Prohibited Access: A Cache of FBI Corruption?
by John D. O’Connor
The following is an article originally published on California Globe. Read it HERE.
__________________
We now face a political scandal that encompasses all other recent misconduct, and as a result, brings all these others back anew. That scandal is best called Prohibited Access.
It was only recently discovered that the FBI’s information system, called Sentinel, had a level of access previously unknown to anyone outside the Bureau and known only to a select few inside. In essence, this was a concealed cache used to hide documents that the FBI did not wish others to know were in existence.
To begin, there was one part of the Sentinel system which was devoted to classified and confidential information, termed “Restricted Access.” As the name suggests, the information therein was accessible only to those with the necessary clearance to obtain a particular level of restricted information. But this access level does not contain, as one would expect from the name, all restricted information.
It turns out there is a higher, more secretive level called “Prohibited Access.” To any outside observer or investigator, it would appear that there was no record of Prohibited Access information, even though the existence of Restricted Access documents would be shown. For example, if one searched for Joe Biden, Sentinel would display the titles of documents throughout the system, whether unclassified and available for inspection or otherwise, including those with Restricted Access. However, such a search would not reveal that there were also Prohibited Access documents responsive to the search queries. By design, all responses to queries that did not include responsive Prohibited Access documents would be false, and, if given under oath, perjurious.
Accordingly, when a Special Prosecutor, such as John Durham, or a congressional investigator, like Congressman James Comer, was investigating various potential misdeeds, they would not learn of the existence of documents within their investigation that were kept in Prohibited Access.
Although it remains unclear, there is reasonable suspicion that even FBI Inspector General Michael Horowitz was not aware of this document cache. Alternatively, Horowitz may have known about it, but also may have agreed to keep its existence secret, a dismaying possibility for one charged with enlightening Congress and the public.
Logic tells us that, broadly, there could be only two related purposes for this concealed tranche. It does not prevent, for instance, an insider like former FBI Director James Comey, while employed, from accessing these documents. But it does prevent those investigating the FBI or its favored parties from even knowing about the existence of the documents. This suggests concealment of information inculpatory to the senior levels of the FBI and/or its favored politicians, and as well exculpatory information about the targets of its biased investigations.
If, by way of wild hypothetical example, James Comey and Andrew McCabe broke laws to make an innocent Donald Trump appear guilty of “Russian Collusion,” they would not wish a trail of their ugly misconduct to see the light of day, nor would they wish to show the world proof of Trump’s innocence.
In June 2016, FBI Special Agent Michael Gaeta interviewed ex-British spy Christopher Steele, who was composing the infamous Steele Dossier, commissioned through cutouts by the Clinton campaign. Steele told Gaeta that the Clinton campaign was funding his work. Gaeta relayed that to the New York FBI office and was told by his contact that the information would go to the FBI Headquarters in the person of the Deputy Administrative Director, who in turn works closely with James Comey.
Around that same time, July 5, 2016, Comey was part of an Oval Office group that CIA Director John Brennan briefed about the Clinton campaign’s pursuit of a phony “Russian Collusion” narrative to take attention off Clinton’s corruption of the DNC to the detriment of rival Senator Bernie Sanders. Because this meeting is shrouded in Executive Privilege it is legitimately beyond probing. Later, however, Brennan sent a formal referral from the CIA to the FBI revealing this possibly criminal program.
In spite of inferentially knowing of this defamatory hoax, Comey’s FBI applied for and received from the FISA court four authorizations to wiretap and otherwise surveil the entire Trump campaign, as justified by the FBI’s hoked-up Russian agency of lowly Trump advisor, Carter Page.
Yet, when Inspector General Horowitz asked Comey about his potentially guilty knowledge that “Russian Collusion” was a canard created by Hillary Clinton, specifically pointing to the CIA referral, Comey reportedly said it “didn’t ring a bell.” But would documents in Prohibited Access show that Comey was making a false denial of knowledge, a criminal act?
Unbeknownst to most, Comey had insinuated the Bureau into Ukrainian corruption investigations, primarily to protect Joe Biden from charges of corruption related to his son, Hunter Biden, who was widely seen as the VP’s likely bagman.
After Joe Biden famously forced the firing of the honest Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, who was investigating Hunter’s clients, Burisma Holdings and its executives, the investigations were then re-assigned to the new National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and taken away from the Prosecutor General’s office. Ultimately, the cases were settled by NABU without criminal charges and with a small monetary fine.
It has not been widely disseminated that NABU was steered by an FBI Agent whom Comey placed on the NABU board. The question to ask is whether Comey’s Headquarters was behind this slap on the wrist for Burisma and its executives, even though it knew of rampant Biden-aided Burisma corruption involving billions of dollars.
In one of several cases, PrivatBank, owned by Burisma kleptocrat Igor Kolomoisky, found itself in a $5 billion hole as a result of corrupt insider depredations, which in turn could only be filled by the United States or various international agencies like the IMF.
Despite apparently stealing billions, Kolomoisky remained in Ukraine until it appeared that Biden was leaving office in late 2016, when Kolomoisky left the country, only to return in 2019 when Volodymyr Zelensky was elected President, with Kolomoisky’s support.
Accordingly, when Trump later made his infamous phone call to President Zelensky asking for an investigation of Biden-centric corruption, the FBI supported the impeachment of Trump rather than helping his anti-corruption effort, knowing that massive Biden-connected corruption was significantly weakening Ukraine against Russia.
Later, as the United States was funding Ukraine’s defense against Russia, billions in American aid went missing and unaccounted for, clearly harming Ukraine’s defense.
Did the FBI’s complicity serve to keep a Biden-corrupted Ukraine weak, and is evidence of that contained in Prohibited Access?
Couldn’t similar questions be asked about the FBI’s role in spiking the Hunter Biden laptop story; investigating the Seth Rich murder; and the January 6 involvement of confidential FBI agents provocateur ?
Later, after Trump’s election, Comey and his team spied and reported on Trump, who was Comey’s boss. Are there documents in Prohibited Access that can be interpreted to show that Comey and his team were conspiratorially attempting to set up Trump for a criminal prosecution?
Trump, as Commander-in-Chief under the Constitution, had a right to know directly about all counterintelligence investigations of which “Russiagate,” also known as “Crossfire Hurricane,” was one. Would internal documents show that Comey and his team were willfully concealing their activities from Trump, which in turn can be viewed as an obstruction of that investigation?
At various times in 2016 and 2017, there appeared to be efforts to entrap Trump aides in the hopes of buttressing a phony “Russian Collusion” narrative. We know that Comey’s FBI agents tricked General Flynn and George Papadopoulos into arguable, but weakly so, false statements.
Even worse, the FBI, it appears, may have tried to create substantive crimes using entrapping undercover agents, all designed to destroy its enemy Trump. A shadowy man pushed $10,000 into George Papadopoulos' hands while he was visiting Israel and about to embark for Chicago, but a wary Papadopoulos left the money overseas with a lawyer. FBI agents met Papadopoulos in Chicago and were chagrined that they did not catch him in the crime of failing to declare $10,000.
Similarly, in 2017, a mysterious Belarusian, former Russian military translator Sergei Millian, attempted to entrap Papadopoulos into accepting a claimed lucrative Russian-connected job, contingent on his securing a government position through the Trump Administration. Millian’s injudicious companion blurted out to Papadopoulos that Millian was working for the FBI. Again, was Comey behind this plot to create a “Russian Collusion” crime?
Likewise, what did the FBI know about the attempted entrapment via a Trump Tower meeting with a Putin-connected Russian lawyer? Was the FBI part of the plot to have British asset Josef Mifsud pretend to be Russian-connected and introduce Papadopoulos to “Putin’s niece”, hoping to set up a Russian initiative by the Trump campaign? Was Comey communicating with the Clinton campaign about his oily entrapping schemes?
In light of these few examples, questions arise regarding the completeness of the disclosures made by Comey, McCabe, and others to Inspector General Horowitz and Special Counsel Durham regarding their separate investigations. Would Prohibited Access documents shed light on these seemingly ugly, perhaps criminal, episodes?
We assert that, following “Bidengate,” our legacy media should be sufficiently shamed into demanding answers to these questions and pursuing these appalling possibilities.
At the very least, the DOJ and Congress should vigorously investigate what might be a sinister program to undermine our most sensitive law enforcement procedures to favor one political party and damage its opposition, along the way weakening our foreign allies and strengthening our enemies.
Prohibited Access documents, in short, may shake the foundations of a partisan deep state and its media allies.