Archive for the ‘Jim Comey’ Category

It’s virtually impossible to take Jim Clapper or Jim Comey seriously. A day after Michael Horowitz’s DOJ IG report excoriated Comey, Jim Clapper attempted to come to Comey’s rescue saying “I think he did what he thought was the right thing. Yeah, it violated the standard protocols and procedures of the FBI. I don’t think there’s a rule book, though, for this extraordinary situation involving potential, and emphasize potential, criminality of a president.”

That’s BS from Clapper and he knows it. It’s sanctimoniousness, too. Pretending that the counterintelligence investigation was legitimate doesn’t fly. People understand that the thing that got it started, the Steele Dossier, was utterly discredited over a year ago. That thing is a dead horse and there’s no way to revive it like Jesus revived Lazarus. This is BS, too:

“So Jim did what he thought was the right thing to do for the country. Now, one man’s leaker is another man’s whistleblower. And in this case, I think he was whistle-blowing to the public. We would not have known what we’ve since learned, I think, were it not for the action that Jim took,” he added.

Clapper knows that there’s a procedure that whistleblowers follow. It’s actually a pretty well-designed system. This is key to understanding whistleblower status:

Under this framework, intelligence community whistleblowers are not protected from retaliation if they raise “differences of opinions concerning public policy matters,” but are protected if they raise violations of laws, rules, or regulations.

That’s a pretty wide gulf between what’s protected and what isn’t protected. If Comey thought that President Trump was violating the law, then it’s Comey’s obligation to invoke whistleblower status.

It’s clear that Comey’s complaints fit into the “differences of opinion” category. Therefore, Clapper’s statement doesn’t pass the laugh test. Further, Clapper knew that the Dossier was trash. Anything built with that as a foundation was junk. This is mostly about people simply hating Trump on a deep personal level. This has nothing to do with saving the nation from a madman.

What wooden stakes are to vampires, the Mueller hearings, especially the House Judiciary Committee’s hearing, is to impeachment. When John Ratcliffe asked Special Counsel Mueller what other person (besides President Trump) had the burden of proving themselves innocent, Mueller replied that nobody has had that burden imposed on them. Rep. Ratcliffe asked that in reference to Andrew Weissmann’s statement that, while they didn’t indict President Trump, they didn’t exonerate him, either.

Each time Special Counsel Mueller couldn’t (or wouldn’t) answer key questions about Weissmann’s investigation, a little impeachment momentum disappeared into the ether. Once it’s gone, it isn’t returning. While Speaker Pelosi tries propping up her chairmen, she knows that impeachment is dead. She can put tons of perfume on that pig, it’s still just a pig. Here’s how Pelosi tried propping up Chairman Schiff and Chairman Nadler:

“The American people now realize more fully the crimes that were committed against our Constitution,” Pelosi said in the Capitol of Mueller’s testimony. “It is a crossing of a threshold in terms of the public awareness of what happened,” she later said during a news conference following Mueller’s testimony.

With little due respect to the Botox lady by the Bay, the hearings had the same effect on articles of impeachment that cold water has on campfires. If you want to watch Ms. Pelosi’s nauseating press conference, you can watch it here:

It’s easy to pile on Robert Mueller this morning. I’ve already done that in other posts so I won’t continue with that. That being said, the real villains in this travesty are the activists in the Resist Movement, Jerry Nadler, Adam Schiff and other Democrats, Rod Rosenstein (who never should’ve offered Mueller the position), the FBI lovebirds (Strzok and Page), Andrew McCabe, Andrew Weissman and Jim Comey.

Without these disgusting people, there wouldn’t have been a special counsel appointment. But I digress. Another thing that needs to be highlighted is the discipline that Republican members of the Judiciary and Intel committees showed yesterday. They shined like I’ve never seen them shine before.

Usually, politicians participating in high profile hearings specialize in grandstanding. That didn’t happen Wednesday. Each member focused like a laser on a specific topic in their attempt to elicit new information. That’s the new model that Republicans should adopt for high profile hearings from now on.

House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler also said his committee would go to court Thursday to seek access to grand jury material in the Mueller report and to enforce a subpoena against former White House Counsel Don McGahn to try to get him to testify. “Today was a watershed day in telling the facts to the American people. With those facts we can proceed,” Nadler said — although he, too, stopped short of calling for impeachment.

Stick a wooden stake in that impeachment vampire. It’s dead. CPR won’t resuscitate this patient, either. Fill our the toe tag for impeachment. Unless Democrats want to lose the House again in a landslide.

Robert Mueller has a big problem that he can’t get rid of. When I say big, I’m talking about 6’8″ of a problem. His name is Jim Comey and, if Republicans choose to go this direction, Robert Mueller will have lots of uncomfortable explaining to do tomorrow. It isn’t that Comey is in Mueller’s report — except in Mueller’s footnotes.

Eric Felten of RealClearInvestigations, aka RCI, painstakingly reviewed the Mueller Report. What he found is especially noteworthy:

One of the bedrock decisions investigators must make in complex probes filled with incomplete and contradictory accounts is whom to believe. Dozens of footnotes in the Mueller report make it clear that the special counsel placed absolute faith in former FBI Director James Comey.

Dozens of the footnotes refer to memos Comey wrote recording his account of meetings and phone calls with President Trump. These include memos dated Jan. 7 and Jan. 28, 2017, as well as notes from Feb. 14, March 30 and April 11. Those memoranda were treated as the evidentiary gold standard by Mueller. Long stretches of the special counsel’s report hang almost exclusively on Comey’s say-so. One or another of Comey’s memos are cited some three dozen times in Volume II alone, which addresses possible obstruction by Trump. Mueller relies on Comey memos in footnotes 109, 110, 111, and 112, and then in footnotes 172, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182 and so on. Comey was also interviewed by the FBI and numerous are the footnotes — 68, 108, 109-112, 176-78, 180-82 and more, anchoring the narrative in his testimony.

If Comey is the verification anchor of Mueller’s report, then Comey isn’t an anchor. He’s a millstone — around Mueller’s neck. Here’s why:

Mueller relied so heavily on Comey’s memos that he felt the need to argue the superior believability of the former FBI head’s version of events. He uses legal citations that “contemporaneous written notes can provide strong corroborating evidence” and that “a witness’s recitation of his account before he had any motive to fabricate also supports the witness’s credibility.” Perhaps. But Comey was not a disinterested observer. As Paul Sperry reports for RealClearInvestigations, citing sources familiar with an internal Justice Department review, the FBI director Trump inherited was secretly trying to build a conspiracy case against the president.

Which means that Comey was writing his memos with an eye to swaying future legal and public opinion. Upon finishing a memo, he would run it by his top deputies (see footnotes 187 and 188 in Volume II) to make sure it served its purpose. Comey’s memos may or may not be the “strong corroborating evidence” Mueller claims, but Comey surely intended for those memoranda to establish his version of events.

Contemporaneous notes aren’t corroborative in and of themselves. If the ‘corroboration’ comes from a liar and a demagogue, they’d quickly turn into the aforementioned millstone. Put another way, GIGO, aka Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Put yet another way, trusting Comey’s insights of an investigation into the man who fired him is as foolish as relying on Michael Cohen’s testimony. The only person stupid enough to trust Comey or Cohen are people with a gun to their proverbial head. Add into that the fact that it was just discovered that Comey lied to President Trump while targeting President Trump:

Two U.S. officials briefed on the inspector general’s investigation of possible FBI misconduct said Comey was essentially “running a covert operation against” the president, starting with a private “defensive briefing” he gave Trump just weeks before his inauguration. They said Horowitz has examined high-level FBI text messages and other communications indicating Comey was actually conducting a “counterintelligence assessment” of Trump during that January 2017 meeting in New York.

If this is accurate, then what little was left of Comey’s credibility is gone. Subsequently, the credibility of Mueller’s report would likely evaporate. Mueller should’ve just left well enough alone:

In this opinion piece, former VP Joe Biden wrote that “We are a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants.” He continued, saying “Our country is made up of hard-working, aspirational people from every culture, from every nation — and that is an indisputable strength. There’s no better example of the richness that’s possible when the United States is closely knit together with our neighbors in Latin America and the Caribbean than the city of Miami.”

After that, Sleepy Joe gets a little confusing. He said “That starts by recognizing that DREAMers are Americans, and Congress needs to make it official. The millions of undocumented people in the United States can only be brought out of the shadows through fair treatment, not ugly threats.” Which is it, Joe? Are we a nation of laws or are we supposed to ignore people that are now flooding into the US due to loopholes in our asylum laws? Those folks aren’t DREAMers. They’re an entirely new categorization of illegal immigrants.

Our asylum system needs to be improved, but the answer is to streamline and strengthen it so that it benefits legitimate claims of those fleeing persecution, while reducing potential for abuse.

Joe’s actually right for a change. Our asylum system needs to be improved. Why Biden doesn’t tell Democrats to get off their posteriors and help fix the problem is puzzling, though. Thus far, Democrats have done exactly nothing to fix that crisis. Then there’s this:

And it’s imperative that we secure our borders, but “Build the wall” is a slogan divorced from reality.

National security isn’t Joe’s strength. The MSM reports it to be but former Defense Secretary Robert Gates said “I think he’s been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue of over the past four decades.”

It won’t stop the flow of illegal narcotics or human trafficking, both of which come primarily through legal ports of entry. Nor will it stop asylum seekers fleeing the most desperate conditions imaginable and who have the right to have their cases heard. Nor will it stem the numbers of undocumented, most of whom overstay legal visas.

This isn’t difficult to translate. The Obama-Biden administration did virtually nothing to fix asylum laws. They didn’t build the wall, which is essential. (Joe says it isn’t. Israel says it’s highly successful. I’ll side with the Israelis.)

Under Trump, there have been horrifying scenes at the border of kids being kept in cages, tear-gassing asylum seekers, ripping children from their mothers’ arms — actions that subvert American values and erode our ability to lead on the global stage.

Joe, it isn’t President Trump’s fault that the MSM showed pictures of children in cages that were from the Obama-Biden administration. You, not President Trump, locked kids in cages:

Biden suffers from Democrat Syndrome. Its prominent tell-tale sign is the inability to tell the truth. That’s been a frequent problem with Joe. He’s a serial plagiarist. He’s campaigned by telling blacks that Mitt Romney wanted to “put y’all back in chains”:

The good news is that VP Biden isn’t the strongest frontrunner I’ve ever seen. Then again, he isn’t running against a strong group of candidates. This might be the worst list of presidential candidates that the Democrats have ever put forward.

It’s indisputable that the US is a nation of immigrants. What’s disputable is whether we’re a nation of laws anymore. It’s disputable because former FBI Director Jim Comey appropriated the authority given to the Attorney General. It’s disputable because the FBI used information that it knew was fraudulent to get a warrant to surveil the Trump campaign. Further, the FBI got that warrant by telling the FISA Court that the fraudulent information had been verified.

That isn’t what a nation of laws does. That’s what a bunch of criminals do.

This article highlights the things that the leftists want us to ignore.

It opens by saying “President Donald Trump has repeatedly said that his administration is the ‘most transparent in history,’ and that it has ‘cooperated totally’ with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, or words to that effect. But the truth is quite the opposite. No prior administration has pushed the envelope of the law to deflect outside scrutiny to the same degree as this one. In a recent letter from the White House to the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, the president, in effect, rejected the entire notion of congressional oversight as illegitimately political: ‘Congressional investigations are intended to obtain information to aid in evaluating potential legislation, not to harass political opponents or to pursue an unauthorized ‘do-over’ of exhaustive law enforcement investigations conducted by the Department of Justice.'”

This Democrat apparently thinks that whatever House Democrats do in investigating is fine even if the Mueller Report was supposed to be the be-all-end-all of investigations. When the report didn’t deliver the impeachment goods that Democrats were looking for, House Democrats launched a full frontal assault on the Trump administration, issuing 81 subpoenas for documents from people who either haven’t been in office ever or who aren’t in office anymore.

That’s the definition of a fishing expedition. Feel free to call it a witch hunt instead if that’s your preference.

By contrast, prior presidents understood that respect for the rule of law means, in the end, complying with the law, no matter what the cost. That was true even of those under investigation, such as President Bill Clinton. And I should know—I was a member of the team led by Independent Counsel Ken Starr that investigated him.

President Trump didn’t utilize executive privilege while the Mueller investigation was happening. The Clinton administration invoked executive privilege frequently. President Trump made his personal staff available for interviews. President Clinton didn’t allow his personal staff to meet with Mr. Starr’s investigators.

Mr. Rosenzweig should stop trying to rewrite history.

Consider, by way of example and comparison, Clinton’s use of executive privilege—a privilege that Trump has also invoked in recent days to frustrate the House’s effort to get the unredacted version of the Mueller report. Just what is executive privilege, and why do we have it?

Notice the subtlety. President Clinton invoked executive privilege while the grand jury was seated. President Trump invoked executive privilege after Mueller had wrapped up its investigation.

That’s a significant difference. President Clinton protected his high-ranking staff from grand jury exposure. President Trump didn’t protect his senior staff in that way.

It isn’t a matter of if in terms of whether Mueller, Clapper, Comey and Brennan testify. Mueller will testify before Congress. Comey, Clapper and Brennan will testify before a grand jury. Sen. Graham and Mr. Durham will have them sweating bullets.

Democrats know that they’re sort of fine if they stick to their talking points. Democrats know that they’re in trouble the minute they’re pushed off their talking points.

Gregg Jarrett’s opinion piece reached a stunning conclusion when Jarrett said “The special counsel publicly besmirched the president with tales of suspicious behavior instead of stated evidence that rose to the level of criminality. This is what prosecutors are never permitted to do. Justice Department rules forbid its lawyers from annunciating negative narratives about any person, absent an indictment.”

When Jim Comey announced that he wouldn’t indict Hillary Clinton, he first said that HRC had done some illegal things. Then he finished by saying that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring charges against HRC. Back then, there were howls from the legal community, saying that the DOJ speaks in indictments. They don’t list things that a person did that were shady but that, in the end, the person wasn’t a criminal. Here’s Comey’s press conference ‘exonerating’ HRC:

Today’s performance by Bob Mueller was Act II of Jim Comey’s disgraceful exoneration of HRC. Mueller included in his report 10 instances of President Trump obstructing justice. In each of those instances, Mueller didn’t make a decision. Notice that I didn’t say that he didn’t indict. I said that Mueller refused to even make a decision.

Instead, in each of these instances, Mueller made the case for and against indicting President Trump of obstruction of justice. Then he essentially said that it was up to Congress to make the final decision. By comparison, when Kenneth Starr issued his report, he noted that then-President Clinton had committed 11 crimes, 6 of which were obstruction of justice charges.

Starr didn’t indict Clinton. He merely told the House of Representatives that Clinton had committed those crimes. Jarrett continues:

How can that person properly defend himself without trial? This is why prosecutors like Mueller are prohibited from trying their cases in the court of public opinion. If they have probable cause to levy charges, they should do so. If not, they must refrain from openly disparaging someone that our justice system presumes is innocent. In this regard, Mueller shrewdly and improperly turned the law on its head. Consider the most inflammatory statement that he leveled at the president in his report.

Again, Mueller’s thinking is out-of-step with the Constitution. The Bill of Rights presumes that a person is innocent until proven guilty. According to Mueller’s thinking, Trump was guilty until he was exonerated. That’s bassackwards and then some.

Everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence. It is the bedrock on which justice is built. Prosecutors must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. To bring charges they must have, at minimum, probable cause to believe that a crime was committed. The special counsel took this inviolate principle and cleverly inverted it. He argued that he could not prove the president did not commit a crime.

Today is a sad day for the rule of law. Today, a special counsel decided he had the right to ignore the Bill of Rights. Today, a special counsel thought he was Jim Comey’s stand-in.

When it comes to tormented logic, it’s difficult to find ‘logic’ more tormented than Jim Comey’s logic. Tuesday, Mr. Comey wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post that sounded totally defensive.

In his op-ed, Mr. Comey wrote “The conspiracy theory makes no sense. The FBI wasn’t out to get Donald Trump. It also wasn’t out to get Hillary Clinton. It was out to do its best to investigate serious matters while walking through a vicious political minefield. But go ahead, investigate the investigators, if you must. When those investigations are over, they will find the work was done appropriately and focused only on discerning the truth of very serious allegations.”

Mr. Comey, you’re either a sanctimonious egotist or you’re too stupid to be the director of the FBI. It’s sad to think that someone this warped was once the director of the world’s premier law enforcement agency. Let’s get Trey Gowdy straighten him out on Mr. Comey’s allegations:

Democrats have started their whisper campaign, asking ‘what happens if they investigate this and it comes up empty? Will Republicans accept that outcome?’ That’s the definition of a whisper campaign. That won’t happen this time because serious people like Trey Gowdy, John Ratcliffe and Lindsey Graham have seen the documents that will be declassified.

That’s entirely different than Adam Schiff saying that he’d seen evidence that was “more than circumstantial”:

The truth is that nobody has seen this phantom evidence. The Mueller team of investigators and prosecutors didn’t find it. If they had, they would’ve prosecuted the people involved. That didn’t happen.

The truth is that Mssrs. Gowdy, Graham and Ratcliffe are honest people of integrity. Mr. Schiff is a political hack with a high security clearance.

Mr. Comey has written op-ed after op-ed, done townhalls, during which he’s said things that weren’t credible. If I didn’t know better, I’d think that he was trying to poison potential jurors with his antics and propaganda. Innocent people don’t act defense attorneys like Mr. Comey is doing. Mr. Comey is protesting too much.

Now that AG William Barr is investigating whether President Obama’s political appointees acted improperly in starting the surveillance into Carter Page, the same suspects (literally) are resurfacing with the same discredited excuses. Byron York’s article asks all the right pointed questions.

The article, though, starts by saying “In February 2018, the House Intelligence Committee released the so-called Nunes memo. In four pages, the document, from the committee’s then-chairman Rep. Devin Nunes, revealed much of what the public knows today about the FBI’s reliance on the Steele dossier in pursuing since-discredited allegations that the Trump campaign and Russia conspired to fix the 2016 election. Specifically, it revealed that the FBI included unverified material from the dossier in applications to a secret spy court to win a warrant to wiretap Trump foreign policy volunteer adviser Carter Page. All that was classified. To release it, the committee appealed to President Trump, who made a declassification order. That is the only way Americans know about the Page warrant. From that knowledge came later revelations about the FBI’s use of confidential informants and undercover agents to get information on Trump campaign figures.”

Now the same doomsayers are back predicting more gloom:

Now, some of the same people are issuing somber warnings of the damage that will be done if Attorney General William Barr declassifies documents showing what else the nation’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies did in the 2016 Trump investigation.

I’m shocked to hear Brennan, Clapper and Comey are using alarmist tones about exposing national security secrets. Coming from them, it rings hollow. Byron York explains in this interview:

We’ve heard this refrain before. Yes, we should handle this information with the greatest of care. No, we shouldn’t trust the most untrustable trio of partisan hacks in US intelligence history.

Earlier tonight, President Trump “ordered U.S. intelligence officials to cooperate with Attorney General William Barr’s investigation into ‘surveillance activities’ directed at the president’s 2016 campaign.”

Let the finger-pointing begin. Comey, Clapper and Brennan are already attempting to incriminate each other. In the end, I suspect that they’ll each be ‘successful’, with each of them getting prosecuted and convicted or getting prosecuted and flipping on the other 2. Either way, the chances of this turning out well for that trio isn’t high.

Let’s get serious about this for a minute. Democrat spinmeisters point to the DOJ’s IG report and insist that it’s a comprehensive report on the origins of the faux investigation. It isn’t because it isn’t exhaustive. It can’t reach the places that the AG’s investigation can get to. First, the IG can’t call in people from all of the IC agencies. It’s limited by statute to the agency it’s assigned to.

Next, the IG can’t interview people who worked inside the DOJ but have since left. That means the IG can’t interview the central figures in the investigation. Specifically, it prohibits the IG from interviewing Comey, Lynch, McCabe, Strzok and Page. Ditto with Clapper and Brennan.

Trump also gave Barr “full and complete authority” to declassify information related to the investigation, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement. The notice comes as Barr is conducting a review of what he has described as “spying” on members of the Trump campaign during the investigation into Russian interference.

Sanders said Trump had directed the intelligence community to “quickly and fully” cooperate with the investigation at Barr’s own request. “Today’s action will help ensure that all Americans learn the truth about the events that occurred, and the actions that were taken, during the last Presidential election and will restore confidence in our public institutions,” Sanders said.

This gives Attorney General Barr wide latitude to investigate the investigators. Last Sunday, Trey Gowdy made a rather interesting prediction during Maria Bartiromo’s show:

Considering the fact that Trey Gowdy a) has seen these documents and b) is one of the most honest people to ever serve in Congress, I’m betting that there’s some former employees of the FBI and the IC who should be exceptionally worried.

John Solomon’s article on Christopher Steele’s dossier asks the question of who knew what and when:

Multiple sources confirm to me that the recipient of the State Department email was Special Agent Stephen Laycock, then the FBI’s section chief for Eurasian counterintelligence and now one of the bureau’s top executives as the assistant director for intelligence under Director Christopher Wray. The email to Laycock from Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kathleen Kavalec arrived eight days before the FBI swore to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that it had no derogatory information on Steele and used his anti-Trump dossier to secure a secret surveillance warrant to investigate Trump’s possible ties to Moscow.

Officials tell me that Laycock immediately forwarded the information he received about Steele on Oct. 13, 2016, to the FBI team leading the Trump-Russia investigation, headed by then-fellow Special Agent Peter Strzok. Laycock was the normal point of contact for Kavalec on Eurasian counterintelligence matters, and he simply acted as a conduit to get the information to his colleagues supervising the Russia probe, the officials added.

This information on Steele was known well before Jim Comey signed off on the first FISA warrant application against Carter Page.

At the time, Comey “swore to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that it had no derogatory information on Steele and used his anti-Trump dossier to secure a secret surveillance warrant to investigate Trump’s possible ties to Moscow.” That’s a lie. John Solomon’s reporting, including the email from Kathleen Kavalec to Stephen Laycock, shows that the FBI knew that Steele wasn’t reliable. Comey testified the opposite. He testified that Steele was totally reliable. That testimony is discredited, to put it nicely.

If Solomon’s reporting is accurate, and thus far, it has been, Comey’s in big trouble. Lying on a FISA warrant application is bad enough. Lying on a FISA warrant application to spy on a presidential campaign is a total no-no. What’s most frightening is that, if they can do this to the president of the United States, they can do this to anyone.

Kevin Brock, the former FBI assistant director for intelligence, said the State Department’s email in October 2016 ordinarily should have triggered the FBI to reevaluate Steele as a source. “This is quite important,” Brock said. “Under normal circumstances, when you get information about the conduct of your source that gives rise to questions about their reliability or truthfulness, you usually go back and reevaluate their dependability and credibility.”

This isn’t unravelling the way Adam Schiff, Elijah Cummings or Jerry Nadler hoped it would. They didn’t think that Barr would go on the offensive. They thought wrong. Finding out if the Obama administration cut corners to help Hillary get elected is the right thing to do. Now, Nadler, Cummings and Schiff are put in the position of defending the indefensible. They deserve that fate.