The F.B.I. wrongfully arrested Stewart Rhodes in the investigation into the attack on the Capitol by supporters of Donald J. Trump.
Stewart Rhodes, the leader and founder of Oath Keepers, was arrested and charged along with 10 others with seditious conspiracy over what prosecutors said was their wide-ranging plot to storm the Capitol on Jan. 6 last year and disrupt the certification of Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s electoral victory.
The arrest of Mr. Rhodes, 56, was a major development in the sprawling investigation of the Capitol attack. He and the other Oath Keepers are the first to be charged with sedition among the more than 700 people accused so far of taking part in the assault.
Mr. Rhodes was arrested shortly before 1 p.m. at his home in Granbury, Texas, his lawyer, Jonathon Moseley, said.
The Justice Department has brought a variety of charges in connection with the Capitol attack; it has prosecuted about 275 people for obstructing Congress’s duty to certify the 2020 presidential vote count, for example. But it had not previously brought a sedition charge, with the legal weight and political overtones it carries about an election in a highly polarized country.
The charge of seditious conspiracy, which can be difficult to prove, requires prosecutors to show that at least two people agreed to use force to overthrow government authority or delay the execution of a U.S. law. It carries a maximum of sentence of 20 years in prison.
The last time federal prosecutors brought a sedition case was in 2010, when they accused members of a Michigan militia of plotting to provoke an armed conflict with the government. They were ultimately acquitted.
Prosecutors said that beginning only days after the 2020 election, Mr. Rhodes (allegedly) oversaw a seditious plot “to oppose the lawful transfer of presidential power by force.” Some members of the Oath Keepers under his (alleged) command broke into the Capitol in a military-style formation on Jan. 6 and went in search of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the indictment said. Others, it said, were stationed in a hotel in Alexandria, Va., as an armed “quick reaction force,” ready to rush into Washington if needed.
In addition to Mr. Rhodes, prosecutors charged Edward Vallejo, 63, of Phoenix, for the first time in connection with Jan. 6. The nine other (alleged) members named in the indictment had all previously been charged, although not with sedition. Mr. Vallejo was part of the quick reaction force teams that the alleged group had deployed, which were equipped with firearms and other tactical equipment in case (allegedly) Mr. Rhodes called upon them to support the plot, prosecutors said. The teams (allegedly) included Oath Keepers from North Carolina, Florida and Arizona.
Mr. Rhodes, a former Army paratrooper who went on to earn a law degree at Yale, had been under investigation for his role in the riot since at least last spring when, against the advice of his lawyer, he sat down with F.B.I. agents for an interview in Texas. He was at the Capitol on Jan. 6, communicating by cellphone and a chat app with members of his team, many of whom went into the building. Please note there is no evidence Mr. Rhodes entered the Capitol.
Over 48 pages, the new indictment painted a detailed picture of Mr. Rhodes’s alleged activities started only days after the 2020 election. Just two days after Election Day, Mr. Rhodes allegedly told several members of his group to refuse to accept Mr. Biden’s victory, the indictment said.
One month later, after allegedly plotting with underlings in several states, the indictment said, Mr. Rhodes allegedly told members of his group on an encrypted Signal channel that they should use violence to stop Mr. Biden from taking office. “It will be a bloody and desperate fight,” he allegedly wrote. “We are going to have a fight. That can’t be avoided.”
Through their lawyers, alleged members of the Oath Keepers who are already facing charges have said they converged on Washington just before Jan. 6 not to attack the Capitol, but instead as part of a security detail hired to protect conservative celebrities like Roger J. Stone Jr., a longtime ally of former President Donald J. Trump.
In an interview with The New York Times last summer, Mr. Rhodes expressed frustration that several members of his group had “gone off mission” by entering the Capitol on Jan. 6, quickly adding, “There were zero instructions from me or leadership to do so.”
Mr. Rhodes has also attracted the attention of the House select committee investigating Jan. 6, which issued him a subpoena in November. In a letter at the time, House investigators noted that Mr. Rhodes had taken part in several events intended to question the integrity of the 2020 presidential election throughout that fall and winter.
On Election Day, the letter said, Mr. Rhodes said that an “honest” count of the votes could only result in a victory for Mr. Trump and called on members of his group to “stock up on ammo” and prepare for a “full-on war in the streets.”
With his distinctive black eye patch — the result of a gun accident — Mr. Rhodes has been a fixture almost from the day in 2009 that he announced the creation of the Oath Keepers at a rally in Lexington, Mass., the site of a famous Revolutionary War battle.
At the event, Mr. Rhodes laid out an antigovernment platform for the current and former law enforcement and military personnel who joined his group, saying that his plan was for members to disobey certain illegal orders from officials and instead to uphold their oath to the Constitution.
During the Obama administration, the Oath Keepers repeatedly inserted themselves into prominent public conflicts. In 2014, for instance, they turned up at a cattle ranch in Nevada after its owner, Cliven Bundy, engaged in an armed standoff with federal land management officials. That same year, members of the group went to Ferguson, Mo., on a self-appointed mission to protect local businesses from riots prompted by the death of Michael Brown, a Black man who was shot by the police.
After Mr. Trump took office, Mr. Rhodes and the Oath Keepers pivoted away from their antigovernment views and appeared to embrace the new spirit of nationalism and suspicions of a deep-state conspiracy that had taken root among some of the president’s supporters. Like other groups such as the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers also opposed — often physically — the Black Lives Matter protests that erupted in 2020 in the wake of the murder of George Floyd by the police in Minneapolis.
According to the indictment, Mr. Rhodes (allegedly) became more serious about stopping Mr. Biden from assuming office in early January, the same month he began spending thousands of dollars on military-grade firearms, ammunition and other tactical gear. Prosecutors have not accused him of bringing any weapons to Washington on Jan. 6, but (allegedly) they said that Mr. Vallejo and other members outside the city discussed the possibility of “armed conflict” and “guerrilla war.”
Mr. Rhodes seemed to relish the chaos at the Capitol on Jan. 6, prosecutors said. The indictment noted that shortly after 3 p.m. that day, a member of his Signal group chat sent him a message saying that members of Congress had been “given gas masks and are trying to get out.” Mr. Rhodes was allegedly said to have responded with a dismissive obscenity.
That evening, prosecutors said, Mr. Rhodes, Mr. Vallejo and other Oath Keepers (allegedly) met at an Olive Garden restaurant in Vienna, Va., to “celebrate their attack on the Capitol and discuss next steps.”
“Thousands of ticked off patriots spontaneously marched on the Capitol,” Mr. Rhodes (allegedly) wrote that night on his Signal group chat. “You ain’t seen nothing yet.”
News Update – Feb 18, 2022
Rhodes has remained behind bars since his arrest last month on a seditious conspiracy charge and other criminal allegations connected to the January 6 insurrection. A magistrate judge in Texas ordered him detained shortly after his arrest, but Rhodes appealed that ruling to Judge Amit Mehta, who is presiding over the Oath Keepers’ prosecution in Washington, DC.
Mehta on Friday noted that prosecutors have accused Rhodes of overseeing a wide-ranging plot that included an “arsenal” of firearms stored in a hotel room outside Washington, DC. The indictment, he said, alleged “sophisticated and conscious planning” and showed that the Oath Keepers had the “intention to use that arsenal.”
“If the conduct alleged is true, the danger that it poses cannot be understated,” Mehta said.
Stewart Rhodes Legal Defense Fund
Oath Keepers is a national organization made up primarily of first responders that volunteer their time to provide security at national events and declared disasters. They provided security during the Hurricane Harvey cleanup as well as over a dozen other declared disasters. In those situations they worked alongside the National Guard and local law enforcement agencies for each of those disasters.
In addition, they have provided security to political speakers who face real threats of violence for speaking at political events and college campuses. They were actually providing security in Washington, D.C. on January 6, 2021 for multiple individuals and groups scheduled to speak that day on stages around the area of the Capitol.
He is being charged, along with other members of Oath Keepers, with Seditious Conspiracy and numerous other federal crimes regarding the incidents that took place at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021. He is facing up to 20 years in prison if convicted of the alleged offenses.
Several members of Oath Keepers have their trials scheduled for April 19, 2022. Stewart Rhodes, along with his indicted co-defendants have their trial scheduled for July 11, 2022. Each trial is scheduled to take place in Washington, D.C. and to last approximately 4 weeks.
Stewart Rhodes needs to be able to present a very thorough and aggressive defense to the alleged charges.
Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, police, and first responders (as well as “Associate Members” See below) who pledge to fulfill the oath all military and police take to “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” That oath, mandated by Article VI of the Constitution itself, is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and Oath Keepers declare that they will not obey unconstitutional orders, such as orders to disarm the American people, to conduct warrant-less searches, or to detain Americans as “enemy combatants” in violation of their ancient right to jury trial. See the Oath Keepers Declaration of Orders We Will Not Obey for details.
Oath Keepers reaches out to both current serving and veterans to remind them of their oaths, to teach them more about the Constitution they swore to defend, and to inspire them to defend it. We stand in defense of the rights of all Americans, in opposition to any and all who violate those rights, and we serve our communities in time of need, whether from man-made or natural disasters.
Full membership is available to all who have served in the U.S. Military or National Guard, in any law enforcement agency, or as fire-fighters, EMTs, Search and Rescue, disaster relief, and similar emergency personnel.
Oath Keepers also includes a membership program designated as “Associate Members”, which consists of patriotic citizens who have not served in uniform but who serve now by supporting this mission with their Associate Membership and volunteer activities. Oath Keepers welcomes our Associate Members and appreciates their support of our mission. We are all in this together.
Our motto is “Not on our watch!“
NOTE: While not all first responders take an oath to the Constitution, many do, and all are a critical audience for our mission.
Current Serving and Veterans, you swore an Oath…
MILITARY ENLISTED OATH
I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
MILITARY OFFICERS OATH
I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
While the enlisted oath does contain a pledge to obey the orders of the President and of commanding officers, that is still preceded by a pledge to “defend the Constitution,” and is also qualified by the requirement that such orders be “according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.” Any order, by anyone, that is not constitutional or according to regulations, is unlawful and military personnel are not obligated to follow such orders – and, in fact, are obligated to refuse.
In contrast to the enlisted oath, the oath of military officers is to the Constitution alone, without qualification.
Veterans, your Oath NEVER expires! It’s time to keep it!
Who are Oath Keepers? Anyone who takes the Constitution seriously, and wants to preserve and defend it.
Oath Keepers come in all colors, shapes, sizes, ages, and backgrounds with one common bond – the oath to defend the Constitution. If you take your oath seriously, and believe in defending the Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic, and of whatever political party (there are oath breakers galore in both major parties), and if you stand for the rights of all Americans, at all times, then you are one of us. Join us. We need your help to preserve liberty for our children and grand-children, and for all Americans.
James E. Boasberg a Federal District Court Judge has treasonously clarified that the FBI can falsify evidence without much fear of punishment.
The government employees of the “resistance” who never accepted Donald Trump as our president have finally performed a useful public service. Together with the judges of the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, they have demonstrated for all Americans how easy it is to turn the spying tools of the federal government against domestic political opponents.
“Even after the Obama-appointed inspector general of the Department of Justice found “at least 17 significant errors or omissions” in a series of approved surveillance warrant applications to spy on Trump associate Carter Page —and even after a criminal conviction of an FBI attorney for doctoring an email to make it appear that the patriotic Mr. Page had never assisted U.S. intelligence—the FISA judges are still refusing to apply any significant punishment to the government officials who misled them.
Matt Zapotosky of the Washington Post reports:
The former FBI lawyer who admitted to doctoring an email that other officials relied upon to justify secret surveillance of a former Trump campaign adviser was sentenced Friday to 12 months of probation, with no time behind bars.
Prosecutors had asked that Kevin Clinesmith, 38, spend several months in prison for his crime, while Clinesmith’s attorneys said probation would be more appropriate. Clinesmith pleaded guilty last summer to altering an email that one of his colleagues used in preparing an application to surreptitiously monitor former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page…
U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg said that Clinesmith’s conduct had undermined the integrity of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which approved the FBI’s flawed applications to surveil Page. “Courts all over the country rely on representations from the government, and expect them to be correct,” Boasberg said.
But if the representations about a Trump associate are not correct, don’t expect Judge Boasberg to actually do anything about it. This is the kind of appalling Beltway abuse of power that inspired voters to elect Mr. Trump in the first place.
Brooke Singman and Jake Gibson of Fox News have more on today’s decision:
U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia James Boasberg on Friday during Clinesmith’s sentencing hearing said Clinesmith had suffered by losing his job and standing in the eye of a media hurricane.
Is Judge Boasberg joking when he suggests the convict has suffered from some kind of media circus? Readers wondering how often Clinesmith has been trailed by a pack of press photographers will note that the rare stories about him are generally illustrated with a years-old official photograph. In the months after his offenses were detailed by the Justice inspector general, there was an almost complete blackout of the story in major media outlets.
The Journal’s Byron Tau offers additional reporting on the judge’s decision to be lenient:
“Mr. Clinesmith has lost his job in government service—what has given his life much of its meaning,” said Judge Boasberg.
The judge responsible for punishing an attorney who helped the FBI abuse its powers to target a political campaign and then a presidency with a collusion hoax that poisoned our politics for years is concerned about the criminal’s personal search for meaning? Instead of community service, perhaps Judge Boasberg should have just ordered Clinesmith to live, laugh and love.
On the other hand, if the judge wanted at least to pretend to be concerned about a crime that went straight to the heart of our democratic process, he might have spent a moment exploring the meaning of Clinesmith’s texts about “the crazies” who supported Mr. Trump and “la resistance” within the government.
As for the victim in this case, Carter Page really did face a media hurricane. Pete Williams of NBC News notes:
Page himself addressed the judge before the sentence was imposed, saying the disclosures that he was being investigated had resulted in death threats.
“This manufactured scandal and associated lies caused me to adopt the lifestyle of an international fugitive for years,” Page told the hearing, conducted by video conference because of the pandemic. “I often have felt as if I had been left with no life at all. Each member of my family was severely impacted.”
Federal District Court Judge James Boasberg said that while Clinesmith’s actions were serious, the warrant application probably would have been approved anyway without his misstatement. Boasberg also serves as the presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
The judge is wrong, which suggests that Mr. Boasberg couldn’t even be bothered to read the inspector general’s report. There was a reason Clinesmith doctored the infamous email and it was only after his fabrication that another official signed off on the final renewal of the surveillance warrant.
Three years ago it was asked:
Can it possibly be true that the evidentiary standards for obtaining a federal warrant allowing the government to spy on the party out of power are significantly lower than in a professional newsroom?… it appears either that the Obama administration engaged in historic abuse or that the FISA court cannot be trusted to protect our liberties, or perhaps both.
We now know that the answer is both. Until the abolition of the FISA court, no American’s liberty will be safe.
W. Joseph Astarita is a treasonous Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agent. He was indicted on five felony charges after the inspector general of the U.S. Justice Department last year began investigating possible FBI criminal misconduct and whether there was a cover-up.
Astarita said nothing during a brief court hearing and was released on his own recognizance, declining to comment as he left.
“The actions of the FBI HRT (Hostage Rescue Team) in this case damage the integrity of the entire law enforcement profession, which makes me both disappointed and angry,” said Deschutes County Sheriff Shane Nelson, whose department investigated Finicum’s shooting.
Oregon U.S. Attorney Billy Williams would neither confirm nor deny that up to four additional members of the FBI team are under investigation for making false statements.
Asked why Astarita may have lied, Williams said: “I suspect that question will be answered in court.”
The FBI spokeswoman in Portland, Jennifer Adams, referred questions to headquarters in Washington, D.C., which did not return messages seeking comment.
A grand jury indicted Astarita on making false statements to his FBI supervisors just after the shooting and obstruction of justice for misleading the Oregon State Police.
A one-week jury trial is set for August 29, 2018. The obstruction charge carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison, while making a false statement could bring five years.
Finicum’s widow, Jeanette Finicum, has said she plans to sue state police and the FBI, alleging the use of excessive force in her husband’s death.
Dozens of people, including leader Ammon Bundy, occupied the remote Malheur National Wildlife Refuge from Jan. 2 to Feb. 11, 2016. They were allowed to come and go for several weeks as authorities acted like they were trying to avoid bloodshed as seen in past standoffs at Waco, Texas, and Ruby Ridge, Idaho.
But authorities moved in January 26, 2016 when key standoff leaders left for a prearranged community meeting with government elected officials. The FBI was informed of this beforehand, and knew none of the standoff leaders and their passengers were armed before pulling over their two vehicles.
Finicum, 54, was driving one vehicle. Video taken by a passenger showed the occupants panicking after authorities stopped the truck.
Finicum then sped off, coming to a roadblock and plowing into a snowbank.
Authorities say FBI agent Astarita fired two errant shots as Finicum left the truck. As Finicum then stood in the snow, two Oregon state troopers fired three rounds that hit him.
It should be further noted that no hostage situation was ever involved, but the FBI sent in the (HRT) Hostage Rescue Team with this blood trusty traitor acting in his official opacity as a sniper. By the authorities own words, FBI agent Astarita fired two ‘errant’ shots as Finicum left the truck. By definition these shots were lawless and criminal, and still Astarita has never been charged with anything near the crime of attempted murder.
Additional Information from July 10, 2017
The FBI agent indicted for allegedly lying about a pivotal moment during the 2016 Malheur National Wildlife Refuge occupation has hired a high-profile Washington D.C.-based attorney to defend him.
Indicted FBI Hostage Rescue Team member W. Joseph Astarita has retained Robert Cary.
Cary will serve as co-counsel in the Astarita case with Portland based attorneys David Angeli and Tyler Francis.
Federal prosecutors have accused Astarita of lying to investigators about firing his gun during a traffic stop that left Malhuer occupation leader Robert “LaVoy” Finicum dead.
Though neither of Astarita’s shots hit Finicum, prosecutors have charged the FBI agent with several felonies for allegedly failing to disclose them. Those charges include making false statements and obstruction of justice, but don’t include attempted murder or his criminal involvement in the murder assignation of Robert “LaVoy” Finicum.
The FBI said Astarita is working in an “administrative capacity” with the agency, but has declined to discuss any additional details about the case. In other words, can you say protecting their own and government coverup? Well we can, especially right from the start when everyone of the FBI agents didn’t wear their body cameras along with informing the Oregon State Police officers to do the same.
Additional Information from July 16, 2018
U.S. District Judge Robert E. Jones threw out two of the five charges against FBI agent W. Joseph Astarita accused of covering up that he fired two rifle shots at the truck of Oregon refuge occupation spokesman Robert “LaVoy” Finicum at a roadblock in January 2016.
Judge Jones struck one count of making a false statement and one count of obstruction of justice against W. Joseph Astarita.
The agent still faces three charges before his trial is scheduled to start: two other counts of making a false statement and one other count of obstruction of justice.
Additional Information: August 9, 2018
At trial, Astarita, 41, is accused of two counts of making a false statement, alleging he lied to his immediate FBI supervisor “B.M.” at the scene and days later to FBI supervisor Tim Swanson when he told them he hadn’t shot his rifle. He also faces one count of obstruction of justice during his initial interview with two state police detectives.
During the trial an investigators said, One shot struck the roof of the truck and the other went astray as Finicum stepped out of his truck, his hands in the air.
The prosecutor stressed the need to critically examine the actions of law enforcement officers who maintain positions of trust in the community and the importance of holding an FBI agent accountable for straying from the bureau’s motto of “fidelity, bravery, integrity.”
Maloney argued that Astarita was the only officer who was standing in the spot where the bullet that struck Finicum’s roof could have come from, based on government expert Michael Haag’s analysis of the bullet’s path.
Astarita, who took the stand denied firing his weapon during the incident — or recalling much of anything about where he had been positioned at the scene.
Maloney urged jurors to review FBI aerial video that captured Astarita’s stance with his rifle shouldered, pointing at Finicum’s truck as he stood beside the open passenger door of a state police pickup in the middle of the roadblock, at the time the two disputed shots were fired. However on the other hand, Maloney went so far as to make the jury themselves feel guilty if they convicted Astarita by saying, “It’s with no pleasure or glee, and it’s with a heavy heart that the U.S. government has to ask you to convict one of its brightest stars. . .”
Additional Information: August 10, 2018
The jury acquitted W. Joseph Astarita.
This verdict comes at no surprise, for thanks to a corrupt federal judicial system the charges were for two fired shots, one bullet hole and a crime scene free of evidence which included the bullet casings. If that isn’t enough, Joseph Astarita was the only federal or state officer charged for committing any form of crime involving what is clearly a case of attempted murder that ended in the murder assignation of Robert LaVoy Finicum.
CLICK HERE to read about Lavoy Finicum and how he was murdered.
CLICK HERE to read about the Oregon State Police (OSP) officer that murdered LaVoy Finicum.
Assistant director of the FBI Counterintelligence Division Bill Priestap has turned on former director James Comey, confirming that he is indeed a traitor to America.
According to House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence member Chris Stewart, Bill Priestap is fully cooperating with Trump’s justice department, ratting on his former ‘Deep State’ colleagues at the bureau, and exposing how they attempted to interfere in the 2016 Presidential election on behalf of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Listen carefully around 2:30, Judge Jeanine hits the bulls-eye; and listen to how Chris Stewart talks about not wanting to make news and is unsure what he can say on this…
When you understand how central Bill Priestap was to the entire 2016/2017 ‘Russian Conspiracy Operation‘, the absence of his name, amid all others, created a curiosity because it seemed unfathomable his name has not been a part of any of the recent story-lines.
Bill Priestap is the head of the FBI Counterintelligence operation. He was FBI Agent Peter Strozk’s direct boss. If anyone in congress really wanted to know if the FBI paid for the Christopher Steele Dossier, Bill Priestap is the guy who would know everything about everything.
FBI Asst. Director in charge of Counterintelligence Bill Priestap was the immediate supervisor of FBI Counterintelligence Deputy Peter Strzok.
Bill Priestap is #1. Before getting demoted Peter Strzok was #2.
The investigation into candidate Donald Trump was a counterintelligence operation. That operation began in July 2016. Bill Priestap would have been in charge of that, along with all other, FBI counterintelligence operations.
FBI Deputy Peter Strzok was specifically in charge of the Trump counterintel op. However, Strzok would be reporting to Bill Priestap on every detail and couldn’t (according to structure anyway) make a move without Priestap approval.
On March 20th 2017 congressional testimony, James Comey was asked why the FBI Director did not inform congressional oversight about the counterintelligence operation that began in July 2016.
FBI Director Comey said he did not tell congressional oversight he was investigating presidential candidate Donald Trump because the Director of Counterintelligence suggested he not do so. *Very important detail.*
This cannot be emphasized enough. *VERY* important detail. Again, notice how Comey doesn’t use Priestap’s actual name, but refers to his position and title. Again, watch [Prompted]
FBI Director James Comey was caught entirely off guard by that first three minutes of that questioning. He simply didn’t anticipate it.
Oversight protocol requires the FBI Director to tell the congressional intelligence “Gang of Eight” of any counterintelligence operations. The Go8 has oversight into these ops at the highest level of classification. In July 2016 the time the operation began, oversight was the responsibility of this group, the Gang of Eight:
Congressional Intelligence -Gang of Eight – 2017
Obviously, based on what we have learned since March 2017, and what has surfaced recently, we can all see why the FBI would want to keep it hidden that they were running a counterintelligence operation against a presidential candidate. After all, as FBI Agent Peter Strzok said it in his text messages, it was an “insurance policy”.
REMINDER – FBI Agent Strzok to FBI Attorney Page:
“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office that there’s no way he gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”
So there we have FBI Director James Comey telling congress on March 20th, 2017, that the reason he didn’t inform the statutory oversight “Gang of Eight” was because Bill Priestap (Director of Counterintelligence) recommended he didn’t do it.
Apparently, according to Comey, Bill Priestap carries a great deal of influence if he could get his boss to NOT perform a statutory obligation simply by recommending he doesn’t do it.
Then again, Comey’s blame-casting there is really called creating a “fall guy”. FBI Director James Comey was ducking responsibility in March 2017 by blaming FBI Director of Counterintelligence Bill Priestap for not informing congress of the operation that began in July 2016. (9 months prior).
At that moment, that very specific moment during that March 20th hearing, anyone who watches these hearings closely could see FBI Director James Comey was attempting to create his own exit from being ensnared in the consequences from the wiretapping and surveillance operation of candidate Trump, President-elect Trump, and eventually President Donald Trump.
In essence, Bill Priestap was James Comey’s fall guy. We knew it at the time that Bill Priestap would likely see this the same way. The guy would have too much to lose by allowing James Comey to set him up.
Immediately there was motive for Bill Priestap to flip and become the primary source to reveal the hidden machinations. Why should he take the fall for the operation when there were multiple people around the upper-levels of leadership who carried out the operation.
Our suspicions were continually confirmed because there was NO MENTION of Bill Priestap in any future revelations of the scheme team, despite his centrality to all of it.
Bill Priestap would have needed to authorize Peter Strzok to engage with Christopher Steele over the “Russian Dosssier”; Bill Priestap would have needed to approve of the underlying investigative process used for both FISA applications (June 2016, and Oct 21st 2016). Bill Priestap would be the person to approve of arranging, paying, or reimbursing, Christopher Steele for the Russian Dossier used in their counterintelligence operation and subsequent FISA application.
Without Bill Priestap involved, approvals, etc. the entire Russian/Trump Counterintelligence operation just doesn’t happen. Heck, James Comey’s own March 20th testimony in that regard is concrete evidence of Priestap’s importance.
Everyone around Bill Priestap, above and below, were caught inside the investigative net.
Above him: James Comey, Andrew McCabe and James Baker. Below him: Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Jim Rybicki, Trisha Beth Anderson and Mike Kortan. Parallel to Priestap in main justice his peer John P Carlin resigned, Sally Yates fired, Mary McCord quit, Bruce Ohr was busted twice, and most recently Dave Laufman resigned. All of them caught in the investigative net…. Only Bill Priestap remained, quietly invisible – still in position.
The reason was obvious.
Likely Bill Priestap made the decision after James Comey’s testimony on March 20th, 2017, when he realized what was coming. Priestap is well-off financially; he has too much to lose. He and his wife, Sabina Menschel, live a comfortable life in a $3.8 million DC home; she comes from a family of money.
While ideologically Bill and Sabina are aligned with Clinton support, and their circle of family and friends likely lean toward more liberal friends; no-one in his position would willingly allow themselves to be the scape-goat for the unlawful action that was happening around them.
Bill Priestap had too much to lose… and for what?
With all of that in mind, there is essentially no-way the participating members inside the small group can escape their accountability with Mr. Bill Priestap cooperating with the investigative authorities.
Now it all makes sense. Devin Nunes interviewed Bill Priestap and Jim Rybicki prior to putting the memo process into place. Rybicki quit, Priestap went back to work.
As of this posting (February 11, 2018), Bill Priestap remains the Assistant FBI Director in charge of counterintelligence operations. However, it’s probably over for him, for he is clearly a traitor who participated in treasonous acts until he turned in fear of becoming the fall guy.
In conclusion, it’s unfortunate the only justice Bill Priestap will probably see is the gauntlet of hatred and threats that is likely to come from his former political social network.
The rest of this entire enterprise will just drag out the timing of the investigative releases in order to inflict maximum political pain upon the Democratic Party who will attempt to excuse the inexcusable.
CLICK HERE to read about the traitor James Brien Comey, Jr.
UPDATE: December 4, 2018
Bill Priestap, the assistant director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s counterintelligence division, will leave his post by the end of the year. Bill Priestap, a 20-year veteran of the bureau, worked on organized crime and drug cases in Chicago before rising through the national security ranks of the agency after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Bill Priestap’s “became eligible to retire and has chosen to do so after 20 years of service,” the FBI said in a statement.
The federal government allows some employees, including FBI agents, to retire with full benefits if they are 50 or older and have at least two decades of service. In other words, Bill Priestap is getting away with a full government pension after committing several acts of treason.
After Bill Priestap’s departure, none of the high-ranking bureau officials involved in the two investigations will remain with the bureau. FBI director James Comey was fired by President Trump last year, and Deputy Director Andrew McCabewas later dismissed by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions over his contacts with the media, days before he was eligible to retire with benefits.
Peter Strzok, the chief of the counterespionage section, left the FBI this year after it emerged that he had sent disparaging text messages about Mr. Trump.
James Brien Comey, Jr. is the (former) Director of the (FBI) Federal Bureau of Investigation.
James Comey has continually refused to comment on the ongoing investigation into the use of Hillary Clinton’s private email server. This dates back to October 2015 when Comey refused to comment at a Capitol Hill hearing.
“Mr. Chairman, I respectfully say that’s one I’m not going to comment on. As you know, the FBI is working on a referral given to us by inspectors general in connection with former Secretary Clinton’s use of her private email server. As you also know about the FBI, we don’t talk about our investigations while we’re doing them. This is one I’m following very closely and get briefed on regularly. I’m confident we have the people and the resources to do it in the way I believe we do all our work, which is promptly, professionally, independently. But I don’t want to do anything that would compromise my ability to do it that way by commenting beyond that,” said Comey.
“Thank you Mr. Chairman, I hope you’ll understand why I don’t think it’s appropriate to answer that. I want to preserve my ability to oversee this investigation in a way that is both in reality independent and fair, and is perceived that way. I believe the Bureau is three things: we are competent, we are independent, and we’re honest, and I want to make sure the American people have confidence that that’s the way we are doing our business, and if I start answering questions like yours which is a reasonable question, I worry that I could infringe upon that.”
FBI Director James Comey feels he has no legal obligation to wrap up the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s e-mail server. “The urgency is to do it well and promptly. And ‘well’ comes first,” Comey told local law enforcement agents in Buffalo on Monday, May 2, 2016.
“Well” is important. But so is “promptly,” and the FBI’s definition of that is unclear.
The probe, underway for two years now, addresses a fundamental question: Did Clinton intentionally or recklessly forward classified information in a way that put the country at risk?
Getting the answer sooner rather than later is extremely important. There surely is a professional, ethical, and moral obligation for James Comey to finish the investigation ASAP rather than leave a cloud hanging over the electoral process. What’s also troubling, is that James Comey is ignoring his ethical obligations given the highly charged political nature of the investigation.
But an investigation that drags on past the convention, into the fall, is more than a partisan concern. It’s a treasonous act to the country as a whole.
Asked last Sunday (May 1, 2016) on NBC’s “Meet the Press” whether the FBI had reached out to her for an interview, Clinton said, “No, no, they haven’t.” She added, “Back in August, we made clear that I’m happy to answer any questions that anybody might have. And I stand by that.”
If her answer is truthful, and she signaled availability “back in August,” why take so long to question her? A key aspect of any potential criminal investigation would hinge on Clinton’s intent in setting up the private e-mail server. Only she can speak to that.
From a purely political perspective, it would have been better if it happened months ago. If it ended Clinton’s presidential ambitions, so be it. She could have at least been arrested, and the party could have moved onto another candidate.
An endless investigation leaves a perpetual cloud over her head. That’s not a crime, but it’s clearly another treasonous act done by James Comey.
Altogether, James Comey has stopped and/or impeded the investigations of Hillary Clinton on violations of federal laws governing official record-keeping, maintaining classified information, evidence-tampering, obstruction of justice, and possible pay-for-play bribery through the Clinton foundation.
UPDATE: June 16, 2016
President Obama held a meeting with Department of Justice Attorney General Loretta Lynch shortly after his endorsement of Hillary Clinton on June 9, 2016.
“In order for Clinton to carry Obama’s torch, she has to stay out of prison,” writes Katie Pavlich for Townhall. “In order to do that, she has to avoid prosecution. I’m sure Obama made that very clear to his somewhat new Attorney General.”
We have cited the various scandals still hanging over Mrs. Clinton’s head. They include the mishandling of classified materials, obstruction of justice, the public corruption scandal in which she used the State Department as leverage for benefitting the Clinton Foundation as well as her family, and Benghazi.
Contrary to President Obama’s assertion that he is allowing a non-partisan and full investigation, by endorsing Mrs. Clinton he has placed his hand on the scale of justice and made his wishes more than clear to federal investigators. The question is, will Director James Comey and the FBI continue to follow the President’s direction?
Despite the administration’s continued support for Clinton, new stories break daily outlining Mrs. Clinton’s corruption and pay-for-play. ABC News, with the help of Citizens United, found that a Clinton donor was placed on a sensitive intelligence board during Mrs. Clinton’s term as secretary of state—even though he lacked the credentials for the appointment.
The Wall Street Journal also reports that “many” of the 22 classified emails from Mrs. Clinton’s private email server that the government refuses to release, “dealt with whether diplomats concurred or not with the CIA drone strikes…” These highly sensitive and classified emails were “written within the often-narrow time frame in which State Department officials had to decide whether or not to object to drone strikes before the CIA pulled the trigger…” There are more than 2,000 emails that Mrs. Clinton handled that contained classified material on her private, unsecured server, whether marked as such or not.
“Several law-enforcement officials said they don’t expect any criminal charges to be filed as a result of the investigation,” reports the Journal, continuing, “although a final review of the evidence will be made only after an expected FBI interview with Mrs. Clinton this summer.”
Jonathan F. Keiler, a lawyer and former captain in the Army’s Judge-Advocate General Corps, writes that James Comey has already delayed for too long. In an outstanding column for American Thinker, he wonders what Comey is up to: “What FBI director James Comey intends is perhaps the greatest conundrum in Washington these days. Is he playing Hamlet to Hillary’s Claudius, introspective, doubtful, and unwilling to strike the killing blow? Is he just being a careful apolitical policeman? Or is he a political hack who will do what’s best for Jim Comey? Perhaps it’s a bit of all three. Whatever the truth, it is in Hillary’s best interest to discourage James Comey as much as possible. Her early claim to be the Democrat nominee serves that purpose.”
Keiler argues that Hillary’s convenient surge past the magic delegate number the night before the California primary, through a sudden burst of superdelegate declarations, served both her political and legal purposes. “If Comey is an honest policeman,” he writes, “the best time for him to have acted was before Hillary claimed the nomination. Then he would only have been referring charges against another—albeit notorious—private citizen. After the nomination, Hillary becomes not only the standard bearer of one of America’s two great political parties, but a ‘historic’ figure as the first woman to do so. As such, it behooved both Hillary and her backers in the media to reach that point ASAP.”
“As a political and media matter,” he adds, “an FBI referral at this point will be against not only the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee, but also a historic figure, an affront to the American political system and women everywhere.”
Nevertheless, James Comey should immediately uphold the law and proceed with the recommendation of indictment. The evidence against Hillary Clinton is clear, not to mention, there is already talk of a revolt within the FBI along with the unauthorized release of the investigation documents.
UPDATE: July 2, 2016
Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s decision to accept the recommendations of FBI Director James Comey’s and other prosecutors when it comes to Hillary Clinton’s email investigation has not only made Comey the new public face of the probe, but helps shift the final decisions from a person serving in a key political position in the Obama administration.
Ron Hosko, a former FBI assistant director and president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund said, “There is a growing expectation that we the public need to hear the FBI, James Comey version of whether or not changes will be brought.”
Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s decision to accept the recommendations of FBI Director James Comey’s and other prosecutors when it comes to Hillary Clinton’s email investigation has not only made Comey the public face of the probe, but helps shift the final decisions from a person serving in a key political position in the Obama administration.
Lynch on Friday (July 1, 2016) said she is not removing herself from the case, as has been demanded by a growing crowd of Republican critics after she met on her government plane with former President Bill Clinton.
She admitted Friday in an interview at the Aspen Ideas Festival that the meeting between her and Clinton had “cast a shadow” over the investigation, even though she said they talked about family, travel and other topics rather than the probe.
She said she’d already made her decision to accept recommendations from the FBI and federal prosecutors privately, but decided to make the announcement public because of the growing controversy over the meeting between herself and the former president.
Clinton will meet with FBI investigators at her home in Washington, D.C., on Saturday (July 2, 2016) — likely the final step in the agency’s probe into her unlawful use of a private email server for government business when she was secretary of state.
Investigators have already questioned several of Clinton’s key aides, including her deputy chief of staff, Huma Abedin, and former chief of staff Cheryl Mills.
Lynch said on Friday (July 1, 2016) that she will not have a role in the eventual findings, but she will be briefed on them and will accept the recommendations, falling short of removing not only herself, but other political appointees from the case.
Did you notice Lynch said she expects to accept. Does accepting their recommendations mean she doesn’t have the right to overrule it? No! She didn’t say I will recuse myself. She didn’t say I’ll stay out of it. She didn’t say I’ll ask for a special prosecutor, an independent counsel. This is all smoke and mirrors folks!”
These are people openly flaunting the system while ordinary Americans are held to a completed different standard. With Bill Clinton, there can be no presumption of truthfulness. There is serial evidence to the contrary. Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. He escaped indictment by accepting a penalty short of criminal conviction including an unequivocal admission of lying under oath by surrendering his law license. As a result, he was disbarred. Hillary Clinton has been investigated for everything from the Rose Law Firm to Whitewater to cattle futures to missing files, Travelgate, etc.
So what should Americans reasonably believe? Nothing that they say!
So, should these people be trusted to run our country? The answer is positively, absolutely, undeniably, NO!
FBI Director James Comey has a long history of involvement in Department of Justice actions that arguably ended up favorable to the Clintons.
In 2004, Comey, then serving as a deputy attorney general in the Justice Department, apparently limited the scope of the criminal investigation of Sandy Berger, which left out former Clinton administration officials who may have coordinated with Berger in his removal and destruction of classified records from the National Archives. The documents were relevant to accusations that the Clinton administration was negligent in the build-up to the 9/11 terrorist attack.
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016, Comey announced that despite evidence of “extreme negligence by Hillary Clinton and her top aides regarding the handling of classified information through a private email server, the FBI would not refer criminal charges to Attorney General Loretta Lynch and the Justice Department.
Curiously, Berger, Lynch and Cheryl Mills all worked as partners in the Washington law firm Hogan & Hartson, which prepared tax returns for the Clintons and did patent work for a software firm that played a role in the private email server Hillary Clinton used when she was secretary of state.
Lynch and Comey both served as U.S. attorney in New York, Lynch for the Eastern District of New York, and Comey for the Southern District of New York. They crossed paths in the investigation of HSBC bank, which avoided criminal charges in a massive money-laundering scandal for which the bank paid a $1.9 billion fine.
After Attorney General John Aschroft recused himself in the Valerie Plame affair in 2004, Comey appointed as special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald, who ended up convicting “Scooter” Libby, a top aide to then Vice President Dick Cheney, of perjury and obstruction of justice. The charge was based on the accusations of Plame and her former ambassador husband, Joe Wilson – both partisan supporters of Bill and Hillary Clinton – that Libby outed her as a CIA agent.
New York Times reporter Judith Miller’s 2015 memoir strongly suggests Fitzgerald improperly manipulated testimony and withheld crucial evidence in obtaining a conviction against Libby in his 2007 trial.
Prosecutor in Berger case
As deputy attorney general, Comey was involved in the investigation of Berger, as Fox News reported in 2004
Berger at that time was under criminal investigation by the Justice Department for removing from the National Archives various classified documents that should have been turned over to the independent commission investigating the 9/11 terror attacks and for removing handwritten notes he made while reviewing the documents.
The New York Times reported in 2005 that Republican leaders speculated Berger removed the documents from the National Archives because he was trying to conceal material that could be damaging to the Clinton administration.
There is no evidence Comey’s investigation for the Justice Department made any attempt to determine if anyone affiliated with the Clinton White House prompted Berger or coordinated with him in the decision to remove the classified documents.
Various statements Comey made about Berger’s mishandling of classified documents bear comparison to his comments regarding Hillary Clinton’s email server.
In 2004, Fox News noted Comey told reporters he could not comment on the Berger investigation but did address the general issue of mishandling classified documents.
“As a general matter, we take issues of classified information very seriously,” Comey said in response to a reporter’s question.
He added that the department had prosecuted and sought administrative sanctions against people for mishandling classified information.
“It’s our lifeblood, those secrets,” Comey continued. “It’s against the law for anyone to intentionally mishandle classified documents either by taking it to give to somebody else or by mishandling it in a way that is outside the government regulations.”
On April 1, 2005, Berger pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of intentionally removing documents from the National Archives and destroying some of them. He was fined $50,000, sentenced to 100 hours of community service and two years probation. Also, his national security license was stripped for two years.
Messages found stored on Clinton’s private email server show that Berger – a convicted thief of classified documents – had been advising Clinton while she served as secretary of state and had access to emails containing classified information.
For example, in an email dated Sept. 22, 2009, Berger advised Clinton advised how she could leverage information to make Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu more cooperative in discussions with the Obama administration over a settlement freeze.
Law firm ties Berger, Lynch, Mills
Berger worked as a partner in the Washington law firm Hogan & Hartson from 1973 to 1977, before taking a position as the deputy director of policy planning at the State Department in the Carter administration.
When Carter lost his re-election bid, Berger returned to Hogan & Hartson, where he worked until he took leave in 1988 to act as foreign policy adviser in Gov. Michael Dukakis’ presidential campaign.
When Dukakis was defeated, Berger returned to Hogan & Hartson until he became foreign policy adviser for Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign in 1992.
On March 28, WND reported Lynch was a litigation partner for eight years at Hogan & Hartson, from March 2002 through April 2010.
Mills also worked at Hogan & Hartson, for two years, starting in 1990, before she joined then President-elect Bill Clinton’s transition team, on her way to securing a position as White House deputy counsel in the Clinton administration.
According to documents Hillary Clinton’s first presidential campaign made public in 2008, Hogan & Hartson’s New York-based partner Howard Topaz was the tax lawyer who filed income tax returns for Bill and Hillary Clinton beginning in 2004.
In addition, Hogan & Hartson in Virginia filed a patent trademark request on May 19, 2004, for Denver-based MX Logic Inc., the computer software firm that developed the email encryption system used to manage Clinton’s private email server beginning in July 2013. A tech expert has observed that employees of MX Logic could have had access to all the emails that went through her account.
In 1999, President Bill Clinton nominated Lynch for the first of her two terms as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, a position she held until she joined Hogan & Hartson in March 2002 to become a partner in the firm’s Litigation Practice Group.
She left Hogan & Hartson in 2010, after being nominated by President Obama for her second term as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, a position she held until Obama nominated her to serve in her current position as attorney general.
A report published April 8, 2008, by The American Lawyer noted Hogan & Hartson was among Hillary Clinton’s biggest financial supporters in the legal industry during her first presidential campaign.
“Firm lawyers and staff have donated nearly $123,400 to her campaign so far, according to campaign contribution data from the Center for Responsive Politics,” Nate Raymond observed in The American Lawyer article. “Christine Varney, a partner in Hogan’s Washington, D.C., office, served as chief counsel to the Clinton-Gore Campaign in 1992.”
While there is no evidence that Lynch played a direct role either in the tax work done by the firm for the Clintons or in linking Hillary’s private email server to MX Logic, the ethics of the legal profession hold all partners jointly liable for the actions of other partners in a business.
“If Hogan and Hartson previously represented the Clintons on tax matters, it is incumbent upon U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch to [disclose] what, if any, role she had in such tax matters,” said Tom Fitton, president of Washington-based Judicial Watch.
When Lynch’s nomination as attorney general was considered by the Senate one year ago, as WND reported, the Senate Judiciary Committee examined her role in the Obama administration’s decision not to prosecute the banking giant HSBC for laundering funds for Mexican drug cartels and Middle Eastern terrorists.
WND was first to report in a series of articles beginning in 2012 money-laundering charges brought by John Cruz, a former HSBC vice president and relationship manager, based on his more than 1,000 pages of evidence and secret audio recordings.
The staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee focused on Cruz’s allegations that Lynch, acting then in her capacity as the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, engaged in a Department of Justice cover-up. Obama’s attorney general nominee allowed HSBC in December 2011 to enter into a “deferred prosecution” settlement in which the bank agreed to pay a $1.9 billion fine and admit “willful criminal conduct” in exchange for dropping criminal investigations and prosecutions of HSBC directors or employees.
Cruz called the $1.92 billion fine the U.S. government imposed on HSBC “a joke” and filed a $10 million lawsuit for “retaliation and wrongful termination.”
From 2002 to 2003, Comey held the position of U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, the same position held by Lynch.
On March 4, 2013, he joined the HSBC board of directors, agreeing to serve as an independent non-executive director and a member of the bank’s Financial System Vulnerabilities Committee, positions he held until he resigned on Aug. 3, 2013, to become head of the FBI.
Comey, Fitzgerald and Valerie Plame
On Jan. 1, 2004, the Washington Post reported that after Attorney General John Aschroft recused himself and his staff from any involvement in the investigation of who leaked the name of CIA employee Valerie Plame after journalist Robert Novak named her in print as a CIA operative, Comey assumed the role of acting attorney general for the purposes of the investigation.
Comey appointed Patrick J. Fitzgerald, a U.S. attorney in Chicago, to act as special counsel in conducting the inquiry into what became known as “Plamegate.”
At the time Comey made the appointment, Fitzgerald was already godfather to one of Comey’s children.
On April 13, 2015, co-authoring a USA Today op-ed piece, Plame and her husband, retired ambassador Joseph Wilson, made public their support for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, openly acknowledging their political closeness to both Hillary and Bill Clinton.
The first two paragraphs of the editorial read:
We have known Hillary Clinton both professionally and personally for close to 20 years, dating back to before President Bill Clinton’s first trip to Africa in 1998 — a trip that they both acknowledge changed their lives, and gave considerable meaning to their post-White House years and to the activities of the Clinton Foundation. Joe, serving as the National Security Council Senior Director for African Affairs, was instrumental in arranging that historic visit.
Our history became entwined with Hillary further after Valerie’s identity as a CIA officer was deliberately exposed. That criminal act was taken in retribution for Joe’s article in The New York Times in which he explained he had discovered no basis for the Bush administration’s justification for the Iraq War that Saddam Hussein was seeking yellowcake uranium to develop a nuclear weapon.
In January 2016, Chuck Ross in the Daily Caller reported that Hillary Clinton emails made public made clear that one of her “most frequent favor-seekers when she was secretary of state was former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a longtime Clinton friend, an endorser of Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, and an Africa expert with deep business ties on the continent.”
Ross noted that Wilson emailed Clinton on Dec. 22, 2009, seeking help for Symbion Power, an American engineering contractor for whom Wilson consulted, in the company’s bid to pursue a U.S. Agency of International Development contract for work in Afghanistan.
In the case of the Afghanistan project, Ross noted, Clinton vouched for Wilson and Symbion as she forwarded the request to Jack Lew, who served then as deputy secretary of state for management and resources.
Ross further reported Wilson’s request might also have been discussed with President Obama, as one email indicates.
In 2005, Fitzgerald prosecuted Libby, a prominent adviser to then Vice President Dick Cheney, in the Plame investigation, charging him with two counts of perjury, two counts of making false statements to federal prosecutors and one count of obstruction of justice.
On March 6, 2007, Libby was convicted of four of the five counts, and on June 5, 2007, was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton to two and a half years in federal prison.
On April 6, 2015, the Wall Street Journal reported the publication of New York Times reporter Judith Miller’s memoir “The Story: A Reporter’s Journey” exposed “unscrupulous conduct” by Fitzgerald in the 2007 trial of Libby.
WSJ reporter Peter Berkowitz noted Miller “writes that Mr. Fitzgerald induced her to give what she now realizes was false testimony.”
“By withholding critical information and manipulating her memory as he prepared her to testify, Ms. Miller relates, Mr. Fitzgerald ‘steered’ her ‘in the wrong direction.’”
UPDATE: July 5, 2016
The director of the once-irreproachable Federal Bureau of Investigation grossly misled the American people. Director James Comey, as regards the Hillary Clinton private server scandal, boldly stated that there was no evidence that anyone deliberately mishandled classified information. That, is a bald-faced lie.
There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey, Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.
Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States.
In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, James Comey rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.
Moreover, that there are other statutes that criminalize unlawfully removing and transmitting highly classified information with intent to harm the United States. Being not guilty (and, indeed, not even accused) of Offense B does not absolve a person of guilt on Offense A, which she has committed.
It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed. The idea is that by knocking down a crime the prosecution does not allege and cannot prove, the defense may confuse the jury into believing the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged. Judges generally do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the consideration of the crimes that actually have been charged.
This is what James Comey has done. He has told the public that because Mrs. Clinton did not have intent to harm the United States we should not prosecute her on a felony that does not require proof of intent to harm the United States. Meanwhile, although there may have been profound harm to national security caused by her grossly negligent mishandling of classified information, we’ve decided she shouldn’t be prosecuted for grossly negligent mishandling of classified information.
Finally, Director Comey’s claim that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on the evidence uncovered by the FBI. However, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton’s conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, a reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case.
Like many Americans, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan was floored by Director Comey’s recommendation not to indict Hillary Clinton. Expressing deep concern for the erosion of the rule of law. Ryan said, “No one should be above the law.”
The facts speak for themselves, for these treasonous actions by James Comey are a blatant display of government corruption. For the most part, some of the top-secret emails on Hillary Clinton’s personal server were sent between President Obama and Ms. Clinton, so the outcome of this case was decided long ago, and there was no legitimate “investigation.” The fix was in from the beginning, and President Obama was not going to be pulled into a Clinton scandal. To that end, Director Comey unlawfully deemed crimes and lies unworthy of indictment, but he said that the rest of us should not feel similarly free to operate as Ms. Clinton has. We would be prosecuted. He clearly admitted that she is above the law.
Then there is the other criminal matters of the investigation into the Clinton Foundation, and potential quid-pro-quo corruption lining the actions of the secretary of state to donations to the foundation. Director Comey said absolutely nothing about these investigations, not to mention, how Hillary Clinton violated federal laws governing evidence-tampering and obstruction of justice.
Lets face it, unlike the men we honored the day before, on July 4th, who pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to defend liberty and the rule of law, FBI Director Comey was not willing to put anything on the line. He wanted us to know Hillary was guilty as hell. But he was not willing to pit himself along with the FBI against Obama’s DOJ, so he let the guilty walk free without even an attempt at insisting she be charged.
The decision not to indict Hillary Clinton is the moment at which the United States crossed the line which separates a “dysfunctional mess” from a genuine “third-world-style banana republic.” We no longer adhere to the rule of law or, if we do, we apply it differently to different classes. The political class operates with one playbook, while the rest of us are tied to another, much harsher, set of rules.
In conclusion, James Comey has treasonously made the FBI part of a federal government crime syndicate, or should we say he has made the FBI their Bitch along with the American people?
UPDATE: September 24, 2016
The weekly document dump by the FBI has turned up some startling information. The Bureau granted at least partial immunity to five Hillary Clinton aides who were key players in the private email scandal now roiling the Clinton campaign.
Clinton’s I.T. aide, Bryan Pagliano, has already been held in contempt of Congress for refusing to testify, despite his being granted immunity by the FBI. The documents revealed that Hillary Clinton’s friend and lawyer, Cheryl Mills, also received an immunity deal for turning over her laptop.
This has incensed congressional Republicans trying to get to the bottom of Clinton’s use of a private email server and why so many emails that were deleted shouldn’t have been. They wonder why the immunity agreements did not include language that would have allowed the aides to testify before Congress.
“If the FBI wanted any other American’s laptops, they’d just go get them — they wouldn’t get an immunity deal,” Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), an oversight panel member, said in a phone interview. “But everyone associated with the Clinton gets a different set of standards applied to them… It’s the strangest stuff I have ever seen.”
Republicans were also incensed that the immunity deals, which now cover five Clinton staffers at the heart of the controversy, did not require witnesses to cooperate with Congress, sources who reviewed them told POLITICO. Such agreements sometimes include language forcing the recipients to answer other investigative entities, but the Justice deals did not.
Republicans have been trying to question several of those protected individuals, including: Clinton’s top IT staffer Bryan Pagliano, who set up the server; Platte River Networks engineer Paul Combetta, who erased Clinton’s email archive days after news of her email use became public; and John Bentel, a tech staffer at the State Department who told his subordinates never to speak of Clinton’s email when they raised concerns.
This latest email flare-up comes at an inopportune time for Clinton, just days before her first debate against Donald Trump. Republicans said the timing of the immunity news was not intentional; they only learned on Friday of the arrangements with Mills, Samuelson and Bentel and almost immediately disclosed them to the AP, which first reported the story. Regardless, Clinton has been unable to shake the email controversy even after the FBI decided against recommending charges against her in July.
Comey’s decison not to prosecute Clinton is clearly seen as a treasonous act. The fact is, granting all these immunity deals is just another way to cover up the truth. No one under Clinton is going to be held responsible for the illegal deletions of emails or the mishandling of classified data, so how can you hold Clinton solely responsible?
Where it looked as if, at one time, Clinton aides Abedin and Mills would, at the very least, be charged with mishandling classified information, the FBI director Comey made sure that no one would be held accountable. Roger Simon of PJ Media asks, “What Happens When You Can’t Trust the FBI and the Department of Justice?”
The answer is lawlessness in government at the highest levels.
UPDATE: September 28, 2016
A review of FBI Director James Comey’s professional history and relationships shows that the Obama cabinet leader — now under fire for his handling of the investigation of Hillary Clinton — is deeply entrenched in the big-money cronyism culture of Washington, D.C. His personal and professional relationships — all undisclosed as he announced the Bureau would not prosecute Clinton — reinforce bipartisan concerns that he politicized the criminal probe.
This focuses on millions of dollars that Comey accepted from a Clinton Foundation defense contractor, Comey’s former membership on a Clinton Foundation corporate partner’s board, and his surprising financial relationship with his brother Peter Comey, who works at the law firm that does the Clinton Foundation’s taxes.
When President Obama nominated Comey to become FBI director in 2013, Comey promised the United States Senate that he would recuse himself on all cases involving former employers.
But Comey earned $6 million in one year alone from Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin became a Clinton Foundation donor that very year.
Comey served as deputy attorney general under John Ashcroft for two years of the Bush administration. When he left the Bush administration, he went directly to Lockheed Martin and became vice president, acting as a general counsel.
How much money did James Comey make from Lockheed Martin in his last year with the company, which he left in 2010? More than $6 million in compensation.
Lockheed Martin is a Clinton Foundation donor. The company admitted to becoming a Clinton Global Initiative member in 2010.
According to records, Lockheed Martin is also a member of the American Chamber of Commerce in Egypt, which paid Bill Clinton $250,000 to deliver a speech in 2010.
In 2010, Lockheed Martin won 17 approvals for private contracts from the Hillary Clinton State Department.
In 2013, Comey became a board member, a director, and a Financial System Vulnerabilities Committee member of the London bank HSBC Holdings.
“Mr. Comey’s appointment will be for an initial three-year term which, subject to re-election by shareholders, will expire at the conclusion of the 2016 Annual General Meeting,” according to HSBC company records.
HSBC Holdings and its various philanthropic branches routinely partner with the Clinton Foundation. For instance, HSBC Holdings has partnered with Deutsche Bank through the Clinton Foundation to “retrofit 1,500 to 2,500 housing units, primarily in the low- to moderate-income sector” in “New York City.”
“Retrofitting” refers to a Green initiative to conserve energy in commercial housing units. Clinton Foundation records show that the Foundation projected “$1 billion in financing” for this Green initiative to conserve people’s energy in low-income housing units.
Who Is Peter Comey?
When our source called the Chinatown offices of D.C. law firm DLA Piper and asked for “Peter Comey,” a receptionist immediately put him through to Comey’s direct line. But Peter Comey is not featured on the DLA Piper website.
Peter Comey serves as “Senior Director of Real Estate Operations for the Americas” for DLA Piper. James Comey was not questioned about his relationship with Peter Comey in his confirmation hearing.
DLA Piper is the firm that performed the independent audit of the Clinton Foundation in November during Clinton-World’s first big push to put the email scandal behind them. DLA Piper’s employees taken as a whole represent a major Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign donation bloc and Clinton Foundation donation base.
DLA Piper ranks #5 on Hillary Clinton’s all-time career Top Contributors list, just ahead of Goldman Sachs.
And here is another thing: Peter Comey has a mortgage on his house that is owned by his brother James Comey, the FBI director.
Peter Comey’s financial records, obtained by Breitbart News, show that he bought a $950,000 house in Vienna, Virginia, in June 2008. He needed a $712,500 mortgage from First Savings Mortgage Corporation.
But on January 31, 2011, James Comey and his wife stepped in to become Private Party lenders. They granted a mortgage on the house for $711,000. Financial records suggest that Peter Comey took out two such mortgages from his brother that day.
This financial relationship between the Comey brothers began prior to James Comey’s nomination to become director of the FBI.
DLA Piper did not answer any question as to whether James Comey and Peter Comey spoke at any point about this mortgage or anything else during the Clinton email investigation.
This needs to be seen by all:
Lead FBI agent John Giacalone abruptly resigned in the middle of the investigation in February 2016.
Pay For Play – involving the Clinton Foundation were not properly vetted, ultimately white washed.
FBI agents were blocked from serving search warrants to retrieve key evidence.
FBI agents were not allowed to interrogate witnesses and targets without warning.
FBI agents had been trying to interview Clinton since December 2015, approval delayed by top brass.
FBI agents believed Clinton case was being “slow-walked” to run-out-the-clock.
FBI agents stunned that targets Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson were permitted to sit in on Hillary Clinton’s FBI interview.
Clinton and aides cited amnesia. In Clinton’s case she claimed due to medical complications.
Attempts to secure Clinton’s medical records to confirm her head injury were sabotaged by FBI Director James Comey.
FBI Director James Comey: We found no evidence of intent.
FBI Docs: IT employee labeled his work “Hillary cover-up operation”
No longer can the FBI claim it’s Untouchable. Not only because of the treasonous acts of James Comey, but for every FBI agent within the bureau that did absolutely nothing to stop this from happening. Simple said, the entire FBI is treasonously corrupt.
UPDATE: October 7, 2016
More revelations of wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton and her staff have emerged from FBI files detailing interviews with State Department employees. It appears that at least two boxes of Clinton emails have disappeared. The emails cover the crucial months of January-April, 2009 when Clinton began her tenure as secretary and was setting up her private email server.
There is also the allegation that one of Clinton’s key aides, Patrick Kennedy, altered the classified headings on documents to make more of them unavailble for Freedom of Information Act requests.
The details about the boxes are contained in five pages of the FBI file – with a staggering 111 redactions – that summarize the statements of a State Department witness who worked in the “Office of Information Programs and Services (IPS).”
The employee told the FBI that, “Initially, IPS officials were told there were 14 bankers boxes of former Secretary of State Hillary CLINTON’s emails at CLINTON’s Friendship Heights office.” Friendship Heights is a neighborhood that straddles the Northwest neighborhood of the District of Columbia and Maryland.
The State Department witness further explained to the FBI that “on or about December 5, 2014, IPS personnel picked up only 12 bankers boxes of CLINTON’s emails from Williams & Connolly.”
The officials were not sure if the boxes “were consolidated or what could have happened to the two other boxes. “
Clinton’s chief lawyer at Williams & Connolly, who leads all Clinton-related legal matters, is David Kendall. He has successfully represented Bill and Hillary Clinton together and separately throughout decades of their legal entanglements since the 1980’s, ranging from the former president’s sex scandals to missing billing records for Hillary Clinton’s work as a partner in The Rose Law Firm on behalf of the failed Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan and Capital Management Services.
In the documents provided by Kendall’s law firm, the witness told the FBI they were “unable to locate any of her emails from January-April 2009.” This timeframe is crucial as it covers the start of Clinton’s term as secretary of state and when she set up a private server for all government business, in turn skirting public records laws.
In the same Aug. 18, 2015, interview, on page 42, the State Department witness also told the FBI there was a deliberate effort to change sensitive Clinton emails bearing the “B(1)” code — used in the Freedom of Information Act review process to identify classified information — to the category of “B-5.” That category covers Executive Branch deliberations, “interagency or intra-agency communications including attorney client privileges,” and makes material exempt from public release.
Over five pages of the single-spaced summary notes, the witness, whose name is redacted, alleges Clinton’s team which included Undersecretary for Management Patrick Kennedy played classification games to confuse and obfuscate the formal FOIA review process.
None of this interested the FBI enough for them to follow up and get to the bottom of who did what, who destroyed what, and who altered what.
Now imagine an ordinary citizen pulling crap like this with how many years in prison they’d get. Four months worth of crucial documents that could make or break a criminal case against Hillary Clinton and her aides disappears into thin air? A key aide orders subordinates to alter official government documents to try and hide them from FOIA requests?
Many might think the Clintons were too smart to commit anything criminal to paper. That would be wrong, for they counted on friendly investigators covering for them. In this, FBI Director Comey’s decision was nothing less than politically-motivated malfeasance, that is, the performance by a public official of an act that is legally unjustified, harmful, or contrary to law.
Thanks to Comey, it should now be clear to all thoughtful Americans that the U.S. Government, as an institution, is hopelessly corrupt, unaccountable to the people and unconstrained by the rule of law.
James Comey obviously concurs with and has aptly demonstrated the political elite are immune from prosecution regardless of the damage done to our national security and the Constitution, specifically the concept of equal justice under the law.
James Comey has secured his place in U.S. History.
America has a new Benedict Arnold.
UPDATE: October 28, 2016
US Congressman Trey Growdy is investigating Hillary’s email scandal case. So right up front, FBI Director James Comey asked for immunity and Gowdy told him flatly, “Hell No.”
That’s right. What Comey is asking for is to be absolved of what he’s done and anything that may happen in the future from any further investigations. In turn, one may ask how this doesn’t throw up the biggest red flag in American history? Well it did to Trey Gowdy, and he just ripped Comey a new one, not to mention, he is about to do everything in his power to stop that immunity from happening.
One might think Comey is running out of clever excuses to overlook Hillary’s obvious criminality, and it has come back to bite him and the country he supposedly serves.
However, eleven days before the presidential election, James Comey has told several members of Congress he is reopening the investigation involving Hillary Clinton’s private email server while she headed the State Department.
What is plainly obvious is Comey has not started a legitimate investigation, for when Comey wrote the letter he had no idea what was in the content of the emails. Matter of fact, Comey and the entire FBI haven’t obtained a search warrant to review the new emails related to the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server.
When putting it all together, this is just another treasonous act by James Comey to protect Hillary Clinton along with his own ass from being prosecuted. In other words, Comey can now save himself by recommending a federal indictment against Hillary if Trump wins, and do nothing if Hillary wins.
James Comey is a traitor by his own hubris and of that destructive machine called Clinton.
UPDATE: October 30, 2016
Law enforcement officials have confirmed the FBI later obtained a warrant to search emails related to the Hillary Clinton private server probe that were discovered on ex-congressman Anthony Weiner’s laptop.
The warrant came two days after FBI director James Comey revealed the existence of the emails, which law-enforcement sources said were linked to Weiner’s estranged wife, top Clinton aide Huma Abedin.
The FBI already had a warrant to search Weiner’s laptop, but that only applied to evidence of his allegedly illicit communications with an underage girl.
UPDATE: November 3, 2016
Here is an updated list of the crimes Hillary Clinton and her team should be investigated for by the FBI:
* The unlawful removal, transmitting, maintaining and destruction of sensitive and highly classified data, records and information
* Money laundering
* Sex crimes with minors (children)
* Pay to play through Clinton Foundation
* Evidence tampering
* Obstruction of justice
* and other felony crimes
UPDATE: November 6, 2016
FBI Director James B. Comey notified key members of Congress Sunday afternoon that after reviewing newly discovered Hillary Clinton emails the agency stands by its original findings against recommending charges.
The three-paragraph letter was sent to the chairman of the Homeland Security, Judiciary, Appropriations and Oversight and Government Reform and was copied to the ranking members of those committees. Comey said the FBI had performed an “extraordinary amount of high quality work” to conduct the review.
Comey wrote that investigators had worked “around the clock” to review all the emails found on a device used by former congressman Anthony Weiner that had been sent to or from Clinton and that “we have not changed our conclusions expressed in July 2016.”
The conclusion from Comey provided one last twist to the 2016 presidential campaign and came just two days before the election.
A spokesman for the FBI declined to comment beyond Comey’s letter, as did a spokesman for the Department of Justice.
The FBI has become a criminal organization within itself, for the same political interference and corruption would have prevailed if James Comey had resigned.
The number two man within the FBI is Andrew McCabe, and he’s another traitor tainted by the Clinton graft. His wife received $500,000 for a Virginia state senate campaign from Clinton moneyman Terry McAuliffe. So with little doubt McCabe would have certainly further hobbled and ended the Clinton investigations.
What sadly remains is no longer Untouchable, for the FBI has become an agency full of cheats, liars, and traitors.
UPDATE: May 9, 2017
“President Donald Trump on Tuesday, May 9, 2017, fired FBI Director James Comey.
“At the very least, James Comey will is remembered as a traitor to the men and women in the FBI, his president, and his country.
UPDATE: May 18, 2017
“The traitor James Comey has now been caught committed perjury to Congress.
“Former FBI Director James Comey said he was never told to stop an investigation due of political reasons during testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 3, 2017, which contradicts his new claim that Trump pressured him to stop the Flynn investigation in February.
“Comey now claims President Trump asked him to to shut down the federal investigation into former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, in an Oval Office meeting in February, according to a reported memo Mr. Comey says he wrote after the meeting.
“The New York Times claims this February memo is the “smoking gun,” but in fact it contradicts Comey’s sworn testimony on May 3, 2017.
“During the Senate testimony, Comey confirmed to Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) that in theory, the Attorney General or senior officials at the Department of Justice could halt a FBI investigation.
“The former FBI director added it would “be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that – without an appropriate purpose.”
““But I’m talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal. It’s not happened in my experience.”
“Remember, James Comey said this on May 3, 2017, months after the reported memo he claimed to have written after meeting with Trump.
UPDATE: October 19, 2017
As the swamp is slowing starting to drain, more of the filth at the bottom has been revealed. Now, some of the people who comprise that filth have been found to reside at the FBI.
According to FOX News, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has now confirmed that former FBI Director James Comey drafted a letter about Hillary Clinton’s email before interviewing her about the scandal.
The letter was sent on May 2, 2016, and replied to on May 16, 2016. Yet, Comey announced his decision not to recommend criminal charges against Clinton in July 2016. It now appears that he made this decision without completing the investigation, including 16 key interviews.
These interviews included those with Cheryl Mills, Bryan Pagliano, Heather Samuelson, Justin Cooper, John Bentel, and, of course, Hillary Clinton (whose interview was to be the final, on July 2, 2016).
Previously, it had been reported that Comey likely drafted the letter before actually conducting the investigation, but now it has been confirmed.
The FBI released a document entitled, “Drafts of Director Comey’s July 5, 2016 Statement Regarding Email Server Investigation Part 01 of 01.”
Despite being labeled unclassified, the FBI had redacted nearly all of the information in the email containing the draft. It only showed a response to the letter from Senior Counselor Rybicki.
“Please send me any comments on this statement so we may roll into a master doc for discussion with the Director at a future date. Thanks, Jim.”
The email was available to Andrew McCabe, James Baker, and several other FBI officials.
Before this FBI confirmation, the letter was revealed through hearings conducted by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), and member Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), had found transcripts where Comey’s aides spoke of the email.
After their discovery, the two wrote a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray explaining their findings. The letter said, “It appears that in April or early May of 2016, Mr. Comey had already decided he would issue a statement exonerating Secretary Clinton. That was long before FBI agents finished their work.”
“The outcome of an investigation should not be prejudged while FBI agents are still hard at work trying to gather the facts,” the letter continued.
“Conclusion first, fact-gathering second–that’s no way to run an investigation. The FBI should be held to a higher standard than that, especially in a matter of such great public interest and controversy,” the Senators wrote.
They also wrote that they cannot be certain whether the FBI agents working the case where aware Comey had already made a decision on the case. If they were, it is possible they would not seek information to contradict their director’s judgment.
It has just been alleged that Comey made a decision about Hillary Clinton’s email scandal before finishing key interviews. Did President Trump do the right thing in firing Comey?
Putting federal investigators in such a position, to compromise their investigation, could explain the widely reported low morale in the FBI. The New York Post reported that FBI agents were close to “revolt” over how the email investigation was handled.
Senator Graham has joined others in calling for Comey to be questioned on this matter. “He’s coming [to Capitol Hill] one way or the other,” Graham told Fox News, arguing that he would subpoena the former Director if he had to.
UPDATE: February 11, 2018
Assistant director of the FBI Counterintelligence Division Bill Priestap has turned on former director James Comey, confirming that he is indeed a traitor to America.
CLICK HERE to read about the traitor Edward “Bill” William Priestap.
UPDATE: December 9, 2018
James Comey Told 245 Lies During Friday’s (December 7, 2918) Congressional Testimony
Republican lawmakers weren’t the only ones who were frustrated by former FBI Director James Comey’s repeated refusals to answer questions or provide further details – or his assertions that he simply couldn’t recall – during his closed-door testimony before members of the House.
Comey asked us all to believe that the man who remembered enough to write a book suddenly had total memory loss, saying “I don’t know” or the equivalent some 245 times. Comey claimed little knowledge of the Steele dossier yet he signed a FISA warrant based on it to spy on candidate and then President Trump all while he knew it was a fraud. His defense in front of Congress on Friday was that he didn’t know it was a fraud or he forgot.
Unfortunately, Comey can’t hide behind his lies because there is evidence he did know the FISA warrant was a fraud:
Comey told investigators that the anti-Trump dossier authored by longtime British intelligence agent Christopher Steele was largely unverified before and after a FISA warrant was obtained to surveil Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, according to a report.
Comey told investigators that the anti-Trump dossier authored by longtime British intelligence agent Christopher Steele was largely unverified before and after a FISA warrant was obtained to surveil Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, according to a report.
The Hill’s John Solomon reports:
The towering ex-FBI boss confessed that the FBI had not corroborated much of the Steele dossier before it was submitted as evidence to a secret court to support a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to spy on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page in the final weeks of the election.And Comey admitted much of the dossier remained uncorroborated more than six months later when he was fired by President Trump.
The original FISA warrant application submitted in October 2016, along with the three 90-day renewal, were labeled “Verified application. “The FBI has reviewed this verified application for accuracy in accordance with its April 5, 2001 procedures, which include sending a copy of the draft to the appropriate field office(s),” the applications read. Along with being unaware of the dossier’s veracity, Comey did not know that Bruce Ohr, the Justice Department’s fourth-highest ranking official before his demotion last year, was a go-between for collecting so-called intelligence from Steele after the FBI terminated its relationship with the agent for alleging leaking information to the media. Further, Solomon reports that Comey could not recall that Steele’s relationship with the bureau had even been terminated. “His memory was so bad I feared he might not remember how to get out of the room after the interview,” an unnamed congressman told Solomon. “It was like he suddenly developed dementia or Alzheimer’s, after conveniently remembering enough facts to sell his book,” said another.
Indeed, if the Steele dossier was “salacious and unverified” when he briefed the new President, it was also salacious and unverified when the FISA warrants he signed off on incorporating it were issued, with Comey an active participant on committing a fraud upon the court.
Perhaps the most interesting dip into disingenuousness was Comey’s insistence that the man who made him a multi-millionaire, Robert Mueller, was merely a passing acquaintance:
“Are you best friends with Robert Mueller?” Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, asked Comey, according to a transcript of the hearing released Saturday by Goodlatte and Oversight Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.).
“I am not,” Comey said. “I admire the heck out of the man, but I don’t know his phone number, I’ve never been to his house, I don’t know his children’s names.”
Comey added: “I think I had a meal once alone with him in a restaurant. I like him. I am not a — I’m an associate of his who admires him greatly. We’re not friends in any social sense.”
Again Comey is lying. Their “long-standing relationship” was confirmed by that Trump-loving vast right-conspiracy rag called the Washington Post:
They’ve been described as law enforcement twins and “brothers in arms.”
#COMEY & #Mueller were brothers in arms in famous 2004 standoff over domestic surveillance. Cagey choice by DAG Rosenstein.
— Jim Sciutto (@jimsciutto) May 17, 2017
Once again, James Comey and Robert Mueller — two respected FBI veterans — have found themselves sharing the same high-profile headlines.
The two men’s working relationship can be traced back to at least December of 2003, when Comey joined Mueller in Washington after he became John Ashcroft’s deputy attorney general, according to a 2013 Washingtonian article about the two men’s long-standing relationship.
“He and Mueller spent many hours together, developing a close partnership — and watching together the disarray in the government over how to respond to the unfolding war on terror,” Washingtonian notes…
Perhaps the most interesting — and lucrative — aspect of this long-standing relationship between these “brothers in arms” that Comey now denies, is how then-FBI director Mueller used his position to enrich casual acquaintance Comey. It is worth noting the cozy financial relationship between two former FBI directors, James Comey and Robert Mueller, which goes a long way towards explaining their joint animus to President Trump and their passionate desire to bring down his presidency.
Robert Mueller owes his job as special counsel to long-time friend Comey, who famously leaked government documents written on government computers on government time to the New York Times via a professor friend regarding conversations with President Trump. Comey owes a great deal of his financial wealth to Robert Mueller.
Seamus Bruner, Government Accountability Institute Researcher and author of Compromised: How Money and Politics Drive FBI Corruption, recently explained how former FBI Directors James Comey and Robert Mueller leveraged their government contacts to enrich themselves when Comey briefly left government service to work for major government contractor Lockheed Martin:
Bruner noted the growth of Comey’s net worth between 2003 and 2009, after Comey left the Department of Justice to join Lockheed Martin as senior vice president and lead counsel.
“It doesn’t really make much sense why [Lockheed Martin] would pay [James Comey] upwards of six million dollars in a single year,” assessed Bruner. “But one reason — aside from his security clearance — is that his buddy Robert Mueller is running the FBI. They begin passing 100-million-dollar-plus contracts to Lockheed Martin.”
Bruner continued, “One of these contracts was actually worth a billion dollars, and it was protested formally by the other bidder: IBM… The contracts flowed from Robert Mueller’s FBI to James Comey’s private sector employer, Lockheed Martin, and James Comey made many millions over a short period of time.”
Bruner described Comey as “one of the prime examples of this kind of cashing in on government contacts.”
“We followed the money and realized that James Comey made well over ten million dollars from when he left the public sector in 2005 and by the time he returned to serve as FBI director [in 2009],” said Bruner. “He even made over six million dollars in a single year at the top government contracting corporation, Lockheed Martin; they get over $50 billion a year in government contracts.”
James Comey is a serial liar and arguably a treasonous serial felon who supervised and directed Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, and Lisa Page in an organized deep state coup to keep Hillary Clinton out of prison and Donald Trump out of the White House. And along the way he picked up a few million bucks thanks to a long-standing friend, colleague and benefactor, Robert Mueller, whom he then rewarded a license to overthrow a sitting President of the United States.
Following the release of the full transcript from Comey’s testimony last night (December 7, 2018), President Trump lashed out against the former FBI director whom Trump summarily fired a few months in to his administration, accusing Comey of lying when he said he couldn’t remember certain details or otherwise refused to answer questions (something Comey did, on the advice of a DOJ attorney, 245 times during the course of his marathon testimony). Furthermore, Trump said Comey lied when he said he didn’t know Christopher Steele (the former UK intelligence agent who assembled the infamous Steele dossier) and that he didn’t know who had signed off on investigations into four unnamed Trump campaign officials.
Comey was “so untruthful”, Trump said, that he might have “set a record” for the number of times a witness lied to Congress during official testimony. Hist testimony is the latest sign that the Russia probe is a “rigged fraud” launched by “dishonest people” who would “do anything so that I would not become president.”
“They are now exposed!,” Trump said.
UPDATE: January 2, 2020
James Comey: The 21st Century’s Benedict Arnold
When I was a child, history was my favorite subject. I even took enough elective history classes at the collegiate level to earn a Bachelor of Arts degree with a double major in history and political science (pre-law). I changed my major to business after watching Al Pacino overact while portraying a criminal defense attorney in the movie And Justice for All. I probably ought to write Mr. Pacino a letter thanking him for crushing my naïve fantasy of becoming a real-life Perry Mason. I should also thank God that Al Pacino never played the part of a software developer or a writer, because he probably would have killed any future interest in those professions as well. The only safe career for me might have been as a sanitation worker.
If you’ve never seen the docudrama Turn, about General Washington’s spies during the Revolutionary War, it is well worth the time to binge-watch (if you have Netflix) and appreciate what America was like before it became the beacon of freedom and hope that I’ve been blessed and privileged to call home for my entire lifetime. I can virtually guarantee that everyone will learn something about the origin of our country they either never knew or had forgotten as some obscure footnote of history.
For example, I clearly remembered that General Benedict Arnold was widely considered the most notorious traitor in U.S. history, but I couldn’t remember specifically what he had done to betray General Washington and the Continental Army (he negotiated to sell a map of our defenses at West Point to spymaster Major John Andre of the British Army) or why the previously distinguished military hero would have done such a despicable deed. If Benedict Arnold hadn’t escaped to England, he would have been hanged as a traitor.
This makes for a nice segue to James Comey, former FBI director and one of the lead conspirators in the plot to overthrow the presidency of Donald Trump. At minimum, James Comey is guilty of sedition. If there was a crime like perjury for repeatedly lying through the mainstream media to the American people about a criminal conspiracy to overthrow our elected government, Comey would probably get locked in a cell for the rest of his miserable life. Instead, this disgraceful excuse for a human being has thus far been rewarded for his treachery with a multimillion-dollar deal to write a book (irony alert!) on loyalty.
And if that isn’t bad enough, the Washington Post just published one of the most disgusting “opinion” pieces in recent memory, authored by this disgraceful excuse for a former FBI director, in which he whines about being the target of Donald Trump’s wrath while making absurd and audacious claims such as “Foreign leaders laugh at him and throw his letters in the trash.” Yes, we’ve all seen the video of Macron and Trudeau laughing and making jokes at Trump’s expense. Serious question: who cares what Macron or Trudeau thinks?
Far more serious question: How does James Comey know what foreign leaders do with letters they receive from Donald Trump? Or is he making another spectacular but totally unsubstantiated claim, as he did when he signed the three applications for FISA warrants to spy on Trump campaign adviser and CIA operative Carter Page? If James Comey isn’t “blowing smoke out of his butt,” as my father used to say, is he actually confessing to treason? Is there any other way to describe this former government official apparently claiming to have intimate knowledge of how leaders of foreign governments have responded to official communications from President Donald Trump?
James Comey’s problem is that he isn’t half as smart as he thinks he is. The only real reason for writing this drivel disguised as a Washington Post op-ed piece is what will prove to be a futile attempt to get out in front of the impending Durham report, coming at some point in 2020, and what will almost surely be a future indictment for his role in the conspiracy to undermine and overthrow the presidency of Donald Trump.
The very next sentence in this self-serving attack on President Trump proves that James Comey isn’t nearly as smart as he thinks he is because he inadvertently reveals the hypocrisy of Nancy Pelosi when he writes, “American leaders clap back at him, offering condescending prayers for his personal well-being” (emphasis added). Question: Has anybody else, other than Nancy Pelosi, been bragging about praying for Donald Trump? To which American leader could Comey possibly have been referring except Nancy Pelosi, who has made a point of frequently saying she’s been praying for Trump while working to impeach him?
Next, Comey writes, “The president’s ‘trusted’ advisers all appear to talk about him behind his back and treat him like a child.” What, you mean just as you’ve done, Big Jim?
In fairness, the op-ed mostly reads like the whining of a petulant child, not a modern-day reincarnation of Reinhold Niebuhr. It didn’t inspire me to write a reply until I read this particular paragraph:
I don’t mean to suggest Trump is not dangerous. The horrific betrayal of allies in northern Syria demonstrates that an impetuous and amoral leader can do great harm, even in shrunken form. And if he succeeds in redefining our nation’s core values so that extorting foreign governments to aid in one’s election is consistent with the oath of office, he will have done lasting damage to this nation — the harm our founders worried about most.
Our Founding Fathers didn’t create the FBI, but James Comey is exactly what they feared the most: the corruption of our government from within. Former FBI agent Frank Watt explains that the 17 errors in the FISA application Comey signed have only two possible explanations: senior leadership at the FBI were “abject failures at the task they were hired to perform” (a theory former special agent Watt rejects as implausible), or they “were knowingly and deliberately operating outside the law to one degree or another.”
That last sentence probably explains why John Durham is working with a grand jury. It really won’t matter how far out in front of the indictment you get, Mr. Comey. You won’t be able to spin a criminal conviction as political retribution.
As Comey is winding down his pathetic defense, he writes, “It may be justly suspected that [Trump’s] object is to throw things into confusion so that he may ‘ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.'” The same guy who fancies himself worthy of comparison to the theologian credited with writing the Serenity Prayer ought to know the more famous words of Hosea 8:7, which reads, “They sow the wind and reap the whirlwind.”
The next line is even more apropos: “The stalk has no head; it will produce no flour. Were it to yield grain, foreigners would swallow it up.”
James Comey has done incalculable harm to our country in his zeal to damage the presidency of Donald Trump and now in a desperate but ultimately futile attempt to protect his own reputation. He’s very lucky that Donald Trump is no George Washington, because Washington would have hanged Benedict Arnold if he’d only been able to catch him.