Help fight the
liberal media

click title for home page
Be a subscriber

The complete history of Barack Obama's second term -- click Views/Repies for top stories

  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 3      Prev   1   2   3   Next

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #26 

This is for real -- the FBI has concluded the Scalise shooter wasn't targeting Republicans


S. Noble (IndependentSentinel) is reporting that the FBI report in the Virginia shooting of GOP officials removes all doubt that the Deep State is alive and well. It was as illogical as anything Jim Comey would say about the Clinton email case.

This is the quick rundown of the incriminating evidence that the shooter's goal was to kill Republican officials.

  • Before Hodgkinson left for Virginia, he was engaging in target practice.
  • In his possession was a piece of paper that contained the names of six members of congress. [They are all members of the Freedom Caucus].
  • The shooter had strong anti-Republican views which he espoused on his social media accounts. [They didn't mention his pro-Sanders views].
  • Hodgkinson took multiple photos of the baseball field. That was three days after the New York Times mentioned that Republicans practiced baseball at the baseball field with little security.
  • He lived out of his van at the YMCA directly next door to the baseball field.
  • The shooter legally purchased a rifle in March 2003 and 9 mm handgun in November 2016.
  • He also modified the rifle to accept a detachable magazine and a folding stock/
  • While living in a van, he rented a storage facility to hide hundreds of rounds of ammunition and rifle components.
  • Hodgkinson asked a witness the morning of the shooting, "Is this the Republican or Democrat baseball team?" When the witness responded that it was a Republican event, Hodgkinson reportedly remained at the baseball field.

It was just a pattern of life

Given this, the FBI has so far concluded that the gunman who shot a top House Republican and four other people on a Virginia baseball field didn't have any concrete plans to inflict violence on the Republicans he loathed, the AP reported.

Tim Slater, who leads the criminal division of the FBI's Washington field office gave the account.

  • The shooter had no ties to terror, Slater said. [This was an act of domestic terrorism to most of us.]
  • The FBI has not yet clarified who, if anyone, he planned to target, or why, beyond his animus toward President Donald Trump and the Republicans he felt were ruining the country.
  • According to the FBI, it's not clear whether he had prior plans to attack the baseball practice or whether he just happened upon it the morning of June 14, said Tim Slater, who leads the criminal division of the FBI's Washington field office.
  • "At this point in the investigation, it appears more spontaneous," Slater said.
  • The FBI statement and Slater's comments portrayed Hodgkinson as a down-and-out, hard luck guy living in a car and taking prescription drugs.
  • "He was running out of money. He was not employed at the time of the event, and he was looking for some local employment. He was married for 30 years, and it appears that that marriage was not going so well," Slater said. "It was just a pattern of life where you could tell things were not going well."

It was a "pattern of life"?

What does that mean? The FBI no longer deals in facts, they look for patterns of life?

This is a political Deep State conclusion.

I guess the FBI didn't get the word that Hodgkinson was asking if the ballplayers were Republicans before he started shooting.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #27 

Fifteen lawyers in search of a crime

Mark Steyn says: Further to my observations on Deep State dinner theatre, the "Russia investigation" show goes on, undeterred by the lack of any evidence of actual crime: The more obvious the absence of any crime to investigate, the bigger the investigation gets. As I've said before, in Hitchcockian terms, this is a thriller without a MacGuffin: instead, it's one big MacNuffin - unless you count the "collusion" between government bureaucracies and the Hillary campaign in surveilling their political opposition before the election, or FBI honcho Jim Leaky leaking material to The New York Timesto get his buddy Bob Mueller appointed as "Special Counsel".

That last one worked - notwithstanding calls for a Special Counsel to investigate the Special Counsel over his ties to the FBI Director who wanted the Special Counsel. This is a very Washington creature-feature: the Blob feasts on nothing. So at the Deep State dinner theatre Mr Mueller is now casting an army of extras. With the usual money-no-object lavishness of the world's premier five-star swamp, the Special Counsel has appointed, to date, 14 lawyers to his "investigation", "with more still to come". In a fascinating column, my old colleague Andrew McCarthy puts this prosecutorial football squad in perspective:

Andy was the lead counsel in the prosecution of the Blind Sheikh for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. It led to a nine-month trial of twelve defendants. The Government somehow managed to pull that off with three prosecutors plus an appellate lawyer.

A couple of years before that, Andy was on the "Pizza Connection" Mafia case - a 17-month trial of 22 defendants. In that one, he was the junior member among five government lawyers, and many of his peers thought the size of the prosecution team was "excessive".

But McCarthy's column contains an even more sobering context for Bob and his Fantastic Fourteen:

Does it seem strange to anyone else that, by comparison, the president of the United States has managed to get -- count 'em -- three appointees confirmed to Justice Department positions in five months?

So in one month Mueller has managed to put five times as many people on the DoJ payroll as Trump has since January.

As has been noticed, no matter how many lawyers Mueller hires, he only seems to know bigtime Hillary donors. If he wraps the investigation up in time, the Special Counsel can change his title to Special Bundler for the Clinton 2020 campaign. But, even if they weren't so ostentatiously partisan, the whole money-no-object profligacy sums up dysfunctional Washington at its most repulsive.

Recently I had occasion to speak with an FBI agent myself in connection with a matter rather closer to home for me than the Kremlin. After a couple of hours of going over all the details, I leaned back in my chair and said, "What do you think's really going on here?" And the G-Man, who was actually a G-Woman, replied that, in her experience, you could investigate someone for two or three years and never know the answer to that question. So you nail them on mail fraud. And we all had a good laugh and went on our merry way.

But I confess I feel a little queasy about that. If you investigate someone long enough, you may not get the goods on them, but you'll certainly get some goods. And so much of American justice seems to involve designating the guy you're gonna get, and then figuring out afterwards what it is you can get him on - Al Capone for tax evasion being merely the most celebrated example thereof. But there are a zillion lesser examples and Jim Comey has made his own famous contribution to the pantheon: He got Martha Stewart banged up in the Big House for lying to the FBI in a matter for which there was no underlying crime.

Incidentally, why is it a crime for Americans to lie to the FBI but not for the FBI to lie to Americans? As when Comey testified - just a month ago - that Huma Abedin had forwarded hundreds of thousands of emails to the laptop of her sex-fiend husband. Like so much Comey grandstanding, it was a great story - but it wasn't true:

The problem: Much of what Comey said about this was inaccurate. Now the FBI is trying to figure out what to do about it.

If Martha Stewart or Scooter Libby had done that, "what to do about it" would be easy: They'd be headed to the slammer. But, when the FBI Director makes false statements under oath in a matter for which he is giving expert, prepared testimony, he gets to skate.

This "Russia investigation" is now in its Martha Stewart phase. Fifteen lawyers are not going on a two-year fishing expedition in order to hold a press conference and say they came up empty. Somewhere along the way someone will misremember something and the fifteen synchronized fishers will leap in the air and pounce. Ah-ha!

But, until that point, what the hell are these fifteen guys doing every day? This bloated pseudo-investigation is the very embodiment of Washington dysfunction: The less there is, the fewer real American lives it has any connection to, the further it recedes in the rear-view mirror, the more the Swamp is invested in it. They've already been on it for a year, and, if there were any "collusion", it would have been leaked months ago: If Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma, the "Russia investigation" is a nullity wrapped in an absence inside a void, now shimmering in the black hole of the billable hours of fifteen lawyers and the expense accounts of a hundred FBI agents.

But tally-ho! The Great MacNuffin Hunt goes on -- because in the Swamp all the most luxurious gravy trains are rear-view only. Putin must be laughing his head off. For the next three years they'll be so busy investigating the 2016 election, they won't even notice he's already moved on to stealing the 2020 election...

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #28 
Busted! James Comey caught visiting the NY Times


Truth Feed News says if we get a new "bombshell" NY Times report from an "anonymous source" tied to U.S. intelligence, we'll know where it came from.

Kind of hard to go undetected when you stand almost 7 feet tall, but nice try, Comey.

From DailyMail

Former FBI director James Comey made a quiet visit to The New York Times building on Thursday, one of few public outings since he admitted leaking stories to the newspaper about President Trump before the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 8.

Comey kept his sunglasses on and his gaze forward as he marched through the front entrance of the Eighth Avenue office building which houses the publication. He was accompanied by his wife Patrice Failor who also wore sunglasses.

Unmistakable as he towered over the crowds in a crisp navy suit and tie on one of the warmest days of the year, Comey drew second-glances from some stunned by-passers.

He spent almost three hours inside before emerging, having removed his sunglasses, to hail a cab.

A New York Times Company spokeswoman poured cold water on the visit, insisting Comey did not visit the paper's newsroom.

The New York Times Company occupies 27 of the building's 52 floors, according to developer Forest City Ratner. It downsized its operation last year, vacating eight floors to be rented out to generate income for the company.

Other businesses which hold space there include the tech start-up Datadog and Dean and DeLuca.

Comey's visit to the skyscraper came just a few weeks after the president's suggestion that he may be responsible for more leaks about the administration since being fired on May 9.

Comey confessed to being the source of a leak to the Times about private, unorthodox meeting he had with the president before he was fired in June.

If you want to talk about collusion, start with this.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #29 

The Deep State paid the IRC $116 Million in 2017 to fight Trump's America-First travel ban

Charles C. Johnson (GotNews) is reporting that Deep state agents within the Department of Health and Human Services, the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development have paid over $115 million to the International Rescue Committee (IRC), a nonprofit that is fighting President Donald J. Trump's America-first ban on immigration from countries with huge populations seeking to do citizens harm.

The International Rescue Committee led by former U.K. Labour politician David Miliband has come under fire since the organization's Tuesday release on World Refugee Day of an anti-sovereignty self-promotional video calling for greater Muslim immigration to Western countries. Google and YouTube, led by former Obama campaign adviser Eric Schmidt, are boosting IRC's video, which touts radical communist activists with The Young Turks Democrat activist firm -- co-hosted by Armenian genocide denialist Cenk Uygur.

A review of government subsidies to IRC since the beginning of the Trump administration reveals that the federal government has paid the anti-American organization $115.8 million.


In February, IRC spearheaded a campaign to shore up opposition to President Trump's executive order banning immigration from jihad- and terrorism-linked countries.

"Writing a letter is one of the best ways to let your representatives know where you stand," wrote IRC lackey Tara Todras-Whitehill, who also provided contact information for members of Congress to whip up opposition to a signature policy of the president Americans duly elected in November.

As of press time, in response to IRC's #MoreThanARefugee propaganda video, nearly three-quarters of YouTube reviewers -- over 300,000 viewers -- indicated their dislike of the video.

On Jan. 26, shortly after President Trump's inauguration, the massively taxpayer-enriched IRC published a hit piece calling for readers to "slam the door on hate" by opposing the patriotic executive order -- additionally admonishing the president for supporting an immigration policy "favoring" the very "religious minorities" in the crosshairs of Islamist extremists for total genocide. IRC complained that the order would "slash refugee admissions by more than half."

Does IRC really care about victims of genocide or about keeping their multimillion-dollar government meal ticket running?

IRC's June 20 propaganda video features and exploits a woman, Catherine, from Sudan, who has now made her way into Uganda. President Trump's executive order highlights immigration to the U.S. from Sudan as a particular risk.

In March, with taxpayer money, IRC generated a propaganda video highlighting the supposed importance of letting in Syrians whose country is now variously ruled by ISIS terrorists who routinely murder European and American civilians.

Stay tuned for more.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #30 

The politics of professional procrastination


Sundance (ConservativeTreehouse) is reporting that making America great again continues to run up against the reality of DC UniParty roadblocks.  Both Democrats and Republicans are procrastinating while hoping for any excuse not to participate in America-First policy advancement.

The election result in Georgia’s sixth district is yet another example of Trump supporters removing excuses the DC UniParty puts forth; yet the DC apparatus is so entrenched in their opposition to President Trump’s policy agenda, they sit idle spinning various congressional hearings-to-nowhere in an increasingly transparent effort to avoid action.

Anyone who believes Democrats own exclusive opposition to Donald Trump are completely ignoring the deliberate construct of the 2015/2016 republican primary. There are just as many -if not more- natural enemies within the Republican apparatus as there are within the Democrat group. “America-First” is antithetical to the UniParty.

Again, prior to Donald Trump there was one party in Washington DC, “The UniParty”. President Donald Trump represented a second party; an independent approach toward legislative and economic priority.  Trump was not a third party choice, Trump was the opportunity to finally get a second party in DC.

The legislative priorities of the UniParty are driven by lobbyists.  Those same lobbyists remain in place regardless of election outcomes.  The lack of forward progress on Trump economic policy initiatives is specifically because congress doesn’t set the legislative priorities, the lobbyists do.

President Donald Trump winning the November ’16 election threw a monkey wrench into the entire DC system…. The modern legislative machine was/is frozen in place.

The “America First” policies represented by candidate Donald Trump are not within the legislative constructs coming from the authors of the legislation. Congress has no bills to advance, no actual agenda to work on, because all of the myriad of bills and briefs written for action are not in line with President Trump policy.

That’s why congress is not passing any significant economic legislation for President Trump to sign.  The exact opposite is true.  The UniParty congressional representatives are procrastinating on policy while looking for, waiting for, any defeat of President Trump they can use as an excuse to explain why they are not advancing his ‘America-First’ agenda.

There’s no entity within DC writing legislation that is in-line with President Trump’s economic and foreign policy agenda. Exactly the opposite is true. All of the DC legislative briefs and constructs are antithetical to Trump policy.

There are hundreds of file boxes filled with thousands of legislative constructs that became worthless when Donald Trump won the election.

Those legislative constructs (briefs) representing tens of millions of dollars worth of time and influence and are now just sitting there piled up in boxes under desks and in closets amid K-Street and the congressional offices.

Any current legislation must be in-line with an entire new political perspective, and there’s no-one, no special interest or lobbying group, currently occupying DC office space with any interest in synergy with Trump policy.

Think about the larger ramifications within that truism.

That is also why there’s so much opposition.

Congress is biding time trying to run out the administration clock; and the media is willfully blind to their avoidance strategy because the corporate media is synergized with the UniParty objectives.

The ongoing ridiculous and increasingly futile Russian Election Investigation Hearings are merely how congress is justifying their time spent in DC.   They need this justification because without the hearings, without the illusion of doing something, there would be transparent sunlight upon their do-nothingness.

What’s really going on is an avoidance strategy to keep away from working on actionable legislative priorities that are antithetical to their UniParty power and purchased activity.

Meanwhile, brilliantly, through election victories and support for the executive, the aggregate U.S. electorate keep defeating the UniParty procrastination excuses.

As frustrating as this is, we must continue to take this approach.  However, don’t get fooled into showing appreciation for the insufferable Congressional Hearing dolts like Trey Gowdy et al, who are doing nothing more than putting on a pantomime to keep you satiated and distracted.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #31 

Hannity reveals why the media is hell-bent on destroying Trump


Amy Moreno (TruthFeed) is reporting that Fox News host Sean Hannity recently spoke out, revealing the truth behind why the media is so blatantly biased in favor of liberals.

Hannity explains that the lying mainstream media is the unelected fourth branch of government.

The media is working with the Deep State, a collection of political elites, to overturn the results of November's election and force President Trump of office.

The mainstream media is controlled by "progressive" globalists who are staunchly opposed to the entire "America First" concept, and absolutely loathe any form of nationalism.

The media shamelessly continues to push fake news and sensationalized stories, fulfilling their role as a "propaganda machine" for the elites who see themselves as our rulers, and see us as nothing more than lowly peasants.

The blatant lies and falsities which the mainstream media consistently pushes are not "accidents" or anything they hope to correct. They're manufactured, agenda-driven pieces of propaganda.

This is all part of a coordinated effort to bring down President Trump and usurp the will of the American people, something fake news outlets like CNN have been desperately trying to accomplish since the results of the election were in.

As the mainstream media continues to loudly encourage violent rebellion against President Trump, they are literally brainwashing Americans to (falsely) believe that he "stole" the election from the "rightful" candidate, and people are now getting hurt because of it.

After Wednesday's politically motivated shooting, perpetrated by an angry liberal, it is clear that the media is influencing viewers to commit acts of violence against conservatives.

The rhetoric streaming from the media is relentless and dangerous, and people are now getting hurt because of it.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #32 

Judge Jeanine goes off on anti-Trump and treasonous GOP -- "You're in power damn it! Do something!"

Jim Hoft (GatewayPundit) is reporting that currently there is a play running in New York City Central Park that includes a Donald Trump assassination scene.

As of this today, Paul Ryan has not condemned the Trump assassination play.

Ryan and fellow Republican leaders have remained silent as liberal actors act out the assassination of President Trump night after night in Central Park.

Republican leaders rarely, if ever, come to the president's defense -- and refuse to legislate his policies.

On Saturday Judge Jeanine went off on the anti-Trump and treasonous GOP elites who are willfully bringing down the Republican president.

Judge Jeanine: You want to talk Russia. Let's talk Russia. Let's talk about the sale of 20% of our uranium to Russia. And Hillary Clinton signing off on the deal. The Clinton Foundation, that slush fund received $140 million and Bill Clinton getting more than twice or triple his speech fee. You're empowered damnit! Do something! Pass something. Cut this kumbayah crap, put on your big boy pants and act like you're in power! ACT LIKE YOU GIVE A DAMN! And more important, convince us that you're not in on the effort to take down the president.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #33 

Legal expert Gregg Jarrett says Mueller "is hopelessly conflicted in violating the law"

Gregg Jarrett wrote about Mueller's conflict of interests in yesterday's column at FOX News.

The Washington Post is reporting that Robert Mueller is now investigating President Trump for obstruction of justice, examining not only the president's alleged statement to James Comey in their February meeting, but also the firing of the FBI Director.

If true, this development makes the argument even more compelling that Mueller cannot serve as special counsel. He has an egregious conflict of interest.

The special counsel statute specifically prohibits Mueller from serving if he has "a personal relationship with any person substantially involved in the investigation or prosecution." The language is mandatory. He "shall" disqualify himself. Comey is substantially involved in the case. Indeed, he is the central witness.

The two men and former colleagues have long been friends, allies and partners. Agents have quipped that they were joined at the hip while at the Department of Justice and the FBI. They have a mentor-protégé relationship. The likelihood of prejudice and favoritism is glaring and severe.

So, it is incomprehensible that the man who is a close friend of the star witness against the president… will now determine whether the president committed a prosecutable crime in his dealings with Mueller's good friend.

Paul Mirengoff (PowerLine) says the conflict of interest arising from his close relationship with Comey becomes more acute. As I've argued before, Comey will surely be at the heart of any investigation of alleged obstruction by the president. I question whether Mueller can fairly investigate claims in which his friend figures so centrally. I'm certain he cannot do so without at least the appearance of partiality.

Andy McCarthy argues that "too much is made of Mueller's being pals with Jim Comey." But the two are more than just pals who enjoy a "cordial relationship" (as Andy puts it). They were comrades-in-arms during the events that made Comey's career -- the showdown with the Bush administration over reauthorizing a key surveillance program. And Comey's gushing testimony about Mueller evinces a warm and deep relationship.

McCarthy says it's unlikely that Comey will be a witness in Mueller's probe and, if he becomes one, "we can trust Mueller at that point to apply the relevant ethical rules and decide. . .whether his recusal is required to avoid the appearance of impropriety."

Yesterday, when McCarthy published this, there was no indication that Mueller is investigating the president for obstruction of justice. Now, if the Post's report is correct, we know that Mueller is. This places Comey front-and-center, not because his testimony makes out a legitimate case of obstruction in what Comey has alleged, but because it almost certainly is part of the basis for the case of obstruction -- legitimate or not -- that is being investigated.

In my view, then, we are at the point where Mueller must decide whether his recusal is required to avoid the appearance of impropriety. He may already have decided that recusal is not required.

I don't trust him to make the right decision. His interest, I suspect, is in remaining the ultimate non-elected Washington power player. In addition, it's hard to imagine him telling his recently-assembled dream team, "sorry folks, I'm done here."

We frequently hear that if President Trump were to fire Mueller, it would trigger a "constitutional crisis." Maybe. For sure, Trump's enemies would say so.

But suppose in a year or two (or maybe during the 2020 election season), Mueller decides -- based on the work and recommendations of leftists like Michael Dreeben and Clintonistas like Jeannie Rhee -- to find that the president of the United States obstructed justice, thereby triggering impeachment. Might not that create a constitutional crisis?

Trump's enemies would call it a vindication of the Constitution, not a crisis. But many others would regard it as something like an attempted coup.

In our fractured polity, there is no consensus about what amounts to a constitutional crisis (or perhaps even whether there's anything wrong with one). It's always a question of whose ox is gored.

For Trump, the Mueller question comes down to take pain now or (very possibly) take pain later. The pain Trump would take now for firing Mueller is certain. If he doesn't fire Mueller, he might not take pain later, but if he does, the pain will be more severe.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #34 

Five separate leaks dictate that Special Counsel Robert Mueller must be fired or replaced

Doug Ross (DirectorBlue) says the fact that there are five -- count 'em, five -- separate leaks from the special counsel's office, all of which are illegal, indicate the Mueller is either incompetent or out-of-control. CNN's report says it all:


Using the Democrats' logic, we need a special counsel to investigate the special counsel.

Or, for a simpler approach, James Comey's wingman Robert Mueller must be replaced. Now. Not tomorrow. Now!

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #35 

"This is the kind of stuff over which lawyers get disbarred"

Jim Hoft (GatewayPundit) is reporting that FOX News legal expert Gregg Jarrett suggested today Robert Mueller should disqualify himself from special counsel due to his relationship with James Comey.

The special counsel could not find any evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia so now they are going for obstruction of justice charges according to the latest deep state leads to the liberal media.

Donald Trump responded tonight to this ongoing witch hunt:


And then Hillary Clinton's obstruction of justice:


Gregg Jarrett says Mueller must recuse himself.

Gregg Jarrett: "If you look at the special counsel statute it says you cannot serve as special counsel if you have a personal relationship with someone who is central to the case. If this Washington Post story is true, it's now Trump against Comey. Comey is now the star witness, the key witness against Trump. Well, guess what? Comey and Mueller are longtime close personal friends, partners, allies. They were joined at the hip at the DoJ and FBI. It's a mentor-protege relationship. How is this fair to Donald Trump because Mueller is now going to decide whether to believe his good friend or the man who fired his good friend…

… This is the kind of stuff over which lawyers get disbarred. If does not resign then Rod Rosenstein out to fire Mueller."

Related:  Trump goes off on Mueller's "witch hunt" after latest Deep State leaks

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #36 

Presidential historian says Deep State operatives are attempting coup d'état of US President

Jim Hoft (GatewayPundit) is reporting that presidential historian and author Doug Wead told Lou Dobbs Thursday the Deep State is attempting a coup d'état of President Trump.

Wead says they have attempted to overthrow foreign governments and now they are determined to overthrow the duly elected Republican president.

Doug Wead: We have very skilled, talented professionals. They've overthrown governments in Vietnam and the Philippines, in Iraq and Iran, in Egypt, in the Ukraine. Duly elected democratic governments. They created what they called "popular uprisings."

What did we expect?  That's there skill set.  These people who work some of them in the State Department, some of them in intelligence, some of them in the media.  They've worked together to overthrow other governments.  So it was inevitable they would use the gun on ourselves.  So here they go, let's see if we can do this in America.  It looks Like a coup d'état. I don't know how else you would explain it.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #37 

Hannity exposes the massive conflict of interest with Mueller and Comey

Truth Feed News is reporting that, according to the Washington Post's "anonymous sources," Robert Mueller will be investigating the claim that President Trump "obstructed justice."

Hannity mentions this must of course be taken with a grain of salt since WaPo has been spectacularly wrong on various other claims recently.

However, if this is accurate, it would not be surprising since Mueller and Comey have been long time best pals and Mueller even called Comey his "brother in arms."

How can Robert Mueller possibly investigate Trump objectively when the key witness against Trump is his best friend?

The conflicts are too many to even mention.

Clearly, the deep state is out for revenge and the swamp is fighting for it's survival.

Special counsel investigating Trump -- not Loretta Lynch -- for obstruction of justice

Doug Ross (DirectorBlue) says: "That was quick."

With all the crimes we know were committed -- from unmasking Michael Flynn's name, to Loretta Lynch's interference in the 2016 election, to James Comey's leak(s) -- the special counsel is said to be investigating... Donald Trump.

Special counsel Robert Mueller is now investigating whether President Trump attempted to obstruct justice into the federal probe of Russian interference in the presidential election last year.

While the FBI had originally said Trump was not being investigated for possible collusion between his campaign associates and Russia, the commander in chief is now under scrutiny for his actions in response to the probe, according to a Washington Post report... Though former FBI Director James Comey previously assured Trump in private that he was not under investigation, officials say that changed days after Trump fired Comey May 9...

...A response from Trump's legal team was sent out moments after the Washington Post report was published." The FBI leak of information regarding the President is outrageous, inexcusable and illegal," said Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Kasowitz.

I think a special counsel is warranted; just not Robert Mueller. Mueller, who is the essence of a Beltway insider, has an inherent conflict of interest given his long history as James Comey's wingman. Not to mention having Clinton Foundation donors on his staff, which has discredited Mueller's investigation before it has even begun.

Donald Trump needs to fire the entire special counsel and replace it with people who are really non-partisan. Perhaps -- dare to dream -- people who haven't contributed to either party nor taken blatantly partisan positions.

FBI Director McCabe is the key behind Mueller's and Comey's scheme against POTUS

Carter (GatewayPundit) says acting special counsel Robert Mueller is in bed with friend and former FBI Director James Comey and acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe in an effort to undermine President Trump.

Andrew McCabe took over for Comey following his firing by President Trump. Mueller and Comey are NOT the ringleaders of this swamp fiasco, it turns out that McCabe is the real threat here.

As TGP previously reported, Comey's replacement as Acting FBI Head, Andrew McCabe, ALSO has ties to the Hillary Clinton campaign.  Online publication, Newsweek, is reporting that:

Concerns came after revelations by media outlets, including The Wall Street Journal, that a political action committee affiliated with Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, who has ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton, contributed almost $500,000 to the 2015 Virginia state Senate campaign of McCabe's wife, Jill McCabe. (She lost the election.) She also received $207,788 from the Virginia Democratic Party, which is connected to McAuliffe, a Democrat.

There are now rumblings that McCabe and Mueller are assembling a better political operation than the Hillary Campaign.
Big League Politics reports:

An inside source told Big League Politics that McCabe is "running the show," and "he's the key."

"Mueller and McCabe are assembling a better political operation than Hillary had in the campaign. The trio of Mueller/McCabe and Comey are all creatures of the swamp," the source explained. "Any Republican who thinks this isn't a political operation and isn't geared toward impacting 2018 and beyond is absolutely nuts."

"I think McCabe is the most politically savvy given how he navigated the controversy with his wife's campaign donations and the Clinton investigation," the source continued.

McCabe took over when Comey got fired and quickly set up the team's power play. McCabe said that Comey did not get fired from the FBI for performance issues. That sets up the premise for a potential obstruction of justice move by the McCabe-Mueller-Comey trio.

President Trump should end this fiasco immediately.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #38 

The fix is in


TruePundit is reporting that a high-ranking Justice Department official believes Special Counsel Robert Mueller has granted a complete get-out-of-jail-free-card deal for disgraced FBI Director James Comey -- a coveted immunity deal in exchange for cooperating as a key witness. A Justice Department source said:

"The immunity is a done deal. Mueller can do whatever he wants. We (Justice) have no say but after many years working criminal cases I know Comey has been given immunity. You can tell by the way he is acting now and the fact that Mueller has kept us in the dark about his investigation."

Special Counsel spokesman Peter Carr at Justice would not comment when asked to detail the immunity arrangement between Comey and Mueller.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Posts: 884
Reply with quote  #39 
RINOS are part of the deep state and paid off by George Soros. They hate Trump too and want him out. Only We The People, who are patriots, want him.

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #40 

Obama's DHS Secretary rushes to Capitol Hill to "voluntarily assist" Senate Intel Committee on Russia probe

Cristina Laila (GatewayPundit) is reporting that former Department of Homeland Security Secretary under Obama, Jeh Johnson rushed to Capitol Hill for no reason other than to "voluntarily assist the Senate Intel Committee in their work on a very important investigation."


Another Obama loyalist buzzing around this Stalin-like investigation into President Trump is not good.

Via the Washington Examiner:

Former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson met Monday with Senate Intelligence Committee investigators on the probe into Russia's meddling in the 2016 election.

Johnson arrived on Capitol Hill to meet with the committee this afternoon and spent approximately 90 minutes talking with investigators, a congressional aide told the Washington Examiner.

The former secretary of Homeland Security, who served under Barack Obama, told reporters he was there to "voluntarily assist the Senate Intel Committee in their work on a very important investigation."

The House Intelligence Committee is also expected to call on Johnson to testify on Russia's interference in the 2016 election.

Jeh Johnson should be forced to give a testimony as to why the DHS tried to hack into the Georgia election. As TGP previously reported, the Georgia Secretary of State accused the Obama DHS of conducting 10 different cyber attacks on the state networks.

Secretary of State Brian Kemp called for an investigation on the DHS attacks:

The Georgia Secretary of State's Office now confirms 10 separate cyberattacks on its network were all traced back to U.S. Department of Homeland Security addresses.

In an exclusive interview, a visibly frustrated Secretary of State Brian Kemp confirmed the attacks of different levels on his agency's network over the last 10 months. He says they all traced back to DHS internet provider addresses.

"We're being told something that they think they have it figured out, yet nobody's really showed us how this happened," Kemp said. "We need to know."

Related:  Trump is considering firing Special Counsel Mueller

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #41 

Special counsel Mueller is hiring Obama-Clinton donors to investigate Team Trump


S. Noble (IndependentSentinel) is reporting that Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who has been sainted by the establishment, is a longtime and very close friend of Jim Comey's, the easily "stunned" and "confused" former FBI director. Mueller's begun hiring members of his investigative team and at least four of them are Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton donors.

Mueller is hiring Democrat donors

So far Mueller appointed at least four Democrat donors as prosecutors.

The National Law Journal reported that Mueller has tapped on a part-time basis Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben, regarded as one of the best government attorneys in the country. Dreeben also donated in 2008 to the Barack Obama PAC and in 2006 to the Hillary Clinton PAC.

Mueller reportedly hired Andrew Weissmann, head of the fraud section in the DOJ Criminal Division. Weissman led the Enron Task Force from 2002-2005, overseeing the investigations and prosecutions of dozens of individuals including Republican Kenneth Lay.

Weissman donated six times to PACs for Obama's presidential campaign as well as the DNC in 2006.

Jeannie Rhee, former deputy assistant attorney general, donated to the Democratic National Committee as well as campaign PACs Obama in 2008 and 2011, and Clinton's campaign in 2015 and 2016.

James Quarles, who worked as an assistant special prosecutor on the Watergate Special Prosecution Force and who also works as an attorney at WilmerHale with Rhee, has a long record of donating to Democratic groups starting in 1987 for the PAC Dukakis for President. In 2016, he donated to Clinton's PAC Hillary for America.

Comey leaked a memo to manipulate the investigation

Former FBI director Jim Comey leaked a memo of a privileged communication with the President to manipulate the administration into appointing a special counsel. He wasn't interested in investigating leaks because he's one of the leakers.

That should end the special counsel but it won't.

Comey was interested in having a special counsel who just happens to be his friend Robert Mueller.

Comey is a very close friend of Robert Mueller's. For the past 15 years, the two men have been described as "brothers in arms." Their work together during the controversies over Bush-era terrorist surveillance has been characterized as "deepening a friendship forged in the crucible of the highest levels of the national security apparatus after the 9/11 attacks," after which the men became "close partners and close allies throughout the years ahead."

Jeff Sessions was made to recuse himself but Comey's friend is acceptable?

Mueller was not fair to targeted conservatives

As FBI Director, Mueller is the investigator who was unaware of the IRS targeting of conservative groups.

The Obama IRS targeted conservative organizations and during a June 2013 hearing he refused to answer or was possibly completely unaware of any investigation.

Jordan lit into Mueller. "I'm not asking you about details of the investigation, I'm saying why were people targeted before the investigation started," Jordan said. "Why were they contacted by the FBI? … I'm asking you basic questions about the investigation, like who's heading it up. And you can't tell me that."

"This is the most important issue in front of the country in the last six weeks, and you don't know who the lead investigator is?" Jordan asked, sounding shocked.

"At this juncture, no I do not," Mueller responded.

"Do you know if you've talked to any of the victims?" Jordan went on. "Have you talked to any of the groups that were targeted by their government? Have you met with any of the tea party groups since May 14, 2013?"

"I don't know what the status of the interviews are by the team that's on it," Mueller said.

The victims of the targeting had not been interviewed by the IRS.

Mueller can keep the investigation going for years

Under terms of his appointment by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, Mueller will have wide powers to investigate "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump" and -- beyond that -- "any matters" that arise from the investigation, including perjury and obstruction of justice.

He can keep the fishing expedition going for years and take it anywhere he wants under the authority given him by Rod Rosenstein.

If the Democrats take back the House in 2018, they will be perfectly prepared for impeachment.

Mueller is winning accolades, particularly from the left, but not everyone agrees

Former Senator Bob Graham of Florida, the Democrat who ran the joint Senate-House congressional investigation of pre-9/11 intelligence failures, said in an interview that while he was pleased by the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate Russian meddling in 2016 election, he questioned the choice of Mueller.

"I did not have a good relationship with Mueller during the 9/11 investigation," he said. "I have some concerns that he will in fact be fully independent, based on what I observed 15 years ago."

Graham has long been critical of what he says are Mueller's repeated attempts to protect the bureau from embarrassment over its pre-9/11 failures as well as the former FBI director's failure to hold the government of Saudi Arabia accountable for its possible ties to the hijackers.

Why do the Republicans keep letting the Democrats get away with murder. I just don't understand?

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #42 

Never underestimate the severity of James Comey's manipulative intent


Sundance (ConservativeTreehouse) says there are times when it becomes important, perhaps very important, to emphasize inherent angles and intentions that breed within the scheme.

Those who view the actions, behaviors, and more importantly the words, from a perspective of their own outlook and moral center are making a critical mistake.  Former FBI Director James Comey does not frame his sentiments from the same operational perspective of those guided by an honorable moral compass.

Good Example Here.

Former FBI Director James Comey is steeped in the dark arts of self-serving deception. It is a character trait necessary for life at the top of the food chain in the deep swamp.  As such, the fully developed Comey persona is necessarily devoid of any cognitive genetic composition which would frame compassion for anything, or anyone. Comey looks out for his own best interests.  FIRST. FOREMOST. and ONLY.

James Comey constructed that hearing in the way James Comey wanted to construct that hearing.  Comey controlled when the hearing took place; Comey controlled the hearing being in public; Comey controlled the duration of the hearing, and Comey controlled the length of time each Senator had for the questioning within the hearing.

James Comey controlled everything about that hearing and said exactly what he wanted to say within that hearing.  Comey released his opening statement before the hearing, on the day prior to the hearing, because that was James Comey's intention for the hearing.

Everything Comey said within the hearing was for a specific purpose, and with a specific audience for his message in mind.  There were no discoveries from the hearing that Comey did not intend as discoveries from the hearing.  Comey was messaging to former AG Loretta Lynch, former President Obama and former candidate Hillary Clinton.  There was nothing accidentally released within the hearing; everything was pre-planned, pre-staged, coordinated with like-minded travelers and well thought out.

Everything is always thought out. Every word is carefully considered. Every possible angle is run through a perspective of consequence so vast and extensive it would exhaust anyone unfamiliar with the necessary level of energy it takes to train your mind to a point where lying as the basis for preservation is habitual.

Skills that are second nature take less effort.  Professional lying is a trained skill, only possible amid those who have taught themselves to psychologically disconnect from any sense of guilt or remorse.  That is James Comey.

Unfortunately, that is the appropriate perspective to view these words:

"I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter -- I didn't do it myself for a variety of reasons -- but I asked him to, because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel."

A swamp dweller skilled in the dark arts of deception and control would state those words knowing ordinary people, those with honest minds, would seek to remove the special counsel as an outcome.

Liars use reference points of honesty against their victims.

James Comey is setting up Special Counsel Mueller as fruit of a poisoned tree Comey would have you believe he planted. He didn't; but his future interests are served in having us believe he did.

These "after-the-fact-words", spoken before congress, are framed as James Comey setting up an explanation and reference point for the appointment of his "friend", Robert Mueller. However, these are also the Machiavellian words of Comey trying to diminish the risk inherent in Robert Muellers investigation.

Fired Comey has no way of knowing how deep the investigation may go.  Nor does James Comey know the severity of disposition amid those within the FBI ranks who saw and experienced his true, manipulative and self-serving character.

Therefore, the easiest way to remove risk is to corrode the foundation for the underlying investigative construct by deteriorating support for the investigation itself.

James Comey is no longer in control of the investigative inputs or investigative outcomes.

Those whom Comey has injured, namely Attorney General Jeff Sessions and President Trump, are in positions where they can honestly and openly monitor the larger investigative inputs and follow the outcomes; they can also monitor the ongoing activity of Comey himself.

When someone of Comey's inherent disposition is in a place like this, they seek to influence through direct contact.  Absent of an ability to engage in direct contact the fall-back position is to influence the surrounding landscape (media an public opinion).

Never, ever, underestimate the severity or skill of a professional liar.

Never take anything they say at face value the way you would a disconnected observer.

Liars lie, it's what they do.

Professional liars lie well, it's what they've trained themselves to do.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #43 

Comey's "truth" crusade is really an anti-Trump crusade


Michael Goodwin (NYPost) says as we sift through the rubble of the James Comey ­ hearing, I  have a confession to make: My descriptions of the former FBI boss as J. Edgar Comey are accurate but incomplete.

By his actions, Comey reveals himself to be a fellow traveler with Never Trumpers. His firing brought him out of the shadows and into the open "resistance" to the president.

In hindsight, their clash was ­inevitable.

Yes, the FBI does enormous good in catching bad guys. But the same could be said of the bureau during the long, sordid tenure of J. Edgar Hoover.

The founding G-man, Hoover kept his job because five presidents were afraid to fire him. His insurance was the dirt he secretly collected on them.

Comey is cut from the same cloth, but Trump wasn't afraid to fire him. For his trouble, and for his mistakes in how he did it, Trump faces an investigation that could consume his presidency.

And Comey is now a driving force in the scheme to overturn the 2016 election.

Comey testified that he leaked a secret memo in hopes a special counsel would be appointed. He hit the jackpot with Robert Mueller, a long associate and mutual admirer.

Like many of our government betters, Comey forgot he was a public servant. The arrogance of unaccountable power drips from him like sweat from a racehorse.

You see it in his decision to write memos after every meeting with Trump, including the first one. He never did this with previous presidents, but didn't trust his new boss.

Curiously for a man who claims to be nonpartisan, Comey wasn't bothered nearly as much when a Democratic attorney general tried to meddle in the election by smothering his investigation of Hillary Clinton's e-mails. Or when the IRS went after conservatives.

If Comey didn't trust a duly elected president, the honorable thing would be to resign. But Comey was not honorable.

Instead, he was a sneaky note-taker collecting grievances as insurance for himself. But he didn't create a national crisis alone.

He colluded with the anti-Trump media, which recognized the FBI director as a kindred spirit; he cemented their brotherhood with leaks.

He admitted to the Senate he leaked just one memo criticizing Trump over the Gen. Michael Flynn case, asking a friend to give it to The New York Times. In its May 16 story, the paper identified its sources only as "two people who read the memo."

But that was not the first leak, for the Times had reported five days earlier on a separate, personal Comey memo attacking Trump for demanding "loyalty," calling its anonymous sources "Mr. Comey's associates."

Wait, that wasn't the first leak, either. On March 5, one day after Trump accused President Barack Obama of wiretapping him at Trump Tower, the Times reported that Comey was furious at the charge. Its unnamed sources were "senior American officials."

All three stories carried the byline of Michael Schmidt, as did others describing intimate details of Comey's dealings with Trump. Clearly, Schmidt had very, very good sources close to Comey.

The Washington Post also had "Justice Department officials" as anonymous sources for a bombshell report saying Attorney General nominee Jeff Sessions failed to disclose two meetings with the Russian ambassador.

In calling Comey a "leaker," Trump may have made the first understatement of his life. My bet is that Comey was a fountain of leaks, and didn't show interest in prosecuting others because of his own guilt.

The scorned avenger's disclosures softened the ground for his Senate appearance. And showing his talent for grabbing headlines, Comey released his prepared testimony a day early, giving him two days of stories attacking the president.

The career prosecutor also ratcheted up his accusations, making Trump's alleged words sound increasingly more sinister.

For example, in his prepared remarks, Comey said Trump made a "request" that he drop the Flynn probe and quoted the president saying "I hope you can let this go."

But in Comey's answers to senators' questions, Trump's request became "an order," with Comey saying "I took it as a direction."

When a senator asked if he considered language like "I hope" as a presidential directive, Comey likened himself to a player in a medieval martyr drama, saying, "Yes, it kind of rings in my ears as, ‘Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?' "

Those are supposedly the words an English king used in 1170 about the Archbishop of Canterbury. Soon, knights loyal to the king murdered Thomas Becket.

This is beyond theatrics. Comey's claim that he was ordered to end the Flynn probe is the heart of the case that Trump obstructed justice.

Yet it's a stretch for several reasons. First, Comey testified as head of the FBI on May 3, long after his key meetings with Trump, that he was never asked to end an investigation for political reasons, saying "It's not happened in my experience." Now fired, he's changed his tune.

Second, Comey also believes "I was fired because of the Russia investigation," which he admits is completely separate from the Flynn probe.

Third, Comey testified that Trump himself was never under investigation and never asked him to stop the Russia probe. Trump only asked that Comey announce the president was not being investigated -- but Comey repeatedly refused.

Those facts undercut Comey's case, so they are ignored or minimized. No surprise there.

Determined to bring down the president, J. Edgar Comey couldn't let the truth interfere.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #44 

The entire Deep State DC apparatchik knew President Trump was not under investigation

Sundance (ConservativeTreehouse) is reporting that when fired FBI Director James Comey testified to congress he admitted to telling President-Elect Donald Trump, and President Donald Trump, three times, he was never under investigation.

FBI Director Comey told President-elect Trump on January 6th he was not under investigation; Comey again told President Trump on January 27th he was not under investigation; and again on February 15th Director Comey told President Trump he was not under investigation.

However, more importantly, James Comey also admitted he told congressional leadership the exact same thing, repeatedly. Specifically, James Comey stated he informed: •Paul Ryan, •Nancy Pelosi, •Mitch McConnell, •Chuck Schumer, •Devin Nunes, •Adam Schiff, •Richard Burr, •Dianne Feinstein and •Mark Warner.

James Comey personally told Republican and Democrat leadership, and both the Senate and House intelligence committees, that President Trump was not under investigation.

Think about that for a minute.

That means all of these professional politicians knew the media claims of President Trump being under investigation was a nothingburger; completely false.

To add to that list, James Comey said he briefed each of the intelligence committees that President Trump was never under investigation.

Do you realize how many people that is?

Mike Conaway (11th District of Texas), Peter King (2nd District of New York), Frank LoBiondo (2nd District of New Jersey), Tom Rooney (17th District of Florida), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (27th District of Florida), Michael Turner (10th District of Ohio), Brad Wenstrup (2nd District of Ohio), Chris Stewart (2nd District of Utah), Rick Crawford (1st District of Arkansas), Trey Gowdy (4th District of South Carolina), Elise Stefanik (21st District of New York), Will Hurd (23rd District of Texas), Adam Schiff, Ranking Member (28th District of California), Jim Himes (4th District of Connecticut), Terri Sewell (7th District of Alabama), Andre Carson (7th District of Indiana), Jackie Speier (14th District of California), Mike Quigley (5th District of Illinois), Eric Swalwell (15th District of California), Joaquin Castro (20th District of Texas), Denny Heck (10th District of Washington), James Risch (Idaho), Marco Rubio (Florida), Susan Collins (Maine), Roy Blunt (Missouri), James Lankford (Oklahoma), Tom Cotton (Arkansas), John Cornyn (Texas), Dianne Feinstein (California), Ron Wyden (Oregon), Martin Heinrich (New Mexico), Angus King (Maine), Joe Manchin (West Virginia), Kamala Harris (California)

… All of them knew President Trump was not under investigation.

That also means that all of their key aides, staffers who assist each of the aforementioned politicians – and sit in on intelligence briefings, knew President Trump was not under investigation.

That network extends downstream to thousands of people on capitol hill, and everyone surrounding the White House, and everyone in key legislative contact, and they all knew President Trump was never under investigation.

That reality and acceptance also extends the concentric circles to those media voices and "sources" who were previously highlighted by WikiLeaks for close personal contact with each of the campaign teams and political constructs of those professional politicians.

The entire Deep State apparatchik knew President trump was not under investigation.

Heck, the leadership of the FBI and DoJ that James Comey often cites in his memos, leaks and explanations also knew President Trump was not under investigation; and all of the Washington Post, New York Times, WSJ and CNN stories were written based on these same "sources".  Sources who knew President Trump was never under investigation.

Other than one obtuse statement from what was apparently a frustrated Senator Chuck Grassley, the entire DC system kept a lid on the truth that President Trump was not ever under investigation.

In addition to his committee chairmanship, and direct position on the "gang-of-eight" Representative Devin Nunes was even part of the Trump transition team.  And James Comey stated he told Nunes that President Trump was not under investigation.

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Minority leader Chuck Schumer were also personally told by James Comey that President Trump was not under investigation.

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell were personally told by Comey that President Trump was not under investigation.

Representative Adam Schiff and Senator Mark Warner were personally told by FBI Director James Comey that President Trump was never under investigation.

How many interviews did Pelosi, Schumer, Ryan, McConnell, Schiff and Warner give where they allowed the media's "Trump Under Investigation Narrative" to remain unchallenged?

Why would republicans Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Richard Burr, and to a lesser extent Devin Nunes, never directly challenge the media narrative in their interviews?

Think about the scope of all of it.

Do you still cling to the invisible thread that the UniParty doesn't exist?

Do you still somehow reconcile the professionally self-serving "Deep State" is merely a myth?

Think about that.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Posts: 884
Reply with quote  #45 
This is why any good lawyer would not testify.  By Comey being a rat and exposing Attorney General Loretta Lynch in his finger pointing, he has now put 4 fingers back at him and this is the CHESS match that happens, YOUR SECRETS AND INVOLVEMENT are now fair game for scrutiny and prosecution.


Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #46 

Jim Comey is a member of the resistance who colluded with Lynch on other occasions


S. Noble (IndependentSentinel) is reporting that Jim Comey is a member of the Resistance and there is evidence forthcoming showing he colluded with Loretta Lynch on other occasions.

The man who never required notes be taken during Hillary Clinton's testimony, took copious notes when he met with Donald Trump. He let Clinton off the hook despite the fact that she was obviously guilty in the email scandal and probably with the Clinton Foundation. This same man wouldn't let the public know Trump was not the subject of the Russia investigation. The media knew all this and refused to report it.

Jim Comey also colluded with Loretta Lynch and called the Clinton email case a "matter" as the Clinton campaign requested.

More evidence of collusion is going to come out according to Circa News.

John Solomon of Circa News told Sean Hannity last night that there were other meetings between James Comey and Loretta Lynch and they are going to come to light in the coming weeks.

"I think there is probably more interest that should be focused on James Comey and Attorney General Loretta Lynch after what we heard today. And I am hearing tonight that Comey may have had other meetings with Lynch that are going to come to light in the next few weeks."

How many leaks is Jim Comey responsible for? There are many that appear to have come from the FBI.

Comey leaked unethically, perhaps illegally

Comey, in testimony to the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, said his decision to have his memos shared publicly came after Trump tweeted last month that Comey had "better hope that there are no ‘tapes' of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!"

However, that isn't exactly true. Comey leaked details of his private dinner to the NY Times on March 11th.

Comey added that because his writings were unclassified he felt he could share them but didn't want to do it personally with the media. "I was worried it would be like feeding seagulls at the beach," he told senators.

He's a snowflake.

Later in the hearing, Comey said, he wanted his memo released because "I thought it might prompt the appointment of a special counsel." The day after, it was announced that former FBI Director Bob Mueller would become special counsel.

He leaked privileged information to manipulate the law.

There are questions about the legality and the ethics of the Comey leaks. Jay Sekulow wrote: Fired FBI Director Comey just admitted under oath that he had a privileged memo leaked to the media. He testified that he did so to manipulate the situation and force the appointment of a Special Counsel. It's clear Comey is part of the Resistance. He is intentionally undermining the President. He is a leaker.

Media knew Trump was not the subject of the investigation and refused to report it

Multiple sources knew Donald Trump was not the subject of the FBI Russia investigation and the press willfully refused to report it. The media is only anti-Trump.

Trump's attorneys are filing complaints against Comey over the leak. Comey will have some problems.

Related:  At least 9 of 38 Deep State leaks to media outlets are linked or related to James Comey

Related:  Trump's lawyer is going to file a complaint with DoJ about Comey's leaks

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #47 

L'affair Comey -- Trump didn't obstruct and the Russians didn't hack the election

The Democrats dream of pinning "obstruction" on President Trump were just flushed down the toilet.

The lying #FakeNews media and desperate Democrats have been reporting on this for weeks as if it were a "done deal," peddling fake "Comey memos" that no one has ever laid eyes on, submitted by our liberal media's favorite source -- "anonymous."

It's all a huge phony scam designed to take down President Trump.

But the joke is on the Dems and our #FakeNews media because Comey in his own words just destroyed any hope of an "obstruction case."

Jay Sekulow, the Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice appeared on Hannity and said former disgraced FBI Director James Comey's statement released was a "total and complete vindication of the president."

He went on to correctly state that pursuing the matter was a "waste of money."

Former FBI director James Comey began his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday by suggesting that the question of whether President Donald Trump had committed obstruction of justice was one for Special Counsel Robert Mueller to investigate.

But under questioning by Sen. James Risch (R-ID), Comey all but destroyed any hope Democrats had for bringing a case of obstruction of justice against President Donald Trump.

According to Comey's notes, Trump told him, "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy.  I hope you can let this go." Comey attempted to push this prompt as an "order" or "command" from POTUS; although he goes on to say he did not follow it.

Sen. Risch immediately saw this display on Comey's part for what it was, and proceeded to grill Comey on the matter: "Do you know of any case where a person has been charged for obstruction of justice, or for that matter any other criminal offense where they said or thought they hoped for an outcome?" Risch asked.

Comey immediately back-tracked: "I don't know well enough to answer, and the reason I keep saying his words is, I took it as a direction. I mean this is the president of the United States with me alone saying ‘I hope this,' I took it as this is what he wants me to do."

Catching Comey in the act, Sen. Risch clarified: "You may have taken it as a direction but that's not what he said."

Risch: I want to drill right down, as my time is limited, to the most recent dust-up regarding, allegations that the President of the United States obstructed justice. And, boy, you nailed this down on page page five, paragraph three, you put this in quotes. Words matter, you wrote down the words so we can all have the words in front of us now. There's 28 words that are in quotes, and it says, quote: "I hope" -- this is the president speaking -- "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go." Now, those are his exact words; is that correct?

Comey: Correct.

Risch: And you wrote them here and you put them in quotes.

Comey: Correct.

Risch: Thank you for that. He did not direct you to let it go.

Comey: Not in his words, no.

Risch: He did not order you to let it go.

Comey: Again, those words are not in order.

Risch: No. He said, "I hope." Now, like me, you probably did hundreds of cases, maybe thousands of cases, charging people with criminal offenses. And of course you have knowledge of the thousands of cases out there where people have been charged. Do you know of any case where a person has been charged for obstruction of justice or for that matter any other criminal offense where they said or thought they hoped for an outcome?

Comey: I don't know well enough to answer. And the reason I keep saying his words is, I took it as a direction.

Risch: Right.

Comey: I mean, it's the President of the United States with me alone, saying, "I hope this." I took it as this is what he wants me to do. I didn't obey that, but that's the way I took it.

Risch: You may have taken it as a direction, but that's not what he said.

Comey: Correct.

Risch: He said, "I hope."

Comey: Those are exact words, correct.

Risch: You don't know of anyone that's been charged for hoping something?

Comey: I don't, as I sit here.

Risch: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Democrats have hinged their hopes for impeachment -- and reversing the 2016 elections -- on the idea that Trump committed obstruction of justice. That case has now been smashed beyond repair.

The obstruction of justice meme

Keith Koffler (WhiteHouseDossier) reports that Sen. Lindsey Graham, (R-SC), no fan of President Trump, says special counsel Robert Mueller must have concluded there is no obstruction of justice case against Trump, because if he thought there was, he wouldn't let his "star witness" James Comey testify before Congress.

I don't know if this is correct, but I do know that Graham is not the kind of Republican who would reflexively defend Trump. He's not a partisan and Trump has gone after him and his close Senate friend, John McCain, in a personal manner. Rather, Graham would be one of the first to go if Republicans ever decide, as they did with Richard Nixon, that they could no longer support the president against impeachment.

Trump was never under investigation

Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) said to Comey, "Did you ever wonder why the only thing that's never been leaked is the fact that the president was not personally under investigation?"

S. Noble (IndependentSentinel) adds Comey told Trump three times that he was not the subject of the Russia investigation.

North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr, the Republican chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, asked Comey, "Did the president at any time ask you to stop the FBI investigation into Russian involvement in the 2016 U.S. elections?"

The former FBI director replied, "Not to my understanding, no."

Burr followed up by asking if any member of the administration made this request, and Comey replied, "no."

Burr asked Comey if it was obstruction of justice. The fired director responded:

"I don't think it's for me to say whether the conversation I had with the president was an effort to obstruct," the former FBI director replied. "I took it as a very disturbing thing, very concerning, but that's a conclusion I'm sure the special counsel will work towards to try and understand what the intention was there, and whether that's an offense."

Comey said he is "not a legal scholar," but how then did he know that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case against Hillary Clinton"?

This guy is a joke.

The #FakeNews media has been reporting ad nauseam that anonymous sources say Comey never told Trump he was not under investigation. In fact,  those unnamed sources were wrong. Comey, by his own testimony, told Trump three times he was not the subject of the investigation but refused to let him off the hook publicly so Trump could govern.

The anonymous sources are probably not vetted. If they say what the networks want to hear, they go with it. One example: "Sources tell CNN: Comey to testify he never told Trump he was not under FBI investigation". They did issue a retraction on that though others did not. All did not, but all downplayed its significance.

What they emphasized was the alleged "loyalty oath." They must have forgotten that Obama asked Bob Gates for loyalty. He didn't write an explicit memo, but he did mention it.

Comey's notes and the leaks

Jim Hoft (GatewayPundit) reports that Comey took notes of every meeting he had with Trump, but made no notes about his three hour interview with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on her likely criminal email activity -- ne skipped the meeting.

The FBI didn't even swear in Hillary Clinton during her testimony.

Hillary Clinton did not swear an oath to tell the truth before meeting with the FBI for three and a half hours last weekend, and the interview was not recorded, FBI Director James Comey told House lawmakers on Thursday.

The lack of a sworn oath does not remove the possibility of criminal penalties against Clinton if she lied to the FBI, though he said he had "no basis to conclude" that she was untruthful.

"Still a crime to lie to us," Comey told the House Oversight Committee.
 FBI policy is not to record interviews as part of its investigations.

Yet the revelations will nonetheless raise questions among Republicans, who have been skeptical of the FBI's investigation and have demanded to see the transcript of the former secretary of State's interview.

Axios is reporting that Trump's "tapes" tweet prompted Comey to leak memos

After his firing and this Trump tweet, Comey asked a close friend of his -- Columbia law professor Daniel Richman -- to leak the content of his memos to the media with the hope of triggering the appointment of a special counsel.

Comey said he  was honestly concerned he might lie about the nature of our meeting and I thought it important to document."

Comey said wrote them in an unclassified manner to make them "easier to discuss" across government. He added, "I remember

Truth Feed News reports Comey may have implicated himself into a felony punishable up to 10 years in prison by admitting he leaked a classified memos to his friend to leak to the media. Leaking classified info is illegal according to "U.S. Code 798 -- Disclosure of classified info."

Furthermore, Comey testified under oath that he leaked his cover-his-butt memo(s) to the New York Times after Donald Trump tweeted.

Trump's lawyer Marc Kasowitz said at the National Press Club in D.C. after the hearing that it's on the record the story was leaked the day before the tweet.

The NY Times quoted from the memo the day before the tweet.

That would make Comey a liar and, as Mr. Kasowitz said, acting in a retaliatory manner.

In addition, according to Mr. Kasowitz, the president also never told Mr. Comey -- "I need loyalty, I expect loyalty." He never said it in form and never said it in substance. Of course, the office of the president is entitled to expect loyalty from those who are serving the administration.

What the press is ignoring is that Comey admitted he told Trump three times he was not under investigation, that Trump did not ask for the investigation to be dropped, and that the NY Times story about Trump campaign aides having repeated contact with the Russians was untrue.

The Russian hacks

On Wednesday, Democrat Evelyn Farkas was still spreading the claim that Russia actually altered votes in the election.

This leftist talking point has now been completely debunked.

Truth Feed News is reporting that when asked by Senator Burr "Are you confident that no votes cast in the 2016 presidential election were altered?"

James Comey answered "I'm confident."

The Comey testimony continues to be a disaster for the witch hunters.

Christina Laila (GatewayPundit) says even MSNBC's Chris Matthews said that the notion that President Trump colluded with Russia to interfere in the 2016 U.S. election "came apart" following Comey's testimony.

"The assumption of the critics of the president, of his pursuers, you might say, is that somewhere along the line in the last year is the president had something to do with colluding with the Russians … to affect the election in some way."

"And yet what came apart this morning was that theory -- Flynn wasn't central to the Russian investigation," and secondly, that kills the idea that Flynn might have been in a position to testify against Trump."

"And if that's not the case, where's the there-there?"

Well here you have it, folks! It's over for the Democrats and the media sycophants are finally starting to admit it.

Loretta Lynch


Truth Feed News says the Comey hearing ended up being a complete disaster for Democrats hoping for a smoking gun against President Trump.

James Comey has already implicated himself as a leaker to the media, while admitting Trump never asked him to end the Russia investigation or obstruct justice in any way.

In addition, Comey was forced to admit that Loretta Lynch attempted to protect Hillary Clinton by referring to her email investigation as a "matter" instead of an "investigation."

Loretta Lynch, the former attorney general under Barack Obama, pressured former FBI Director James Comey to downplay the Clinton email server investigation and only refer to it as a "matter," Comey testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday.

Comey added later that he was concerned about that direction as it was false. He was further concerned because it aligned with the Clinton campaign's spin on the investigation. He said he complied, however, because he believed the media wouldn't buy into that take on it.

Comey cited that pressure from Lynch to downplay the investigation as one of the reasons he held a press conference to recommend the Department of Justice not seek to indict Clinton.

Comey also cited Lynch's secret tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton as a reason he chose to hold the press conference, he said, as he was concerned about preserving the independence of the FBI.

The Clinton campaign consistently sought to mislead the public by denying that Clinton was the subject of an FBI investigation. Instead, the campaign claimed the investigation was a simple "security inquiry." Comey said he was concerned by Lynch's pressure on him and the FBI to use the campaign's spin, as it appeared it appeared that Lynch was intentionally trying to align the language the FBI was using to match the angle pushed by the Clinton campaign.

Sara A. Carter (Circa) repots Comey said Loretta Lynch told him not to call the Clinton email probe an 'investigation'

Comey testified that Obama's Attorney General Loretta Lynch asked him to call the investigation into Hillary Clinton's email scandal a "matter" and not an "investigation."

Comey said that he was uncomfortable with the unexpected meeting Lynch had with former President Bill Clinton on an airport tarmac last year.

Comey said that meeting convinced him that the independence of the investigation was tainted with regard to the Justice Department and led him to go public with the bureau's findings on Clinton.

Lucian Wintrich (GatewayPundit) adds Comey admitted that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch attempted to suppress/reframe the investigation into former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's illegal private email server. AG Lynch purportedly directed Comey to immediately stop referring to the Hillary probe as an "investigation" or a "probe" and, instead, refer to it as a much more gentle "matter."

Comey went on to clarify during the hearing that the probe into Hilary was not just a "probe" or "investigation" but he reiterated that it was, in fact, a "criminal investigation."

Comey basically accused Loretta Lynch of interfering in an investigation -- the very charge the Democrats have been accusing Trump of.

Comey admits he orchestrated the leaks

Cristina Laila (GatewayPundit) is reporting that Comey admitted he was the leaker, said "I needed to get it out into the public square."

Fired FBI Director James Comey told the Senate Intel Committee on Thursday that he asked a friend of his at Columbia Law School to leak a memo he wrote regarding his conversation with President Trump to the press.


Comey admitted this after Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) asked if he ever shared any of them outside the DOJ.

Of course this was leaked to the New York Times. They ran with the story that Trump was pushing Comey to drop the Flynn investigation.

Comey's "friend"

Heavy is reporting that during his, former FBI Director James Comey said that he instructed a friend to leak a memo to a reporter in order to prompt a special counsel appointment. This was a memo that alleged that Donald Trump had asked Comey in a meeting to let the Michael Flynn investigation go.

"…[I] asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter. I didn't do it myself for a variety of reasons, but I asked him to because I thought it might prompt the appointment of a special counsel, so I asked a close friend of mine to do it."

When asked who this person is, James Comey simply said that he is a good friend from Columbia Law School. Comey did not name names, but he was referring to Daniel C. Richman, a Columbia Law School professor who is a longtime friend and confidant of Comey's. Dan Richman has confirmed as much to The Washington Post.

So who is Daniel C. Richman, the Columbia Law School professor who leaked the Comey memo to a reporter? Here's what you need to know about him.

1.  He is a former federal prosecutor who worked with Comey in New York.
2.  He teaches at Columbia Law School.
3.  He is an adviser to James Comey.
4.  He defended James Comey's letter to Congress in October.
5.  He previously said that Trump fired Comey because Comey wouldn't pledge his loyalty'

The details are here.


Keith Koffler says it used to be, "just the facts ma'am." The mainstream media always falsely claimed they were objective. But now, with the profit motive so ostentatiously front-and-center, the claim has no meaning whatsoever.

Watch the hype:

Truth Feed News reports Comey was forced to admit a New York Times report that claimed Trump campaign aides had repeated contacts with Russian intelligence was a lie.

This is more evidence that the liberal media has been pushing anti-Trump propaganda as truth that in reality is fiction.


On February 14th, The New York Times published a report titled, "Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence."

Comey told Congress "in the main, it was not true."

Sen. Risch asked Comey if he remembered the article.

Comey said he did; "It was about allegedly extensive electronic surveillance," he said.

Risch noted that after the report came out, Comey "sought out both Republican and Democrat senators to tell them that, hey, I don't know where this is coming from, but this is not factual."

Risch told Comey: "So the American people can understand this, that report by the New York Times was not true. Is that a fair statement?"

"In the main – it was not true," Comey said. "The challenge -- and I'm not picking on reporters -- about writing stories about classified information is that people talking about it often don't really know what is going on. And those of us who actually know what's going on aren't talking about it. And we don't call the press to say, hey, you got that thing wrong about this sensitive topic. We just have to leave it there."

Later in the hearing, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) noted that one of the three things Trump asked Comey was: "Can you  please tell the American people what these leaders in Congress already know -- what you already know, you told  me three times -- that I am not personally under investigation."

"You know," Rubio continued, "this investigation is full of leaks, left and right.  I mean, we've learned more from the newspaper sometimes than we do from our open hearings, for sure.

"You ever wonder why, of all the things in this investigation, the only thing that's never been leaked is the fact that the president was not personally under investigation, despite the fact that both Democrats and Republicans and the leadership of Congress knew that and have known that for weeks?"

Scott Johnson (PowerLine) says that on February 14 the New York Times published a story by Michael Schmidt, Mark Mazzetti and Matt Apuzzo with reporting contributed by Adam Goldman and Matthew Rosenberg. The story was headlined "Trump campaign aides had repeated contact with Russian intelligence." The usual "current and former officials" make their cameo appearance when the Times is disclosing, or purporting to disclose, highly classified information.

These were the story's lead paragraphs:

Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials.

American law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted the communications around the same time they were discovering evidence that Russia was trying to disrupt the presidential election by hacking into the Democratic National Committee, three of the officials said. The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election.

In paragraph three they let on: "The officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation."

In the course of his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee today former FBI Director Comey bluntly acknowledged in response to Senator Cotton's question that this story was "almost entirely wrong." I'm guessing that paragraph three accounts for the qualification of this assessment.

The Times has previously posted two corrections to the story. They're the kind of hilariously niggling corrections that leave the implication everything else was just right:

Correction: February 14, 2017
 An earlier version of this article misstated the number of people (in addition to Paul Manafort) whom the F.B.I. has examined. It is at least three, not at least four.

Correction: February 19, 2017
 An earlier version of a photo caption with this article gave an incorrect middle initial for Paul Manafort. It is J., not D.

Now the Times tells us that they're looking into the story. It would be a shame if this concession were to get lost in the foofaraw over the rest of Comey's testimony today.


But Breitbart is reporting that CNN is still pushing the #FakeNews story, claiming President Trump is "actually under investigation."

Thursday on CNN's "Inside Politics," immediately following a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing featuring testimony from former FBI Director James Comey, network senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin emphasized what he thought were the highlights of the hearing.

However, at the end of rehashing those highlights, despite written testimony from Comey suggesting otherwise, Toobin declared that we now know Trump is under criminal investigation because of this hearing.

Partial transcript as follows:

ANDERSON COOPER: So many key points today to go over that Jim Comey took what Donald Trump said about Michael Flynn as a directive, that he did not go to Jeff Sessions he says because he knew or assumed that Jeff Sessions would have to recuse himself. Jeff Sessions did so two weeks later.

TOOBIN: And I think the February 14 meeting remains the focus and the crucial issue in this whole investigation because that is the most incriminating act that the president took in terms of a possible obstruction of justice case telling Jim Comey and Comey clearly felt he was ordered to stop this investigation.

COOPER: Even though the president said, "I hope."

TOOBIN: Yes. It was an interesting exchange -- it was with the senator from Maine, Angus King, who they both -- the famous line about Thomas Beckett, "Who will rid me of this meddlesome previous." You don't tell someone, but you know you send the message. There is also the point where there is the clearest conflict between Comey and Trump.

COOPER: Because the president has denied –

TOOBIN: Trump has said I didn't make any sort of order. There was that question at the press conference that we played. So I think, you know, that remains the most important point of conflict. And the other point I think Dana alluded to this, but I think it's very important – there was a — in the letter that Trump wrote firing Comey, he said three times you told me that I was not under investigation and that was in May. Well, here we know in June Donald Trump is under criminal investigation, and that's a big deal, and that's important.


Comey is a coward. He admitted what we all know.

Eren Moreno (TruthFeed) reports that when being questioned by Senator Feinstein why didn't confront the president he said "That's a great question. Maybe if I was stronger, I would have."

Comey proves again that he was never fit to be director of the FBI because he was too weak to even be direct with President Trump. All of his gripes are clouded by the fact they were just based on his internal insecure feelings, not what actually took place.


Sorry, Liberals, but no one in their right mind would impeach a president for saying "he hoped" something would happen.

The five biggest losers from Comey's bizarre, whiny testimony were Comey; the #FakeNews media; Loretta Lynch; The New York Times; the Democrats and Loretta Lynch.

"If you shoot at a king, you must kill him."

Comey fired and missed, and now he will have to pay the Piper!

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #48 

Mark Levin has all the questions James Comey must be asked

If you shoot at a king, you must kill him

Mark Levin (KNSSRadio) says here's how I would question James Comey.

You said you kept memoranda of notes of your conversations. Did you keep notes on your conversations with Barack Obama? Where are those votes now, Mr. Comey?

Did you keep notes on your conversations with attorney general Eric Holder? Where those notes now, Mr. Comey?

Did you keep notes of your conversations with attorney general Loretta Lynch? Where are those notes now, Mr. Comey?

If you keep notes on any of your conversations or meetings with any members of Congress, Mr. Comey? Where those notes now, Mr. Comey?

Did you keep any notes on any conversations you had with reporters or journalists, Mr. Comey? Where are those notes now?

Did you tamper with, alter or destroy any of your notes, Mr. Comey, at any time?

With whom did you share these notes, if anybody, Mr. Comey?

Where are the original copies of these notes, Mr. Comey? Are they in your posession -- or the FBI's possession?

Did you make copies of these notes? Are they in your personal possession? Tell me, Mr. Comey, do any of your notes contain classified or investigative information?

You understand, Mr. Comey, that if they contain classified or investigative information and you shared them with anybody, that's a felony?

You also understand that if there's any evidence in your notes stating or implying obstruction of justice -- and you failed to report that to the attorney general of the United States -- that you've committed a felony, Mr. Comey?

Tell me, Mr. Comey, who else has seen your notes? Any reporters? Any colleagues? Any politicians? And I remind you, you're under oath.

You see ladies and gentlemen, we're told Mr. Comey wrote a lot of notes. About a lot of conversations -- and to me, the scandal is what's in these notes. Let me continue.

Mr. Comey, you took contemporaneous notes after your discussion which was leaked to The New York Times with the President of the United States about Michael Flynn.

The spin is that Mr. Trump ws trying to get you to stop investigating Mr. Trump, is that correct?

Tell me, Mr. Comey, wth whom did you share notes notes? Since your'e the only one in possession of them, presumably you or someone at the FBI you shared them with? Okay, what are their names?

Did you know they were going to leak it?

Tell me, Mr. Comey, if this is obstruction of justice -- as many surrogates have said anonymously, and many in the media have said -- why didn't do anything about it, Mr. Comey?

Why didn't you tell members of Congress or why didn't you say so in front of one of these open hearings? Why didn't you resign? Instead, you sat on it, which is a potential felony. Can you explain yourself, please?

Tell me, Mr. Comey, if you thought it was improper for the president to meet with you one on one, then why did you meet with him one on one?

If you thought it was improper to take the president's call or to make the call to the president one on ones, then why were you involved in such conversations? Can you explain that to us, Mr. Comey?

Tell me, Mr. Comey, were you at any time in communicationw ith the Hillary Clinton campaign? Did you retain emails, text messages, hard documents of any of those communications?

Did you did you write any contemporaneous notes after those conversations or meetings?

Just curious, Mr. Comey.

Tell me, Mr. Comey, since you left the FBI, that is, since you were fired, have you had communications with Senator Chuck Schumer? What were the nature of those communications? Did you keep any notes?

Since you left the FBI, have you had any communications with Barack Obama, Loretta Lynch or Eric Holder?

Tell me, Mr. Comey, since you left the FBI, did you direct any of your associates, friends, former colleagues to make any contacts with the media?

Tell me, Mr. Comey, these memoranda, these notes that you took, can you walk us through the custody of these materials? in other words, where are the originals, where the copies?

Did you ever take any home? Did you ever make multiple copies?

Because you see folks, I think Comey's conduct is detestable. I think he was rogue. I think he was out of control, and I don't think he kept notes just to recollect or refresh his memory and recollect discussions or for legal purposes. I think he kept notes to potentially threaten people.

So it would very important to understand the complete nature of these notes and their custody.

Related:  Comey only took notes with Trump, never with Obama

Remember, Comey is the man who let Hillary Clinton off the hook and now will attempt to destroy Trump with "memos" he wrote from his own memory of events.

Wait for BOTH sides of the story is revealed before you lose faith.

Trump may have recordings of the meetings.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #49 

Deep State Republicans are undermining the Trump agenda

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #50 

CBS news is now reporting three White House leakers have been identified


S. Noble (IndependentSentinel) is reporting that on May 22nd, One America News Network, OANN reporter Trey Yingst announced that three leakers have been identified in the White House and will be fired upon Trump's return. Yingst also said they would be arrested.

Yingst reported they have been referred to the Office of Governmental Ethics but CBS has been told by the OGE they are not involved.

Disclosing classified information without authorization is a crime and it should be treated as such.

Now CBS News is confirming the OANN scoop.

Today, CBS News has confirmed from two sources that three leakers of classified information to the media have been identified are expected to be fired. CBS said nothing about arrest.

Officials within the Trump White House believe leaks of Mr. Trump's conversation with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov are a "deliberate attempt" by officials who are holdovers from President Obama's administration and are trying to damage the Trump presidency.

Last week, the Trump campaign released an email to supporters entitled "SABOTAGE," in which the campaign said, "There are people within our own unelected bureaucracy that want to sabotage President Trump and our entire America First movement."

Trump plans to restructure the communications staff when he gets back but denies any plans to fire Sean Spicer whom he says is "doing a good job but he gets beat up."

He's adding a Trump war room to counter lies/misrepresentations in the media and in congress.

Trump said the leaks are "coordinated and timed" to inflict the maximum amount of damage to his presidency.

Recently, the leakers tried to embarrass Trump by leaking classified British intel concerning the Manchester terror attack.

Donald Trump promised the Prime Minister of the UK that he would find and prosecute the leakers of the the British intelligence. He has asked the Justice Department to investigate.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Previous Topic | Next Topic

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

Help fight the

The United States Library of Congress
has selected for inclusion
in its historic collection of Internet materials

Be a subscriber

© Copyright  Beckwith  2011 - 2017
All rights reserved