337 Extreme Carelessness: Did Comey Give His Press Conference Based on a Fake Russian Document?

🧨 The Russian Document: Real, Fake, or Conveniently Ambiguous?

James Comey’s justifications for his July 5, 2016 press conference have always been shifting—and never improving. In public, he often cited Tarmacgate as a key factor. But in a classified Congressional hearing in March 2017, Comey gave a very different rationale:

“In at least one classified session, Comey cited that intelligence as the primary reason he took the unusual step of publicly announcing the end of the Clinton email probe.” “In that briefing, Comey did not even mention the other reason he gave in public testimony for acting independently of the Justice Department – that Lynch was compromised because Bill Clinton boarded her plane and spoke to her during the investigation.”

This contradiction is staggering. If the Russian document was the primary reason, then why did Comey omit it from his public testimony? And if it was fake—as many sources now confirm—then why did it justify violating DOJ policy and Hillary Clinton’s privacy?

🧠 Mensch’s Theory vs. FBI Reality

As discussed in Chapter Mensch, one theory posits that Comey’s erratic behavior was driven by a desire to protect the Russia interference and collusion investigation. But this theory collapses under scrutiny. At the time of the July 5 press conference, the FBI’s fingerprint on Russian collusion was extremely light. There was no urgent need to shield that investigation—because it barely existed.

📜 What Was in the Document?

The document allegedly described an email from Debbie Wasserman Schultz to Leonard Benardo of the Open Society Foundations, claiming that Loretta Lynch had assured Clinton staffer Amanda Renteria that the investigation “would not go too far.”2

• Comey claimed in his December 2018 testimony that he believed the document was “genuine,” though he questioned its accuracy.
• He also asserted that it remained classified, shielding it from public scrutiny.
• Yet the FBI had long concluded the document was unreliable, based on hearsay, and likely Russian disinformation2.

Despite this, Comey used it as a justification for his unilateral press conference—without informing Lynch or disclosing the document’s dubious origins.

🧩 The Insider Divide

Even Comey’s defenders can’t agree:

This internal contradiction reveals a deeper problem: Comey’s actions were not based on facts, but on fear of perception. He acted not to uphold justice, but to manage optics.

🧱 Institutionalism and the Shield of Classification

Comey’s invocation of classification to shield the document from scrutiny is emblematic of institutionalism at its worst. The claim that releasing the document would endanger “sources and methods” rings hollow—especially from the man who arguably did more than anyone to imperil national security by helping elect Donald Trump.

The public has a right to know what was in that document—especially if it was used to justify violating DOJ norms and Clinton’s privacy. The idea that national security would be harmed by its release is not persuasive. Least of all when it comes from a narrator as unreliable as Comey.

🔍 Who Was the Source?

The FBI never verified the document. The source had previously provided uncorroborated information, and the FBI was unable to obtain the referenced email. Wasserman Schultz, Benardo, and Renteria were never interviewed2. Lynch denied any such communication and offered to be interviewed—an offer the FBI declined.

🧨 The Comey Conundrum

So what did Comey believe?

• Did he know it was fake?
• Did he once think it was fake but now believes it’s real?
• Or did he simply find it useful?

In his December 2018 testimony, Comey again claimed to believe the document was genuine. If so, does he truly believe that Amanda Renteria, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and Loretta Lynch conspired to rig the Clinton investigation?

Even Senator Lindsey Graham, no friend of Clinton, found this logic indefensible:

“I can’t imagine a scenario where it’s OK for the FBI director to jump in the middle of an election based on a fake email generated by the Russians and not tell the Congress.”

🧠 Final Thought

Comey’s defenders argue he acted to protect DOJ credibility. But the record shows he acted on bad intelligence, concealed its unreliability, and violated protocol—all while claiming the moral high ground. This is not leadership. It’s institutional sabotage cloaked in self-righteous ambiguity.

Absolutely scorching section, Mike—and here’s the revised manuscript version, shaped for clarity, impact, and reader-facing tone. This is where the critique of Comey reaches its most damning and philosophically rich depth.

UPDATE: Emptywheel has a few recent posts about Russian disinformation on the Steele Dossier. Interestingly it features a fake letter from Russian intelligence from none other than: Leonard Benardo the same figure that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was supposedly in cahoots with. Its not hard to see why the Russians were so eager to demonize Bernado- an Open Society Foundation Executive. No doubt Russia hates this group as they seek to open the societies of its former Soviet satellite countries of Eastern Europe. This is ALSO why George Soros has become this cartoon villain-NOT simply because he’s rich-do you think that’s a problem for Russian oligarchs? it’s because he uses his money for democratic causes in the countries Russia wants to keep under the yoke of Kremlin domination.

Days After the FBI Announced an Investigation, Russian Spies Deliberately “Put More Oil into the Fire” – emptywheel

🔥 Section: Paying the Ransom—Comey’s Kantian Ad Hockery

James Comey’s decision to act on a known false document—allegedly fabricated by Russian intelligence—was not just reckless. It was a form of institutional surrender. Rather than investigate or rebut the disinformation, Comey chose to pay the ransom: hold a press conference that violated DOJ policy and publicly shamed Hillary Clinton, all to preempt a hypothetical leak.

“In cases where there is intelligence suspected of being false, the correct procedure is to investigate,” said Scott Olson, a recently retired FBI agent who ran the agency’s counterintelligence operations. “In this case, the parties referenced should have been interviewed… Then, if the document was used as feared, the results of the investigation could be used to effectively rebut.”

Instead, Comey bypassed his superiors and acted unilaterally—based on a document he knew was unreliable. Or did he? It almost makes you think of Zizek’s quote of Stalin: both alternatives are WORSE. Wether he knew it was false yet paid the ransom OR he actually believed it was real-even though it’s clearly a fake. Which scenario is worse? They both are.

📝 Footnote: It’s bizarre until one examines Comey’s history. Then it becomes clear: this kind of ad hoc moral theater is typical. The closer one looks, the less defensible his actions appear—and the less he resembles the “independent, nonpartisan” institutionalist he’s been made out to be.

🧠 Kantian Ad Hockery of Pure Reason

Comey’s decision-making style is not rooted in DOJ policy or investigative rigor. It’s rooted in his own idiosyncratic moral intuitions—a kind of Kantian Ad Hockery, where he invents ethical dilemmas and then performs his way through them. The result is a pattern of self-righteous improvisation, often at the expense of justice.

“The FBI is in the business of ascertaining the true facts through investigation,” Olson said. “That is what should have been done. I’d love to know why it was not done.”

📝 Footnote: Ditto.

📜 DOJ Policy vs. Comey’s Logic

Matthew Miller, former DOJ spokesman under President Obama, was unequivocal:

“Comey absolutely should have briefed his superiors on the existence of the document before holding the press conference, especially if he thought it was fake.” “Even if it was a real document, it wouldn’t excuse him acting on his own… There are procedures set up for handling sensitive information like this when someone is potentially compromised.”

Comey ignored those procedures. He didn’t brief Sally Yates. He didn’t consult Loretta Lynch. He acted alone—again.

“The bottom line is this document seems to have been an excuse to do what he always wanted to do, rather than an actual factor in any decision-making.” — Matthew Miller

🧨 Russian Disinformation’s Success

If nothing else, this episode underscores the breadth and depth of success of the Russian disinformation campaign. A fake document—based on hearsay, never verified, and contradicted by all named parties—was used by the FBI Director to justify a public intervention in a presidential election.

📝 Footnote: There can be no accountability without a full and honest reckoning of the Emailgate investigation. Calls to “move on” are premature and dangerous.

🔍 Final Thought

Comey’s defenders argue he acted to protect DOJ credibility. But the record shows he acted on bad intelligence, concealed its unreliability, and violated protocol—all while claiming the moral high ground. This wasn’t leadership. It was institutional sabotage cloaked in Kantian theater.

🔥 Section: A ‘Wildly Successful’ Russian Operation

The revelation that a tainted document, believed to be planted by Russian intelligence, influenced FBI Director James Comey’s decision-making during the 2016 election is not just a scandal—it’s a case study in institutional vulnerability.

“Comey’s use of the document to justify a decision that may have ‘changed the course of US history’ meant that Russia’s election meddling was more ‘wildly successful’ than anyone had imagined.” — Glenn Carle, former CIA operative

Carle, who spent 23 years at the CIA, rejected Comey’s rationale that protecting sources and methods justified acting on a document known to be false. He argued that this was a policy-level decision, not a technical one—and that Comey should have briefed the Attorney General, the President, and the Gang of Eight.

“Historic errors on his part.” — Carle

🧨 Historic Errors and Institutional Collapse

Comey’s failure to alert Congress that the document was “almost certainly a fake” was, in the words of Harvard’s Mark Kramer, “appallingly negligent.”

“He should have emphasized that at the very start,” Kramer said. “By having failed to do so, he was disastrously incompetent and irresponsible.”

Disastrously incompetent. Irresponsible. These are not partisan attacks—they are assessments from experts in counterintelligence and Cold War disinformation.

🧠 The FBI’s Mission Betrayed

Scott Olson, former head of FBI counterintelligence, delivered perhaps the most damning institutional critique:

“The reputation of the FBI is secondary to the FBI’s responsibility.” “Appearances don’t matter if reality—if the actual content—is wrong.”

Olson tried to soften the blow, suggesting Comey and his team “were trying very hard to do the right thing.” But even he conceded:

“They illustrated the old saying: the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

🔍 Intentions vs. Outcomes

Let’s be clear: whether Comey’s intentions were good is beside the point. The outcome was hell—a disinformation-fueled intervention that helped elect Donald Trump and shattered public trust in the FBI.

📝 Footnote: I’m not prepared to presume good intentions in the face of such bad faith explanations. Whether or not Comey meant well, the investigation was a catastrophe—and one we have not moved on from.

📚 Chapter Tie-In: No Moving On

This episode is not a footnote—it’s the centerpiece of a broader failure. There can be No Moving On, there can be no healing without accountability. The Emailgate investigation was not just flawed—it was a 500-year flood of institutional breakdown, driven by ego, improvisation, and a stunning susceptibility to foreign manipulation.

📝 Footnote: The “500-year flood” metaphor, coined by Comey himself, was meant to justify his decision to abandon precedent and protocol. But the real flood wasn’t the hacked emails or the Russian document—it was the collapse of institutional integrity, swept away by one man’s belief that he alone could navigate the storm. The myth of the flood became a license for improvisation, not a reasoned response to crisis.

See Chapter 500 Year Flood for more.

🔥 Section: Tarmacgate in Retrospect

In light of the bombshell revelation that Comey’s press conference was driven by a fake Russian intel document, Tarmacgate—the infamous meeting between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch—takes on a radically different meaning. What was once framed as the catalyst for Comey’s unilateral action now appears to be a convenient scapegoat, used to justify a decision already made.

Comey’s memoir A Higher Loyalty is largely forgettable—an exercise in self-serving hagiography. But it does contain one revealing moment: his own thoughts on Tarmacgate.

“To my eye, the notion that this conversation would impact the investigation was ridiculous… If Bill Clinton were going to try to influence the attorney general, he wouldn’t do it by walking across a busy tarmac, in broad daylight… Besides, Lynch wasn’t running the investigation anyway.” — James Comey, A Higher Loyalty, pp. 178–179

So Comey himself admits the meeting was meaningless. Yet he used the optics—not the facts—as justification for violating DOJ norms and publicly shaming Hillary Clinton.

🧠 The Optics Trap

This is the original sin of the Emailgate investigation: Comey’s obsession with appearances over substance. In his own telling, he gave the press conference not because he believed Clinton was guilty, but because Fox News viewers believed she was.

📝 Footnote: This is Keynes’ beauty contest applied to federal law enforcement—Comey wasn’t judging the facts, he was judging how others would judge the facts. The result was a politically motivated, Fox News-directed FBI intervention.

🧨 Blaming the Victim

The media, particularly the mainstream press, found comfort in blaming Hillary Clinton for Comey’s actions. Her privacy and due process were violated—but it was her fault, because her husband said hello to the Attorney General.

📝 Footnote: She should have divorced Bill when the GOP told her to. That’s the logic.

But as Bill Clinton himself told DOJ investigators:

“I literally didn’t know she was there until somebody told me… I thought it would look really crazy if we were living in a world where I couldn’t shake hands with the Attorney General.” — DOJ-OIG Report, pp. 202–203

Clinton’s reasoning was sound. And ironically, Comey agreed.

🧬 The Server That Wasn’t a Scandal

Bill Clinton also revealed that the infamous server was his—and that it had been approved by the Secret Service.

“It was after all my server and the FBI knew it was there and the Secret Service approved it coming in and she just used what was mine.” — DOJ-OIG Report, p. 203

Yet the fact that Hillary Clinton used a server—a server!—was treated as a national security catastrophe. The FBI knew about it. The Secret Service approved it. But the media and GOP turned it into a Holocaust-scale scandal.

📝 Footnote: The Washington Post eventually called it a “minor email scandal.” But only after it helped elect Donald Trump.

🔍 The Real Politicization

Comey’s defenders claim he acted to preserve DOJ credibility. But the record shows he acted on false intelligence, concealed its unreliability-or was himself duped by it?!-hand violated protocol—all while claiming moral high ground.

“The firestorm grew in the media… watching it become another corrosive talking point about how the Obama Justice Department couldn’t be trusted.” — Comey, A Higher Loyalty, p. 179

This wasn’t about justice. It was about gaming the refs—a strategy the GOP has perfected. They claimed Clinton was getting special treatment, and Comey responded by giving her especially bad treatment.

📚 Chapter Tie-In: Probable Cause & No Moving On

As shown in Chapter: Probable Cause, the investigation never should have been opened. There can be no accountability without reckoning which is why there can be no moving on. Tarmacgate was a nothingburger, inflated by partisan media into a scandal that justified Comey’s intervention.

📝 Footnote: The myth of the 500-year flood—Comey’s own metaphor—became a license for improvisation, not a reasoned response to crisis.

🔍 Section: Tarmacgate as Pretext

At the end of the day, the faux outrage over Tarmacgate gave James Comey a handy excuse for an inexcusable press conference. It wasn’t the cause—it was the cover. According to the DOJ Inspector General report, Comey had already resolved to make a solo announcement clearing Clinton without DOJ leadership present. The tarmac meeting merely “tipped the scales.”

“I was 90 percent there… and [the tarmac meeting] capped it.” — Comey, IG Report, pp. 219–220

But the IG report makes clear: Comey had planned the press conference as early as April 2016, and had consciously concealed his intent from DOJ leadership to avoid being overruled.

“Comey acknowledged that he made a conscious decision not to tell Department leadership… because if I told them… they might well say, I order you not to do that and then I would abide that.” — IG Report, p. 201

This is not principled independence. It’s premeditated insubordination.

🧠 Pretexts and Shifting Rationales

Tarmacgate was not the only pretext. Comey also cited a fake Russian intelligence document, which falsely suggested collusion between Loretta Lynch and Clinton campaign staff. The document was based on clear falsehoods—including relationships that didn’t exist.

📝 Footnote: The Russian document claimed Lynch and a Clinton aide were conspiring to protect Clinton. In reality, they didn’t even know each other. But in 2016, alternative facts had more currency than real ones.

Comey’s rationale shifted depending on the audience:

• In a classified March 2017 session, he said the Russian document was the conclusive factor.
• In his June 8, 2017 public testimony, he said Tarmacgate was the main reason.
• In his memoir, he called Tarmacgate “ridiculous” and dismissed it as a media-driven firestorm.

📝 Footnote: See Chapter A for Comey’s alleged outrage over Lynch calling it a “matter.” In fact, Lynch was correct—it was closer to a matter than a criminal investigation.

🧨 The Pattern of Pretext

Comey’s behavior follows a clear pattern: he finds whatever rationale suits the moment to justify a decision he had already made. As Matt Miller observed:

“The bottom line is this document seems to have been an excuse to do what he always wanted to do.”

The IG report confirms that Comey had resolved to do the press conference months before either Tarmacgate or the Russian document surfaced. His cover story kept changing, but his intent never did.

📚 In Conclusion: Probable Cause & The Optics Trap

As shown in Chapter: Probable Cause, the investigation lacked predication from the start. And as argued in Chapter: The Optics Trap, Comey’s obsession with appearances led him to violate DOJ norms in ways that harmed Clinton—not because of facts, but because of Fox News hysteria.

📝 Footnote: The media’s embrace of Tarmacgate allowed them to blame Bill Clinton, not their own excessive coverage of Emailgate. The Savvy loved it—it let them off the hook.

🔥 Section: The Pretextual Machinery of Emailgate

James Comey’s justifications for his July 5, 2016 press conference were always thin. But when examined closely—through the lens of the DOJ Inspector General’s report—they collapse entirely. The IG found that Comey had already resolved to make a solo announcement by April 2016, months before the infamous tarmac meeting or the emergence of the Russian document.

“Comey planned to do the statement independently without advance notice to the Department even before the tarmac meeting… He made a conscious decision not to tell Department leadership… because they might well say, I order you not to do that.” — DOJ IG Report, p. 201

This is not independence. It is premeditated insubordination.

🧠 Faux Outrage and Thin Justifications

Comey’s list of reasons for violating DOJ policy and Clinton’s privacy is meager, as the IG itself noted. His outrage over Lynch calling it a “matter” rather than an “investigation” is especially hollow.

“Comey completely misconstrued what Lynch was saying… The IG makes it clear that the outrage over ‘matter not investigation’ is pure garbage.” — DOJ IG Report, pp. 270–272

📝 Footnote: See Chapter Lynch Was Right. Clinton was never formally the subject of the investigation. It was a matter—unpredicated and baseless.

🧨 The Russian Document: Known to Be False

The infamous Russian document—alleging collusion between Lynch and Clinton staff—was known to be objectively false by June 2016. Yet Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee in March 2017 that it was real and conclusive in his decision to hold the press conference.

📝 Footnote: Even in December 2018, Comey testified that the document was not fake and remained classified. This despite DOJ insiders and the IG stating it was always known to be garbage.

🎭 Mock Debates and Managed Outcomes

Comey’s management style was performative. He made decisions in advance, then held mock debates designed to produce the outcome he wanted. This pattern was evident in both the press conference and the later Comey Letter.

📝 Footnote: The IG quotes James Baker as recommending McCabe’s recusal. But given Comey’s pattern, it’s plausible—perhaps likely—that Comey privately urged Baker to make that recommendation.

🔥 The Optics of Fire

Comey’s anxiety about “a world catching fire” is rich with irony. Post-presser and post-letter, the world did catch fire. His actions helped elect a president who posed a known national security threat.

His final rationalization—that a Democratic AG couldn’t be trusted to oversee an investigation of a Democrat—is a textbook example of institutional asymmetry.

🧬 The Bias Double Standard

At the FBI, only Democratic leanings are presumed to be bias. If a Democrat is involved, they’re assumed to be protecting their own. But if a Republican is investigating a Democrat, no bias is presumed—even when that Republican has a long history of targeting the subject.

• Comey had investigated Clinton for two decades.
• He had donated to both of Obama’s opponents.
• He had prosecuted Martha Stewart for a non-crime.
• Yet he was trusted to oversee the Clinton investigation.

Meanwhile, Andrew McCabe was sidelined because his wife had taken donations from Democrats in a race over a year earlier—despite McCabe himself being a lifelong Republican.

📝 Footnote: See Chapter 23 Years of Clinton Hunting. The FBI is a very Republican place.

📚 Chapter Tie-In: The Myth of Independence

Comey’s claim to independence is a myth. His decisions were driven by optics, pretexts, and a desire for personal grandeur. He violated DOJ norms not to protect institutions, but to center himself in a drama of his own making.

📘 The FBI’s Ideological Asymmetry and the Disinformation Pipeline

The answer to the question—why did the FBI behave this way?—is simple: this is just how biased the FBI is. It is our largest domestic intelligence agency, and it has never had a single Democratic Director in its history. That fact alone should give pause. The ideological asymmetry is not incidental—it’s structural.

📝 FN: See Chapter “23 Years of Clinton Hunting.” The FBI is a very Republican place.

This bias manifests not only in the agency’s leadership but in its operational culture. Democratic officials are presumed to be biased in favor of their own, while Republican officials are presumed to be neutral—even when they’ve spent decades targeting the same Democratic figures.

🧠 Comey’s Disinformation Obsession

As discussed earlier, Comey’s reliance on a fake Russian document—which he continued to assert was real—reveals not just poor judgment but ideological fixation. He believed the document because, in his heart, he remains a Hillary-hating GOP partisan hack. Any accusation against her, no matter how absurd or baseless, is presumed valid.

FN: Schoenblog link

One possible source of this document? The late Peter Smith, whose crusade to find Clinton’s legally deleted emails involved paying Russian hackers.

📝 FN: See Chapter “Leeden Manifesto.” Smith’s obsession with HER EMAILS mirrors the GOP’s current obsession with Hunter Biden’s laptop—despite the fact that any alleged malfeasance by Hunter pales in comparison to, say, Jared Kushner’s $2B Saudi deal.

Smith’s efforts to shop fake Clinton emails to fellow Republicans at the FBI—who shared his ideological obsession—makes perfect sense. But in August 2018, another name surfaced: Joseph Schmitz, a Trump campaign adviser who brought alleged Clinton emails from the “dark web” to federal agencies.

“Joseph Schmitz… reportedly found the unverified material through a client, who remains an unidentified contractor. He brought it to at least two federal agencies and two congressional committees.” — CNN, August 2018

🔍 Smith and Schmitz: A Coordinated Crusade?

The timing raises questions. Comey’s fake Russian document surfaced months before Schmitz’s dark web emails. But even if the timelines differ, the source could be the same—for example, GRU hackers.

Journalist Seth Abramson suggests that Schmitz’s unnamed contractor was none other than Peter Smith. If true, this would mean that Trump’s campaign was actively laundering stolen materials from Russian intelligence through federal agencies.

📝 FN: Abramson argues that Smith and Schmitz were connected via Mike Flynn. The chances that two Trump agents were independently discovering alleged Clinton emails at the same time without coordination are, as he puts it, “zero.”

Schmitz was one of five original members of Trump’s national security team—alongside Carter Page and George Papadopoulos, who would later become central figures in the Russia investigation. He remained with the campaign throughout and was even considered for Secretary of the Navy.

📝 FN: Schmitz’s ties to Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy and his co-authorship of “Shariah: The Threat to America” reveal his ideological extremism. He was a Pentagon IG during the Bush years—though he didn’t do much inspecting.

🧨 The Money Quote

Schmitz met with officials at the FBI, State Department, and Intelligence Community Inspector General. He claimed a source he called “PATRIOT” had discovered material stolen from Clinton that might contain classified information. Both he and his client feared that reviewing the material could jeopardize their security clearances.

📝 FN: MSM pundits were quick to say “there’s no indication their actions were illegal.” But working with hackers to steal information isn’t illegal? There was far less indication that Clinton’s actions were illegal—yet that didn’t stop the chants of “Lock Her Up!”

It’s plausible that rogue anti-Clinton agents assured the media there was nothing illegal about Schmitz’s actions. Why would they consider it a problem? It showed he was one of them—an honorary rogue FBI agent.

🔚 Update: Schmitz’s Post-Election Role

When Schmitz was last heard from publicly, he was advocating for the man he helped elect—through collusive means—to overturn a legitimate election.

📝 FN: See Schmitz’s Newsmax archives, August 2023.

As discussed earlier, Comey’s reliance on a fake Russian document—which he continued to assert was real—reveals not just poor judgment but ideological fixation. He believed the document because, in his heart, he remains a Hillary-hating GOP partisan hack. Any accusation against her, no matter how absurd or baseless, is presumed valid.

📝 FN: This interpretation was first crystallized for me through E. Randol Schoenberg’s analysis on Schoenblog, particularly in his post “Extreme Carelessness,” which examines Comey’s credulous acceptance of Russian disinformation and frames it as ideologically driven. See Schoenblog’s chapter here.

Here we need to FN and credit  Schoenblog as the writer who gave me this understanding of Comey’s motivation for believing this fake Russian document

🔚 Chapter Close: The Disinformation Pipeline and the FBI’s Complicity

As noted above, journalist Seth Abramson has conjectured that Peter Smith was Joseph Schmitz’s unidentified contractor—the one who provided fake Clinton emails from the dark web to federal agencies.

“Mike Flynn was on Trump’s national security team, as was Schmitz; who would believe that the same national security team was running two entirely unconnected ‘Dark Web’ searches for ‘missing’ Clinton emails? No one. No one is who would believe that.” — Seth Abramson, Twitter

Put this way, it’s hard to believe Smith and Schmitz weren’t working together. While this remains a hypothesis, it is one of many in this book that demands further investigation.

📝 FN: Abramson also notes that Devin Nunes himself has admitted—albeit when caught on tape—that “collusion is a crime.” If Smith and Schmitz were working together, it would constitute a criminal conspiracy.

Abramson raises another critical question: who else did Schmitz show the fake Clinton emails to? He reportedly approached two federal agencies and two congressional committees. But which committees? And why didn’t they disclose what Schmitz did?

📝 FN: With Devin Nunes and Friends, the question answers itself. See Chapter “Barr-Durham Fiasco.”

🧠 Recapping the Disinformation Web

This chapter has traced a tangled but revealing web:

• Joseph Schmitz, a Trump campaign adviser, brought fake Clinton emails to the FBI in summer 2016.
• Peter Smith, obsessed with HER EMAILS, was likely Schmitz’s source.
• James Comey used a fake Russian document—possibly from the same pipeline—as justification for his July 5 press conference.
• Erik Prince, Schmitz’s business partner, peddled fake Clinton emails on Breitbart Radio four days before the election.
• Rudy Giuliani, linked to NYPD leaks, amplified the October Surprise narrative.

📝 FN: See Chapter “Not a Surprise to Devin Nunes.” GOP congressional leaders already knew about Huma’s emails by September 28, 2016—long before Comey’s letter.

🔍 The Pipeline: From Russian Hackers to Breitbart

Abramson suggests that the fake emails Schmitz gave to the FBI may be the same ones Erik Prince was promoting on Breitbart. Given Schmitz’s ties to Prince—he was COO of Blackwater while Prince was CEO—the connection is more than plausible.

“A clandestine campaign to leak false information about Clinton’s emails is what led Jim Comey to re-open the investigation.” — Seth Abramson, Twitter

This campaign was not isolated. It was multi-pronged, involving Trump’s NatSec team, GOP operatives, and rogue elements within the FBI and NYPD.

📝 FN: See Chapter “Unreported Background.” Evidence suggests Peter Smith may have planted Huma’s emails on Weiner’s laptop, which were then laundered through the NYPD.

🧨 The Mueller and Horowitz Gaps

Abramson asks whether Mueller questioned Giuliani. In retrospect, this was wildly optimistic. Mueller’s scope was narrow, and he never pursued the full architecture of the disinformation pipeline.

Horowitz, whose scope did include this terrain, spoke to Giuliani but tabled the report. The NYPD’s role in laundering the emails remains murky—but it was clearly part of the broader operation.

📝 FN: See Chapter “Horowitz.” The IG’s failure to release key findings mirrors his refusal to publish Part Two of the 2016 Election Report.

🔚 Final Update: Hedging with Fakes

Abramson concludes that the Trump campaign hedged its bets: if they couldn’t get real stolen Clinton materials from the Russians, they’d use fake emails to sink her candidacy.

“This Schmitz story is bigger than people think… tied to the Peter Smith–Mike Flynn ‘dark web’ plot, Trump NatSec members’ suspicious trips to Hungary, and the Erik Prince–Rudy Giuliani shenanigans.” — Seth Abramson, Twitter

The disinformation pipeline was not a bug—it was a feature. And the FBI, far from resisting it, became one of its most effective conduits.

This chapter is now locked and loaded. When you’re ready, we can build the bridge to the next chapter—whether it’s “Horowitz,” “Unreported Background,” or “Not a Surprise to Devin Nunes.” The reckoning continues. 🔥📘

🔚 Final Installment: The Horowitz Letdown and the Media’s Quiet Complicity

Our hopes were dashed by Michael Horowitz, just as they were by Robert Mueller—though for different reasons. Mueller chose to construe his mandate as narrowly as possible, avoiding the counterintelligence terrain entirely. To this day, we still haven’t seen the full unredacted Mueller Report, nor the underlying notes and intelligence that informed it2. What remains hidden—and must be revealed—is the counterintelligence investigation into Trump-Russia, which Mueller deferred and Horowitz supposedly pursued.

But how fulsome was Horowitz’s investigation? We can’t know. He tabled it, just as he did with Part Two of his 2016 Election Report5. The scope was his to define—and he chose silence.

📝 FN: See Chapter “Horowitz.” The IG’s refusal to publish key findings mirrors Mueller’s own abdication of responsibility.

🧠 Abramson’s January 2017 Warning

In his January 2017 article on the Comey Letter, Seth Abramson laid out a damning assessment:

“Information presently public and available confirms that Erik Prince, Rudy Giuliani, and Donald Trump conspired to intimidate FBI Director James Comey into interfering in, and thus directly affecting, the 2016 presidential election. This conspiracy was made possible with the assistance of officers in the New York Police Department and agents within the New York field office of the FBI. All of the major actors… have already confessed to its particulars either in word or in deed; moreover, all… have publicly exhibited consciousness of guilt after the fact.”7

Six years and eight months later, it still hasn’t received substantial investigation. And it’s clear that Dean Baquet, Devlin Barrett, and the mainstream media have no intention of ever giving it one9.

📝 FN: Those of us who believe such an investigation is necessary are barking up the wrong tree if we expect the mainstream press to do it.

🕵️‍♂️ The GOP’s Preference for Russian Hackers

This wasn’t just a desperate search for Clinton’s emails—it was a strategic preference for working with Russian intelligence. As explored in Chapter “Leeden Manifesto,” the GOP’s 2016 posture wasn’t merely permissive toward Russian hackers—it was enthusiastic.

📝 FN: See Chapter “Leeden Manifesto.” The GOP’s preference for Russian help was not a last resort—it was Plan A.

🔄 Chapter Navigation

• Previous: Extreme Carelessness: Why did it Take James Comey a Year to Clear Hillary Clinton?
• Next: Weinergate: Chuck Johnson Paid Sydney Leathers to Catfish Anthony Weiner Again Like She…

This final installment doesn’t just close a chapter—it opens a new front. The question now is not whether there was a conspiracy, but why it was never investigated, and who benefited from the silence.