Archive for the ‘FBI’ Category

After reading this statement, I’d argue that it’s time for Republicans to go on the offensive against the Democrats’ corruption. Specifically, it’s time Senate Republicans exposed just how corrupt the Obama administration was.

The key part of the statement said “According to Andrii Telizhenko, a political officer in the Ukraine Embassy in Washington, D.C. who participated in a January 2016 meeting, ‘U.S. officials volunteered … that they had an interest in reviving a closed investigation into payments to U.S. figures from Ukraine’s Russia-backed Party of Regions,’ which refers to the investigation that involved Paul Manafort.” It doesn’t stop there. Here’s what it says when it continues:

“During that same meeting, U.S. officials also reportedly brought up investigations relating to Burisma Holdings, the Ukrainian gas company that had hired then-Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, to serve as a board member. According to Telizhenko, ‘U.S. officials told the Ukrainians they would prefer that Kiev drop the Burisma probe and allow the FBI to take it over.”

Doesn’t that sound like “U.S. officials” saying that they planned on making the Burisma-Biden scandal disappear? What better way to make it disappear than to give it to Jim Comey’s FBI? Why did “U.S. officials” want to restart the Manafort investigation, too? Schiff said that the Ukraine election interference story had been debunked. With official WH records showing these meetings happened, that takes this from being a conspiracy theory to being investigation-worthy.

This isn’t surprising. Democrats, starting with Schiff, have said that the Biden fiasco has been debunked. They’ve never said who debunked the story or who conducted the investigation that exonerated Hunter. This will give the Democrats some indigestion:

According to Telizhenko:

[Chalupa] said the DNC wanted to collect evidence that Trump, his organization and Manafort were Russian assets, working to hurt the U.S. and working with [Russian President Vladimir] Putin against the U.S. interests. She indicated if we could find the evidence they would introduce it in Congress in September and try to build a case that Trump should be removed from the ballot, from the election.

Democrats pretend to care about Russian interference in our elections. Democrats did this while they cultivated foreign contacts with the goal of getting President Trump kicked off the ballot. Apparently, Democrats don’t want the American people to decide who their president is. Apparently, Democrats are happy to spread propaganda on hide the truth about their corrupt intentions with Ukraine through Ms. Chalupa.

The upper echelons of the FBI better prepared their lives turned upside-down. The Justice Department announced that “at least two of the FBI’s surveillance applications to secretly monitor former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page lacked probable cause.”

One of the people who should be worried about this news is Chairman Schiff. He should be worried because “Schiff had previously insisted the Page FISA warrants met ‘rigorous’ standards for probable cause, and mocked Republicans for suggesting otherwise.” Then there’s this:

The June 2017 Page FISA warrant renewal, which was among the two deemed invalid by the DOJ, was approved by then-Acting FBI Director (and now CNN contributor) Andrew McCabe, as well as former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. The April 2017 warrant renewal was approved by then-FBI Director James Comey.

This doesn’t mean that the first 2 FISA warrants met the FISA Court’s standards. It simply means that a determination hasn’t been reached on those applications yet.

At minimum, Rosenstein, McCabe and Comey should be very worried. Lying to the FISC should be accompanied by a lengthy stint of gathering striped sunlight. Their actions should result in the DOJ and FBI reaching a large, quick settlement with Carter Page. Clearly, Carter Page was hurt reputationally. When a person is hurt as a result of corruption, the corrupt people need to write checks with a half-dozen zeros to the left of the decimal point.

The Justice Department said the FBI should have discontinued its secret surveillance of Page far earlier than it did because “there was insufficient predication to establish probable cause to believe that [Carter] Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power.” The DOJ’s letter was revealed in a January 7 court filing unsealed on Thursday.

“Thanks in large part to the work of the Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice, the Court has received notice of material misstatements and omissions in the applications filed by the government in the above-captioned dockets,” the letter states. “DOJ assesses that with respect to the applications in Docket Numbers 17-375 and 17-679, ‘if not earlier, there was insufficient predication to establish probable cause to believe that [Carter] Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power.'”

At this point, it’s indisputable that corruption was pervasive throughout the top echelon (singular, not plural) of the Obama-Comey FBI. It’s clear, too, that Rod Rosenstein wasn’t the boy scout he claimed to be.

Bipartisan support is growing for tearing down the FISC as it’s currently constructed. The judges that sit on the FISC were warned by Devin Nunes while he still chaired the House Intel Committee about these abuses:

“The way that the court has conducted themselves is totally inappropriate, they ignored clear evidence that we’d presented to them … they did absolutely nothing about it,” Nunes told Fox News host Martha McCallum late Tuesday. “They’ve left Congress no choice but to have to step in and fix this process.”

Finally, there’s this:

When Republicans complained that anti-Trump lawyer David Kris had gotten appointed to oversee the FISA reforms, people predictably questioned whether Republicans were playing politics with the appointment. That hasn’t disappeared yet but it should now that independent reporter Sharyl Attkisson has written this article on the subject.

In her article, Ms. Attkisson highlights the main problems associated with this appointment, starting with this:

On Twitter, Kris called Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) “a politicized, dishonest [Intelligence Community] overseer who attempts to mislead,” and wrote that Trump and his advisers should be “worried” that the “walls are closing in” regarding the Mueller probe. Kris also bought into the now-disproven conspiracy theory about Trump colluding with Russia and Putin.

In other words, the FISC appointed a political hack at a time when the FISC needed a nonpartisan person to supervise these FISA reforms. Then there’s this:

To some, the appointment of Kris to help with the job is as mysterious as to why the FISA Court’s judges failed to flag the FBI abuses on their own. It would seem more important than ever to have an apolitical person, or a balanced group of people, conducting oversight of these politically sensitive matters.

Why didn’t the FISC police these warrant applications? It wasn’t until after the Horowitz Report had been published that the judge put out a warning. That isn’t policing the process. That’s CYA after the fact.

There’s no question that we need something that hunts the bad guys but that also keeps Big Brother playing fair. If anything is certain, it’s that FISA won’t get renewed without major changes. If Christopher Wray doesn’t step forward with a lengthy list of reforms, then FISA should be scrapped and rebuilt from scratch.

Things get more questionable with this tweet from whistle-blower attorney Mark Zaid:


The op-ed written by Mike Morrell and David Kris says “This summer, a whistleblower complained to the inspector general for the U.S. intelligence community of an alleged ‘violation’ of law, ‘abuse’ of authority or similar problem. The inspector general, in turn, advised the acting DNI, and later the House Intelligence Committee, that the complaint was both credible and ‘urgent,’ meaning it involved something ‘serious or flagrant’ or otherwise significant.”

Why didn’t Kris and Morrell highlight the fact that the faux whistle-blower isn’t covered by the ICWPA? For that matter, why didn’t Kris mention that the person who tweeted about the op-ed is the faux whistle-blower’s attorney? Additionally, Mr. Zaid is the partisan Democrat who tweeted that “the coup” had started about 10 days after President Trump had been inaugurated?

Anyone associated with Mr. Zaid shouldn’t be associated with FISA reform. Period.

During his interview with Maria Bartiromo this morning, Devin Nunes talked about the corruption within the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, aka the FISC. House Intelligence Committee Republicans have been questioning the FISC’s integrity. Thus far, the FISC’s replies suggest a cover-up. Rather than answering Republicans’ questions, the FISC has stonewalled and given platitudes for answers. At this point, there’s a strong chance that FISA won’t be renewed when it expires this year.

Rep. Nunes expressed his frustration with the FISC during his interview with Bartiromo:

“It’s hard to imagine a worse person the FISC could have chosen outside [James] Comey, [Andy] McCabe, or [Adam] Schiff,” Nunes said. Speaking to Fox News contributor Sara Carter, Nunes added: “It’s a ridiculous choice. The FBI lied to the FISC, and to help make sure that doesn’t happen again, the FISC chose an FBI apologist who denied and defended those lies. The FISC is setting its own credibility on fire.”

It’s important to fill in the details:

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) has stunned court-watchers by selecting David Kris, a former Obama administration lawyer who has appeared on “The Rachel Maddow Show” and written extensively in support of the FBI’s surveillance practices on the left-wing blog Lawfare, to oversee the FBI’s implementation of reforms in the wake of a damning Department of Justice inspector general report last year.

The development on Friday, first reported by independent journalist Mike Cernovich, has roiled Republicans who have demanded accountability at the FBI. House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes, R-Calif., told The Daily Caller that Kris’ appointment was “shocking” and “inexplicable.”

Quite frankly, this is what’s meant by the fox meeting the henhouse. By all accounts, Kris is the personification of the Swamp. Putting the Swamp in charge of reforming the Swamp is something that only the Swamp would think is reasonable. The truth is that this truly jeopardizes FISA.

If this is how unserious the FISC is, then they shouldn’t expect support from either side of the political aisle. There’s too much trust invested in the FISC to let it be untrustworthy. In fact, a total overhaul of that institution is warranted:

Earlier this month, the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) ordered the FBI to re-verify all previous warrant applications involving the FBI attorney who falsified evidence against the former Trump campaign aide Carter Page. However, Fox News has learned the court did not order the FBI to double-check warrant applications involving other officials who made key omissions and errors in warrant applications as the bureau sought to surveil Page.

The FISC’s failure to request a comprehensive evaluation of previous submissions has stunned court-watchers who have questioned whether enough is being done to deter future misconduct by the FBI. In the past, the FISC has gone so far as to prohibit some FBI agents from appearing before the court after finding impropriety.

What’s needed is a reform-minded person to fix the FISC. In fact, I’d argue for hiring someone from outside the FISC to help with the reformation. Andy McCarthy or Trey Gowdy would be at the top of that short list, as would Michael Mukasey. This isn’t the type of thing that I’d entrust to leftists. They aren’t trustworthy. Before reforming the FISC, I’d put together a commission to determine what reforms and safeguards were needed. Mssrs. McCarthy, Gowdy and Mukasey need to serve on that commission. Ditto with Joe Lieberman and Evan Bayh.

Eliminating the FISA Court likely isn’t a legitimate option. That being said, keeping it in its current structure isn’t a legitimate option, either. This needs to get fixed immediately. And I mean fixed, not tampered with.

Having Susan Rice lecture people about integrity is insulting. During her interview with Rachel Maddow, she said that the risks of killing Soleimani probably outweighed the benefits. She also said “The Obama administration was not presented with an opportunity by our intelligence community or by the U.S. military to strike Qassem Soleimani.” If they had been given that information, Rice said that what they “would have done is weigh very carefully and very deliberately the risks versus the potential rewards.”

That’s probably the only truthful thing she said in this interview:

“So, if in fact the administration can be believed that there was indeed strong intelligence of an imminent threat against the United States that’s being carried out by Soleimani and related militia then the question becomes [was] there more than one way to address that threat?” she asked Maddow. “Was the only way to deal with it to kill Soleimani? Certainly, given his history and track record, he deserves his just rewards but the question is does that serve our interests? Does that make us more secure?”

First, killing a man that’s destabilized an entire region of the world for a generation is always in our best interests. Gen. Soleimani isn’t just a high-ranking military guy. He’s the man who put together the military strategy to inflame an entire region. He’s the reason why Iran is the world’s greatest exporter of terrorism. Iran wasn’t like that before Soleimani.

Next, the US got information of an attack that would have hit multiple cities throughout the region. It isn’t that taking out Soleimani doesn’t come without risks. It’s that taking out a man with his list of accomplishments and skills is worth the risks. The trick, I suspect, is take the proper precautions to protect US interests.

Finally, if I’m going to get lectured about integrity, that lecture won’t come from Susan Rice. She’s as untrustworthy as Jim Comey and John Brennan. You can’t sink lower than that. If I’m going to get lectured about integrity, I’ll enthusiastically accept it from Mark Geist. In an interview with Pete Hegseth, Geist said this:

“First off, I mean, when has a protest ever occurred at night and, I mean, most protests they don’t typically bring AK-47s, belt-fed machine guns, and RPGs. That’s somebody planning an attack and they knew it,” Geist told Hegseth.

“They knew it when she went out on the speaking circuit on Sunday,” he continued. “But, instead of telling the truth she wanted to tell lies because she had to say what the administration — at the time — wanted.”

This part must’ve stung the most:

“If President Trump had been in office during Benghazi, we wouldn’t have lost four Americans,” he concluded.

That’s true. Unlike President Obama, President Trump wouldn’t order troops to stand down during a terrorist attack.

Never have so many been this wrong this often as this year. This was a difficult year for Democrats, especially the institutions that support them. Let’s start with the most obvious perpetrators. The Agenda Media, aka the MSM, had the worst year in their history. If they had played a drinking game with their most-used words, they would’ve been sloppy drunk from Mid-February onward. Pundits like Carl Bernstein, John Brennan, Don Lemon, Joe Scarborough, Rachel Maddow, Mika Brzezinski, Chris Matthews, Eugene Robinson, Juan Williams and others still wouldn’t be sober.

Similarly, if people got paid $50 each time a pundit used words of phrases like the walls are closing in, worse than Watergate, Russian collusion, constitutional crisis, existential threat or obstruction of justice, they’d be wealthy. Additionally, imagine the money we could’ve made just this month on the phrases national security, violated his oath, this isn’t about politics; it’s about patriotism or this is a solemn moment for our country.

Democrats have hit a new high for hitting lows. Never before has a president been impeached without committing a crime. Never before has a president been impeached with prosecutors introducing just hearsay evidence. Never before has a president been impeached without the president’s legal team being able to call a single witness.

Nixon’s legal team got to call witnesses to present a defense. Clinton’s legal team got to call witnesses to present a defense. President Trump’s team wasn’t allowed to call witnesses or present a defense.

In February, 2018, then-Chairman Devin Nunes issued a memo about FISA abuse that he’d discovered. The DC media immediately criticized Chairman Nunes for being President Trump’s shill on Capitol Hill. Shortly thereafter, Adam Schiff published a memo that insisted that Chairman Nunes’ memo got everything wrong. This year, Michael Horowitz, the DOJ IG, published the Horowitz Report. The Horowitz Report was published on Dec. 9. Horowitz testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Dec. 11.

One thing that the Horowitz Report clarified was that then-Chairman Nunes got virtually everything right in his published memo. Another thing that IG Horowitz’s report stated was that Chairman Schiff got virtually every major statement wrong. Further, the media still hasn’t admitted that Nunes got it right. Finally, they’ll never admit that Nunes isn’t President Trump’s shill.

The great news is that President Trump has rendered the MSM impotent. The MSM used to tell the people that they were stupid. Enter President Trump. Suddenly, President Trump is telling Jim Acosta that he’s “a rude, terrible person”:

Saying that the MSM underperformed is like saying that Adam Schiff isn’t trustworthy. The reaction from the masses is, putting it gently, predictable.

The most unappreciated story of the year is the least reported story of the year. When the Mueller Report was published, the MSM didn’t report the fact that Special Counsel Mueller knew on Day 1 that the Clinton campaign had paid for the Steele Dossier and that the information in the dossier was unverified. Despite that, Robert Mueller’s team ignored this exculpatory information and kept ‘investigating’ for 2 additional years.

While they kept ‘investigating’, Mueller’s team divided the nation while crippling the president. This wasn’t just unnecessary. It was destructive to President Trump’s negotiations with dangerous foreign governments. It hung like a cloud over our economy, too.

As destructive as those things were, they aren’t the most disturbing aspect of the Mueller investigation. Despite spending 2 years and virtually $50,000,000 on the faux investigation, they didn’t investigate the FBI. Despite the fact that FBI hid exculpatory evidence from the FISC, despite the fact that an FBI lawyer doctored an email from the CIA from saying that Carter Page was a CIA source to saying that Carter Page wasn’t a CIA source, it’s inexcusable that Mueller didn’t investigate the FBI.

When Carter Page sues the FBI, he should also sue Mueller personally for protecting the agency he once directed. There’s no justification for not investigating the FBI when the special counsel was tasked with investigating Russian interference into the 2016 US presidential election. The Steele Dossier was nothing without Russian disinformation. That isn’t my opinion. That’s the finding of the Horowitz Report.

That’s the definition of cronyism. Compare the blind spot in the Mueller Report with the detailed work done by Michael Horowitz. IG Horowitz didn’t protect the FBI the way that Director Mueller protected the FBI. Horowitz told the truth about the FBI and the truth hurt.

Had people listened to Rep. Louie Gohmert, we might’ve gotten spared this lengthy national nightmare. This article lays out the case that Rep. Gohmert put together against Mueller:

Gohmert’s criticism of Mueller did not begin with Mueller’s FBI directorship, but rather, hearkened back to when Mueller was an assistant U.S. attorney in Boston in the 1980s, then Acting U.S. attorney, during the time that FBI agent John Connolly, who is now in prison on an unrelated conviction, protected Whitey Bulger, thereby allowing four innocent men to spend decades in prison, where two of them would later die before all were exonerated by a federal judge.

That’s the personification of corruption. Letting 4 innocent men languish in prison, with 2 of them dying while unjustly incarcerated, is the nastiest civil rights violations I’ve heard of in half a century. That shouldn’t ever have happened. As a Christian, it’s difficult to give Mueller the benefit of that doubt.

Lindsey Graham summarizes things nicely in his closing statement:

Once the Russian sub-source said “everything in the dossier, I disavow.” The minute that’s revealed, what’s the justification for continuing the Mueller Investigation? The minute Mueller learned that Carter Page wasn’t a Russian asset should’ve been the instant Mueller should’ve stopped the investigation.

If we’d had a press that cared about civil rights and doing the right thing, this would’ve been a highly publicized story. Because we’ve got corrupt media organizations dotting the landscape, it was mostly overlooked. Here at LFR, I’ll just say this: not on my watch. The fact that Democrats sat silent says everything. Democrats should be ashamed of themselves.

It’s understatement to say that Devin Nunes has taken more ill-deserved grief than any other congressman in recent history. In her latest article, Kim Strassel highlights then-Chairman Nunes’ efforts to root out FISC corruption and Judge Rosemary Collyer’s inaction.

It all started with a letter from then-Chairman Nunes to Judge Collyer. In that letter, Nunes wrote “‘the Committee found that the FBI and DOJ failed to disclose the specific political actors paying for uncorroborated information’ that went to the court, “misled the FISC regarding dissemination of this information,” and ‘failed to correct these errors in the subsequent renewals.'” That letter was dated Feb. 7, 2018.

According to the article, “Mr. Nunes asked the court whether any transcripts of FISC hearings about this application existed, and if so, to provide them to the committee.” What he got for his troubles is “a dismissive letter [from Judge Collyer] that addressed only the last request. The judge observed that any such transcripts would be classified, that the court doesn’t maintain a ‘systematic record’ of proceedings and that, given ‘separation of power considerations,’ Mr. Nunes would be better off asking the Justice Department. The letter makes no reference to the Intelligence Committee findings.”

Being the persistent fact-finder that he is, Nunes “tried again in a June 13, 2018, follow-up letter.” In that letter, Nunes wrote that Congress “uncovered evidence that DOJ and FBI provided incomplete and potentially incorrect information to the Court” and that “significant relevant information was not disclosed to the Court.”

It’s worth remembering that then-Ranking Member Schiff published a competing ‘everything-is-fine’ memo. That memo has now been discredited. Here are some of the main claims from the Schiff Memo:

FBI and DOJ officials did not “abuse” the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) process, omit material information or subvert this vital tool to spy on the Trump campaign.

In fact, the DOJ and FBI would have been remiss in their duty to protect the country had they not sought a FISA warrant and repeated renewals to conduct temporary surveillance of Carter Page, someone the FBI assessed to be an agent of the Russian government. DOJ met the rigor, transparency and evidentiary basis needed to meet FISA’s probable cause requirements.

Thanks to the DOJ IG report, we now know that FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith altered the initial email from the CIA that said Carter Page was one of their sources to say that Page wasn’t a CIA source. IG Horowitz made a criminal referral on Clinesmith. Back to Ms. Strassel’s article:

Mr. Nunes asked Judge Collyer to “initiate a thorough investigation.” To assist her, the same month he separately sent FISC “a classified summary of Congress’s findings and facts” to that point. The letter was signed by all 13 Republican members of the Intelligence Committee.

Judge Collyer blew him off. Her letter on June 15, 2018, is four lines long. She informs Mr. Nunes she’s received his letter. She says she’s also received his classified information. She says she’s instructing staff to provide his info to “the judges who ruled on the referenced matters.” She thanks him for his “interest” in the court.

With Judge Collyer throwing the FBI under the bus and with the FBI feeling like it’s getting the short end of the stick from rubberstamp FISC judges, the odds of a major fight between the FISC and the FBI seems likely.

Frankly, the FISC judges seem disinterested. In fact, they don’t seem terribly interested in the details of their cases. That type of attitude is frightening to anyone who appreciates civil liberties. These FISC judges seem indifferent at best.

Finally, it’s apparent that the reputation that the Agenda Media attempted to give Devin Nunes is undeserved. Nunes, unlike Jim Comey and Adam Schiff, was vindicated.

Saying that Chairman Schiff’s imagination is vivid is understatement. This transcript highlights Schiff’s imagination:

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): No, it isn’t a failure. At least, it’s not a failure in the sense of our constitutional duty in the House. And I will tell you what changed my mind, George, because you’re right. I resisted going down this road towards impeachment. But it was two things. It was the discovery of the most egregious conduct to date. It was one thing with the president invited foreign interference as a candidate, when he couldn’t use the power of his office to make it so.

It was another when, as president of the United States, he withheld hundreds of millions of dollars to coerce an ally, betray our national security, and try to cheat in the next election. That was not something we could turn away from.

But it was one more fact, George, that I think made it inexorable. And that is the fact that it was the day after Bob Mueller testified, the day after Donald Trump felt that he was beyond accountability for his first misconduct, that he was back on the phone, this time with President Zelensky, trying to get that country to help him cheat in the next election.

It’s frightening to think that the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, aka HPSCI, could look at the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call transcript, then think that President Trump was asking President Zelenskiy to “help him cheat in the next election.” Anyone who’s read that 5-page transcript knows that didn’t happen. Only a disturbed person would think that. What’s Chairman Schiff’s proof that President Trump tried cheating in the next election? His vivid imagination? In the U.S. judicial system, great men like Hamilton, Jefferson and Madison insisted that a man couldn’t be convicted without evidence.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally Chairman Schiff, before we go, I do want to ask you a question about the Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report on the FBI investigation into the Russia investigation. As you know, it found that there were significant errors, 17 significant errors and omission in that FISA surveillance application for Carter Page, and you’ve received some criticism because of your past claims that there were not any omissions. The Wall Street Journal editorial page, I want to show it right now:

Mr. Schiff claimed DOJ met the rigor, transparency and evidentiary basis needed to meet FISA court standards. But Mr. Horowitz makes clear that FBI officials didn’t even tell senior Justice officials about the concerns and irregularities of its Page application. Would the court have granted the warrants if it knew the whole story? We don’t know.

Do you accept that your original judgments were wrong, and what can you do about it?

SCHIFF: Well, I certainly accept that two years later, 170 interviews later, and 2 million documents later, the inspector general found things that we didn’t know two years ago. And I certainly concur with the inspector general’s conclusion that there need to be significant changes to the FISA process. We just didn’t have that evidence available two years ago.

That’s BS. The DOJ IG report verified that the Nunes Memo verified everything and that it got those things right. The other thing that’s interesting is that the DOJ IG report says that then-Chairman Nunes didn’t get a single thing wrong. Then-Chairman Nunes got each detail right.

Question: How could Schiff get each detail wrong and then-Chairman Nunes get each detail right? Not only that, Schiff’s memo contested each of the main points of the Nunes Memo.

If anything that Schiff said isn’t protected by the Constitution’s Speech & Debate Clause, then he’s in trouble. Additionally, there’s no doubt that the FBI is in legal hot water:

Watching the entire Ratcliffe interview is stunning.

This morning, Jim Comey appeared on Fox News Sunday, where he made news. During the interview, “Comey admitted … that the recently released Justice Department Inspector General’s report on the launch of the FBI’s Russia investigation and their use of the surveillance process showed that he was ‘overconfident’ when he defended his former agency’s use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).”

With that, St. Jim of the FBI just threw the FBI under the proverbial bus. The old cliché “what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive” is particularly fitting. People won’t necessarily catch the first lie but it always forces another lie and another. Eventually, the liar gets caught. It’s simply inevitable.

As for Mr. Comey being overconfident, that’s actually believable. The word confident means “sure of oneself; having no uncertainty about one’s own abilities, correctness;” It’s often said that Jim Comey is “often wrong but never in doubt.”

Let’s be clear about something. People don’t become “overconfident” when they painstakingly follow well-established procedures. Further, these weren’t just itty bitty-sized mistakes. In fact, it’s been argued that they weren’t mistakes. When 17 major omissions are made and each of them benefit the FBI’s FISA application and the Hillary campaign, the odds of that happening are beyond astronomical. For all intents and purposes, the odds of that happening are nonexistent.

Let’s remember that Comey isn’t some wet-behind-the-ears intern. He’s a former federal prosecutor. He’s the former Deputy Attorney General under President Bush 43. The DAG’s primary responsibility is the FBI.

This wasn’t a good interview for Mr. Comey. His answers still don’t add up. Picturing those replies in a John Durham grand jury investigation should put a smile on truth-loving Americans’ faces. In all likelihood, though, Mr. Comey’s attorneys will instruct their client to plead the Fifth.