Archive for the ‘Paul Sperry’ Category

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:

Let’s just be blunt about something. Adam Schiff is the Democrats’ political hack if choice. He’s been exposed as this generation’s Lanny Davis. (That isn’t a compliment.) This morning, Schiff called to order a hearing of the House Intelligence Committee. I’d call that hearing room a virtually intelligence-free zone but that’s obvious of any room with Schiff in it.

This article highlights how Devin Nunes blew Schiff’s smears to smithereens. This isn’t that difficult since Schiff’s premise was discredited months ago. Schiff is the partisan who just … can’t … let … go … of Russian collusion. They’ll have to pry Russiagate from his cold, dead fingers. He’s that desperate for a place in history. (The only thing that history books will remember about Schiff is that he’s the Democrats’ favorite partisan hack.)

Meanwhile, Nunes took Schiff apart. Here’s what Nunes said:

One would think the Democrats would simply apologize and get back to lawmaking and oversight but it’s clear they couldn’t stop this grotesque spectacle even if they wanted to. After years of false accusations and McCarthyite smears, the collusion hoax now defines the Democratic Party. The hoax is what they have in place of a governing philosophy or a constructive vision for our country.

Right after Democrats launched their first laughable investigation, Democrats insisted that they were perfectly capable of “walking and chewing gum at the same time.” That isn’t relevant. That question should be whether Democrats are interested in walking and chewing gum at the same time. HINT: They aren’t interested in “walking and chewing gum at the same time.”

This video contains Schiff’s intentionally misleading statements:

Here’s what Sara Carter quoted from the Mueller report debunking Schiff’s intentional lies:

Nunes Lists Democrats Favorite Debunked Conspiracy Theories (Below Is An Excerpt From Nunes Statement)

Unfortunately for Democrats, the Mueller dossier, as I call it, either debunked many of their favorite conspiracy theories or did not even find them worth discussing. These include:

  1. Mueller’s finding that Michael Cohen did not travel to Prague to conspire with Russians. No evidence that Carter Page conspired with Russians.
  2. No mention of Paul Manafort visiting Julian Assange in London.
  3. No mention of secret communications between a Trump Tower computer server and Russia’s Alfa Bank.
  4. And no mention of former NRA lawyer Cleta Mitchell or her supposed knowledge of a scheme to launder Russian money through the NRA for the Trump campaign. Insinuations against Mitchell originated with Fusion GPS chief Glenn Simpson and were first made public in a document published by Democrats on this committee.

Other than those major omissions, I’d treat Chairman Schiff’s statements as though they were Gospel truths.

WOW!!!:


That’s proof positive that Schiff is a partisan Democrat hack. Schiff couldn’t get President Trump so the vindictive wimp trashes innocent victims. What a patriot. Not.