lived in Indonesia before coming to the United States.4 She left a country in economic and political turmoil after seeing a newspaper ad about available hospitality jobs in the United States. Upon arriving at the airport, she discovered that the men who picked her up were not taking her to a hotel, rather to a brothel where she was forced to have sex with men in order to pay off an imposed debt of $30,000. 
  • Aroldo Castillo Serrano lured Guatemalan minors and adults into the U.S. by promising a better life and the chance to attend school, but coerced them into working at their egg farm after they arrived. The immigrants worked physically demanding jobs for up to 12 hours a day including cleaning chicken coops and unloading crates. In both of these cases, the perpetrators were found guilty and received prison sentences.
  • Twenty-four women were forced into prostitution at brothels on the East Coast through threats of violence against them and their children. The principal traffickers were sentenced to terms of imprisonment from 25 to 50 years each. The mother of the main defendants was arrested in Mexico and later extradited to the United States where she was sentenced to 10 years in prison for her involvement in the scheme.
  • Some towns in the small central state of Tlaxcala are famed as bases for family run forced prostitution networks in which fathers teach their sons how to ensnare young vulnerable women into their rings with promises of love and marriage. Some Mexican beach resorts are also well-known hubs for child prostitution and pornography.

Adoption rackets, however, are less known. The ring in Sonora is particularly shocking given the alleged key role played by public officials supposed to be protecting children. 

Estrada said the US Department of Homeland Security sent a letter to Navarro on March 26, identifying two members of an alleged ring that was "selling newly born babies to couples both in Mexico and the United States." He said Navarro did nothing to follow up the tip for weeks.

The letter said a lawyer named José Manuel Hernández López and his former girlfriend Emma Falcon were the central figures in a "complex network" that provided their clients with birth certificates identifying them as the children's biological parents. The letter noted that Hernández possessed a visa that enabled him to cross over the border and coordinate sales in the United States.

Another of Hernández's former girlfriends, Denisse Ramos Campillo, also went to the state authorities with a similar story.

How can this problem be solved?

Few migrants who were at the Catholic Charities Rio Grande Valley Respite Center earlier this month knew about the family separations. But when told about them, several parents said they wouldn't take the risk of losing their children.

Hernandez, the mother of two, said that back in Honduras, she and her husband had it all — a home, a business and family. But after her husband refused to help drug traffickers, they were threatened and an employee of their car wash business was killed, she said. They tried moving and starting another business but were tracked down. They pulled the children out of school and came to the U.S.

Still, she doesn't think she would have crossed into the U.S. if she'd known about the new zero-tolerance policy.

“If that was the law, I wouldn’t come,” she said. “I wouldn’t want to be separated from my children because that’s why we come.”

Mexico came first in their journey north. Why did they not stop there?

The problem here is that Border officers and ICE find it difficult to know who is family and who is not. The United States cannot accept everyone who claims to be seeking refuge --because there are unscrupulous people among them who do not deserve refuge. M16 gang members, for example, who account for many of those unaccompanied minors that make up a large percentage of "children" held in centers. Their presence turns the United States into exactly what honest, good people are fleeing. 

I am the first to say that children are better off with their parents -- in most cases. But, should having a child with you secure your entry? 

Others have admitted to posing falsely with children who are not their own, and Border Patrol officials say that such instances of fraud are increasing.
According to, it is “common to have parents entrust their children to a smuggler as a favor or for profit.”

If someone is determined to come here illegally, the decent and safest thing would be to leave the child at home with a relative and send money back home. Because we favor family units over single adults, we are creating an incentive to do the opposite and use children to cut deals with smugglers.

Aren't parents waiting their turn through legal entry just as worthy as those who come across our border illegally? Do we really know who they are? Do we know their claim is legitimate? Is the parent any less guilty of breaking the law and entering the country illegally? Is the parent REALLY the parent?

Americans also deserve protection in defense of the safety and security of this nation. We assume that the natural  bond of child and parent is paramount. Unfortunately, in today's world, unscrupulous people play upon our American sense of decency to promote trafficking in human beings, drugs, and terrorism.  

By simply assuming that the parent/child relationship is true, do we open that child up to even more abuse? Shouldn't we allow the process to work with families who appear on our border? 

For the security of the child and our nation?

This conundrum must begin first with BORDER SECURITY, including the wall. 

I suggest adding DNA testing to keep children from erroneously being handed over to those who seek to abuse them.  

Saturday, June 16, 2018

Analysis of evidence of political bias in the Horowitz Report

           Analysis of evidence of political bias in the Horowitz Report?

1.  First there was co-ordination from the White House. Note that President Obama was involved.

2. David Axelrod Senior Advisor remained involved. 

P. 401
February 24, 2016: In connection with a discussion about how many people from the FBI and Department should be present during a potential interview of former Secretary Clinton, Page stated in a February 24, 2016 text message to Strzok, “One more thing: she might be our next president. The last thing you need us going in there loaded for bear. You think she’s going to remember or care that it was more doj than fbi?” Strzok replied, “Agreed....” Page sent similar text messages to McCabe and another FBI employee around the same time, adding that having a larger number in the room “is not operationally necessary” and that “[t]his is as much about reputational protection as anything.”

P. 407
June 30, 2016: On June 30, 2016, Strzok sent the following text message to Page: “...Just left Bill.... He changed President to ‘another senior government official.’” Based on context, Strzok told us “Bill” referred to Priestap. Strzok stated: 

My recollection is that the early Comey speech drafts included references to emails that Secretary Clinton had with President Obama and I think there was some conversation about, well do we want to be that specific? Is there some, out of deference to executive communications, do we want to do that? And I remember that discussion occurring. I remember the decision was made to take it out. I know I was not the person who did it. 
Strzok told us that he saw no indication that this decision was done “to curry favor or to influence anything.” Page told us that she could not remember the discussion referenced in this text message. We also discuss this change to Comey’s July 5 statement in Chapter Six. 

July 31, 2016: In connection with formal opening of the FBI’s Russia investigation, Strzok texted Page: “And damn this feels momentous. Because this matters. The other one did, too, but that was to ensure we didn’t F something up. This matters because this MATTERS. So super glad to be on this voyage with you.” 

August 8 text message (“we’ll stop” candidate Trump from being elected), was that Strzok might be willing to take official action to impact a presidential candidate’s electoral prospects. Under these circumstances, we did not have confidence that Strzok’s decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the Midyear-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias. 

Rybicki and Axelrod spoke on the afternoon of October 27 and had “a series of phone calls” the rest of the day. Rybicki told Axelrod that Comey believed he had an obligation to notify Congress about the laptop in order to correct a misimpression that the Midyear investigation was closed.

Accordingly, Axelrod informed Rybicki on October 27of the Department’s strong opposition to Comey’s plan to send a letter.Comey sent a letter to Congress stating, in part, that “the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the [Midyear] investigation.”

After deciding on October 27 that he needed to notify Congress, Comey told us that he instructed Rybicki to reach out to the Department about the notification. Comey stated that he told Rybicki, “I want you to tell DOJ that I think I need to inform Congress of this step. And please tell the DAG and the AG I’m happy to speak to them, but that’s what I’m thinking. I welcome their feedback.” Comey stated that he did not remember his specific directions to Rybicki, “but the substance would have been something like, call [Axelrod], tell him where we are and that I think we have an obligation to notify” Congress “that we’re taking this step.” 

            Text messages exchanged between Strzok and Page;
            Instant messages exchanged between Agent 1, who was one of the four Midyear case agents, and Agent 5, who was a member of the filter team; and
            Instant messages sent by FBI Attorney 2, who was assigned to the Midyear investigation.
ns by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of 
Nonetheless, when one senior FBI official, Strzok, who was helping to lead the Russia investigation at the time, conveys in a text message to another senior FBI official, Page, “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it”in response to her question “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”,it is not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate’s electoral prospects. This is antithetical to the core values of the FBI and the Department of Justice.

September 2, 2016: On September 2, 2016, Page and Strzok exchanged the following text messages. The sender of each message is identified after the timestamp. 
09:41:30, Strzok: “Checkout my 9:30 mtg on the 7th” 
09:42:40, Page: “I can tell you why you’re having that meeting.” 
09:42:46, Page: “It’s not what you think.” 
09:49:39, Strzok: “TPs for D?” 
09:50:29, Page: “Yes, bc potus wants to know everything we are doing.” 
09:55:21, Strzok: “I’m sure an honest answer will come out of that meeting....” 

p. 348 Not political?

In 2016, the FBI had an open investigation into the Clinton Foundation. Comey refused to confirm the existence of the investigation on July 7, 2016, in testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee because the investigation was not public. 
In addition, numerous witnesses told us that agents involved in the Clinton Foundation investigation were instructed to take no overt investigative steps prior to the election. We asked Yates about this instruction. Yates stated, “[Y]eah, I think there was discussion about look, if [agents on the Clinton Foundation investigation] want to go do record stuff and stuff that you can do covertly, fine. But not overtly.... And the sort of thought being we’ll address that again at the end after the election was over.”Yates explained that this instruction was explicit because the Department does “everything [it] can to avoid having an impact on an election.” 

P. 350
Comey asked McCabe to drop out of the discussion about this topic on October 27, and Page left the discussion as well. McCabe formally recused himself from Clinton-related matters on November 1. 
For example, the notes indicate that Laufman asked, “What distinguishes this from other devices we chose not to obtain? When think of [Abedin’s] email, her emails were of less probative significance.” The notes reflect that Strzok responded, “Volume – 500k emails – specifically domains “it is relevant that [the Weiner laptop] is in our possession.” Toscas agreed that possession of the laptop was a relevant factor, stating that if the Midyear team had possessed the laptop during the investigation, it “seems like we would’ve looked at it.” Toscas went on to state, according to the notes, “[W]ill beg the question of why we’re not going to ask for all these folks’ devices?”According to the notes, Prosecutors 1 and 2 pointed out that the investigative team did not previously seek to obtain devices from Clinton’s senior aides. 

P. 373
Moreover, the Midyear team did not treat the BlackBerry emails as if they were critical to completing a thorough investigation prior to October. Rather, the team decided during the investigation not to obtain personal devices that Clinton’s senior aides used for State Department work, because, among other reasons, they did not believe obtaining those devices was necessary for a thorough investigation. Indeed, the Midyear team did not ask Abedin’s attorneys to turn over Abedin’s personal BlackBerry or laptop that she used during her employment at the State Department, even though Abedin told the FBI that she had given those devices to her attorneys so that they could produce her work-related emails to the State Department. 

P. 374
We believe that Comey’s unequal assessment of these risks was the product of his belief that Clinton was going to win the election. Comey told us, “I am sure I was influenced by the tacit assumption that Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next President.” This expectation likely led him to focus too heavily on what he perceived to be the consequences of not revealing the new information, namely undermining the legitimacy of Clinton’s presidency and harming the reputation of the FBI. Ironically, in his effort to avoid the FBI or himself being seen as political, Comey based his decision, in part, on his assessment of the likely outcome of the political process. 

P. 374
FBI Attorney 1 responded to Strzok’s email at 9:55 p.m., stating, “That’s right, Pete. Plus, we can’t say she mishandled on all of her accounts. Of the 27 classified emails, 26 were on her account and one was Yahoo. We also cannot say for certain that the 27 classified emails are on this particular device, which also weakens our argument generally.” In response, Baker sent an email at 10:18 p.m., stating, “There is [probable cause] to believe that Huma used her email accounts to mishandle classified information. I just don’t understand why that [i]s not enough to look at all her emails.... Would you please discuss with DOJ?” Baker told us that he believed the FBI should seek the authority to review all of Abedin’s emails on the laptop, instead of just emails between Abedin and Clinton. 

These people amaze me! They claim Trump has no dignity or class and yet the words they use, the affair they are carrying on. Both are married. Page has children. And they hold themselves up to be morally superior?· February 12, 2016, Page: “I’m no prude, but I’m really appalled by this. So you don’t have to go looking (in case you hadn’t heard), Trump called him the p-word. The man has no dignity or class. He simply cannot be president. With a Slur for Ted Cruz, Donald Trump Further Splits Voters” 
·       · August 26, 2016, Strzok: “Just went to a southern Virginia Walmart. I could SMELL the Trump support....” 

·       Both Strzok and Page agreed to multiple voluntary interviews with the OIG regarding, among other things, their text messages. The OIG asked Strzok and Page each to comment in general on the text messages. Strzok explained that the text messages reflected his “personal opinion talking to a friend.” He stated that ingrained in FBI culture was a “bright and inviolable line between what you think personally and belief and the conduct of your official business,” and that the political opinions he expressed in the text messages “never transited into the official realm. In any way. Not in discussions, not in acts.”Strzok acknowledged that “it was dumb to do that all on a government device,”but distinguished his private exchanges with Page from a more public forum where expressing such views might call into question the integrity of an FBI investigation. When questioned about the possibility that exchanges on his government device could be hacked, obtained by the media, or otherwise exposed to the public, he acknowledged that “I can envision a number of scenarios” where it could impact an investigation. 

P. 401
·       When asked about using her FBI-issued phone for these exchanges, Page told us, “[T]he predominant reason that we communicated on our work phones was because we were trying to keep our affair a secret from our spouses.” 
·       November 9, 2016: The day after the presidential election, on November 9, 2016, Page sent the following text message to Strzok: “Are you even going to give out your calendars? Seems kind of depressing. Maybe it should just be the first meeting of the secret society.” We asked Page about this message. Page stated that the “calendars” referenced in this text message were “funny and snarky” calendars of Russian President Vladimir Putin in different poses, such as “holding a kitten.” Page told us that Strzok had previously purchased these calendars as “dark gallows humor.” Page stated that the reference to the “secret society” was also a “dark sort of” humor about Trump winning the election and concerns she and Strzok had about Trump. Page continued: 
·       And so, we somewhat with dark humor, but also somewhat, you know, with real concern as, of course, our Director actually gets fired, talk about, like, well, when he shuts down the, when he finds out about the investigation and shuts down the FBI, you know, we’ll form a secret society so we can like continue the investigation. So that’s just, that’s obviously not real. I mean, that’s just us being, you know, sort of snarky. But that’s a, that’s a joke. I mean, a reflection of that sort of joke. 

October 28, 2016, shortly after Comey’s October 28 letter to Congress that effectively announced the reopening of the Midyear investigation. FBI Attorney 2 sent similar messages to four different FBI employees. The timestamps of these messages are included below. The messages stated: 
13:44:42, to FBI Employee 1: “I mean, I never really liked the Republic anyway.” 
13:44:52, to FBI Employee 2: “I mean, I never really liked the Republic anyway.” 
14:01:52, to FBI Employee 3: “As I have initiated the destruction of the republic.... Would you be so kind as to have a coffee with me this afternoon?” 
15:28:50, to FBI Employee 4: “I’m clinging to small pockets of happiness in the dark time of the Republic’s destruction” 
·       On Election Day on November 8, 2016, Agent 1 and Agent 5 exchanged the following instant messages. 
·       14:21:10, Agent 1: “You think HRC is gonna win right? You think we should get nails and some boards in case she doesnt” 
·       14:21:56, Agent 5: “she better win... otherwise i’m gonna be walking around with both of my guns.” 
·       14:22:05, Agent 5: “and likely quitting on the spot” 14:28:43, Agent 1: “You should know;.....” 14:28:45, Agent 1: “that”
14:28:50, Agent 1: “I’m.....” 
·       14:28:56, Agent 1: “with her.” 
·       14:28:58, Agent 1: “ooooooooooooooooooo” 
·       14:29:02, Agent 1: “show me the money” 
·       14:29:03, Agent 5: “<:o)” 
·       14:29:14, Agent 5: “screw you trump” 
·       14:19:18, Agent 5: “wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!” 
·       14:29:32, Agent 5: “go baby, go! let’s give her Virginia” 
·       14:30:03, Agent 1: “not to my country. You just cant get up and try to appeal to all the worst things in humans and fool my country....” 
·       14:30:12, Agent 1: “Just 49% of us.....” 14:30:25, Agent 5: “let’s hope it’s 49% or less...” 14:30:31, Agent 5: “we’ll find out...” 
·       In a December 6, 2016 exchange, Agent 5 complained to Agent 1 about being required to be on call on the day of the presidential inauguration. In the middle of expressing displeasure about this, Agent 5 sent a message to Agent 1 that stated, “fuck trump.” On February 9, 2017, in the context of an FBI employee receiving a presidential award for public service, Agent 5 messaged, “...I think now that trump is the president, i’d refuse it. it would be an insult to even be considered for it.” 
P. 416
09:38:14, FBI Attorney 2: “I am numb.” 
09:55:35, FBI Employee: “I can’t stop crying.” 
10:00:13, FBI Attorney 2: “That makes me even more sad.” 
10:43:20, FBI Employee: “Like, what happened?” 
10:43:37, FBI Employee: “You promised me this wouldn’t happen. YOU PROMISED.” 
10:43:43, FBI Employee: Okay, that might have been a lie...” 
10:43:46, FBI Employee: “I’m very upset.” 
10:43:47, FBI Employee: “haha” 
10:51:48, FBI Attorney 2: “I am so stressed about what I could have done differently.” 
10:54:29, FBI Employee: “Don’t stress. None of that mattered.” 10:54:31, FBI Employee: “The FBI’s influence.”
10:59:36, FBI Attorney 2: “I don’t know. We broke the momentum.” 11:00:03, FBI Employee: “That is not so.” 

November 9, 2016 
11:02:22, FBI Employee: “All the people who were initially voting for her would not, and were not, swayed by any decision the FBI put out. Trump’s supporters are all poor to middle class, uneducated, lazy POS that think he will magically grant them jobs for doing nothing. They probably didn’t watch the debates, aren’t fully educated on his policies, and are stupidly wrapped up in his unmerited enthusiasm.” 

11:11:43, FBI Attorney 2: “I’m just devastated. I can’t wait until I can leave today and just shut off the world for the next four days.” 

11:12:06, FBI Employee: “Why are you devastated?”

11:12:18, FBI Employee: “Yes, I’m not watching tv for four years.” 

11:14:16, FBI Attorney 2: “I just can’t imagine the systematic disassembly of the progress we made over the last 8 years. ACA is gone. Who knows if the rhetoric about deporting people, walls, and crap is true. I honestly feel like there is going to be a lot more gun issues, too, the crazies won finally. This is the tea party on steroids. And the GOP is going to be lost, they have to deal with an incumbent in 4 years. We have to fight this again. Also Pence is stupid.” 

11:14:58, FBI Employee: “Yes that’s all true.” 

11:15:01, FBI Attorney 2: “And it’s just hard not to feel like the FBI caused some of this. It was razor thin in some states.” 

11:15:09, FBI Employee: “Yes it was very thin.” 

11:15:23, FBI Attorney 2: “Plus, my god damned name is all over the legal documents investigating his staff.” 

11:15:24, FBI Employee: “But no I absolutely do not believe the FBI had any part.” 

11:15:33, FBI Attorney 2: “So, who knows if that breaks to him what he is going to do.” 

P. 420
FBI Attorney 1 stated that she and FBI Attorney 2 were friends and often had discussions unrelated to work. She acknowledged that that this was “not the right place to make those kind of comments.” We asked FBI Attorney 1 what she meant by the message, “Is it making you rethink your commitment to the Trump administration?” She stated, “I think what I meant was are you going to leave the government and start working to get more money.” We also asked FBI Attorney 1 what she understood FBI Attorney 2 to mean when he messaged, “Viva le resistance.”FBI Attorney 1 told us, “I think it was a joke obviously. But I think it was intended to say that, you know, he was committed to continuing to work for the Bureau, for these cases.” FBI Attorney 1 stated that nothing about this exchange affected her work on the Russia investigation. 

II. Timeline of Key Events 

Aug 10, 2014 Andrew McCabe becomes Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI Washington 
The FBI opened the Clinton server email investigation when McCabe was the ADIC of WFO and opened the Clinton Foundation investigations after McCabe became FBI Associate Director. 
Feb 25, 2015 McCabe’s wife, Dr. Jill McCabe, receives a call from the Virginia Lieutenant Governor’s office asking her to consider a state senate run. 
Mar 7, 2015 McCabe accompanies Dr. McCabe to Richmond and the two meet with Governor McAuliffe to discuss her potential run for state senate. 
Mar 9-13, 2015 McCabe contacts Director Comey’s Chief of Staff and Deputy Director Giuliano to discuss Dr. McCabe’s potential run.
Mar 11, 2015 McCabe obtains advice from FBI ethics official Patrick Kelley and FBI General Counsel Baker. 
Mar 12, 2015 Dr. McCabe announces candidacy for state senate. 
April 29, 2015 McCabe documents his recusal from all Virginia public corruption cases. 

On May 4, 2015, a private attorney emailed Director Comey to request that the FBI open a public corruption investigation into Hillary Clinton, citing public allegations related to the Clinton Foundation and her use of a private email server while she was Secretary of State. Comey forwarded the complaint to Deputy Director Giuliano, who in turn forwarded it the next day to McCabe, stating: “[p]rovided to WFO for whatever action you deem appropriate.” 

July 10, 2015 FBI opens the Clinton email investigation. 
Fall 2015 Dr. McCabe’s campaign committee (McCabe for Senate) receives a combined total of ~ $675,000 from a Political Action Committee controlled by McAuliffe ($467,500 in monetary contributions) and from Virginia Democratic Party ($207,788 in in-kind contributions). McCabe states he was not aware of these contributions until October 2016. 
Sep 6, 2015 McCabe leaves WFO and becomes Associate Deputy Director for the FBI. 
Nov 3, 2015 Dr. McCabe defeated in state senate election. 
January 2016 FBI opens Clinton Foundation investigations. 
Feb 1, 2016 McCabe becomes Deputy Director for the FBI.
Oct 23, 2016 The Wall Street Journal publishes article disclosing McAuliffe contributions to Dr. McCabe’s campaign, triggering discussions with Director Comey about whether McCabe should be recused from Clinton-related investigations. 
Nov 1, 2016 McCabe formally recuses himself from participating in Clinton- related investigations, but the decision is not announced externally and only to a limited group internally. 

First, we found that several FBI employees who played critical roles in the investigation sent political messages—some of which related directly to the Midyear investigation—that created the appearance of bias and thereby raised questions about the objectivity and thoroughness of the Midyear investigation. Even more seriously, text messages between Strzok and Page pertaining to the Russia investigation, particularly a text message from Strzok on August 8 stating “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.” in response to a Page text “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!,” are not only indicative of a biased state of mind but imply a willingness to take official action to impact a presidential candidate’s electoral prospects. This is antithetical to the core values of the FBI and the Department of Justice. While we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed in Chapter Five, the conduct by these employees cast a cloud over the entire FBI investigation and sowed doubt about the FBI’s work on, and its handling of, the Midyear investigation. It also called into question Strzok’s failure in October 2016 to follow up on the Midyear-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop. The damage caused by these employees’ actions extends far beyond the scope of the Midyear investigation and goes to the heart of the FBI’s reputation for neutral factfinding and political independence. 

 And then comes the "Insurance Policy"