Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the FBI category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘FBI’ Category

Saying that Jim Comey’s reputation is tarnished is understatement. Still, he’s been tarnishing his reputation since July 5, 2016. That’s when Mr. Comey pitched aside the Constitution and decided that the FBI Director had the authority to decide whether he could ignore the fact that the Attorney General could authorize the prosecution of a person.

It wasn’t Mr. Comey’s responsibility to decide whether to prosecute Hillary Clinton for illegally storing confidential information on her private email server. That was Loretta Lynch’s call. Instead, Dir. Comey decided against prosecuting Hillary. Monday, Comey denied that he had anything to do with the FBI’s sullied reputation, saying “as far as hurting the FBI’s replication, I hope not. We had to make very hard decisions in 2016. I knew we would get hurt by it. The question is, how do we reduce the damage? What I’m doing now is not what I love to do. I’d rather not be talking to you all. But somebody has to stand up and speak for the FBI and the rule of law. And I hope there’s a whole lot more somebodies out there than just me.”

That’s a steaming pile of BS. First, President Trump is right in criticizing the FBI’s political thugs, aka Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. He’s right in firing Andrew McCabe for subversion of President Trump’s administration both before and during his administration. Next, President Trump and people like Trey Gowdy are right in ridiculing him for telling Congress that he either didn’t know, didn’t recall or didn’t remember key parts of the FBI’s investigation 245 times during his first day of testimony. Greg Gutfeld got it right in this segment of The Five:

Finally, it’s stunning to see how arrogant Comey is. Nothing is his fault. In Comey’s mind, it’s President Trump’s fault for calling out Page’s, Strzok’s and McCabe’s corruption.

The FBI’s responsibility is to investigate. It isn’t the FBI’s responsibility to determine whether to prosecute. I don’t think it’s too much to ask that the FBI director know that sort of thing.

I’ve long agreed with the things that Kurt Schlichter said in this article:

Let’s stop pretending that America in 2018 has a “justice system.” It’s not a justice system. It’s a set of elite institutions that swing the law like a sledgehammer to crush threats to the ruling class’s monopoly on power. You know, threats like the people we elect to represent our interests against the elite. And we are under no moral obligation to pretend it is anything else.

This painful to admit it, but we need to grow up. There are two sets of law in America today, meaning there is no rule of law in America today. Oh, there are statutes, and there are courts, and there are agencies full of people with guns willing to enforce the will of aspiring tyrants, but there is not rule of law. There is only power, theirs and ours. Time to get woke to the undeniable fact what the Fredocons deny up and down. Justice is no longer blind. Her blindfold is off and she’s picking favorites.

Anyone looking at what happened during the Clinton ‘investigation’ knows that she got treated differently than Gen. Flynn got treated, even though she did far worse things than Gen. Flynn.

This afternoon, after his non-testimonial testimony to the House Judiciary and Oversight committees, Jim Comey utterly disgraced himself, saying “Republicans used to understand that the actions of a president matter, the words of a president matter, the rule of law matters, and the truth matters. Where are those Republicans today. At some point, someone has to stand up and in the fear of Fox News and fear of their base, and fear of mean tweets, stand up for the values of this country and not slink away into retirement.”

There used to be a time when FBI directors were men of integrity, too. Unfortunately, those days are far in the rear-view mirror. Last week, Jim Comey virtually admitted that the FBI didn’t Mirandize Gen. Flynn. Approximately 14:30 into this video, Dir. Comey admitted that he sent 2 FBI agents to ‘interview’ Gen. Flynn:

Let’s understand that Dir. Comey’s agents told Gen. Flynn didn’t need a lawyer and that they just wanted to talk with him. Further, these FBI agents, one of whom was Peter Strzok, didn’t tell Gen. Flynn that he was the target of an investigation, which he clearly was.

This afternoon, Darrell Issa told Harris Faulkner that he thinks that Gen. Flynn wasn’t properly Mirandized:

If that’s true, then I wouldn’t be surprised if Judge Emmet Sullivan doesn’t accept the Mueller-Flynn plea deal. In fact, if Judge Sullivan rules that Gen. Flynn wasn’t properly Mirandized, he’d be justified in throwing the case out and ruling that double jeopardy attaches.

If the FBI ignores people’s civil rights in order to pressure people into testifying against a higher-up, then the FBI has lost their way. At that point, FBI Dir. Comey’s statements ring hollow.

Mr. Comey, part of the rule of law requires law enforcement officers to follow procedures that the Supreme Court has required. Apparently, you didn’t do that. Don’t be surprised if Judge Sullivan scolds Dir. Mueller in his ruling. He certainly deserves it.

UPDATE: Kurt Schlichter really nails it in this article.

While leftists hyperventilate about impeaching President Trump and imprisoning Paul Manafort, a powerful yet relatively unknown figure has stepped onto the stage. His name is Judge Emmet Sullivan.

While Mueller has been operating “as a law unto himself“, according to the WSJ’s Kim Strassel, the truth is that Judge Sullivan isn’t likely to let Mueller run roughshod.

Ms. Strassel wrote “agents (including the infamous Peter Strzok) showed up within two hours. They had already decided not to inform Mr. Flynn that they had transcripts of his conversations or give him the standard warning against lying to the FBI. They wanted him ‘relaxed’ and ‘unguarded.’ Former Director James Comey this weekend bragged on MSNBC that he would never have “gotten away” with such a move in a more ‘organized’ administration. The whole thing stinks of entrapment, though the curious question was how the Flynn defense team got the details.”

This interview by Kennedy of Mollie Hemingway is chilling to legitimate civil rights advocates:

Thankfully, Judge Sullivan has stepped into this situation. It’s clear that Mueller and McCabe haven’t paid attention to the Constitution or the principles of justice being blind. When the history books get written, Robert Mueller’s and Jim Comey’s legacies should be that of scofflaws who didn’t care about the Constitution.

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.

Last week, Democrats insisted that then-Judge Kavanaugh’s emotional defense of his family and his professional reputation proved that he didn’t have the right temperament to be a Supreme Court justice. This past weekend, Jerrold Nadler told the NYTimes that the Senate Judiciary Committee and the FBI didn’t perform a proper investigation of Justice Kavanaugh so the House Judiciary Committee would perform one if Democrats retake the majority in the House.

Now Juan Williams insists in his latest column that Republicans can’t govern, asking “Can anyone unite the bitter, dysfunctional GOP House conference, which remains at the heart of the federal government dysfunction and has the lowest public approval rating of any branch of government?”

For a reporter, Williams certainly hasn’t noticed that the government got funded on time, they passed a bill to deal with the opioid crisis and that the economy is humming along thanks to the bills that they’ve passed. Other than that, they haven’t gotten anything done.

This is proof that the Democrats’ excuses keep getting more ridiculous each day. What a sad bunch. Here’s Juan Williams telling the FBI how to do its job:

Perhaps, he should work harder at his craft and trust the FBI more.

Let’s imagine a situation where you’re accused of committing a heinous crime. Further, let’s think that you can’t cross-examine your accuser. You know that the accusation is BS. You’ve never done anything like what you’re accused of doing.

Fortunately, the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to confront your accuser:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

It’s disturbing to know that a person can accuse you of a heinous crime, then essentially say ‘Forget it. I’ll let the accusation hang over his head but I won’t step forward so he can cross-examine me’.

Think of all the chicanery that might be perpetrated if we operated in a situation where a person can anonymously accuse another person of committing a heinous crime, then not give that person the opportunity to defend himself.

That isn’t justice. That’s giving someone the right to publicly assassinate a person’s reputation, then not give that person the opportunity to defend themselves. That isn’t fair. Unfortunately, that’s what’s happening with Judge Kavanaugh right now.

What’s most unfortunate is that it’s happening to him because Sen. Feinstein is in a tough re-election race and because Democrats don’t think that he’ll rule fairly on cases that matter most to them. They don’t have a bit of proof of that but they’re a paranoid bunch. This sums it up perfectly:

Most headlines about today’s joint hearing will focus on the firefights between Peter Strzok and Republicans. The goal thus far is to portray Republicans as either pawns of Russian President Putin or as bitter partisans who are just upset that Hillary isn’t wearing prison uniform. Either that or they’ll be portrayed as hyper-partisan hatemongers who just don’t understand the context surrounding his texts with Lisa Page.

That’s how the MSM is portraying today’s hearing. The truth, however, is that buried within the intramural catfights are major helpings of important substance that demolish Agent Strzok’s credibility. One such interlude is John Ratcliffe’s interrogation of Agent Strzok:

Ratcliffe sets Strzok up, saying “On page 400 of the Inspector General’s report, someone tells the Inspector General quote — there is a line — a bright and inviolable line between what you think personally and believe and the conduct of your official business. Who said that?”

Agent Strzok replied “I believe I said that.” Here’s the rest of that exchange:

Rep. Ratcliffe: You did say that. I heard you say similar things last week and I heard you say similar things today. You said it very clearly today. You said it very clearly, very unequivocally in your opening remarks. You said that you never crossed that inviolable line in 26 years. Earlier today in response to a question, you said “I took my personal belief out of every official act.” So you’re asking us to believe that when you say things like “f— Trump” and “Stop Trump” and “Impeach Trump”, that those are just personal beliefs and that when you say those things, you never crossed that line and that bright, inviolable line and allowed that to impact your official judgment. That’s what this really comes down to. You said that “I took my personal belief out of every official action.” So you’re asking us to believe that when you say things like ‘F— Trump’ and ‘Stop Trump’ and ‘Impeach Trump’, that those are just personal beliefs and that when you said those things, you never crossed that line, that bright, inviolable line and allow it to impact your official conduct. That’s really what this comes down to that you’re asking to believe, isn’t it?
AGENT STRZOK: Sir, what I’m asking you believe is that I’m offering you evidence…
REP. RATCLIFFE: Listen, you’ve been absolutely clear under oath, as clear as a bell on it. You’ve said it over and over again and because of this, I’m almost embarrassed to ask you this question. Of the approximately 50,000 text messages that I’ve seen with your personal beliefs with things like ‘F— Trump’ and ‘Stop Trump’ and ‘Impeach Trump’, go ahead and confirm on the record that none of those were done on an official FBI device or on official FBI time. Go ahead and do that.
AGENT STRZOK: Sir. No sir, some of them did…
REP. RATCLIFFE: Oh they did? So what you really meant to say when you said that you’d never crossed that bright, inviolable line, what you meant to say is ‘Except for the hundreds of times a day when I went back and forth expressing my personal opinions about ‘F—ing Trump’ and ‘stopping Trump’ and ‘impeaching Trump’ on official FBI phones and official FBI time, other than that, you never crossed that line.

This is how you interrogate a rogue FBI agent. For all his hours or moral preening and saying all the right words, Agent Strzok couldn’t avoid the truth that he’d crossed “that bright, inviolable line” hundreds of times.

The NYTimes’ bias shines through in this article. It starts in a paragraph that says ‘In the lead-up to the report, Trump’s allies agreed that this was paramount. The central question in my opinion,’ David Bossie, Trump’s former deputy campaign manager, wrote this week on the Fox News website, ‘is did Hillary Clinton and her cronies get preferential treatment in her email server investigation for political reasons?’ And the report’s answer is clear: No.”

One of the findings of the 568-page report is that there is proof that Hillary’s emails were accessed by hostile actors. Contrary to Jim Comey’s declaration of July 5, 2016, that’s a violation of the Espionage Act. The fact that most of her top campaign people got immunity suggests that the FBI didn’t pursue them with the same vigor that Special Counsel Robert Mueller pursued Paul Manafort or Carter Page.

Then there’s this:

Federal investigators and prosecutors did not give preferential treatment to Clinton. They pursued the case on the merits. They were guided by, as the inspector general’s report puts it, “the prosecutor’s assessment of the facts, the law, and past Department practice.”

Right. Tell that to David Petraeus and Gen. Flynn. Mueller’s team couldn’t find the political mainstream if they were given a GPS and a year’s worth of gasoline. Mueller’s prosecutorial team looks more like Hillary Clinton’s donor list than a team of skilled prosecutors. Trey Gowdy and Bob Goodlatte disagree with the NY Times:

Chairman Goodlatte stated emphatically that well-established DOJ and FBI procedures weren’t followed in investigating Hillary. That says it all. Goodlatte then said that there’s a stark contrast in the procedures used in the Hillary email investigation and the Trump-Russia collusion investigation. No grand jury was impaneled for the Hillary ‘investigation’. There was a grand jury impaneled for the Trump-Russia investigation. Again, that says it all.

The most significant mistake in the investigation didn’t help Clinton. It hurt her, badly. It was James Comey’s decision to violate department policy and talk publicly about the investigation. If it weren’t for that decision, the polling data suggests Clinton would be president.

This is disgusting reporting. If Hillary had followed government procedures, there wouldn’t have been an investigation. Hillary acted like this nation’s laws didn’t apply to her. The fact that she’s now gotten bit by the FBI is karma. What comes around goes around.