Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Investigations category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Investigations’ Category

When Jim Comey testified behind closed doors, Mr. Comey frequently testified that he didn’t know the answer to the question he was asked or FBI counsel testified that he wasn’t allowed to testify per FBI rules. One such instance got fairly heated. Here it is:

Mr. Gowdy: I think the whole world has read the memo and — or most of the world. My question is whether or not Director Comey — I think he’s already answered he had no conversations with Rod Rosenstein. My question is, whether or not — and he’s entitled to his opinion — whether or not he believes that that framed a sufficient factual basis for his termination as the FBI Director.
Ms. Bessee: He is entitled to his opinion, but to the extent — because he also stated that he is also a witness in the investigation.
Mr. Gowdy: Which investigation is he a witness in?
Ms. Bessee: To the special counsel. He said he is a potential witness.
Mr. Gowdy: Well, you just said witness. Is there an obstruction of justice investigation?
Ms. Bessee: I believe there is an investigation that the special counsel is looking into.
Mr. Gowdy: Well, we all know that. Is it an obstruction of justice investigation?
Ms. Bessee: Mr. Chairman, can you rephrase the question, please?
Mr. Gowdy: Yes. Director Comey, you’re familiar with the memo drafted by Rod Rosenstein. You have not talked to Rod Rosenstein, as I understand your testimony. Do you believe the memo, just on the cold four pages of the memo, four corners of that document, do you believe it provides sufficient basis for your termination? Even if you would have done it differently, is it a basis for your termination?
Mr. Comey: I can’t answer that, Mr. Chairman, because it requires me to get into the mind of the decisionmaker, who is the President, and I’m not in a position to do that.
Mr. Gowdy: Do you have any evidence the memo was subterfuge to fire you, but not for the — but for a different reason?
Mr. Comey: I have no evidence at all about how the memo came to be created. I know that it was part of the documentation that was attached, what was sent to me, delivered to the FBI on the day I was fired. That’s the only thing I have personal knowledge of.

That’s just one of the heated exchanges between Chairman Gowdy, Director Comey and Ms. Bessee. Here’s the entire transcript:


What I found fascinating about this video is Chairman Gowdy’s statistics:

According to Chairman Gowdy, Comey replied “I don’t remember” 71 times, “I don’t know” 166 times and “I don’t recall” 8 times. That’s a pretty pathetic performance for a man leading the premier law enforcement agency in the world. These weren’t insignificant questions about things that happened long ago. They were central questions about major recent investigations that he supposedly headed.

It’s rather disgusting to hear Mr. Comey talk about transparency after hiding behind the FBI’s attorney. It’s clear that the FBI’s attorney’s mission was singular: protect Mueller. The FBI’s attorney didn’t care a whit about informing the public or the committees. She primarily cared about hiding important facts.

After hearing reports that Jim Comey wasn’t answering key questions that Republicans have asked him about, Comey didn’t seem the least bit bothered by his evasiveness. Darrell Issa spoke to reporters about Comey’s attitude, telling reporters “that some lawmakers have been frustrated with the testimony so far and that Comey didn’t seem upset about being told by his lawyers that he doesn’t have to answer certain questions.”

People shouldn’t think that Jim Comey is a man of integrity. He isn’t that. Right after the election, Comey insisted that he’d only testify in an open hearing, saying that he worried about Republicans would selectively leak portions of his answers. Comey pretended to be a warrior for transparency. That doesn’t square with his gleeful evasiveness in not answering the committees’ questions.

I hope that the transcript of the hearing is published soon. I suspect that lots of people want to read it to see which questions Mr. Comey didn’t answer. Let’s be clear about something important. The FBI’s political appointees aren’t men of integrity. Throughout his sham investigation, Robert Mueller has used tactics that people of integrity wouldn’t think of using.

“The details of what’s going on in there will remain private until after the deposition,” Issa said. “… [T]here is an amazing amount of things that reasonably the public will need to know that the Department of Justice and FBI attorney are guiding him not to answer.”

It’s time for the DOJ to stop protecting Comey and the other rats that have infiltrated, then ruined, the FBI. There’s nothing worthwhile about a law enforcement agency that has the ability to destroy its political enemies. Further, there’s nothing worthwhile about an agency that’s willing to turn a blind eye towards the FBI leadership. It’s time to dump the FBI’s leadership so the FBI can start restoring the trust it’s lost over the past 8+ years.

ISSA QUOTE OF THE DAY: “You’re not going to accept the answers as the answers that a forthright individual would give.”

I want to thank Congressman Issa for exposing Dir. Comey’s evasive testimony. It’s now difficult to believe that Mr. Comey is interested in transparency. It’s also impossible to think that the FBI isn’t attempting to hide lots of embarrassing pieces of information, information that’d likely show how corrupt that organization is.

UPDATE: What chutzpah:

If I got paid $10 for each article I’ve read, pundit I’ve heard and montage I’ve watched that’s predicted Mueller was on the verge of slamming the jail cell on President Trump, I’d be rich. This article is just the most recent I’ve seen.

Jill Abramson’s article starts by saying “The rogues’ gallery exposed in Robert Mueller’s court filings last week make the Watergate burglars look positively classy. Even veteran lawyers who were involved in the investigations of Richard Nixon say they’ve never seen this level of chicanery. Most importantly, last week’s events showed that Special Counsel Mueller is getting closer to exposing the scope and depth of it all. His most recent filings make clear that considerable evidence touches the president himself.”

There’s no doubt that some of the people who’ve been investigated (I’m thinking Manafort and Stone mostly) are worthy of society’s disdain. To be blunt, they’re skunks. If both rot in jail the next 50 years, I won’t lose a split-second of sleep over it.

That being said, that being said, neither lead to the promised land. Neither connect President Trump to anything corrupt or criminal. Without proof that President Trump engaged in criminal activity, Mueller’s glass isn’t half-empty or half-full. It’s just empty. As he frequently does, Newt Gingrich nails it with his analysis:

There’s no doubt that Ms. Abramson wishes for Mueller to nail President Trump. Notice how she slithers her opinions into the article as verified fact:

As a candidate, Trump repeatedly reassured voters that he had no business dealings in Russia. But as he uttered those lies, he knew Cohen was planning to sell Russian kleptocrats $250m units in a future Trump Tower Moscow by luring Putin into the project with a free $50m spread. This was all unfolding as emails from Democratic officials, hacked by the Russians, disrupted the Democratic convention and the Republican party was making its party platform much kinder to Russia.

I’d love seeing the documentation or text messages that shows Trump knew what Cohen was doing. Until they have that, they’ve got nothing. Period. Hatred of a person isn’t proof of a crime getting committed.

At some point, the Mueller ‘investigation’ will end. At that time, those of us who appreciate integrity will start telling historians who will listen that Mr. Mueller is a skunk who doesn’t have an ounce of integrity. He’s just a malicious man who’s upset that he wasn’t hired when Jim Comey got fired.

In his USA Today op-ed, Adam Schiff proves that a little paranoia goes a long ways. His op-ed is a litany of conjectures that can’t be verified.

For instance, he wrote “A national security adviser who could be subject to blackmail by Russia is nearly a worst case counterintelligence scenario. But this week, we learned that the potential for compromise was even more significant than we thought. Donald Trump’s longtime personal attorney, Michael Cohen, pleaded guilty to lying to the Intelligence Committee about his efforts on behalf of the Trump Organization to reach a deal and secure financing from a Russian bank under U.S. sanctions to build a Trump Tower Moscow.”

Is it Mr. Schiff’s contention that President Trump’s cancellation of his meeting with President Putin was just pageantry? Thus far, President Trump hasn’t shown any signs of being compromised. In fact, he’s shown the opposite. Later, Schiff wrote this:

Cohen stated in court that he made those false statements to be consistent with the president’s “political messaging,” namely Trump’s vociferous public denials of any business dealings with Russia. And in a recent sentencing memorandum, Cohen’s attorneys concede that he remained “in close and regular contact with the White House-based staff and legal counsel” to Trump in the weeks during which his false testimony to Congress was being prepared.

Cohen is a proven liar. There isn’t a reason why anyone should trust anything he says unless there’s corroboration. After 2 years of investigating, that verification hasn’t been found. While it’s possible that there’s something there, the odds of finding that something seem rather slim.

It’s fair, though, to say that Mr. Schiff loves the sound of his voice:

Now that’s an ego as big as the Grand Canyon. The only thing bigger than Mr. Schiff’s ego is his paranoia.

She isn’t even the Speaker again but Nancy Pelosi is declaring war against President Trump. Rather than attempting to sound a bipartisan tone, “House Democrats’ first order of business in the new Congress will be targeting President Trump’s tax returns, setting the confrontational tone of the lower chamber.”

Democrats want “to get access to Trump’s tax records, with Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, saying the request will be made as soon as Democrats officially take control of the House in January. ‘We need to give every major provision of this new tax law scrutiny that Republicans refused to provide last year,” he said. ‘I think it’s important for our oversight to get those tax returns.'”

Talk about wasting time. Democrats aren’t even trying to dress this up as policy-driven. Expect Democrats to howl that President Trump is hiding something when this bill dies in the Senate. The next step is to declare a need for yet another pointless, counterproductive investigation. If/when that investigation is initiated, expect Ancient Elijah Cummings to lead that witch hunt.

Republicans would be wise to highlight vulnerable Democrats’ participation in these investigations. The ads virtually write themselves. Imagine, too, if those Democrats vote for Ms. Pelosi for Speaker after promising not to vote for her.

The phrase being peddled by Democrats is that they “can walk and chew gum at the same time”, meaning that they can investigate President Trump and still pass (supposedly) popular legislation, too. I’m betting otherwise. I’m betting that they’ll spend tons of time investigating trivial things like President Trump’s tax returns while compromising little and notching little in the way of legislative accomplishments.

Frankly, I can’t picture Elijah Cummings, Jerry Nadler, Adam Schiff or Maxine Waters exercising much investigative restraint.

In this video, Laura Ingraham interviews Judge Ken Starr and former assistant US Attorney Andy McCarthy about Jeff Flake’s bill to ‘protect’ Special Counsel Robert Mueller:

I don’t know what they put in the water in Arizona but something’s making their politicians idiots. It’s also making them ignore the Constitution. Why would a US senator think that he can ‘protect’ an employee of the Executive Branch with a bill that’s only passed by one house of Congress? What Sen. Flake is attempting to do is hold up dozens of highly qualified judges until his bill is debated and voted on.

That’s the definition of negotiating from a position of weakness. Even if he temporarily stops this batch of judges, he can only do so until the new year. After that, he’s no longer a US senator. All President Trump has to do is resubmit these judicial nominees to a larger GOP majority and they’ll sail through. By then, too, the spending bills will have been passed.

Finally, let’s be honest about something important. The Russia collusion scandal will either be ancient history before the 2020 presidential election or the public will have turned against Adam Schiff by then. Every time Democrats, including Sen. Flake, have accused him of wanting to stop Mueller’s investigation, President Trump has said he’ll let the investigation run its course.

I haven’t kept track but I’m betting that this has pattern has repeated itself more than a dozen times. At what point will Democrats and Flake figure it out that they’re seen as blowhards? PS- I’m not even certain that they’ll drop this after Mueller’s report is in their hands.

I agree with Townhall.com’s Katie Pavlich that the Democrats’ smear factory, aka the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Democrats, owe Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh an apology. Unfortunately, that won’t happen. It won’t happen because too many of that Committee’s Democrats have presidential ambitions.

Pavlich is right in quoting the Committee’s report when it said “After an extensive investigation that included the thorough review of all potentially credible evidence submitted and interviews of more than 40 individuals with information relating to the allegations, including classmates and friends of all those involved, Committee investigators found no witness who could provide any verifiable evidence to support any of the allegations brought against Justice Kavanaugh. In other words, following the separate and extensive investigations by both the Committee and the FBI, there was no evidence to substantiate any of the claims of sexual assault made against Justice Kavanaugh.”

It isn’t difficult to predict that House Democrats will open another investigation into the FBI’s investigation of these charges. Jerry Nadler and Elijah Cummings can’t wait to start that investigation. Further, it isn’t difficult to predict that their investigations will produce tons more allegations but no corroborated testimony that verifies the women’s accusations.

It’s difficult to picture the House getting much done during the next 2 years. It isn’t difficult to picture them opening dozens of investigations into the Trump administration. I wouldn’t be surprised, though, if Pelosi insists on passing a corporate tax increase. Here’s why:

Don’t be surprised if House Democrats cause a recession in the next 16-20 months. When Pelosi was speaker the last time, she helped create a financial crisis. We didn’t get out of it until unified Republican government and President Trump’s leadership produced the current surge in economic growth.

This accusation was inevitable. With Keith Ellison trailing heading into the final week of the campaign, it was inevitable that the Ellison campaign would create this type of BS story at the last minute.

According to the article, “For Ryan Durant, a former high school classmate, Wardlow’s views aren’t just a question of policy. They’re personal. Durant remembers Wardlow as a high school bully who repeatedly harassed him for being gay and as the person who mocked him after he attempted suicide in the 10th grade. Both Durant and Wardlow attended Eagan High School and graduated in the class of 1997. In an account corroborated by several other students, Durant, 39, alleges that Wardlow, who is now 40, bullied him for years because of his sexual orientation. He said Wardlow called him derogatory terms like ‘fag’ and ‘faggot,’ and then escalated to more personal insults such as ‘people like you should be shot.'”

Why wasn’t this reported decades ago? Where’s the evidence that this happened? Further, how does Durant explain this?

I categorically deny these allegations about me when I was 14 years old. I never did or said anything remotely like the things alleged. … Clearly, Ryan Durant is politically motivated. In late 2009, before I held any political office and just after I announced my candidacy for State House, Durant posted on Facebook that he would consider voting for me.

The statement continues:

“Now, Durant frequently compares Republicans to Nazis on his Facebook page, and he recently ‘liked’ Ellison attack dog William Davis’s Facebook comment that Republicans should be sent to the guillotines. The change demonstrates that the allegations are politically motivated lies. Ellison has shopped this story to multiple media outlets as a last-minute ‘Hail Mary’ to save his failing campaign. It will not succeed.”

Clearly, Durant is a partisan. Clearly, the Ellison campaign is flailing. If ever there was a match made in heaven, it’s between Durant and Ellison. Ellison won’t admit that he bullied his ex-girlfriend:

Ken Martin won’t admit that his ‘independent’ investigation was a sham. Ryan Durant can’t afford to admit that he’s now a bitter partisan. Whichever way you slice it, this is a match made in political hell.

Last night on Almanac, Ken Martin, the DFL Party Chairman, did his best to appease the #MeToo movement activists while still defending Keith Ellison. Suffice it to say that he didn’t exactly thread the needle. Martin started by saying that all victims of sexual abuse or assault need to be taken seriously, which is why the DFL undertook an “independent investigation” conducted by the DFL’s official law firm.

Martin failed to highlight the fact that the ‘investigating’ law firm has contributed $500,000 to DFL candidates in the past, including $50,000 to Ellison. Then again, what’s a half-million dollars amongst friends, right.

Another thing that Martin didn’t highlight is the fact that Karen Monahan produced evidence of Ellison’s attack by having her doctor release a document that stated she was physically and mentally abused by Keith Ellison. Despite that proof, Martin still doesn’t believe her:

“I support Karen bringing her allegations forward, and I support there being an investigation into those,” Martin said. “We conducted an outside, independent investigation, and that investigation showed we could not substantiate her claim of domestic abuse. And so I do not believe her; I believe our investigation.”

I can’t take seriously an investigation conducted by a highly conflicted law firm. One conservative I talked with put it this way:

You also have the spectacle of a paunchy, bloated DFL chairman Ken Martin telling us he doesn’t believe her. Instead, we are implausibly expected to believe the DFL’s own “outside” investigation of the matter. Yes, the fox has definitely concluded that there is no evidence he was in the hen house on the night in question.

What could possibly go wrong with an investigation like that? Here’s Chairman Martin tap-dancing as best he could:

Calling that investigation an “independent investigation” is insulting. Further, while Martin used a soft tone of voice, the truth is that he still called Ms. Monahan a liar. That’s one of the reasons why I think Martin isn’t a man of integrity.

Another reason I think Martin isn’t a man of integrity is because he’s defending Keith Ellison, a man who has supported cop-killers like Assata Shakur in the past. Martin is defending Ellison for purely partisan reasons. It’s impossible to think he honestly thinks Ellison is an innocent man.

This NYTimes article highlights one of the major differences between a Republican majority in the upcoming House or a Democrat majority.

The article opens by saying “House Democrats will open an investigation into accusations of sexual misconduct and perjury against Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh if they win control of the House in November, Representative Jerrold Nadler, the New York Democrat in line to be the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said on Friday. Speaking on the eve of Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote this weekend, Mr. Nadler said that there was evidence that Senate Republicans and the F.B.I. had overseen a ‘whitewash’ investigation of the allegations and that the legitimacy of the Supreme Court was at stake. He sidestepped the issue of impeachment. ‘It is not something we are eager to do,’ Mr. Nadler said in an interview. ‘But the Senate having failed to do its proper constitutionally mandated job of advise and consent, we are going to have to do something to provide a check and balance, to protect the rule of law and to protect the legitimacy of one of our most important institutions.'”

Do we want a congress that’s focused on investigations all the time or on making people’s lives better by getting government out of the way? Put another way, do we want a revenge congress or a prosperity congress? Nadler has cast his vote. He’d prefer a revenge congress. No thanks.

This shows what the Democrats’ priorities are. Their priority isn’t the American people. Their priority is destroying President Trump. That’s because they hate the fact that President Trump is demolishing President Obama’s legacy. The American people don’t mind because there’s more money in their wallets than during the Obama administration.