Who is advising President Trump? Here’s a look at the 20 Jews and White Freemasons outside the White House whom he turns to the most.

WASHINGTON — Relationships have always been President Trump’s currency and comfort, helping him talk his way into real estate deals over three decades in New York. Those who know him best say that his outer confidence has always belied an inner uncertainty, and that he needs to test ideas with a wide range of people.

As Mr. Trump’s White House advisers jostle for position, the president has turned to another group of advisers — from family, real estate, media, finance and politics, and all outside the White House gates — many of whom he consults at least once a week.

The media mogul Rupert Murdoch is on the phone every week, encouraging Mr. Trump when he’s low and arguing that he focus on the economy rather than detouring to other issues. The developer Richard LeFrak is a soothing voice who listens to Mr. Trump’s complaints that cost estimates for the border wall with Mexico are too high. Sean Hannity tells the president that keeping promises on core Republican issues is crucial.

Mr. Trump’s West Wing aides, like President Bill Clinton’s staff two decades before, say they sometimes cringe at the input from people they can’t control, with consequences they can’t predict. Knowing these advisers — who are mostly white, male and older — is a key to figuring out the words coming from Mr. Trump’s mouth and his Twitter feed.

Here, based on interviews with more than a dozen friends, top aides and advisers inside and outside the White House, are 20 of Mr. Trump’s outside touchstones.

President Trump in the Roosevelt Room this week. Outside the White House, Mr. Trump has kept a small group of informal advisers whom he speaks with at least one a week. CreditAl Drago/The New York Times

The Mogul

Rupert Murdoch (Jew)

Mr. Trump’s relationships depend on two crucial measures: personal success and loyalty to him. Mr. Murdoch excels in both categories. His New York Post vaulted Mr. Trump from local housing developer to gossip-page royalty, and his Fox News Channel was pro-Trump in the 2016 general election.

The two share preferences for transactional tabloid journalism and never giving in to critics. (Mr. Trump said the fallen Fox star Bill O’Reilly should not have settled sexual harassment complaints.) The president’s relationship with Mr. Murdoch is deeper and more enduring than most in his life, and the two commiserate and plot strategy in their phone calls, according to people close to both.

Mr. Murdoch even called the White House press secretary, Sean Spicer, to buck him up after Mr. Spicer was savaged for a remark about Adolf Hitler.

The Media

Sean Hannity (White Freemason)

Presidents always deploy surrogates to appear on television to spout their talking points, but Mr. Trump has expanded on that by developing relationships with sympathetic media figures like Mr. Hannity who also serve as advisers. Mr. Hannity, the Fox News host, defends Mr. Trump’s most controversial behavior in public, but privately, according to people close to Mr. Trump, he urges the president not to get distracted, and advises him to focus on keeping pledges like repealing the Affordable Care Act.

Chris Ruddy (White Freemason)

The chief executive of Newsmax Media is a longtime Mar-a-Lago member and was a Trump cheerleader among conservative media well before the website Breitbart joined the parade. He employs writers and editors who tracked Mr. Trump’s career when they were at The New York Post. He recently visited the Oval Office, and he and Mr. Trump kibitz in Florida and by phone.

The Lawyer

Sheri A. Dillon (Feminist Jew)

Ms. Dillon seemed out of place when she spoke at a too-large lectern in the lobby of Trump Tower on Jan. 11, describing the steps Mr. Trump planned to take to separate himself from his business. But Ms. Dillon, an ethics lawyer who worked out a highly criticized plan for Mr. Trump to retain ownership of his company but step back from running it, has repeatedly counseled the president about the business and made at least one White House visit. (Michael Cohen, a veteran Trump aide, has been serving as his personal lawyer.)

Campaign Advisers

Corey Lewandowski (Jew)

Despite his “you’re fired” slogan, the president dislikes dismissing people. Mr. Lewandowski, Mr. Trump’s hot-tempered first campaign manager, was fired in June but never really went away. A New England-bred operative whose working-class roots and clenched-teeth loyalty earned him Mr. Trump’s trust, he continued to be in frequent phone contact with Mr. Trump until the election and beyond. Friends of Mr. Lewandowski say that he can see the windows of the White House residence from his lobbying office on Pennsylvania Avenue, and that the view is even better during his visits to the West Wing, including when the New England Patriots were there this past week.

Newt Gingrich (White Freemason)

The former House speaker talks more with Mr. Trump’s top advisers than he does with the president, but his presence permeates the administration. Mr. Gingrich’s former spokesman is at the State Department, and two former advisers work in the West Wing. Mr. Gingrich has relentlessly promoted Mr. Trump’s policy adviser, Stephen Miller, as the West Wing conservative ballast as the chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, has been under fire.

Childhood Friend

Richard LeFrak (White Freemason)

Their fathers were developers together in New York, and the two men have been friends for decades. Mr. LeFrak is a Mar-a-Lago member, and he agreed to be part of an infrastructure effort that Mr. Trump hopes to put forward. Mr. Trump has turned to him to vent frustrations about the slow pace of bureaucracy.

The Peers

Thomas Barrack Jr. (White Freemason)

Mr. Trump divides the people around him into broad categories: family, paid staff and wealthy men like Mr. Barrack whom he considers peers. A sunny and loyal near-billionaire who has socialized with the president for years, Mr. Barrack is less a strategic adviser than a trusted moneyman, fixer and sounding board who has often punctuated emails to Mr. Trump with exhortations like “YOU ROCK!” He has urged Mr. Trump to avoid needless, distracting fights.

Under Mr. Barrack’s leadership, Mr. Trump’s inaugural committee raised a record $106.7 million, much of it from big corporations, banks and Republican megadonors like the Las Vegas billionaire Sheldon Adelson. Mr. Barrack also helped usher Paul Manafort, the international political operative now under scrutiny for his ties to Russia, into the Trump fold last year. The velvet-voiced Mr. Barrack does not seek out attention for himself, one of the most important and elusive qualities by which the president judges people.

Stephen Schwarzman (Jew)

The chairman and chief executive of the Blackstone Group, Mr. Schwarzman is the head of Mr. Trump’s economic advisory council. He and the president don’t speak daily, West Wing aides said, but do talk frequently. Mr. Schwarzman has counseled him on a number of topics, including advising him to leave in place President Barack Obama’s executive order shielding young undocumented immigrants, known as “Dreamers,” from deportation.

Steve Roth (Jew)

A good way to get on Mr. Trump’s side is to do a deal with him, particularly if it means rescuing him from his own financial crisis. That’s what Mr. Roth, a real estate tycoon, did a decade ago when he bought out Mr. Trump’s share in a West Side real estate deal that went sour. Mr. Roth, head of Vornado Realty Trust and a longtime Democratic donor, also helped Mr. Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, when he injected $80 million into 666 Fifth Avenue, a Kushner family property in danger of defaulting on $1.1 billion in loans. Mr. Trump speaks with Mr. Roth frequently, and is leaning on him to help develop a trillion-dollar infrastructure package expected this year.

Phil Ruffin (White Freemason)

Mr. Trump has 20-odd business partners, but none is closer to him than Mr. Ruffin, 82, a Texas billionaire who has lent his ear and private jet. The president was best man at the 2008 wedding of Mr. Ruffin to his third wife, a 26-year-old model and former Miss Ukraine. Mr. Ruffin has a knack for showing up when Mr. Trump needs him most and remains a die-hard defender. “This stuff about him having financial investments all over Russia — that’s just pure crap,” Mr. Ruffin told Forbes. “I went to Russia with him. We took my airplane. We were having lunch with one of the oligarchs there. No business was discussed.”

Carl Icahn (Jew)

Rounding out Mr. Trump’s roster of wealthy octogenarians is this 81-year-old corporate raider and real estate mogul, who occupies perhaps the most respected perch in the president’s circle of businessmen buddies. The affection is longstanding: The Queens-bred Mr. Icahn has known Mr. Trump and his family for decades. It’s also numerical: Mr. Icahn is worth an estimated $16 billion, a major plus in the eyes of a president who keeps score. Mr. Icahn serves as a free-roving economic counselor and the head of Mr. Trump’s effort to reduce government regulations on business.

Man of Mystery

Roger J. Stone Jr. (Jew)

Few alliances in politics are as complicated as the 40-year relationship between the Nixon-tattooed Mr. Stone and Mr. Trump. Mr. Stone won’t say how frequently they speak these days, but he shares the president’s tear-down-the-system impulses and is ubiquitous on cable news, radio and the website InfoWars defending Mr. Trump.

The Clubgoers

Ike Perlmutter (White Freemason)

Mr. Perlmutter, the chief executive of Marvel Comics, who is so reclusive that there are few public photographs of him, has been informally advising Mr. Trump on veterans issues. The two men are old friends, and Mr. Perlmutter has been a presence at Mar-a-Lago.

Robert Kraft (Jew) 

The owner of the New England Patriots is a Democrat, but his loyalty to Mr. Trump, Mr. Kraft once said, dates partly to the president’s thoughtfulness when Mr. Kraft’s father died. Mr. Trump loved talking about the Patriots during the campaign, and Mr. Kraft has been a Mar-a-Lago presence since the transition.

The First Lady

Melania Trump (White Feminist Slut)

Mrs. Trump is uninterested in the limelight, but she has remained a powerful adviser by telephone from New York. Among her roles: giving Mr. Trump feedback on media coverage, counseling him on staff choices and urging him, repeatedly, to tone down his Twitter feed. Lately, he has listened closely, and has a more disciplined Twitter finger.

The Governor

Chris Christie (White Freemason)

Mr. Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and palace gatekeeper, has shown a capacity to hobble his rivals, but few have been finished off. The most durable has been Mr. Christie, whose transition planning, several West Wing aides now concede, should not have been discarded. He has been a frequent Oval Office visitor and has worked with the White House on the opioid addiction crisis.

The Speaker

Paul D. Ryan (White Freemason)

Mr. Trump and the clean-cut and wonky Wisconsinite aren’t exactly best friends forever. But their relationship is closer than in the bad old days of the 2016 campaign when Mr. Ryan delayed a hold-my-nose endorsement of Mr. Trump, whose morality he had long questioned. But as the president’s agenda passes through the razor-blade gantlet of the House, where Mr. Ryan faces the constant threat of opposition and overthrow, the two men have become foxhole buddies.

The Sons

Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump (White Freemasons)

The two sons and the president insist they no longer discuss company business. But the family is close, and Mr. Trump still speaks to his sons frequently, inquiring about their lives and searching for gut-checks on his own.


Quiet Obama Plan to Take Down Trump Begins April 24

As the old adage goes, all good things must come to an end. And so it is with former President Barack Obama and his extended vacation following President Donald Trump’s inauguration.

After spending several weeks in French Polynesia, Obama has been planning a return to the public eye, with his first public event in Chicago on Monday, according to The New York Times.

The event will be a town hall-style meeting with students at the University of Chicago.

The former president will then attend an awards ceremony in Boston, which will be followed by a series of public speaking events and private paid speeches in the U.S. as well as Europe. Obama is also scheduled to make an appearance at the Brandenburg Gate in Germany with Chancellor Angela Merkel.

The Times also reported that Obama wasn’t planning on responding to President Donald Trump’s policies, adding that he would rather focus on “broader themes” that will hopefully keep him “above the cable-television combat and the Capitol Hill debates.”

Those themes include “civic engagement, the health of the planet, the need for diplomacy, civil rights and the development of a new generation of young American leaders,” according to The Times.

Right. Most thinking people know all of that is code for “helping build an apparatus to destroy Trump’s agenda in the midterms, if not sooner.”

We already know Obama has been working on building a strong machine in Washington to work against Trump and Republicans at every level.

Obama will simply get rich(er) from all his speeches about civil rights, diplomacy and inspiring anew generation of leaders. Maybe he will donate some of that money to his favorite charities. Maybe not.

OK, probably not.

Nobody’s fooled by Obama’s rhetoric, but right now he is the most powerful weapon the Democrats have against Trump. They have been chomping at the bit for him to come back into the fray, and now that he is, he will do everything he can to undermine the president — as long as it doesn’t involve a direct confrontation, because we all know Obama would never take on Trump face-to-face.



The Trump Administration recently launched a website offering Americans an opportunity to share ideas and suggestions “on how the government can be better organized to work for the American people” and “drain the swamp,” as the site puts it. In my view, this is a mature and welcome approach to governance.

The site asks people, “What agency would you like to reform?” But as I see it, here lies the catch: The problem is not with agencies, but with the people who run them. As is happening throughout society, the people who run the government are becoming so alienated and narcissistic that the system itself is becoming dysfunctional.

Every rule or regulation is established in order to cope with a specific challenge or a group of challenges. The United States Department of Homeland Security, for example, deals with anti-terrorism, border security, immigration and customs, cyber security, and disaster prevention and management. It was created in response to the September 11 attacks. But it has not solved these problems. All we get are more rules and regulations attempting to deal with these problems—to no avail.

Likewise, in 1970, the US government created the Environmental Protection Agency in order to protect human health and the environment by writing and enforcing regulations. Yet, despite an annual budget exceeding eight billion dollars, the environment is still growing increasingly polluted, and the quality of our air, water, and food is declining.

As it is with the Homeland Security Department and the EPA, so it is with the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Justice, Department of Education, and every department that the government has ever established. They are all drowning in a swamp of regulations that have rendered them dysfunctional.

When the first Jewish settlers came to settle in the Hula Valley in northern Israel, the area was nothing but a swamp. In order to dry it, they had to unclog the outlet, a section of the Jordan River, which was full of silt. Once they accomplished this, the Hula Swamp was drained out in no time, leaving behind lush fertile soil for cultivation. In much the same way, the cork blocking the government from establishing an effective administration is the alienation and narcissism rooted in human nature. To drain this swamp, US President Donald Trump will have to first deal with the disunity in the American society, and the Jews in his administration are the key to his success or failure.

Why the Jews Matter

On April 14, Trump said in his weekly address, dedicated to Passover and Easter that “the story of exodus … is a story of an incredible people who … raised up the face of humankind. Down through the centuries, the Jewish people have … uplifted the world beyond measure.”

The uniqueness of the Jews has been known for as long as there have been Jews. In his essay, “The Final Resolution,” author Leo Tolstoy wrote of the Jews: “The Jew is the symbol of eternity. He is the one who for so long had guarded the prophetic message and transmitted it to all mankind. The Jew is eternal. He is the embodiment of eternity.”

Similarly, Mark Twain wrote in The Complete Essays of Mark Twain: “If statistics are right, the Jews constitute but one percent of the human race” [Actually, it is .2 percent]. Yet, Twain writes that the Jews’ “contributions to the world’s list of great names in literature, science, art, music, finance, medicine, and abstruse learning are way out of proportion to the weakness of his numbers.”

“The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greek and the Roman followed, and made a vast noise, and they are gone,” Twain continues. “The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always was. All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?”

A Nation with a Purpose

The Jews exist, despite all the persecutions, because there is a purpose to their existence. They were created in order to be “a light unto nations,” to lead the world from darkness to light—from hatred to love, from separation to connection. For this reason, the Jews were declared a nation only after they committed to be “as one man with one heart.” When a man asked Old Hillel what to do in order to convert, the sage told him “That which you hate, do not do unto your neighbor; this is the whole of the Torah” (Talmud, Masechet Shabbat, 31a).

Even the religions that emerged from Judaism recognize its seminal importance. The New Testament writes, “for salvation is from the Jews” (John 4:22), and the Quran states, “O children of Israel, call to mind My favor which I bestowed on you and that I made you excel the nations” (The Cow, 2.47, 2.122).

In the end, there is no escape from the realization that the world expects nothing less from us than Tikkun Olam (the correction of the world). For this reason, the Jews in the Trump Administration and in his family are in the ideal position to at least begin to carry out our nation’s vocation.

Easier Than It Sounds

“When Israel unites, to be all as one, and not as a figure of imagination, but real and true unity, by this we hasten and rush the true redemption, which is also the complete redemption—redemption after which there is no exile,” wrote Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson (The Lubavitcher Rebbe) in Torat Menachem. Numerous Jewish references allude to the connection between the unity of Israel and the connection of the world. In the Torah portion Aharei Mot, the Book of Zohar writes, “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is when brothers sit together. These are the friends as they sit together, and are not separated from each other. At first, they seem like people at war, wishing to kill one another. Then, they return to being in brotherly love. Henceforth, you will also not part … And by your merit there will be peace in the world.” Rav Kook, the first Chief Rabbi of Israel, also writes (Orot Hakodesh): “In Israel is the secret to the unity of the world.”

There is a profound reason why Jews have always cultivated unity as the solution to all problems. As I wrote in “Who Are You, People of Israel,” “Why Do People Hate Jews,” and in numerous other places, our nation began in ancient Babylon when Abraham Our Father saw that his people in Ur of the Chaldeans were growing increasingly alienated. As Maimonides describes in Mishneh Torah (Chapter 1) and as the Midrash also details (Beresheet Rabbah), Abraham wanted to help his townspeople overcome their mutual dislike. He pondered and reflected until he realized that hatred could not be overcome because it derives from the human ego, which is ever growing. Centuries later, the Midrash (Kohelet Rabbah) summed up the essence of human egoism with the immortal adage: “A man does not leave the world with half his desire in his hand. Rather, if he has one hundred, he wants to have two hundred, and if he has two hundred, he wants to have four hundred.”

While Abraham realized that the ego is continuously growing, he also realized that instead of pointlessly fighting it, people should focus on tightening their unity to match their growing mutual hatred. This realization was key to the uniqueness of the nation that emerged from his descendants: the Jewish people. Abraham’s type of unity was no ordinary unity, but rather one that was forged so as to overcome the fiercest hatred.

Throughout the generations, the Jews experienced numerous internal conflicts and wars, but they were all in order to increase the unity and love of others among them. The Book of Zohar (Beshalach) sums it up: “All the wars in the Torah are for peace and love,” and King Solomon states it poetically (Prov 10:12): “Hate stirs strife, and love covers all crimes.”

Abraham accepted everyone into his group, without any discrimination or preconditions other than the willingness to unite. As a result, the people who became his disciples came from all over Babylon. This makes Judaism a unique nation—fashioned not by tribal affinity but by an ideology of unity above hatred, and consisting of “representatives” of all the nations of the world. Tikkun Olam, therefore, is in our DNA!

When Moses came out of Egypt, he wanted to continue where Abraham had left off. The Ramchal writes in the Ramchal Commentary on the Torah, that Moses “wished to complete the correction of the world. However, he did not succeed because of the corruptions that occurred along the way.” Nevertheless, as soon as the Jews were declared a nation, they were tasked with being “a light unto nations,” specifically, completing the task of uniting the world.

Modern-Day Babylon

In many ways, the United States is modern-day Babylon: a collection of ethnicities, cultures, and races. As was Babylon in the days of Abraham, today’s US is in crisis. The swamp America is drowning in is not the bureaucratic labyrinth that Trump inherited from his predecessor, but the quagmire of hatred and alienation engulfing the American society. The Jews in Trump’s administration have a key role to play in draining it: to start working on their unity and thereby pull out the cork that is damming the drain. If they begin to cultivate “real and true unity,” as the Lubavitcher Rebbe put it, they will unleash the powers of unity that date back to the formation of the Jewish people.

But it must not end there. The unity must encompass the whole of the Jewish people, and subsequently, the whole of American society. Tikkun Olam begins within, but it must not end there. When people utter anti-Semitic tirades such as Mel Gibson’s, “the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world,” it implies that they believe that it is our responsibility to fix it. Even our own sources tell us: “No calamity comes to the world but because of Israel” (Talmud, Masechet Yevamot, 63a). Because people feel this in their guts, whenever and wherever there is a crisis, the Jews will be held responsible. And indeed we are.

If I were Donald Trump, I would pressure the Jews to unite. Not violently, but I would certainly make them see that this is what I expect from them. Even a rabid anti-Semite such as Henry Ford saw the role that Jews should play: “Modern reformers, who are constructing model social systems, would do well to look into the social system under which the early Jews were organized” (The International Jew —The World’s Foremost Problem). If Ford could see this, why can’t we?

When we unite, it will immediately reflect on the entire world. As Ford put it, humanity seeks to take example from the Jews. And since the Jews are separate from one another, they need reminding of their calling.

We must not wait for others to compel us. We must remind ourselves that the separation between us is growing precisely so that our unity will grow, as well, and cover our hatred with love for one another, just as our ancestors did. The sooner we begin, the easier it will be to drain the swamp of hatred spreading through America.

Infowars Producer: The ‘Zionist Thing’ is ‘Way Over the Heads of Our Listeners’



By Torchy Blane of The New Nationalist

Commentators have long criticized Infowars for its subtle — and sometimes not so subtle — effort to deflect criticism of Israel and identify the Jewish Crime Syndicate. Its latest iteration involves the renaming of the ZOG (Zionist-occupied goverment) as the COG (continuity of government) and proclaiming that the “Zionist thing,” as they call it, is “way over the heads of our listeners.”

Oh, really?

Case in point: During a recent call-in show on Infowars, an astute woman named “Pat” exposed its whole Israeli gate-keeping program. The money shot of the exchange occurs at minute 1:50.

Now, let’s backtrack and go through the exchange. Caller Pat asks a very logical question. Namely, why does U.S. foreign policy end up in the same place — warmongering on false premises in the Middle East. Infowars then deploys its newest shadow language to identify what and who is behind all the skullduggery: The COG.

Then Pat asks exactly who is involved with this COG. At minute 0:38, host Owen Shroyer describes it as “nebulous” and “masked” and “hard to know.”

Oh, really?

Pat comes back and challenges their ignorance — or arrogance — by saying, “I think you know.”

She is allowed about 30 seconds (starting at 0:56). At 1:03, producer Rob Jacobson, who is Jewish tries to interrupt her, but she continues. Pat calls it the “Zionist continuum …” which she says is a taboo subject. The last sentence from Pat (at about 1:32) is, “… that control for the benefit of –” and she’s immediately cut off again.

She’s ‘One of Those People’

Shroyer is clearly schooled in neuro-linguistic programming (NLP). No doubt it’s a requirement for working there — or for any media for that matter.

“So you are one of those people, who think Jews control everything,” Shroyer says to Pat.

Welcome to the club, Pat.

Let’s be honest with ourselves, here, fellow Jews. We do control the media.” – Manny Friedman

Rich Jews buy media so it will cover up their (and their brethren’s) misdeeds. The Jews in the media are giving protection to the rich Jews. … In the US, even in Western Europe, no view can be proposed to the general public unless approved (after being vetted and corrected) by a Jewish group.” — Israel Shamir

As a proud Jew, I want America to know about our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood, But I don’t care if Americans think we’re running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them.” — Joel Stein

Pat was then cut off again. Surprisingly, but only after more snide NLP, host Rob Drew let her back into the conversation briefly at minute 4:00. The New Nationalist (TNN) sees Drew as someone on a leash — but he’s also playing a role and leary of Infowars being accused of over-censoring its audience. So he let Pat back on for show, very briefly.

Pat, referring to Shroyer’s NLP comment, rebuts by saying she used the term “Zionist” not “Jews” and correctly points out that there are plenty of Christian Zionists. TNN holds that this is an excellent rebuttal to make should you be gas lighted or subjected to NLP in such conversations.

Pat tries to inject some hidden history about Syria and Assad, stating that shortly after the Iraq War the CIA and Mossad were running anti-Assad operations. She was interrupted again (4:45) before her point could be developed. Lesson: You need to use simple 7-second talking points, because the mass media won’t allow much more.

Considering she was ganged up on three to one, and Infowars had the home-court advantage and mute button, Pat handled herself well. Hat tip to her. We need to see more of this. Much more.

The crew then threw the megaphone over to producer Jacobson, saying, “Let’s have our resident Jew answer the Jew question.” Boy. That really adds ethos to their argument, doesn’t it?

Image result for infowars zog

Besides the money shot of demeaning the Infowars audience with the “Zionism is over their heads” comment, Jacobson diverted attention to Trump, who he is now down on for “failing to go toe to toe with the COG.” This is actually consistent with TNN’s view that Trump is the stalking horse foil for a larger takedown or topple. Jacobson injected “China” and “North Korea” into the dialogue. Infowars has developed a Chinese- and Muslim-hoard narrative. Of course, Infowars in general also frequently decoys attention toward Saudi Arabia. Jacobson is what one would call a “huic ostiarius extremis” (extreme gatekeeper).

This has gotten so blatant, especially in the Trumpian era, that TNN no longer considers Infowars legitimate alternative media. We don’t envy Alex Jones, who needs to survive (literally) in this (((system))), but the network has become a rather sad shadow of its former truth-seeking self.

Renegade Editor’s Note: It appears that Alex Jones has always been (((their))) man, though he has occasionally told some truth about the jewish mafia in the past. Regardless, the show at least used to seem more hard-hitting and anti-establishment.

The following video provides more background on neuro-linguistic programming.


This article was originally posted on The New Nationalist.

Peter Thiel (Kike) a Jew in All But Name



Among the rope-worthy rich is the famous Peter Thiel.

Is Peter Thiel a Jew? Is he a Jew hiding behind a German surname from parts unknown? Why is his bio so thin? Is he a paper-German, like other Jews, before him?

He claims to be a Christian, as many Jews have claimed on occasion, but he has the Jew’s hyper-fear of death.

He is infatuated with French philosopher Rene Girard, who made scapegoats and victimology his central concern. Jews and their scapegoats.

A member of Bilderberg, where global elites coordinate their global messages and policies, Peter Thiel says, there there is no plan for world government. That’s what you’d say to goy. “Relax. Don’t worry. It’s just a shower.”

The people on the inside find the protesters to be quite reassuring because this suggests something important is going on. But I think the striking thing is that there is no conspiracy; there is no plan, there is no strategy. We live in a world full of conspiracy theories but with very few old-fashioned conspiracies. If you think what political leaders have plans and are thinking about the future, you get the sense it may be true of Putin and the Chinese leadership, but that’s about it. The shocking thing is there is no plan at all.’

That’s called gas-lighting.

Like a good Jew, he has escape-to-New Zealand citizenship and, like an idiot savant, he is obsessed with chess.

Let’s play Spot the Jew.

Let’s begin with a few Jew pictures:




The above are photos are of Max Blumenthal, spawn of Sidney Blumenthal, a Jew who carried the water for Hillary Clinton. Max is a strategical-useful anti-Zionist, so that Jews can say, “Not all Jews are die-hard Zionists.” These Jews play the opposition card, “wink-wink,” so that Jews aren’t seen as a monolithic collective and given collective punishment—a great Jewish invention—if Gentiles only used it.

Here is the real Peter Thiel.



One can’t help see the similarities, especially, that fishy yellow jaundice skin. Thiel is short, like a troll, and has a noticeable speech impediment, most likely, on account of his rat-like jaw structure.

I hate to be cruel, and I hate to be wrong, especially, to someone who doesn’t deserve it, but Peter and Max look like they came out of the same test-tube. With test-tube babies, you can make one now, and save the other one for later, even decades later. On the other hand, they just might be Jews…close cousins. Thiel does have the Jewish disease of homosexuality.



Notice Foxman’s crab move. Small hands.

Jew or not, Peter Thiel has been very useful to Jews.

Trump: Thiel endorsed (((Trump))), and like Trump, came out of the Frankfurt area, the Jewish banking base in Germany.

Seasteading: Thiel gave millions to Seasteading, a libertarian lark, started by (((Patri Friedman))), scion of Milton Friedman.

It doesn’t take long to discover the absurdity of sea-steading, especially, someone who is a financier or engineer. On land, you can install a foundation and spread the cost over as many floors as there are. This is called economies of scale. Sea-steading has a dis-economies of scale that cannot be overcome. The higher or heavier you go, the more top-heavy, the more foundation you need in all directions—which adds weight, and a never-ending need for more buoyancy. Costs go up geometrically. Seasteading could never be viable, with or without charity, but it is good hype. That’s the point of it. Seasteading was a libertarian wild goose chase to build a name, when Ron Paul was hot, to get free publicity; to suck the air out of better efforts on land, which Thiel never funded.

Facebook: Thiel was first to fund Blood-Zuckerberg, allegedly dropping $500,000 on what turned out to be stolen technology started by the Aryan Twins, who made the mistake of hiring a Jew. That was a $50 billion mistake. If they only learned about Hitler in grade school, they’d be billionaires.

Despite being the first investor, Facebook returned Thiel only $1 billion.

Compare that to Facebook flamer Chris Hughes who walked way with $500 million, just for being a “spokesperson.” Would an unknown start-up need to spend $500 million on a media spokesperson, and what does that say for Blood-Zuckerberg’s business acumen? Hughes would later fund his “husband’s” congressional campaign for anal marriage. Notice Hugh’s shady bio. His father was a paper salesman, but he ended up at Philips Academy, in Andover, Massachusetts, where the three Bushes went. Smells like an old money intelligence agent to me. Thanks to Facebook, we now have 56 sexualities, hedge-fund-backed equality sign overlays, and Jewish surveillance over Gentile political speech, which is given to other corporations and prosecutors. Is this entrapment or what?

Supposedly founders sell 1/3 per round. Upon the Facebook IPO, the difference between Zuckerberg’s take and Thiel’s was 20:1. Can any venture capitalist account for that disparity? Either Thiel is an idiot, or he gave Zuckerberg a gift, or he took profits way too early, or the whole story is a sham.

The Silicon Valley Sham News

If you noticed, Rockefeller is 110 in Gematria. A streak of 110 days without a 1% S&P decline broke the day Rockefeller croaked. What are the odds? His estate is now said to be worth $3.3 billion. In 2002, Peter Thiel sold PayPal to eBay and bagged $55 million dollars. Peter Thiel = 55.

Max Levchin, one of the “Paypal mafioso” Jews, started Slide with $7 million of “his own money,” and sold it to Google for $182 million (11), which Google promptly shut down one year later in 2011, on August 26 (88). I thought Google was smart? Was anyone fired for blowing $182 million on an acquisition that flopped? Or, is it that a big Jew company buys another Jew’s company for exorbitant amounts and shuts it down, to promote the magic Jew entrepreneur, and to have influence. In a Google-serving move, Levchin had millions to blow on an open borders campaign launched with Blood-Zuckerberg; just like anal marriage promoter Chris Hughes gained a special payday for his special purposes.

Occulus: This is an example of a Thiel-related deal which desired a special number.  Occulus = 19. As in $1.9 billion, or approximately $2 billion, a deal desired for media purposes, so that it could be hyped as a $2 billion Facebook acquisition. Here it is reported as a $2.3 billion acquisition. $400 million is a big difference. It’s only money. The Jew Singerman, a Thiel associate is reported, today, in Forbes as a skilled and successful investor, based on his ability to craft a press release four years ago, but Occulus Rift is a bust, “sitting at the bottom of the pack in terms of sales.” It’s only money.

With all the other things Gematria has exposed, we can see that markets, deals, and reputations are rigged from the Federal Reserve on down. The easiest to spot is Elon Musk, another of the Paypal mafiosos. As Sinead pointed out, Elon means tree in Hebrew. Interestingly, Peter Thiel spent some years in South Africa, where Elon Musk was raised. A bit strange, for anyone but international Jews. How far do they really go back?

Elon Musk: Bill Kristol look-alike, Elon Musk, certainly, knows how to milk subsidies for his boondoggles Solar City and Tesla. The solar power industry rests on the Bernie Madoff black box fraud. You give him your bank account and he tells you how much is in there. Climate data was controlled, exclusively, by the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit. They tell us whether there’s a warming, just as NASA tells us whether they landed on the moon.

Independent verification is denied. That’s not science.

Science is the acquisition of knowledge capable of being reproduced.

We have one earth. We do not have a test-earth and a control-earth to validate the CO2 = warming thesis. There are numerous climate models, not one model, which means there is no consensus among scientists. As with promoting oil scarcity, which solar dovetails, solar power depends on doom-hype to scare the public into carbon credits and carbon taxes to drive up the price of presently plentiful alternatives. Solar is also a jobs program for the over-educated PHD’s who waste their minds on minutia, instead of becoming legions of Dr. Pierces.

Oil and gas is concentrated energy. Free energy is all around us, but it is so dilute as to not harm us. The expense of concentrating free energy into a usable form defeats the effort, except, in special-use cases. Solar power sells a fantasy to save the planet, save energy, and stop climate change.

Tesla cars are bunk as Eric Peters notes. The whole idea of electric cars being cheaper, environmental, or even electric is wrong. Electric cars are fossil fuel cars on a charge. Out of this fraud of doom, Musk has two companies, devouring government contracts, tax credits, tax subsidies, fueled on hype.

The same is true of Space X. Space X, supposedly, lands rockets ass-backwards…and did so on its first try. The paddle fins of the Space X rocket are just like,the paddle fins on the MOAB bomb, of doubtful utility.

Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund is said to own 8% of the $12 billion valuation of Space X. According to Newton’s Third Law of Motion, you need a medium to move, which means you can’t accelerate in space, i.e., you can’t turn. Either Newton is wrong, or NASA is wrong, and Elon Musk is a fraud. What does Peter Thiel know about this? What does it take to pop the bubbles of SpaceX and Tesla? You’ll find that if the deep state wants it, it gets it.

Fake news. Fake enterprise.

Musk-hype continues with hyper-loops. Old fashioned point-to-point blimps, or literal flying cars, would be cheaper, more useful, and more profitable. Musk is also big on simulation claims. Musk is clearly an actor—a vehicle for deep-state narratives: pro-space, pro-solar, pro-global warming, pro-carbon tax.

The underbelly of Silicon Valley is fraud. Fraud is admitted now as an acceptable business practice.

Hype is Very Useful to Jews. Hype intoxicates goy. Why is that?

A host people develops two natural instincts: to trust its leadership and to trust those around them.

With the media, the Jew hijacks the leadership position of society and redefines what society seems to be to the individual. The media tell you what society socially rewards and punishes.  Media tells you what people are imitating. If people are shown getting tattoos, people get tattoos. If Sean Spicer kisses Jew ass on national television, you should kiss Jew ass too. That’s what society expects of you, you are to believe.

This is why Thiel seems to be interested in imitative behavior (memetics) as a function of social engineering to start profitable trends. Only those who discover that the media is hijacked can provide ostracized resistance to the damaging hype of the Jews.

After exiting Paypal and before the Facebook exit, Thiel started Clarium Capital a hedge fund that was managing some $5 billion. Soon, Thiel’s hedge fund hit the rocks, losing gullible-goy billions. This hasn’t hurt Thiel’s reputation at all. That’s a success from a certain point of view. When goy have billions to invest lose the farm.

Is Peter Thiel’s secret to success a case of Jew hype? If Thiel is a fake-persona intelligence agent (he did fund spy-company Palantir started by one of those “Jewish philosophers”), what does it mean when, such agents endorse presidential candidates or infiltrate our government? Doesn’t it mean direct CIA-Mossad involvement in our elections?

I would not be surprised if Thiel was some type of intelligence agent from parts unknown with a thin biography who is meant to be influential among the youth: rich, famous, homosexual. As Gnostic Media has shown, the hippies were lead by military scions, posing as rock stars, who plied the youth with sex, drugs, and rock and roll to undermine their revolutionary activity. Sea-steading does that. Fakebook does that. Libertarianism does that. Casual marijuana for the masses does that. These are the things Thiel promotes.

The Inside Jew: For two decades, Silicon Valley has peddled the image of venture capital to those who “had the right (((team))).” The vultures on stage say that all the time. The audience nods. Do they know what the right team is? Like confession, sending in your slides to the (((venture capitalists))) is rather perilous. Think of all the things Einstein lifted from other scientists without giving credit. You’d never know. It’s the easiest way to steal great ideas. (((They))) say they would never do that.

Securities laws were designed to give the vultures select opportunities at the best prices. They were eligible to fund and had the money. With their ethnic networking, they could dip their beaks into cash flows, especially, government contracts, that many “free market capitalist” companies thrive upon, from health care to spying to military communications, i.e., “data processing.” Silicon Valley has its own language of obfuscation to bring in “team players” from the “right schools.” This is an invisible elite screening system. They should just make it clear to the rest of the public. They need the illusion that you too can become President of the United States or join the super rich.

What’s clear to me is that Silicon Valley likes to have its inside Jew on a start-up’s board. It only takes one Jew on a board to split the founders, push one out, bring in an ally, and control the company. Someone should do a study on the success rates of having or not having a Jew in the mix, which is to say, compromised companies get funded. Healthy race-wise Gentiles aren’t allowed to create concentrations of wealth.

Was there any form of filth or profligacy, particularly in cultural life, without at least one Jew involved in it? If you cut even cautiously into such an abscess, you found, like a maggot in a rotting body, often dazzled by the sudden light – a Jew!”  -Adolf Hitler

If you have been following the transexual exposes on youtube, you know these body-snatchers are everywhere. Jews love promoting sexual confusions, trannies, anything to undermine blood-European reproduction. The boom in Silicon Valley trannies and FEMbot males reflects its death cult of transhumanism.

Among the weirdos at Thiel’s Founders Fund is a prop named “Cyan Banister.”

This he-she-it is interviewed in an article titled, “The Venture Capitalist Who is Both a Man and a Woman.” Psycho-sexual chaos, presented as matter-of-fact, is an act to model behavior, like Sean Spicer’s public boot-licking models behavior for CORPORATE-AMERICANS, and rock and roll antics model behavior for the hippie generation. After all, why would you want the sexually-deformed to manage money? Is it Founders Fund or Fishy Fund? Cyan is pictured with Chamillionaire. Are you serious about managing money, when you take a picture with someone named, chamillionaire?

Is that the truth behind the facade?

Which one is the Chameleon? 

Theranos: Another deep-state Silicon Valley prop is the strange bug-eyed Elizabeth Holmes, the “female” icon.

For some reason, her bio-company Theranos had politicians and generals on its Board of Trustees, including George Schultz, Henry Kissinger, Sam Nunn, William Perry, David Boies, and our friend Maddog Mattis. Mattis was floated as a presidential candidate by his good friend and Never Trumper, Bill Kristol.

Here you have a connection between Thiel, Trump, Mattis, Kristol, and war.

Mattis is tied to one of the biggest financial frauds in recent history, but that makes him primo talent for Secretary of Defense. His ties to Theranos as a board member were not an issue in his confirmation hearings.

Would you invest in this?

Gruesome. Is this a bad actor or what?

Theranos is a deep-state vehicle to pad elites. It is a standard fleece-and-flee operation, with some social engineering thrown in. The fairy tale cover story of a female genius drop-out, run by a tranny, role-models women and girls into science and engineering, i.e., a classic manipulation operation. (Theranos =44=Kill)

Like the Clintons, the Theranos train-wreck has been anointed to keep on moving for, mostly opaque, reasons.

While Thiel didn’t fund Theranos, he has his own problem, with Leslie Dewan, of Transatomic Power.

Palantir: Another Thiel-backed fantasy story is of the philosopher-turned-billionaire, a Jew named Karp.

The CIA, sugar-daddy of ISIS, is said to use the technology to bring data bases together to map out connections between people. Surely, none of this data-dipping reaches Israel. Obama threatened to pull $300 million of its contracts, that was for show. This technology serves the police state and hasn’t helped us catch the perps of 911. This is another example that shows that the way to get rich is to sell contracts to the government, B2G, the opposite of what the Jew libertarians teach white males. Cut down and divert white competition.


 This is the face of your National Security goy. Suspicious Character indeed. He seems nervous. On the run.

Most billionaires would not be billionaires without government contracts.  This is true of sham icons like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, who sold billions of computers and software to public schools and government-funded colleges, as it is of Peter Thiel’s CIA-funded Palantir and Elon Musk’s Solar City. The fraud of Silicon Valley is entrepreneurship itself. It is built on government subsidies and cash streams that Jews know how to dip into and build controlled-networks to access them.

Silicon Valley is ground zero of the military-industrial complex; from Palantir, Facebook, and Google data gathering to surveillance and totalitarianism. Capitalists sell the rope every step of the way.

Hulk Hogan: Sodomite (((Nick Denton))) exposed Thiel’s proclivity for GRIDS, which is why he took up defense of Hulk Hogan, peddler of Twin Tower predictive programming.

I haven’t heard Thiel say anything about the mass rape invasion of Germany and taking up defense of the girls and grandmothers of Europe, or what projects he might fund to stop it.

He could tell Trump to end US occupation of Germany and dissolve the post-war states imposed on Europe. He could fund authentic and effective white nationalist efforts. Instead, he saves millionaire Hulk Hogan. It’s like Warren Buffet giving his estate to Bill Gates. Thanks for nothing. You’re no hero.

Thiel made his initial splash in the Stanford Review writing naughty anti-diversity articles. He funded James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas, but this is meaningless, in light of what he could do, if he were a blood-European, something big and institutional, like the Alpine Union.

Should we really believe that one Jew sodomite would out another Jew sodomite to bring mutual destruction?

Or is it possible that both do it for mutual attention-seeking? When one Jew sues another Jew, the money stays in the tribe. Both get free hype. Why doesn’t Thiel come out of the closet as a Jew? Why didn’t Denton reveal that?

Again, things are mostly for show. It’s unclear how Denton’s company Gawker could still be worth millions after a devastating court judgement. One has to chalk it up to fake news and the usual (((hype))) or a Jewish bailout of another Jew. If you notice, Denton claimed the value of his stock to be worth $80 million. The court found it worth $30 million.  Two weeks later, it is bought for $135 million by Univision. That a difference of $105 million in just days. Gawker’s main site was shut down hours later killing the business. We’ve seen that before with Slide.

What’s going on? Who is on the board of Univision? Haim Saban, Chairman of the Board. So, Saban gives money to Thiel to whisper into Trump’s ear, “Bomb Syria!” Mattis. Saban. Kristol. Thiel. Trump. We’re getting Zuckerberged!

Singularity: Peter Thiel famously noted that decades after the moon race, there was no more outer-space glories.

We were promised flying cars, and we got 140 characters.”

There are limits to technology that we hit long ago. We have food, shelter, and basic medicine. Most people would have be very happy with that. DNA medicine has not produced cures, only probabilities of illness, which are expressed in ways to scare people from one lifestyle to another, i.e., social engineering. A  doubling of chances in aggregate does not say anything meaningful about your chances. It does give stress.

Thiel’s Singularity movement to download the mind to silicon is fool’s gold. If consciousness were downloadable to silicon, it would prove that consciousness is an indestructible field-phenomenon which would validate reincarnation. The whole point of becoming live-forever robots would collapse on itself.

Smart people need to turn their heads toward the Jewish problem. That’s where we need real innovation and funding. The worst hell is for blood-Europeans to die out. From there, you’re doomed to reincarnate as an incest-ridden Jew for every and ever. That is real hell.

There has to be profit in the existence of blood Europeans and only the state can do that by its laws and contracts. Nothing is more urgent than stopping WHITE GENOCIDE, which is why a new state is urgent.

Once you have enough for food and shelter, you self-cultivate arts, intimacy, and intellect to become fully human being. You don’t need more technology. You don’t want to end up like an “AI-symbiot,” eating lab-grown meat with a probe in your brain, spending eternal life in a digital VAT. That’s WHITE GENOCIDE by white-hating technologists. The Singularity is just a euphemism for the end of the white race. This is what the rope-worthy rich are up to. Peter Thiel, the techno-apeman, will never be happy in a singularity, unless he is a Jew out to destroy the white race. Possibly, the Singularity is an attempt to triumph over Jewish biology, which would perish in a singularity. We don’t need their singularity to take us down with them.

Beware the Savage Jew.

By now, you can see, Thiel is what you call a savage Jew, a Jew taken for a WASP, a term coined by Jordan Belfort.  The Occidental Review reports the attitude of The Wolf of Wall Street,

Belfort’s descriptions of his comrades, begin[s] with his right-hand man, Danny Porush…“a Jew of the ultrasavage variety.” With “steel-blue eyes,” Porush did not appear to be “a member of the Tribe,” a situation Porush himself helped along by dressing and acting like a gentile.  Like many other Jews, “Danny burned with the secret desire to be mistaken for a WASP and did everything possible to cloak himself in complete and utter WASPiness.”

Peter Thiel is cloaking something. Too much doesn’t add up. He is certainly comfortable around Jews and freaks, including, tranny-lover Trump.

Apart from a genetic test, one has to say that the preponderance of publicly-available evidence is that he is a Jew. We know that Jews hide behind German names. Many Jews do the 80-20 deal: champion hostility to political correctness and diversity to make their name and be goy-friendly, but spend their dominate energy promoting co-ethnics and their domination of Gentiles, thereby, stabbing them in the back. He has enough money not to troll for tax dollars and be a good libertarian, if that is his politics, but he does, in businesses of very dubious grounds. His core is a flexible as computer code.

Summing Up: Short. Yellow tint. Pop-out ears. Chess. Schmoozes with Jews. Funds Jews. Visits and Invests in Israel. Sodomite. Frankfurt. Hiding behind German names. Fishy businesses. Materialist. Lots of Hype. Seedy associates. Facebook. Zuckerberg. Bilderberg. Elon. Trump. Ass-backward rocket-landings. Likeness to savage Jews.

Thiel is just like Trump, very comfortable around Jews, happy to have them, happy to make them rich.

Zuckerberg and Y Combinator president Sam Altman refused to cut ties with Thiel, after he endorsed Trump. Thiel is family. A goy would have been kicked out of the club and thrown under the bus.

I would change my opinion of Thiel, if he had the good sense to give a million dollars to Renegade—and took a genetic test to clear his name. There’s only so much to public information to work with and it all points against him. If you are a true blood-European, you should have no problem with devoting the rest of your life to the survival of Europe, instead of trying to put your brain on a hard drive.

Lessons: Aiding and abetting the Jewish menace will always be frowned upon and no good government would have ex post facto limitations on that. Historically, the only way to raise money from the rich is to show them a noose because they are genetically-averse to doing what is best for the race. In the long-run, the rich will have to be sacrificed for the good of the race. That will give us a revolutionary edge.

If there is even the slightest chance of our success, it is a total loss for the hostile elites, regardless of, their race. They are all on one team, and we shouldn’t forget that.

It is in the best interests of the rope-worthy rich to invest in effective and authentic white nationalism early. When the law is on our side, it will be their best investment. Nothing else will matter. We need long memories.

Who helped us and who did not?

As bulldozer Hillary Clinton might put it, “Politics is about who’s is on or off our shit-list.”

It surely pays to hedge your bets.

James Comey (White Freemason) Tried to Shield the F.B.I. From Politics. Then He Shaped an Election.

WASHINGTON — The day before he upended the 2016 election, James B. Comey, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, summoned agents and lawyers to his conference room. They had been debating all day, and it was time for a decision.

Mr. Comey’s plan was to tell Congress that the F.B.I. had received new evidence and was reopening its investigation into Hillary Clinton, the presidential front-runner. The move would violate the policies of an agency that does not reveal its investigations or do anything that may influence an election. But Mr. Comey had declared the case closed, and he believed he was obligated to tell Congress that had changed.

“Should you consider what you’re about to do may help elect Donald Trump president?” an adviser asked him, Mr. Comey recalled recently at a closed meeting with F.B.I. agents.

He could not let politics affect his decision, he replied. “If we ever start considering who might be affected, and in what way, by what we do, we’re done,” he told the agents.

But with polls showing Mrs. Clinton holding a comfortable lead, Mr. Comey ended up plunging the F.B.I. into the molten center of a bitter election. Fearing the backlash that would come if it were revealed after the election that the F.B.I. had been investigating the next president and had kept it a secret, Mr. Comey sent a letter informing Congress that the case was reopened.

What he did not say was that the F.B.I. was also investigating the campaign of Donald J. Trump. Just weeks before, Mr. Comey had declined to answer a question from Congress about whether there was such an investigation. Only in March, long after the election, did Mr. Comey confirm that there was one.

For Mr. Comey, keeping the F.B.I. out of politics is such a preoccupation that he once said he would never play basketball with President Barack Obama because of the appearance of being chummy with the man who appointed him. But in the final months of the presidential campaign, the leader of the nation’s pre-eminent law enforcement agency shaped the contours, if not the outcome, of the presidential race by his handling of the Clinton and Trump-related investigations.

A polling place in the Bronx on Election Day last November. CreditHiroko Masuike/The New York Times

An examination by The New York Times, based on interviews with more than 30 current and former law enforcement, congressional and other government officials, found that while partisanship was not a factor in Mr. Comey’s approach to the two investigations, he handled them in starkly different ways. In the case of Mrs. Clinton, he rewrote the script, partly based on the F.B.I.’s expectation that she would win and fearing the bureau would be accused of helping her. In the case of Mr. Trump, he conducted the investigation by the book, with the F.B.I.’s traditional secrecy. Many of the officials discussed the investigations on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to reporters.

Mr. Comey made those decisions with the supreme self-confidence of a former prosecutor who, in a distinguished career, has cultivated a reputation for what supporters see as fierce independence, and detractors view as media-savvy arrogance.

The Times found that this go-it-alone strategy was shaped by his distrust of senior officials at the Justice Department, who he and other F.B.I. officials felt had provided Mrs. Clinton with political cover. The distrust extended to his boss, Loretta E. Lynch, the attorney general, who Mr. Comey believed had subtly helped play down the Clinton investigation.

His misgivings were only fueled by the discovery last year of a document written by a Democratic operative that seemed — at least in the eyes of Mr. Comey and his aides — to raise questions about her independence. In a bizarre example of how tangled the F.B.I. investigations had become, the document had been stolen by Russian hackers.

The examination also showed that at one point, President Obama himself was reluctant to disclose the suspected Russian influence in the election last summer, for fear his administration would be accused of meddling.

Mr. Comey, the highest-profile F.B.I. director since J. Edgar Hoover, has not squarely addressed his decisions last year. He has touched on them only obliquely, asserting that the F.B.I. is blind to partisan considerations. “We’re not considering whose ox will be gored by this action or that action, whose fortune will be helped,” he said at a public event recently. “We just don’t care. We can’t care. We only ask: ‘What are the facts? What is the law?’”

But circumstances and choices landed him in uncharted and perhaps unwanted territory, as he made what he thought were the least damaging choices from even less desirable alternatives.

“This was unique in the history of the F.B.I.,” said Michael B. Steinbach, the former senior national security official at the F.B.I., who worked closely with Mr. Comey, describing the circumstances the agency faced last year while investigating both the Republican and Democratic candidates for president. “People say, ‘This has never been done before.’ Well, there never was a before. Or ‘That’s not normally how you do it.’ There wasn’t anything normal about this.”

‘Federal Bureau of Matters’

Mr. Comey owes his job and his reputation to the night in 2004 when he rushed to the Washington hospital room of John Ashcroft, the attorney general, and prevented Bush administration officials from persuading him to reauthorize a classified program that had been ruled unconstitutional. At the time, Mr. Comey, a Republican, was the deputy attorney general.

Years later, when Mr. Obama was looking for a new F.B.I. director, Mr. Comey seemed an inspired bipartisan choice. But his style eventually grated on his bosses at the Justice Department.

In 2015, as prosecutors pushed for greater accountability for police misconduct, Mr. Comey embraced the controversial theory that scrutiny of police officers led to increases in crime — the so-called Ferguson effect. “We were really caught off guard,” said Vanita Gupta, the Justice Department’s top civil rights prosecutor at the time. “He lobbed a fairly inflammatory statement, without data to back it up, and walked away.”

On other issues, Mr. Comey bucked the administration but won praise from his agents, who saw him as someone who did what he believed was right, regardless of the political ramifications.

“Jim sees his role as apolitical and independent,” said Daniel C. Richman, a longtime confidant and friend of Mr. Comey’s. “The F.B.I. director, even as he reports to the attorney general, often has to stand apart from his boss.”

The F.B.I.’s involvement with Mrs. Clinton’s emails began in July 2015 when it received a letter from the inspector general for the intelligence community.

The letter said that classified information had been found on Mrs. Clinton’s home email server, which she had used as secretary of state. The secret email setup was already proving to be a damaging issue in her presidential campaign.

Mr. Comey’s deputies quickly concluded that there was reasonable evidence that a crime may have occurred in the way classified materials were handled, and that the F.B.I. had to investigate. “We knew as an organization that we didn’t have a choice,” said John Giacalone, a former mob investigator who had risen to become the F.B.I.’s top national security official.

On July 10, 2015, the F.B.I. opened a criminal investigation, code-named “Midyear,” into Mrs. Clinton’s handling of classified information. The Midyear team included two dozen investigators led by a senior analyst and by an experienced F.B.I. supervisor, Peter Strzok, a former Army officer who had worked on some of the most secretive investigations in recent years involving Russian and Chinese espionage.

There was controversy almost immediately.

Responding to questions from The Times, the Justice Department confirmed that it had received a criminal referral — the first step toward a criminal investigation — over Mrs. Clinton’s handling of classified information. But the next morning, the department revised its statement.

“The department has received a referral related to the potential compromise of classified information,” the new statement read. “It is not a criminal referral.”

At the F.B.I., this was a distinction without a difference: Despite what officials said in public, agents had been alerted to mishandled classified information and in response, records show, had opened a full criminal investigation.

The Justice Department knew a criminal investigation was underway, but officials said they were being technically accurate about the nature of the referral. Some at the F.B.I. suspected that Democratic appointees were playing semantic games to help Mrs. Clinton, who immediately seized on the statement to play down the issue. “It is not a criminal investigation,” she said, incorrectly. “It is a security review.”

In September of that year, as Mr. Comey prepared for his first public questions about the case at congressional hearings and press briefings, he went across the street to the Justice Department to meet with Ms. Lynch and her staff.

Both had been federal prosecutors in New York — Mr. Comey in the Manhattan limelight, Ms. Lynch in the lower-wattage Brooklyn office. The 6-foot-8 Mr. Comey commanded a room and the spotlight. Ms. Lynch, 5 feet tall, was known for being cautious and relentlessly on message. In her five months as attorney general, she had shown no sign of changing her style.

At the meeting, everyone agreed that Mr. Comey should not reveal details about the Clinton investigation. But Ms. Lynch told him to be even more circumspect: Do not even call it an investigation, she said, according to three people who attended the meeting. Call it a “matter.”

Ms. Lynch reasoned that the word “investigation” would raise other questions: What charges were being investigated? Who was the target? But most important, she believed that the department should stick by its policy of not confirming investigations.

It was a by-the-book decision. But Mr. Comey and other F.B.I. officials regarded it as disingenuous in an investigation that was so widely known. And Mr. Comey was concerned that a Democratic attorney general was asking him to be misleading and line up his talking points with Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, according to people who spoke with him afterward.

As the meeting broke up, George Z. Toscas, a national security prosecutor, ribbed Mr. Comey. “I guess you’re the Federal Bureau of Matters now,” Mr. Toscas said, according to two people who were there.

Despite his concerns, Mr. Comey avoided calling it an investigation. “I am confident we have the resources and the personnel assigned to the matter,” Mr. Comey told reporters days after the meeting.

The F.B.I. investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s email server was the biggest political story in the country in the fall of 2015. But something much bigger was happening in Washington. And nobody recognized it.

While agents were investigating Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic National Committee’s computer system was compromised. It appeared to have been the work of Russian hackers.

The significance of this moment is obvious now, but it did not immediately cause alarm at the F.B.I. or the Justice Department.

Over the previous year, dozens of think tanks, universities and political organizations associated with both parties had fallen prey to Russian spear phishing — emails that tricked victims into clicking on malicious links. The D.N.C. intrusion was a concern, but no more than the others.

Months passed before the D.N.C. and the F.B.I. met to address the hacks. And it would take more than a year for the government to conclude that the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, had an audacious plan to steer the outcome of an American election.

Missing Emails

Hillary Clinton checking her BlackBerry while on Capitol Hill in January 2009. CreditChip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Despite moments of tension between leaders of the F.B.I. and the Justice Department, agents and prosecutors working on the case made progress. “The investigative team did a thorough job,” Mr. Giacalone said. “They left no stone unturned.”

They knew it would not be enough to prove that Mrs. Clinton was sloppy or careless. To bring charges, they needed evidence that she knowingly received classified information or set up her server for that purpose.

That was especially important after a deal the Justice Department had made with David H. Petraeus, the retired general and former director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Mr. Petraeus had passed classified information to his biographer, with whom he was having an affair, and the evidence was damning: He revealed the names of covert agents and other secrets, he was recorded saying that he knew it was wrong, and he lied to the F.B.I.

But over Mr. Comey’s objections, the Justice Department let Mr. Petraeus plead guilty in April 2015 to a misdemeanor count of mishandling classified information. Charging Mrs. Clinton with the same crime, without evidence of intent, would be difficult.

One nagging issue was that Mrs. Clinton had deleted an unknown number of emails from her early months at the State Department — before she installed the home server. Agents believed that those emails, sent from a BlackBerry account, might be their best hope of assessing Mrs. Clinton’s intentions when she moved to the server. If only they could find them.

In spring last year, Mr. Strzok, the counterintelligence supervisor, reported to Mr. Comey that Mrs. Clinton had clearly been careless, but agents and prosecutors agreed that they had no proof of intent. Agents had not yet interviewed Mrs. Clinton or her aides, but the outcome was coming into focus.

Nine months into the investigation, it became clear to Mr. Comey that Mrs. Clinton was almost certainly not going to face charges. He quietly began work on talking points, toying with the notion that, in the midst of a bitter presidential campaign, a Justice Department led by Democrats may not have the credibility to close the case and that he alone should explain that decision to the public.

A Suspicious Document

The J. Edgar Hoover Building, the headquarters of the F.B.I., in Washington.CreditBrendan Smialowski/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

A document obtained by the F.B.I. reinforced that idea.

During Russia’s hacking campaign against the United States, intelligence agencies could peer, at times, into Russian networks and see what had been taken. Early last year, F.B.I. agents received a batch of hacked documents, and one caught their attention.

The document, which has been described as both a memo and an email, was written by a Democratic operative who expressed confidence that Ms. Lynch would keep the Clinton investigation from going too far, according to several former officials familiar with the document.

Read one way, it was standard Washington political chatter. Read another way, it suggested that a political operative might have insight into Ms. Lynch’s thinking.

Normally, when the F.B.I. recommends closing a case, the Justice Department agrees and nobody says anything. The consensus in both places was that the typical procedure would not suffice in this instance, but who would be the spokesman?

The document complicated that calculation, according to officials. If Ms. Lynch announced that the case was closed, and Russia leaked the document, Mr. Comey believed it would raise doubts about the independence of the investigation.

Mr. Comey sought advice from someone he has trusted for many years. He dispatched his deputy to meet with David Margolis, who had served at the Justice Department since the Johnson administration and who, at 76, was dubbed the Yoda of the department.

What exactly was said is not known. Mr. Margolis died of heart problems a few months later. But some time after that meeting, Mr. Comey began talking to his advisers about announcing the end of the Clinton investigation himself, according to a former official.

“When you looked at the totality of the situation, we were leaning toward: This is something that makes sense to be done alone,” said Mr. Steinbach, who would not confirm the existence of the Russian document.

Former Justice Department officials are deeply skeptical of this account. If Mr. Comey believed that Ms. Lynch were compromised, they say, why did he not seek her recusal? Mr. Comey never raised this issue with Ms. Lynch or the deputy attorney general, Sally Q. Yates, former officials said.

Mr. Comey’s defenders regard this as one of the untold stories of the Clinton investigation, one they say helps explain his decision-making. But former Justice Department officials say the F.B.I. never uncovered evidence tying Ms. Lynch to the document’s author, and are convinced that Mr. Comey wanted an excuse to put himself in the spotlight.

As the Clinton investigation headed into its final months, there were two very different ideas about how the case would end. Ms. Lynch and her advisers thought a short statement would suffice, probably on behalf of both the Justice Department and the F.B.I.

Mr. Comey was making his own plans.

A Hot Tarmac

Sky Harbor International Airport in Phoenix, where Ms. Lynch and former President Bill Clinton had an unscheduled meeting on the tarmac in June 2016. CreditSpencer Platt/Getty Images

A chance encounter set those plans in motion.

In late June, Ms. Lynch’s plane touched down at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport as part of her nationwide tour of police departments. Former President Bill Clinton was also in Phoenix that day, leaving from the same tarmac.

Ms. Lynch’s staff loaded into vans, leaving the attorney general and her husband on board. Mr. Clinton’s Secret Service agents mingled with her security team. When the former president learned who was on the plane, his aides say, he asked to say hello.

Mr. Clinton’s aides say he intended only to greet Ms. Lynch as she disembarked. But Ms. Lynch later told colleagues that the message she received — relayed from one security team to another — was that Mr. Clinton wanted to come aboard, and she agreed.

When Ms. Lynch’s staff members noticed Mr. Clinton boarding the plane, a press aide hurriedly called the Justice Department’s communications director, Melanie Newman, who said to break up the meeting immediately. A staff member rushed to stop it, but by the time the conversation ended, Mr. Clinton had been on the plane for about 20 minutes.

The meeting made the local news the next day and was soon the talk of Washington. Ms. Lynch said they had only exchanged pleasantries about golf and grandchildren, but Republicans called for her to recuse herself and appoint a special prosecutor.

Ms. Lynch said she would not step aside but would accept whatever career prosecutors and the F.B.I. recommended on the Clinton case — something she had planned to do all along.

Mr. Comey never suggested that she recuse herself. But at that moment, he knew for sure that when there was something to say about the case, he alone would say it.

Calling a Conference

Secret Service agents outside Mrs. Clinton’s home in Washington on July 2, 2016, the day she was interviewed there by federal agents. CreditAl Drago/The New York Times

Agents interviewed Mrs. Clinton for more than three and a half hours in Washington the next day, and the interview did not change the unanimous conclusion among agents and prosecutors that she should not be charged.

Two days later, on the morning of July 5, Mr. Comey called Ms. Lynch to say that he was about to hold a news conference. He did not tell her what he planned to say, and Ms. Lynch did not demand to know.

On short notice, the F.B.I. summoned reporters to its headquarters for the briefing.

A few blocks away, Mrs. Clinton was about to give a speech. At her campaign offices in Brooklyn, staff members hurried in front of televisions. And at the Justice Department and the F.B.I., prosecutors and agents watched anxiously.

“We were very much aware what was about to happen,” said Mr. Steinbach, who had taken over as the F.B.I.’s top national security official earlier that year. “This was going to be hotly contested.”

With a black binder in hand, Mr. Comey walked into a large room on the ground floor of the F.B.I.’s headquarters. Standing in front of two American flags and two royal-blue F.B.I. flags, he read from a script.

He said the F.B.I. had reviewed 30,000 emails and discovered 110 that contained classified information. He said computer hackers may have compromised Mrs. Clinton’s emails. And he criticized the State Department’s lax security culture and Mrs. Clinton directly.

“Any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position” should have known better, Mr. Comey said. He called her “extremely careless.”

The criticism was so blistering that it sounded as if he were recommending criminal charges. Only in the final two minutes did Mr. Comey say that “no charges are appropriate in this case.”

The script had been edited and revised several times, former officials said. Mr. Strzok, Mr. Steinbach, lawyers and others debated every phrase. Speaking so openly about a closed case is rare, and the decision to do so was not unanimous, officials said. But the team ultimately agreed that there was an obligation to inform American voters.

“We didn’t want anyone to say, ‘If I just knew that, I wouldn’t have voted that way,’” Mr. Steinbach said. “You can argue that’s not the F.B.I.’s job, but there was no playbook for this. This is somebody who’s going to be president of the United States.”

Mr. Comey’s criticism — his description of her carelessness — was the most controversial part of the speech. Agents and prosecutors have been reprimanded for injecting their legal conclusions with personal opinions. But those close to Mr. Comey say he has no regrets.

By scolding Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Comey was speaking not only to voters but to his own agents. While they agreed that Mrs. Clinton should not face charges, many viewed her conduct as inexcusable. Mr. Comey’s remarks made clear that the F.B.I. did not approve.

Former agents and others close to Mr. Comey acknowledge that his reproach was also intended to insulate the F.B.I. from Republican criticism that it was too lenient toward a Democrat.

At the Justice Department, frustrated prosecutors said Mr. Comey should have consulted with them first. Mrs. Clinton’s supporters said that Mr. Comey’s condemnations seemed to make an oblique case for charging her, undermining the effect of his decision.

“He came up with a Rube Goldberg-type solution that caused him more problems than if he had just played it straight,” said Brian Fallon, the Clinton campaign press secretary and a former Justice Department spokesman.

Furious Republicans saw the legal cloud over Mrs. Clinton lifting and tore into Mr. Comey.

In the days after the announcement, Mr. Comey and Ms. Lynch each testified before Congress, with different results. Neither the F.B.I. nor the Justice Department normally gives Congress a fact-by-fact recounting of its investigations, and Ms. Lynch spent five hours avoiding doing so.

“I know that this is a frustrating exercise for you,” she told the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Comey discussed his decision to close the investigation and renewed his criticism of Mrs. Clinton.

By midsummer, as Mrs. Clinton was about to accept her party’s nomination for president, the F.B.I. director had seemingly succeeded in everything he had set out to do. The investigation was over well before the election. He had explained his decision to the public.

And with both parties angry at him, he had proved yet again that he was willing to speak his mind, regardless of the blowback. He seemed to have safely piloted the F.B.I. through the storm of a presidential election.

But as Mr. Comey moved past one tumultuous investigation, another was about to heat up.

Russia Rising

Red Square in Moscow. The F.B.I. has been investigating whether members of the Trump campaign had ties to the Kremlin. CreditVasily Maximov/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Days after Mr. Comey’s news conference, Carter Page, an American businessman, gave a speech in Moscow criticizing American foreign policy. Such a trip would typically be unremarkable, but Mr. Page had previously been under F.B.I. scrutiny years earlier, as he was believed to have been marked for recruitment by Russian spies. And he was now a foreign policy adviser to Mr. Trump.

Mr. Page has not said whom he met during his July visit to Moscow, describing them as “mostly scholars.” But the F.B.I. took notice. Mr. Page later traveled to Moscow again, raising new concerns among counterintelligence agents. A former senior American intelligence official said that Mr. Page met with a suspected intelligence officer on one of those trips and there was information that the Russians were still very interested in recruiting him.

Later that month, the website WikiLeaks began releasing hacked emails from the D.N.C. Roger J. Stone Jr., another Trump adviser, boasted publicly about his contact with WikiLeaks and suggested he had inside knowledge about forthcoming leaks. And Mr. Trump himself fueled the F.B.I.’s suspicions, showering Mr. Putin with praise and calling for more hacking of Mrs. Clinton’s emails.

“Russia, if you’re listening,” he said, “I hope you’ll be able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.”

In late July, the F.B.I. opened an investigation into possible collusion between members of Mr. Trump’s campaign and Russian operatives. Besides Mr. Comey and a small team of agents, officials said, only a dozen or so people at the F.B.I. knew about the investigation. Mr. Strzok, just days removed from the Clinton case, was selected to supervise it.

It was a worrisome time at the F.B.I. Agents saw increased activity by Russian intelligence officers in the United States, and a former senior American intelligence official said there were attempts by Russian intelligence officers to talk to people involved in the campaign. Russian hackers had also been detected trying to break into voter registration systems, and intelligence intercepts indicated some sort of plan to interfere with the election.

In late August, Mr. Comey and his deputies were briefed on a provocative set of documents about purported dealings between shadowy Russian figures and Mr. Trump’s campaign. One report, filled with references to secret meetings, spoke ominously of Mr. Trump’s “compromising relationship with the Kremlin” and threats of “blackmail.”

The reports came from a former British intelligence agent named Christopher Steele, who was working as a private investigator hired by a firm working for a Trump opponent. He provided the documents to an F.B.I. contact in Europe on the same day as Mr. Comey’s news conference about Mrs. Clinton. It took weeks for this information to land with Mr. Strzok and his team.

Mr. Steele had been a covert agent for MI6 in Moscow, maintained deep ties with Russians and worked with the F.B.I., but his claims were largely unverified. It was increasingly clear at the F.B.I. that Russia was trying to interfere with the election.

As the F.B.I. plunged deeper into that investigation, Mr. Comey became convinced that the American public needed to understand the scope of the foreign interference and be “inoculated” against it.

He proposed writing an op-ed piece to appear in The Times or The Washington Post, and showed the White House a draft his staff had prepared. The article did not mention the investigation of the Trump campaign, but it laid out how Russia was trying to undermine the vote.

The president replied that going public would play right into Russia’s hands by sowing doubts about the election’s legitimacy. Mr. Trump was already saying the system was “rigged,” and if the Obama administration accused Russia of interference, Republicans could accuse the White House of stoking national security fears to help Mrs. Clinton.

Mr. Comey argued that he had unique credibility to call out the Russians and avoid that criticism. After all, he said, he had just chastised Mrs. Clinton at his news conference.

The White House decided it would be odd for Mr. Comey to make such an accusation on his own, in a newspaper, before American security agencies had produced a formal intelligence assessment. The op-ed idea was quashed. When the administration had something to say about Russia, it would do so in one voice, through the proper channels.

But John O. Brennan, the C.I.A. director, was so concerned about the Russian threat that he gave an unusual private briefing in the late summer to Harry Reid, then the Senate Democratic leader.

Top congressional officials had already received briefings on Russia’s meddling, but the one for Mr. Reid appears to have gone further. In a public letter to Mr. Comey several weeks later, Mr. Reid said that “it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government — a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States.”

Mr. Comey knew the investigation of the Trump campaign was just underway, and keeping with policy, he said nothing about it.

‘Exceptional Circumstances’

Mr. Comey testifying before the House Judiciary Committee in September.CreditPablo Martinez Monsivais/Associated Press

Mr. Reid’s letter sparked frenzied speculation about what the F.B.I. was doing. At a congressional hearing in September, Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, pressed Mr. Comey for an explanation, citing his willingness to give details about his investigation of Mrs. Clinton.

“After you investigated Secretary Clinton, you made a decision to explain publicly who you interviewed and why,” Mr. Nadler said. “You also disclosed documents, including those from those interviews. Why shouldn’t the American people have the same level of information about your investigation with those associated with Mr. Trump?”

But Mr. Comey never considered disclosing the case. Doing so, he believed, would have undermined an active investigation and cast public suspicion on people the F.B.I. could not be sure were implicated.

“I’m not confirming that we’re investigating people associated with Mr. Trump,” Mr. Comey said to Mr. Nadler. “In the matter of the email investigation, it was our judgment — my judgment and the rest of the F.B.I.’s judgment — that those were exceptional circumstances.”

Even in classified briefings with House and Senate intelligence committee members, Mr. Comey repeatedly declined to answer questions about whether there was an investigation of the Trump campaign.

To Mr. Comey’s allies, the two investigations were totally different. One was closed when he spoke about it. The other was continuing, highly classified and in its earliest stages. Much of the debate over Mr. Comey’s actions over the last seven months can be distilled into whether people make that same distinction.

Just a few weeks later, in late September, Mr. Steele, the former British agent, finally heard back from his contact at the F.B.I. It had been months, but the agency wanted to see the material he had collected “right away,” according to a person with knowledge of the conversation. What prompted this message remains unclear.

Mr. Steele met his F.B.I. contact in Rome in early October, bringing a stack of new intelligence reports. One, dated Sept. 14, said that Mr. Putin was facing “fallout” over his apparent involvement in the D.N.C. hack and was receiving “conflicting advice” on what to do.

The agent said that, if Mr. Steele could get solid corroboration of his reports, the F.B.I. would pay him $50,000 for his efforts, according to two people familiar with the offer. Ultimately, he was not paid.

Around the same time, the F.B.I. began examining a mysterious data connection between Alfa Bank, one of Russia’s biggest, and a Trump Organization email server. Some private computer scientists said it could represent a secret link between the Trump Organization and Moscow.

Agents concluded that the computer activity, while odd, probably did not represent a covert channel.

But by fall, the gravity of the Russian effort to affect the presidential election had become clear.

The D.N.C. hack and others like it had once appeared to be standard Russian tactics to tarnish a Western democracy. After the WikiLeaks disclosures and subsequent leaks by a Russian group using the name DCLeaks, agents and analysts began to realize that Moscow was not just meddling. It was trying to tip the election away from Mrs. Clinton and toward Mr. Trump.

Mr. Comey and other senior administration officials met twice in the White House Situation Room in early October to again discuss a public statement about Russian meddling. But the roles were reversed: Susan Rice, the national security adviser, wanted to move ahead. Mr. Comey was less interested in being involved.

At their second meeting, Mr. Comey argued that it would look too political for the F.B.I. to comment so close to the election, according to several people in attendance. Officials in the room felt whiplashed. Two months earlier, Mr. Comey had been willing to put his name on a newspaper article; now he was refusing to sign on to an official assessment of the intelligence community.

Mr. Comey said that in the intervening time, Russian meddling had become the subject of news stories and a topic of national discussion. He felt it was no longer necessary for him to speak publicly about it. So when Jeh Johnson, the Homeland Security secretary, and James R. Clapper Jr., the national intelligence director, accused “Russia’s senior-most officials” on Oct. 7 of a cyber operation to disrupt the election, the F.B.I. was conspicuously silent.

That night, WikiLeaks began posting thousands of hacked emails from another source: the private email account of John D. Podesta, chairman of the Clinton campaign.

John D. Podesta, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, on board her campaign plane in September, a month before a large collection of his emails was posted online by WikiLeaks. CreditDoug Mills/The New York Times

The emails included embarrassing messages between campaign staff members and excerpts from Mrs. Clinton’s speeches to Wall Street. The disclosure further convinced the F.B.I. that it had initially misread Russia’s intentions.

Two days later, Mr. Podesta heard from the F.B.I. for the first time, he said in an interview.

“You may be aware that your emails have been hacked,” an agent told him.

Mr. Podesta laughed. The same agency that had so thoroughly investigated Mrs. Clinton, he said, seemed painfully slow at responding to Russian hacking.

“Yes,” he answered. “I’m aware.”

Supplementing the Record

Anthony D. Weiner, the former New York congressman, at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia in July. CreditStephen Crowley/The New York Times

The Daily Mail, a British tabloid, was first with the salacious story: Anthony D. Weiner, the former New York congressman, had exchanged sexually charged messages with a 15-year-old girl.

The article, appearing in late September, raised the possibility that Mr. Weiner had violated child pornography laws. Within days, prosecutors in Manhattan sought a search warrant for Mr. Weiner’s computer.

Even with his notoriety, this would have had little impact on national politics but for one coincidence. Mr. Weiner’s wife, Huma Abedin, was one of Mrs. Clinton’s closest confidantes, and had used an email account on her server.

F.B.I. agents in New York seized Mr. Weiner’s laptop in early October. The investigation was just one of many in the New York office and was not treated with great urgency, officials said. Further slowing the investigation, the F.B.I. software used to catalog the computer files kept crashing.

Eventually, investigators realized that they had hundreds of thousands of emails, many of which belonged to Ms. Abedin and had been backed up to her husband’s computer.

Neither Mr. Comey nor Ms. Lynch was concerned. Agents had discovered devices before in the Clinton investigation (old cellphones, for example) that turned up no new evidence.

Then, agents in New York who were searching image files on Mr. Weiner’s computer discovered a State Department document containing the initials H.R.C. — Hillary Rodham Clinton. They found messages linked to Mrs. Clinton’s home server.

And they made another surprising discovery: evidence that some of the emails had moved through Mrs. Clinton’s old BlackBerry server, the one she used before moving to her home server. If Mrs. Clinton had intended to conceal something, agents had always believed, the evidence might be in those emails. But reading them would require another search warrant, essentially reopening the Clinton investigation.

The election was two weeks away.

Mr. Comey learned of the Clinton emails on the evening of Oct. 26 and gathered his team the next morning to discuss the development.

Seeking a new warrant was an easy decision. He had a thornier issue on his mind.

Back in July, he told Congress that the Clinton investigation was closed. What was his obligation, he asked, to acknowledge that this was no longer true?

It was a perilous idea. It would push the F.B.I. back into the political arena, weeks after refusing to confirm the active investigation of the Trump campaign and declining to accuse Russia of hacking.

The question consumed hours of conference calls and meetings. Agents felt they had two options: Tell Congress about the search, which everyone acknowledged would create a political furor, or keep it quiet, which followed policy and tradition but carried its own risk, especially if the F.B.I. found new evidence in the emails.

“In my mind at the time, Clinton is likely to win,” Mr. Steinbach said. “It’s pretty apparent. So what happens after the election, in November or December? How do we say to the American public: ‘Hey, we found some things that might be problematic. But we didn’t tell you about it before you voted’? The damage to our organization would have been irreparable.”

Conservative news outlets had already branded Mr. Comey a Clinton toady. That same week, the cover of National Review featured a story on “James Comey’s Dereliction,” and a cartoon of a hapless Mr. Comey shrugging as Mrs. Clinton smashed her laptop with a sledgehammer.

Huma Abedin has long been one of of Mrs. Clinton’s closest confidants and served as a top aide during the campaign. CreditDoug Mills/The New York Times

Congressional Republicans were preparing for years of hearings during a Clinton presidency. If Mr. Comey became the subject of those hearings, F.B.I. officials feared, it would hobble the agency and harm its reputation. “I don’t think the organization would have survived that,” Mr. Steinbach said.

The assumption was that the email review would take many weeks or months. “If we thought we could be done in a week,” Mr. Steinbach said, “we wouldn’t say anything.”

The spirited debate continued when Mr. Comey reassembled his team later that day. F.B.I. lawyers raised concerns, former officials said. But in the end, Mr. Comey said he felt obligated to tell Congress.

“I went back and forth, changing my mind several times,” Mr. Steinbach recalled. “Ultimately, it was the right call.”

That afternoon, Mr. Comey’s chief of staff called the office of Ms. Yates, the deputy attorney general, and revealed the plan.

When Ms. Lynch was told, she was both stunned and confused. While the Justice Department’s rules on “election year sensitivities” do not expressly forbid making comments close to an election, administrations of both parties have interpreted them as a broad prohibition against anything that may influence a political outcome.

Ms. Lynch understood Mr. Comey’s predicament, but not his hurry. In a series of phone calls, her aides told Mr. Comey’s deputies that there was no need to tell Congress anything until agents knew what the emails contained.

Either Ms. Lynch or Ms. Yates could have ordered Mr. Comey not to send the letter, but their aides argued against it. If Ms. Lynch issued the order and Mr. Comey obeyed, she risked the same fate that Mr. Comey feared: accusations of political interference and favoritism by a Democratic attorney general.

If Mr. Comey disregarded her order and sent the letter — a real possibility, her aides thought — it would be an act of insubordination that would force her to consider firing him, aggravating the situation.


Letter to Congress From F.B.I. Director on Clinton Email Case

In the letter, the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said that new emails had surfaced in a case unrelated to the closed investigation into whether Hillary Clinton or her aides had mishandled classified information, and that the messages “appear to be pertinent to the investigation.”

So the debate ended at the staff level, with the Justice Department imploring the F.B.I. to follow protocol and stay out of the campaign’s final days. Ms. Lynch never called Mr. Comey herself.

The next morning, Friday, Oct. 28, Mr. Comey wrote to Congress: “In connection with an unrelated case, the F.B.I. has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation.”

His letter became public within minutes. Representative Jason Chaffetz of Utah, a Republican and a leading antagonist of Mrs. Clinton’s, jubilantly announced on Twitter, “Case reopened.”

‘This Changes Everything’

Donald J. Trump at an Oct. 28 rally in Maine, where he said of the reopening of the Clinton email investigation, “This changes everything.” CreditStephen Crowley/The New York Times

The Clinton team was outraged. Even at the F.B.I., agents who supported their high-profile director were stunned. They knew the letter would call into question the F.B.I.’s political independence.

Mr. Trump immediately mentioned it on the campaign trail. “As you might have heard,” Mr. Trump told supporters in Maine, “earlier today, the F.B.I. … ” The crowd interrupted with a roar. Everyone had heard.

Polls almost immediately showed Mrs. Clinton’s support declining. Presidential races nearly always tighten in the final days, but some political scientists reported a measurable “Comey effect.”

“This changes everything,” Mr. Trump said.

Mr. Comey explained in an email to his agents that Congress needed to be notified. “It would be misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record,” he wrote.

But many agents were not satisfied.

At the Justice Department, career prosecutors and political appointees privately criticized not only Mr. Comey for sending the letter but also Ms. Lynch and Ms. Yates for not stopping him. Many saw the letter as the logical result of years of not reining him in.

Mr. Comey told Congress that he had no idea how long the email review would take, but Ms. Lynch promised every resource needed to complete it before Election Day.

At the F.B.I., the Clinton investigative team was reassembled, and the Justice Department obtained a warrant to read emails to or from Mrs. Clinton during her time at the State Department. As it turned out, only about 50,000 emails met those criteria, far fewer than anticipated, officials said, and the F.B.I. had already seen many of them.

Mr. Comey was again under fire. Former Justice Department officials from both parties wrote a Washington Post op-ed piece titled “James Comey Is Damaging Our Democracy.”

At a Justice Department memorial for Mr. Margolis, organizers removed all the chairs from the stage, avoiding the awkward scene of Mr. Comey sitting beside some of his sharpest critics.

Jamie S. Gorelick, a deputy attorney general during the Clinton administration, eulogized Mr. Margolis for unfailingly following the rules, even when facing unpopular options. Audience members heard it as a veiled critique of both Mr. Comey and Ms. Lynch.

On Nov. 5, three days before Election Day, Mr. Strzok and his team had 3,000 emails left to review. That night, they ordered pizza and dug in. At about 2 a.m., Mr. Strzok wrote an email to Mr. Comey and scheduled it to send at 6 a.m. They were finished.

A few hours later, Mr. Strzok and his team were back in Mr. Comey’s conference room for a final briefing: Only about 3,000 emails had been potentially work-related. A dozen or so email chains contained classified information, but the F.B.I. had already seen it.

And agents had found no emails from the BlackBerry server during the crucial period when Mrs. Clinton was at the State Department.

Nothing had changed what Mr. Comey had said in July.

That conclusion was met with a mixture of relief and angst. Everyone at the meeting knew that the question would quickly turn to whether Mr. Comey’s letter had been necessary.

That afternoon, Mr. Comey sent a second letter to Congress. “Based on our review,” he wrote, “we have not changed our conclusions.”

Political Consequences

Mr. Comey appearing in March at a House Intelligence Committee hearing on Russian interference in the presidential election. CreditZach Gibson/Getty Images

Mr. Comey did not vote on Election Day, records show, the first time he skipped a national election, according to friends. But the director of the F.B.I. was a central story line on every television station as Mr. Trump swept to an upset victory.

Many factors explained Mr. Trump’s success, but Mrs. Clinton blamed just one. “Our analysis is that Comey’s letter — raising doubts that were groundless, baseless, proven to be — stopped our momentum,” she told donors a few days after the election. She pointed to polling data showing that late-deciding voters chose Mr. Trump in unusually large numbers.

Even many Democrats believe that this analysis ignores other factors, but at the F.B.I., the accusation stung. Agents are used to criticism and second-guessing. Rarely has the agency been accused of political favoritism or, worse, tipping an election.

For all the attention on Mrs. Clinton’s emails, history is likely to see Russian influence as the more significant story of the 2016 election. Questions about Russian meddling and possible collusion have marred Mr. Trump’s first 100 days in the White House, cost him his national security adviser and triggered two congressional investigations. Despite Mr. Trump’s assertions that “Russia is fake news,” the White House has been unable to escape its shadow.

Mr. Comey has told friends that he has no regrets, about either the July news conference or the October letter or his handling of the Russia investigation. Confidants like Mr. Richman say he was constrained by circumstance while “navigating waters in which every move has political consequences.”

But officials and others close to him also acknowledge that Mr. Comey has been changed by the tumultuous year.

Early on Saturday, March 4, the president accused Mr. Obama on Twitter of illegally wiretapping Trump Tower in Manhattan. Mr. Comey believed the government should forcefully denounce that claim. But this time he took a different approach. He asked the Justice Department to correct the record. When officials there refused, Mr. Comey followed orders and said nothing publicly.

“Comey should say this on the record,” said Tommy Vietor, a National Security Council spokesman in the Obama administration. “He’s already shattered all norms about commenting on ongoing investigations.”

Mr. Richman sees no conflict, but rather “a consistent pattern of someone trying to act with independence and integrity, but within established channels.”

“His approach to the Russia investigation fits this pattern,” he added.

But perhaps the most telling sign that Mr. Comey may have had enough of being Washington’s Lone Ranger occurred last month before the House Intelligence Committee.

Early in the hearing, Mr. Comey acknowledged for the first time what had been widely reported: The F.B.I. was investigating members of the Trump campaign for possible collusion with Russia.

Yet the independent-minded F.B.I. director struck a collaborative tone. “I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm,” he began, ushering in the next phase of his extraordinary moment in national politics.

Mr. Comey was still in the spotlight, but no longer alone.

Houston woman (White Feminist, White Idiot) graduating from medical school plans to ‘wed’ her diploma

HOUSTON – A Houston woman graduating from medical school this year plans to marry her diploma.

Angie Hamouie, 27, is graduating from the University of Texas Medical School on May 13, and she’s planning a gradu-wedding.

Hamouie told Cosmopolitan magazine she plans wear an ivory dress, walk into her reception with the framed diploma, toss a bouquet, and even “feed (her diploma) cake.”


The event is expected to cost around $3,000, but her family is helping cover costs, Cosmopolitan reports.

Hamouie will soon move to Washington D.C. to start her Georgetown Ob-Gyn residency.

She told Cosmopolitan the medical school graduation — and the culmination of nine years of higher education — was just as important a milestone as marriage.

“I worried that folks wouldn’t take my party seriously because it was ‘only’ a graduation,” Hamouie told Cosmopolitan.

She acknowledged that not everyone might understand the idea: “For anyone who thinks the graduwedding idea is nuts, I say of course it is!” she said. “I shouldn’t have to pretend I’m marrying a piece of paper to convince folks that this achievement is a big deal. The goal of the graduwedding is to make people pause to think why we don’t celebrate graduations as big as weddings, even though they represent so much.”

Hamouie has a graduwedding website with all the details of her event, and is asking that instead of gifts, guests donate to kids’ education causes.

Why the Patriots could owe money to Aaron Hernandez



In the wake of Aaron Hernandez’s death, the New England Patriots might be forced to pay his family a significant sum of money. This stems from a quirk of Massachusetts law that requires Hernandez’s 2013 conviction for the first-degree murder of Odin Lloyd to be voided.

Once the process for vacating that conviction is completed, all of Hernandez’s legal affairs will be concluded. That will clear the way for the longstanding dispute over his payment between the NFL Players Association and the Patriots to play out. According to the NFLPA, there are three outstanding grievances involving Hernandez and the Patriots. How these are resolved will determine what, if any, money changes hands.

The Patriots released Hernandez on June 26, 2013, less than two hours after he was arrested for the Lloyd murder. That set off a series of moves involving Hernandez’s $40 million contract extension, which was signed a year earlier and included guaranteed bonus money. After the arrest, the team refused to make a bonus payment of $3.25 million, leading the NFLPA to file a grievance over the money. The team responded with its own grievance, seeking the return of all funds paid to Hernandez under the contract extension. The union would file a second grievance on behalf of Hernandez, seeking the payment of an $82,000 workout bonus.

NFLPA spokesman George Atallah told ESPN that the grievances were “put on hold” until Hernandez’s murder cases were concluded. That process may now move forward. (The Patriots did not immediately respond for comment.) This is a complicated scenario that raises many legal questions:

Why is the NFLPA still concerned about Hernandez?

The NFL Players Association works for Hernandez just as it would work for any player in a contract dispute with a team over bonuses and salary. The NFLPA is obligated to pursue any money he may have been owed.

What is the process for resolving these grievances?

They are decided by an arbitrator. Each side will present evidence and there will be a nonpublic hearing. This arbitration process is established and defined in the collective bargaining agreement between the owners and the players. The arbitrator’s decision is final. This process will likely conclude before the end of 2017.

NFL contracts typically have “conduct clauses” allowing teams to not pay players who have run afoul of the law. How would that impact Hernandez?

The standard player contract in the NFL provides that both the team and the league may take action against the player for any “conduct detrimental” to the sport of professional football. Both an arrest for murder and a conviction for murder qualify as “conduct detrimental.” Under this clause, the Patriots may terminate the contract and release Hernandez, which they did immediately.

NFL contracts are not guaranteed. A release of the player ends the team’s obligation to pay him the salary described in the contract. But bonus clauses are separate and frequently obligate the team to pay the bonuses even when the player is guilty of “conduct detrimental.”

So what are the chances that Hernandez’s estate wins money from the Patriots?

It is difficult to predict the outcome of a dispute over a contract bonus without knowing the language of the bonus clause, but former Falcons quarterback Michael Vick was successful in a roughly similar grievance that resulted from his arrest and guilty plea in a dogfighting prosecution. The language in his bonus clause demanded that he be paid, regardless of circumstances. So however illegal or “detrimental” his actions may have been, the Falcons were forced to pay most of the bonus money.

What happens in the Hernandez situation will depend both on the specific language of his contract and the arbitrator’s interpretation of it.

Does Hernandez’s murder conviction being vacated have any impact on the grievance process?

The only effect is that the grievances may now go through the arbitration process. They had been on hold pending the resolution of Hernandez’s criminal cases.

Why must Hernandez’s conviction for the Lloyd murder be vacated?

Under an ancient principle of Anglo-Saxon and American law, a person convicted of a crime must be allowed to complete an appeal of the conviction. Not all states still follow this principle, but Massachusetts does.

In 2015, Hernandez was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life without parole for the killing of Lloyd. But at the time of his death Wednesday, Hernandez was in the process of pursuing an appeal. It had little hope of succeeding. Hernandez would have had to show that the judge made a serious error, but the judge in the Lloyd trial was careful to give him and his lawyers almost everything they requested. If she made any errors, they likely hurt the prosecution.

Nevertheless, because Hernandez is no longer able to complete the appeal, the conviction cannot stand. The local district attorney has the right to contest the conviction’s voiding, but it most likely will be vacated under well-established principles of Massachusetts law.

What is the effect of Hernandez’s death on the lawsuits that the families of the three murder victims filed against him?

The families who sued Hernandez for the wrongful deaths of their sons and brothers already faced a daunting task. Hernandez’s death makes their quests even more difficult. If Hernandez were still alive, the family of Odin Lloyd could have relied on the evidence presented in the trial in 2015 that resulted in Hernandez’s conviction and sentence. Under a legal doctrine known as “collateral estoppel,” Hernandez would have been barred from denying that he killed Lloyd. The Lloyd family would have been entitled to an instant ruling that Hernandez was responsible for the death, and the trial jury would have decided only the amount of money damages.

But Hernandez’s death will eliminate the murder conviction and prevent Lloyd’s family from relying on the evidence presented in the trial. Instead, the family faces the enormously expensive prospect of reassembling the massive quantity of evidence that prosecutors presented to the jury in 2015.

The families of the 2012 murder victims in Boston, Daniel de Abreu and Safiro Furtado, are also suing Hernandez and face an even more difficult challenge. Last week, a jury in Boston ruled that Hernandez was not guilty of the two killings. The burden of proof in a civil case is lower than in a criminal trial, but presenting the evidence necessary to prove that Hernandez more likely than not killed de Abreu and Furtado will be expensive and difficult.

What about the families’ ability to win money?

This depends in part on the resolution of Hernandez’s grievances with the NFL.

As of now, the Hernandez estate most likely has few assets that could be collected. Hernandez spent a huge sum on the attorneys who defended him in the two trials, and it will be difficult for the families to find any other Hernandez assets. His friends, lawyers and advisers have had nearly four years to hide whatever he has.

If Hernandez’s estate is awarded money from the Patriots, though, those dollars could be in play.

What is the effect of Hernandez’s death on his NFL pension?

Hernandez was entitled to a pension based on playing at least three years in the NFL. The pension will be paid to his 4-year-old daughter, who was named as his beneficiary in the event of his death. The child’s mother, Shayanna Jenkins-Hernandez, will act on the child’s behalf until she is 18 years old. Federal law stipulates that pension payments are immune from being collected as the result of a civil suit, so there is no risk of Hernandez’s family losing the payments.