Former Trump attorney: DOJ report not nearly tough enough given Comey's 'appalling behavior'

President Trump's former personal attorney John M. Dowd told Fox News that the Justice Department watchdog's report on the FBI's actions in the Clinton email investigation wasn't nearly tough enough on fired FBI Director James Comey.
In the report released Thursday, Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz called Comey "insubordinate" and deviating from "well-established department policies."
Dowd told Fox News in an email, "The clear evidence of his usurpation of power, violation of his oath of office and material false statements to the public and the Congress all to conceal his own misconduct warranted a criminal referral of Comey’s conduct. The finding of no bias was ludicrous. The OIG findings support the President’s decision to fire Comey."
He also told Fox News that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Special Counsel Robert Mueller "allowed their relationship with Comey over the years [to] blind them to his obvious appalling behavior. I was shocked that Mueller chose not to investigate the President’s accuser before investigating the President, who you will recall was 'not under investigation' according to the sworn testimony of Comey. As a result, the authenticity and legality of the Mueller investigation is in serious question and should no longer be honored."
Trump himself told Fox News' Steve Doocy on "Fox & Friends," "I think Comey was the ringleader of this whole den of thieves."
Letters newly obtained by Fox News, which were written in the summer and fall of 2017, revealed Dowd and another Trump attorney, Marc Kasowitz, had deep reservations about Comey's credibility as the main witness, called Witness #1, in the ongoing Russia collusion probe that started shortly after Trump fired Comey on May 9, 2017.
In a blistering 13-page letter hand-delivered to Mueller on June 27, Kasowitz elaborated his concerns about Comey, whom he called "Machiavellian," after the former FBI director testified before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Kasowitz wrote Comey was an "FBI director unbounded by law and regulation, driven by his own interests and emotions, willing to provide embellished and incorrect testimony..."
Pushing back on Comey's promise to the president of "honest loyalty" as FBI director, Kasowitz wrote that Comey was "surreptitiously leaking to civilians his privileged and confidential conversations with the President, or misappropriating and disseminating his confidential FBI memos or their contents about those meetings."
Neither the DOJ nor the office of the special counsel commented on the letters when contacted by Fox News.
New details of Comey's reliance on his friend and go-between leaker to the media, Columbia law professor Daniel Richman, were revealed in a footnote of the OIG report.
Fox News reported about Richman's rare approval for special government employee clearance by Comey in April.
Fox News reached out to Richman for comment on the new OIG report, but he did not respond.
In the new email to Fox News, Dowd called Comey's relationship with Richman "deceitful" and "a complete disrespect and subversion of the normal processes we rely on the govern the FBI/DOJ."
In the letter that Dowd wrote on September 1, 2017 to Rosenstein, there was a direct request for a "Federal Grand Jury Investigation of Former FBI Director James B. Comey." Dowd wrote, "It appears the fix was in, a cover-up is in place and the reputations of the FBI and the Department of Justice are tarnished and hang in the balance."
Specifically, Dowd charged in in the letter that "Director Comey drafted his unauthorized, improper and dishonest conclusion to the Clinton e-mail investigation three months before the clearly superficial and inadequate investigation was conducted."
STATE DEPARTMENT CONTRACTORS DETAIL HOW CLINTON AND HER TEAM IGNORED SECURITY RULES
Fox News learned that the DOJ acknowledged Dowd's letter but took no further action.
Meanwhile, hours after the OIG report was released, Comey accepted the findings and was active on Instagram -- posting a picture of himself with a giant gnome statue in Iowa. He tweeted the photo Friday.

Are three Californias better than one? Voters will face that question in November

Are three Californias better than one?

An initiative to break America’s most populous state into three smaller states gathered more than the required 402,468 signatures and earned the right this week to a spot on the Nov. 6 state election ballot. Californians will get to vote then on whether they want to break up after 168 years as a single state.
The last time America saw a new state carved out of an existing one was in 1863, when West Virginia was separated from Virginia in the midst of the Civil War. California was only 13 years old as a state at that time.
Now, after many failed attempts to consider splitting up the Golden State, voters will be faced with a proposal in November that would create states called Southern California (with 12 counties), Northern California (with 40 counties), and California (made up of Los Angeles County and the five counties north on the Central Coast).
Under the proposal, each of the new states would have about a third of the existing state population of nearly 40 million people.
If the “yes” vote wins, Congress will still have the final say under Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. And there, the idea will likely die.
Breaking up California has been the hobby of a Silicon Valley billionaire and cryptocurrency guru Tim Draper. Draper has tried twice before and failed, spending some $10 million so far in his quest over the past seven years.
Draper’s main complaint is that Los Angeles effectively runs California. He says that a “large number of elected representatives from a small part of our state” dominates decision-making.
Apparently Draper hasn’t heard the breaking news that California is a representative democracy where each resident gets one vote. So, yes, the 4 million people in the City of Los Angeles and the 10.2 million people in Los Angeles County get to elect more state legislators and members of the U.S. House than the residents of a small town of 10,000 people.
Other California activists are seeking to place a secession measure on the 2020 ballot – a move that would likely boost the voter turnout against President Trump and his political allies.
There are three hurdles to the plan to break up California.
The first is the voters themselves. Northern Californians complain about Southern Californians and don’t want to “give” them any of “their” water. Southern Californians – some two-thirds of the state – largely ignore the North. Elite coastal liberals are largely despised by the working-class inland residents.
And everybody hates Los Angeles – even most of the people who live there.
But that doesn’t mean Californians will vote to break up. It’s an ugly, co-dependent relationship – but it’s still a relationship.
Were the ballot proposition to pass, it would face two more obstacles.
First, state or federal courts would likely be asked to rule on whether the people, acting in their capacity as the state Legislature via a ballot initiative, meet the U.S. constitutional requirement set in Article IV, Section 3 requiring the “Consent of the Legislatures.” California legislators are unlikely to easily give approval to reduce their power.
Second, both houses of Congress would have to sign off on the deal. Here, both major political parties have items of concern.
Republicans would almost certainly see Democrats adding a net of at least two more U.S. senators to their count. No less than four of the six senators from three new California states would probably be Democrats, compared to two senators today.
But on the negative side for Democrats, one of the two new California states – Southern California – would tilt red. This would make the national Electoral College map more difficult for a Democratic candidate to win the presidency.
Further, at least 98 U.S. senators from the other 49 states would likely take a dim view of four more senators joining their deliberative body and thus diluting their own power.
California’s dominant Democrats, with well-heeled political consultants close by their side, are already looking to raise millions of dollars to defeat the state-splitting ballot measure.
There’s also the question of what kind of precedent the breakup of one state would set for the breakup of others. What’s to stop other states – especially those with big populations – from breaking up as well? Do we really need 80 or 100 states in our country, each its own governmental bodies and bureaucracies? Should a state be allowed to divide into many states to boost its representation in the U.S. Senate?
The main argument offered against the trisection of California is that it would cost billions of dollars and would mean, among other things, the specter of students paying out-of-state tuition for many of the state’s colleges and universities.
In addition, corporations – already under a heavy state and local tax and regulatory strain -- would suddenly be faced with a multiplication of bureaucratic hassles.
The truth is that breaking California into three states makes for interesting political theater, but  after the ballots are cast in November, the only winners will be the consultants who worked on the “yes” and “no” campaigns.
And the thought of a breakup really happening is probably just a case of California Dreamin’.
Chuck DeVore is a vice president with the Texas Public Policy Foundation and served in the California State Assembly from 2004 to 2010.

Harvard rated Asian-American applicants lower on likability, courage, according to suit

Asian-Americans consistently rated lower than other Harvard applicants on subjective categories like "courage," and the lower scoring decreased their chances of being accepted, according to a group representing students in a lawsuit against the school.
The New York Times reported Friday that the group claimed it analyzed more than 160,000 student records and found that Asian-Americans ranked lower on items like being “widely respected." The independent analysis claimed that Asian-American students ranked higher in test scores and extracurricular activities than others, the report said.
The school on Friday turned back the report, saying that its own “comprehensive” analysis showed no discrimination.
Asian-Americans who apply to Harvard University face the lowest acceptance rates, according to a study of admissions records filed Friday.
Students for Fair Admissions claims Harvard routinely assigns lower scores to Asian-American in ratings that puts them at a major disadvantage compared to white students.
Edward Blum, a legal strategist who founded the group, issued a statement saying his group's filing "exposes the startling magnitude of Harvard's discrimination."
Harvard blasted the study in an opposing court filing and submitted a countering study that found no evidence of bias. In a statement, the school called the lawsuit an attack on its ability to consider race in admissions, which it says is necessary to gather a racially diverse mix of students.
"Harvard will continue to vigorously defend our right, and that of other colleges and universities nationwide, to seek the educational benefits that come from a class that is diverse on multiple dimensions," the school said.
Harvard said that no statistical analysis could determine all the factors that go into the school’s admission process, according to The Times.
Dr. Siddhartha Mukherjee, a cancer physician, called the report a terrible story for the school.
“Americans (like my own children) are consistently rated "lacking in personality" (!!! ) whatever the subjective hell that means. Anti-Asian discrimination is not widely discussed, but is omnipresent,” he posted on Twitter.

Tourists visiting San Francisco question if they're in 'bad side of town'

This is what Liberalism will bring.

Recent social media posts by tourists visiting San Francisco casts a troubling light on the City by the Bay over its homeless issue, open drug use and filthy streets.
Since the beginning of the year, reports have surfaced of hypodermic needles dotting the streets, piles of human feces and expanding shanty towns for the increasing homeless population -- and now tourists are noticing, SFGate reported.
"Is this normal or am I in a 'bad part of town?'” an Australian Reddit user asked the San Francisco Reddit community Wednesday.
“Why is this city so terrifying?” a Canadian visitor asked on Reddit Sunday.
Staff at local hotels and travel businesses have empathized with “shocked” tourists over the state San Francisco's streets.
"I've never seen any other city like this — the homelessness, dirty streets, drug use on the streets, smash-and-grabs," Joe D'Alessandro, president of S.F. Travel told the San Francisco Chronicle in April.
"You see things on the streets that are just not humane," Kevin Carroll, executive director of the Hotel Council of San Francisco, also told the paper. "People come into hotels saying, 'What is going on out there?' They're just shocked.”
The city’s voting citizens are also grappling with the crises plaguing their streets in addition to their rising costs as they prepare to elect a new state governor in November.
The Golden State's homeless population of more than 130,000 people is now about 25 percent of the nationwide total, and cleaning up after the surging group is getting costly -- topping $10 million in 2016-17.
San Francisco Mayor Mark Farrell announced in April a $750,000 initiative to hire workers solely to help clean up the city’s “hot spots” of needles and syringes—of which about 275,000 are collected every month by public health officials and nonprofit organizations.

“We’re the most beautiful city no one ever wants to come back to."

“People are starting to ask, ‘Maybe we need a Rudy Giuliani?’” Jason Clark, chairman of the San Francisco Republican Party, told The New York Times, speaking of the former Republican New York mayor whose tough stance on crime helped clean up the city in the 1990s.
Even though “The City by the Bay” was named by the editors of Conde Nast Traveler as one of its 50 most beautiful cities in January 2017, it may not be enough to expect visitors to return a second time.
“We’re the most beautiful city no one ever wants to come back to,” real estate agent and city resident Anna Coles told the Times.

DOJ, FBI Cartoons

ICE nets 162 in Southern California deemed a risk to public safety

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrested 162 suspected illegal immigrants — nearly 90 percent of whom had past criminal convictions -- in sweeps across Los Angeles and surrounding areas, the agency said Thursday.
The arrests targeted those deemed a public safety threat.
Among those arrested were a Mexican national convicted of rape and an El Salvadorian convicted of voluntary manslaughter. The arrests occurred from Sunday through Tuesday and took place in Los Angeles, Orange County, Santa Barbara and Ventura County.
David Marin, field director for ICE enforcement in the area, said the arrests were generally the most dangerous kind his agents face.
One detainee was a 32-year-old Mexican national and member of the gang “Krazy A—Mexican,” the agency said. He was convicted of rape and sentenced to eight years in prison.
Another Mexican national, arrested the same day in Santa Barbara, was convicted of assault with intent to commit rape.
The other crimes ranged from grand theft to drug convictions.
The majority of those arrested were Mexicans, but an Iranian and Nigerian were also nabbed. ICE agents arrested 53 individuals after filing detainers with local law enforcement. A detainer is a request by ICE sent to local law enforcement to notify the agency when an illegal immigrant is going to be released from jail.
Immigration-rights advocates told the Los Angeles Daily News that some of those arrested had convictions from 20 years ago.
Jennaya Dunlap, a deportation defense coordinator, told the paper that ICE agents make arrests daily in San Bernardino and Riverside counties.
“ICE doesn’t rest out here,” she said.

FBI employee crudely slams Trump voters as 'all poor to middle class, uneducated, lazy POS,' IG report says

After an 18-month investigation into the FBI and DOJ's Hillary Clinton probe, the highly anticipated report from the Justice Department's Inspector General Michael Horowitz is out. Here's a look at the three biggest takeaways.
An unidentified FBI employee described Trump voters as "uneducated" and "lazy POS" the day after the 2016 presidential election, according to the Justice Department watchdog's bombshell report on the Hillary Clinton email investigation.
The employee was responding to instant messages from "FBI Attorney 2," whom DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz indicated was one of five FBI employees who had been referred for investigation and possible disciplinary action over politically charged messages.
Horowitz said Attorney 2 had been assigned to the Clinton investigation "early in 2016." Approximately one year later, the report said Attorney 2 was made the "primary FBI attorney" assigned to the Russia investigation.
IG REFERS FIVE FBI EMPLOYEES FOR INVESTIGATION, AS MORE ANTI-TRUMP MESSAGES REVEALED
On the morning of Nov. 9, 2016, Attorney 2 messaged the employee: "I am so stressed about what I could have done differently."
The employee answered: "Don't stress. None of that mattered," an apparent reference to the FBI's investigation of Clinton. When the attorney said: "I don’t know. We broke the momentum," the employee answered: "That is not so."
"All the people who were initially voting for her would not, and were not, swayed by any decision the FBI put out," the employee wrote. "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."
"POS" is an acronym that typically means "piece[s] of s---."
"Attorney 2" later messaged the employee: "I'm just devastated. I can't wait until I can leave today and just shut off the world for the next four days."
He later added: "I just can't imagine the systematic disassembly of the progress we made over the last 8 years. [The Affordable Care Act] 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 [Vice President Mike] Pence is stupid."
When asked about the messages, "Attorney 2" said the two were "just discussing our personal feelings ... between friends." He also told the watchdog that the "so stressed about what I could have done differently" message referred to the length of time investigators took to examine Clinton emails found on former Congressman Anthony Weiner's laptop.
"[I]f we would have opened a few weeks earlier, as opposed to at that time, two weeks before the election, I think it, you know, it would have given more time for the FBI’s actions and, and required and, and necessary investigation to, to occur to allow the, the public a chance to make their own [decisions]."
The Nov. 9 exchange of messages was one of three that Horowitz flagged as raising "concerns of potential bias" on the part of "Attorney 2."
Another exchange took place on Oct. 28, 2016, the day then-FBI Director James Comey notified Congress that he was reopening the Clinton email investigation after emails were found on Weiner's laptop. According to Horowitz, the attorney send messages to four separate FBI employees that referred to Comey's letter as "the destruction of the Republic."
"I mean, I never really liked the Republic anyway," the attorney messaged two different FBI employees, while a message to a third read: "As I have initiated the destruction of the republic.... Would you be so kind as to have a coffee with me this afternoon?" A fourth message read: "I'm clinging to small pockets of happiness in the dark time of the Republic’s destruction."
When questioned by the inspector general's office, Attorney 2 described the language in the Oct. 28 messages as "hyperbolic" and "off-the cuff commentary to friends." He also denied that his "personal political feelings or beliefs" played any role in his work on the Clinton or Russia investigation.

Seven highlights from bombshell IG report on the DOJ, FBI Clinton email probe

Three takeaways from IG report

After an 18-month investigation into the FBI and DOJ's Hillary Clinton probe, the highly anticipated report from the Justice Department's Inspector General Michael Horowitz is out. Here's a look at the three biggest takeaways.

Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz's bombshell report on DOJ and FBI actions during the Hillary Clinton email probe takes particular aim at key figures who, until now, have mostly escaped official censure for their conduct while in office.
The DOJ watchdog reviewed a variety of critical decisions over the course of the investigation -- including how authorities conducted the summer 2016 interview with Clinton, and why top FBI and DOJ officials with political connections didn't immediately recuse themselves from the probe.
Horowtiz's report also outlines new information concerning apparent bias at the FBI and DOJ that he says undermines the public trust in each agency.
Some of the key takeaways from the report include:

1. New texts between FBI lovers Strzok and Page were 'disappointing' and cast a shadow over the integrity of the entire Clinton email probe
A slew of anti-Trump text messages between special counsel Lisa Page and FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok damaged the integrity of the entire Clinton email probe, Horowitz writes.

The report unearths striking new messages between the pair that were sent and received on government devices, including one in which Strzok vows to "stop" Trump from being elected just months before the presidential election.
On Aug. 8, 2016, the IG found, Page asked Strzok “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” and Strzok replied “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it."
While Horowitz noted that there is no available evidence that political considerations directly impacted investigative decisions in the Clinton probe, and that Strzok was not the "sole" decision maker on any key investigative actions, he concluded the officials' behavior was still highly inappropriate.

FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page communicated at length about their disdain for President Trump during the probe.  (Official photo / File)

FBI LOVEBIRDS USED WORK PHONES TO HIDE THEIR AFFAIR, IG FINDS
"We recognize that these text and instant messages cast a cloud over the FBI’s handling of the Midyear investigation and the investigation’s credibility," the IG report said.
MYE, or "Midyear Exam," was the code used in the FBI to refer to the investigation into Clinton’s private email server.
Horowitz also published additional texts between the lovers that he called "notable," including one in which Page admits the two used their FBI phones to conceal their extramarital affair from their spouses.
2. Five unnamed FBI employees -- including one lawyer who later worked on the Mueller probe -- are under scrutiny for anti-Trump bias
Strzok and Page are not the only FBI officials who evidenced anti-Trump bias during the Clinton email probe, Horowitz noted in the report.

The watchdog identified five other unnamed individuals, including two agents and one FBI attorney who worked on Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe until earlier this year, who made "statements of hostility toward then-candidate Trump and statements of support for candidate Clinton," and improperly mixed "political opinions" with case-related discussions.

"The damage caused by their actions ... goes to the heart of the FBI’s reputation for neutral factfinding and political independence."

"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," as well as "instant messages sent by FBI Attorney 2, who was assigned to the Midyear investigation," are specifically flagged in the IG report.
UNNAMED AGENTS CALL TRUMP SUPPORTERS 'RETARDED,' MOCK 'DRUMPF' VOTERS
The filter team was assigned to review documents for potential privilege issues, such as attorney-client matters.

"We found that the conduct of these five FBI employees brought discredit to themselves, sowed doubt about the FBI’s handling of the Midyear investigation, and impacted the reputation of the FBI," the IG said.
According to the IG report, one FBI attorney who was later assigned to Mueller's Russia probe until earlier this year messaged another colleague “Viva le resistance” after Trump's election. The attorney acknowleged the message could create the "perception" of bias.
Another unnamed agent called Trump supporters "retarded," according to the IG report.
Again, the IG report noted that it was unable to connect the officials' apparent political bias to specific investigative decisions. Nevertheless, the IG referred the five FBI officials for further investigation.
3. President Obama was one of the 13 individuals with whom Hillary Clinton had direct contact using her clintonemail.com account

President Obama corresponded with Clinton on her private email server, analysts told the IG.  (Reuters)

In a footnote, the IG notes that "FBI analysts and Prosecutor 2 told us that former President Barack Obama was one of the 13 individuals with whom Clinton had direct contact using her clintonemail.com account."
The information would suggest that Obama may have known about Clinton's private server, despite his claim in 2015 that he learned about it "the same time everybody else learned it, through news reports."
Obama's press secretary at the time quickly clarified that the president was unaware of Clinton's use of a private server for official business, even as he acknowledged that the two did exchange emails and that Obama was aware of Clinton's email address.
But the IG report revealed that intelligence analysts questioned whether Obama's correspondence with Clinton on her private server contained classified information, before a formal classification review determined that the emails did not. Obama used a fake name for the communications.
Separately, the IG asked investigators why they made no effort to obtain the personal devices that Clinton’s senior aides were using at the State Department, since those devices were "potential sources of Clinton's ... classified emails" or places where unauthorized classified emails were being stored.

Investigators did not seek devices from Hillary Clinton's State Department coworkers, the IG found.  (AP)

In response, officials on the probe claimed that "the culture of mishandling classified information at the State Department" was so pervasive that it "made the quantity of potential sources of evidence particularly vast" -- a rationale that the IG implied was unconvincing, because investigators could simply have obtained personal devices for a handful of key Clinton aides.
Investigators also claimed the State Department would be the better agency to handle that kind of deep dive into Clinton's emails.
In the end, Horowitz concluded that the issue was a "judgment call" and that there was no evidence improper political considerations influenced investigators' decisions.

4.  Despite Clinton connections, former Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik and former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe didn't fully recuse themselves

The IG report focused on two top investigative officials' connections to Clinton: ex-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and former Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik.

Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe's wife had connections to top Democrats during the Clinton probe, and a better system might have brought his conflicts to light earlier, the IG found.  (AP)

Kadzik exercised "poor judgment" by failing to immediately recuse himself as the Clinton probe unfolded, even after he sought employment for his son at her campaign, the watchdog wrote.
Additionally, Kadzik's decision to provide Clinton campaign chair John Podesta the schedule for a court-ordered release of some of Clinton's emails "raised a reasonable question about his ability to act impartially on Clinton-related matters in connection with his official duties" -- even though it later became clear the information was public.
FBI AGENTS RECEIVED 'IMPROPER' GIFTS FROM REPORTERS, LEAKED FROM PHONES IN FBI HQ, IG FINDS
Horowitz also noted that Kadzik didn't fully honor his supposed recusal in November 2016.
"Though Kadzik said he told his deputies ... that he was recused, emails show that Kadzik subsequently sent and received emails about Clinton-related matters," Horowitz wrote.

Meanwhile, McCabe, whose wife Jill has ties to then-Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe and unsuccessfully sought a state Senate seat in Virginia in 2015 as a Democrat, was not obligated to recuse himself during the probe, the IG report found.
5. 'Insubordinate' Ex-FBI Director James Comey repeatedly violated policy and inaccurately described the legal situation surrounding Clinton's emails
Former FBI Director James Comey had an apparently strong desire to avoid confronting authority figures with his concerns about their behavior, even as he nurtured a habit of going around the chain of command and violating long-standing departmental policies, the IG report found.

In testimony before Congress and elsewhere, for example, Comey claimed that he had been pressured by former Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch to call the Clinton investigation a "matter" in 2015, rather than an investigation.

But Horowitz noted that others present who heard Lynch's instruction did not interpret her as trying to downplay the investigation, but instead to standardize language for personnel purposes. Perhaps more significantly, the IG report found that Comey seemed to have kept his concerns entirely to himself.
COMEY USED PERSONAL EMAIL ACCOUNT TO CONDUCT OFFICIAL BUSINESS, IG FINDS

Comey, whom President Trump has called a "slimeball," also failed to act appropriately on his concerns about the infamous airport tarmac meeting between Lynch and former President Bill Clinton in the waning days of the email probe, according to Horowitz.
But the IG's most substantial criticisms of Comey centered around his decision to stage a dramatic news conference in the summer of 2016, in which he announced that "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring criminal charges against Hillary Clinton, even as he acknowledged she had been "extremely careless" in her handling of classified information."
"Comey’s unilateral announcement was inconsistent with Department policy, usurped the authority of Attorney General, and did not accurately describe the legal position of the Department prosecutors," the IG report said.

The ex-FBI director made a similarly "serious error in judgment" by sending a letter to Congress announcing the reopening of the Clinton probe just days before the 2016 presidential election, according to the report.

"We found that it was extraordinary and insubordinate for Comey to conceal his intentions from his superiors, the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, for the admitted purpose of preventing them from telling him not to make the statement, and to instruct his subordinates in the FBI to do the same."
The rebuke was a particularly scathing one for Comey, who has cultivated his image as a responsible and strong leader since leaving office.
6. Former Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch made errors in judgment during the Clinton probe
Horowitz also charged that Lynch similarly made multiple errors in judgment during the probe.

The DOJ watchdog was especially critical not just of Lynch's decision to hold court with the president on the Phoenix tarmac, but also her decision to retain involvement in the probe despite the appearance of bias.
"Although we found no evidence that Lynch and former President Clinton discussed the Midyear investigation or engaged in other inappropriate discussion during their tarmac meeting on June 27, 2016, we also found that Lynch’s failure to recognize the appearance problem created by former President Clinton’s visit and to take action to cut the visit short was an error in judgment," the IG wrote.
7. FBI agents' actions surrounding the DOJ/FBI interview of Hillary Clinton were 'inappropriate' and created appearance of bias
Lisa Page, the special counsel to the deputy director of the FBI, sent messages to Strzok, McCabe, and another FBI employee suggesting that the agency limit the number of people attending the critical in-person interview with Clinton as the investigation wrapped up, the IG report said.
Page's chief consideration was that Clinton would be angry at the FBI upon becoming president, which the IG flags as an "inappropriate" consideration.

“[S]he might be our next president," Page wrote, in urging that the number of people at the interview be limited to four or six. "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?”
LAWMAKERS FROM BOTH PARTIES SLAM FBI AFTER IG REPORT RELEASED
While the IG report found that Page's text did not appear to influence the number of attendees at the Clinton interview, since eight officials attended from the FBI and DOJ, the report nonetheless said her considerations were improperly political.
"Suggesting that investigative decisions be based on this consideration was inappropriate and created an appearance of bias," the IG wrote.
Additionally, the IG notes that it was "inconsistent with typical investigative strategy" for the FBI to allow former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills and ex-campaign staffer Heather Samuelson to sit in on the Clinton interview.
"We questioned why the Department and FBI allowed Mills and Samuelson, two percipient witnesses (one of whom, Mills, herself had classified information transit through her unclassified personal email account) attend Clinton’s interview, even if they had also both served as lawyers for Clinton after they left the State Department," the IG wrote.
While the report does not definitively find that political bias motivated the decision to allow Mills and Samuelson in the interview, "it recommends improvements to the DOJ and FBI's handling of similar situations in the future.
"[T]here are serious potential ramifications when one witness attends another witness’s interview," the IG notes.
Gregg Re is an editor for Fox News. Follow him on Twitter @gregg_re.