Tag Archives: James Comey

House Judiciary Committee asks for second special prosecutor to investigate Clinton-Comey-Lynch

House Republicans are doing their utmost to bring Hillary Clinton to justice.

On July 26, 2017, Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee ingeniously turned a Democrat resolution witchhunt (HRes. 446) of President Trump’s firing of FBI director James Comey inside out into an amended HRes. 446 calling for an investigation into Comey’s mishandling of the FBI’s criminal investigation into then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of an unauthorized private email server. (See “House Republicans are going after Hillary Clinton!”)

A day later, on July 27, Rep. Bob Goodlatte and other Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee redoubled their effort by sending a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein calling for the appointment of a second special counsel to investigate matters connected to the 2016 election which are not addressed by HRes. 446 or Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller, including many actions taken by Obama Administration officials like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and FBI Director James Comey.

Below is the full text of the letter:

July 27, 2017

Dear Attorney General Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein:

We are writing to you to request assistance in restoring public confidence in our nation’s justice system and its investigators, specifically the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). We need to enable these agencies to perform their necessary and important law enforcement and intelligence functions fully unhindered by politics. While we presume that the FBI’s investigation into Russian influence has been subsumed into Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, we are not confident that other matters related to the 2016 election and aftermath are similarly under investigation by Special Counsel Mueller. The unbalanced, uncertain, and seemingly unlimited focus of the special counsel’s investigation has led many of our constituents to see a dual standard of justice that benefits only the powerful and politically well-connected. For this reason, we call on you to appoint a second special counsel to investigate a plethora of matters connected to the 2016 election and its aftermath, including actions taken by previously public figures like Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Director James Comey, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Many Democrats and members of the Washington media previously called for a “special prosecutor” to investigate Russian influence on the election and connections with the Trump campaign. Not surprisingly, once you actually made the decision to appoint a special counsel, the calls for further investigations by congressional committees continued, focused on allegations that have heretofore produced no evidence of criminality, despite the fact that over a year has passed since the opening of the original FBI investigation. Political gamesmanship continues to saturate anything and everything associated with reactions to President Trump’s executive decisions, and reveals the hypocrisy of those who refuse to allow the Special Counsel’s investigation to proceed without undue political influence. It is an unfortunate state of affairs.

Your stated rationale for recommending Director Comey’s termination as FBI Director was his mishandling of former Secretary Clinton’s email investigation and associated public disclosures concerning the investigation’s findings. We believe this was the correct decision. It is clear that Director Comey contributed to the politicization of the FBI’s investigations by issuing his public statement, nominating himself as judge and jury, rather than permitting career DOJ prosecutors to make the final decision. But many other questions remain unanswered, due to Mr. Comey’s premature and inappropriate decision, as well as the Obama Justice Department’s refusal to respond to legitimate Congressional oversight. Last week, the Republican Members of this Committee sent a letter to the Justice Department, asking for responses to those unanswered inquiries. These questions cannot, for history’s sake and for the preservation of an impartial system of justice, be allowed to die on the vine.

It is therefore incumbent on this Committee, in our oversight capacity, to ensure that the agencies we oversee are above reproach and that the Justice Department, in particular, remains immune to accusations of politicization. Many Congressional entities have been engaged in oversight of Russian influence on the election, but a comprehensive investigation into the 2016 Presidential campaign and its aftermath must, similarly, be free of even the suggestion of political interference. The very core of our justice system demands as much. A second, newly-appointed special counsel will not be encumbered by these considerations, and will provide real value to the American people in offering an independent perspective on these extremely sensitive matters.

Our call for a special counsel is not made lightly. We have no interest in engendering more bad feelings and less confidence in the process or governmental institutions by the American people. Rather, our call is made on their behalf. It is meant to determine whether the criminal prosecution of any individual is warranted based on the solemn obligation to follow the facts wherever they lead and applying the law to those facts.

As we referenced above, Democrats and the mainstream media called for a special counsel to be appointed to investigate any Russian influence on President Trump’s campaign. Their pleas were answered, but there are many questions that may be outside the scope of Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation. This was clear following Mr. Comey’s recent testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 8, 2017, which ignited renewed scrutiny of former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and the actions she took to mislead the public concerning the investigation into the Clinton email investigation. Last year, this Committee inquired repeatedly about the circumstances surrounding that and other matters, but our inquiries were largely ignored.

During his testimony, Mr. Comey referenced a meeting on the Phoenix airport tarmac between Ms. Lynch and former President Bill Clinton. Mr. Comey raised concerns about Ms. Lynch’s conduct, and questioned her independence, stating:

At one point, the attorney general had directed me not to call it an investigation, but instead to call it a matter, which confused me and concerned me. That was one of the bricks in the load that led me to conclude, ‘I have to step away from the department if we’re to close this case credibly.’

In addition, in preparing to testify in front of Congress for a September 2015 hearing, Mr. Comey asked Ms. Lynch at the time whether she was prepared to refer to the Clinton investigation as just that, an “investigation.” Mr. Comey testified that Ms. Lynch said, “Yes, but don’t call it that, call it a matter.” Mr. Comey retorted, “Why would I do that?” Ms. Lynch answered, “Just call it a matter.” Mr. Comey stated that he acquiesced, but it gave him “a queasy feeling,” since it gave him the “impression that the attorney general was trying to align how we describe our work” with how the Clinton campaign was talking about it.

Notwithstanding the fact that the FBI is the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and not the Federal Bureau of Matters, one is hard-pressed to understand why Ms. Lynch directed then-Director Comey to call the Clinton investigation a “matter” unless she intended to use such deceptive language to help wrongly persuade the American people that former Secretary Clinton was not, in fact, the subject of a full-scale FBI investigation, or to otherwise undermine the integrity of the investigation.

Following Director Comey’s Senate Intelligence Committee testimony, Senator Dianne Feinstein was asked about the testimony while appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union.” Senator Feinstein stated, “I would have a queasy feeling too, though, to be candid with you, I think we need to know more about that, and there’s only one way to know about it, and that’s to have the Judiciary Committee take a look at that.”

We share Senator Feinstein’s and Mr. Comey’s concerns – specifically, that during the midst of a contentious Presidential election, which was already rife with scandal arising from Secretary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information, that our nation’s chief law enforcement officer would instruct the FBI Director, her subordinate, to mislead the American public about the nature of the investigation. Following Ms. Lynch’s directive to downplay the Clinton investigation as a “matter,” Director Comey infamously terminated the Clinton investigation, stating, “[a]lthough there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

Mr. Comey’s testimony has provided new evidence that Ms. Lynch may have used her position of authority to undermine the Clinton investigation. At any other point in history this accusation would entail a shock to the conscience of law abiding Americans who expect a DOJ free of political influence. We only have, however, an investigation into Russian influence on the 2016 election, including any ties to the Trump campaign. To limit our nation’s insight into just this this single component of the 2016 election will only cause the special counsel’s work to be derided as one-sided and incomplete. The special counsel’s work must begin and end unimpeded by political motivations on either side of the aisle. For these reasons, the following points must also be fully investigated – ideally, via a second special counsel. This is imperative to regain the cherished trust and confidence in our undoubtedly distressed law enforcement and political institutions.

We call on a newly appointed special counsel to investigate, consistent with appropriate regulations, the following questions, many of which were previously posed by this Committee and remain unanswered:

  1. Then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch directing Mr. Comey to mislead the American people on the nature of the Clinton investigation;
  2. The shadow cast over our system of justice concerning Secretary Clinton and her involvement in mishandling classified information;
  3. FBI and DOJ’s investigative decisions related to former Secretary Clinton’s email investigation, including the propriety and consequence of immunity deals given to potential Clinton co-conspirators Cheryl Mills, Heather Samuelson, John Bentel and possibly others;
  4. The apparent failure of DOJ to empanel a grand jury to investigate allegations of mishandling of classified information by Hillary Clinton and her associates;
  5. The Department of State and its employees’ involvement in determining which communications of Secretary Clinton’s and her associates to turn over for public scrutiny;
  6. WikiLeaks disclosures concerning the Clinton Foundation and its potentially unlawful international dealings;
  7. Connections between the Clinton campaign, or the Clinton Foundation, and foreign entities, including those from Russia and Ukraine;
  8. Mr. Comey’s knowledge of the purchase of Uranium One¹ by the company Rosatom, whether the approval of the sale was connected to any donations made to the Clinton Foundation, and what role Secretary Clinton played in the approval of that sale that had national security ramifications;
  9. Disclosures arising from unlawful access to the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) computer systems, including inappropriate collusion between the DNC and the Clinton campaign to undermine Senator Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign;
  10. Post-election accusations by the President [Trump] that he was wiretapped by the previous Administration, and whether Mr. Comey and Ms. Lynch had any knowledge of efforts made by any federal agency to unlawfully monitor communications of then-candidate Trump or his associates;
  11. Selected leaks of classified information related to the unmasking of U.S. person identities incidentally collected upon by the intelligence community, including an assessment of whether anyone in the Obama Administration, including Mr. Comey, Ms. Lynch, Ms. Susan Rice, Ms. Samantha Power, or others, had any knowledge about the “unmasking” of individuals on then candidate-Trump’s campaign team, transition team, or both;
  12. Admitted leaks by Mr. Comey to Columbia University law professor, Daniel Richman, regarding conversations between Mr. Comey and President Trump, how the leaked information was purposefully released to lead to the appointment of a special counsel, and whether any classified information was included in the now infamous “Comey memos”;
  13. Mr. Comey’s and the FBI’s apparent reliance on “Fusion GPS”² in its investigation of the Trump campaign, including the company’s creation of a “dossier” of information about Mr. Trump, that dossier’s commission and dissemination in the months before and after the 2016 election, whether the FBI paid anyone connected to the dossier, and the intelligence sources of Fusion GPS or any person or company working for Fusion GPS and its affiliates; and
  14. Any and all potential leaks originated by Mr. Comey and provide to author Michael Schmidt dating back to 1993.

You have the ability now to right the ship for the American people so these investigations may proceed independently and impartially. The American public has a right to know the facts – all of them – surrounding the election and its aftermath. We urge you to appoint a second special counsel to ensure these troubling, unanswered questions are not relegated to the dustbin of history.

Sincerely,

Bob Goodlatte, Chair
Jim Jordan
Lamar Smith
Matt Gaetz
Tom Marino
Steve Chabot
Blake Farenthold
Steve King
Louis Gohmert
Ted Poe
Doug Collins
Raul Labrador
Ron DeSantis
Andy Biggs
Mike Johnson
John Rutherford
Martha Roby
John Ratcliffe
Trent Franks
Karen Handel

###

Note¹: Uranium One is a uranium mining company, headquartered in Toronto,  Canada. It has operations in Australia, Canada, Kazakhstan, South Africa and the United States. In January 2013, Russian state-owned enterprise Rosatom, through its subsidiary ARMZ Uranium Holding, purchased Uranium One for $1.3 billion. For Bill Clinton and John Podesta’s involvement in Uranium One and Rosatom, click here.

Note²: Fusion GPS is a commercial DC-based intelligence firm that conducts opposition political research on political candidates, such as on Mitt Romney. The company was hired by Planned Parenthood (PP) to investigate pro-life activists who took a series of “sting” videos showing PP selling aborted baby parts to medical researchers. In the 2016 presidential campaign, Fusion GPS was first hired by Republicans to conduct “opposition research” on Donald Trump, which ended when Trump became the GOP’s presidential nominee. Hillary Clinton then became Fusion GPS’s client to dig up dirt on Trump. Fusion GPS hired former MI-6 agent Christopher Steele to compile a dossier on Trump, which became infamous for its entirely-fake allegation that Trump had hired Russian prostitutes to urinate (“golden shower”) on a Russian hotel bed supposedly used by Obama.

Send a “thank you” to Congressman Bob Goodlatte!:

~Eowyn

Advertisements

House Republicans are going after Hillary Clinton!

They’re finally going after Hillary Clinton, via former FBI Director James Comey.

And what’s brilliant about this is that House Republicans are doing this by hoisting the Democrats on their own petard (explanation below).

On July 14, 2017, Democrat Rep. Pramila Jayapal (WA) introduced House Resolution 446, yet another Demonrat witch-hunt.

The resolution demands that President Trump and U.S. Attorney General (Jeff Sessions) turn over to the House all documents relating to President Trump’s firing of Comey. Please note that President Trump, as the head of the executive branch of the U.S. government, has every constitutional right to fire Comey, the FBI being a part of the Department of Justice, which is a bureaucracy within the executive branch.

HRes. 446 has 42 co-sponsors, all Democrats, which means that it has no hope of being passed by the Republican-majority House.

On the same day that Jayapal introduced HRes. 446, it was referred to the House Judicial Committee.

Yesterday, July 26, Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee turned HRes. 446 inside out into a resolution for an investigation into Comey’s mishandling of the FBI’s criminal investigation into then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of an unauthorized private email server.

From True Pundit, July 26, 2017:

Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee voted Wednesday to request documents about former FBI director James Comey’s conversations with the Obama administration and journalists, amending and replacing a Democratic resolution that was designed to obtain documents about Comey’s firing by President Trump.

“In my district, my constituents say, hey, what’s going on with investigation of the crimes of the previous administration?” asked Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), one of the amendment’s sponsors. “When I hear talk that this contains right-wing conspiracies — well, I’ll tell you, my constituents think what’s going on in the other bill are left-wing conspiracy theories.”

The amendment was a surprise to Rep. Primala Jayapal (D-Wash.), the freshman who had proposed the Democratic resolution of inquiry, which had been expected to fail.

The Republicans’ amendment and substitution of HRes. 446 is co-sponsored by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL). Here’s the amended HRes. 446:

Substitute For the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H. Res. 446

Offered by Mr. Gaetz of Florida

Strike all that follows after the resolving clause and insert the following:

That the President is requested, and the Attorney General of the United States is directed, to transmit, respectively (in a manner appropriate to classified information, if the President or Attorney General determines appropriate), to the House of Representative, not later than 60 days after the date of adoption of this resolution, copies of any document, record, audio recording, memo, correspondence, or other communications in their possessions, or any portion of any such communication, that refers or relates to the firing of James B. Comey in the following respects:

(1) Then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch directing James B. Comey to mislead the American people by stating that he should refer to the investigation into the mishandling of classified data and use of an unauthorized email server by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as a “matter”, rather than a criminal “investigation”.

(2) Leaks by James B. Comey to Columbia University law professor, Daniel Richman, regarding conversations had between President Donald Trump and then-FBI Director James B. Comey, and how the leaked information was purposefully released to lead to the appointment of special counsel, Robert Mueller, a longtime friend of James B. Comey.

(3) The propriety and consequence of immunity deals given to possible Hillary Clinton co-conspirators Cheryl Mills, Heather Samuelson, John Bentel, and potentially others, by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, during the criminal investigation James B. Comey led into Hillary Clinton’s misconduct.

(4) The decision of James B. Comey to usurp the authority of then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch in his unusual announcement that criminal charges would not be brought against Hillary Clinton following her unlawful use of a private email server and mishandling of classified information.

(5) James B. Comey’s knowledge and impressions of any ex-parte [one-sided] conversation between then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton on January 27, 2016, at a Phoenix airport in a private jet.

(6) James B. Comey’s knowledge of the company “Fusion GPS,” including —

(A) Its creation of a “dossier” of information about Mr. Donald Trump;

(B) That dossier’s commission and dissemination in the months before and after the 2016 Presidential Election; and

(C) The intelligence sources of Fusion GPS or any person or company working for Fusion GPS or its affiliates.

[Note: Fusion GPS is a commercial DC-based intelligence firm that conducts opposition political research on political candidates, such as on Mitt Romney. The company was hired by Planned Parenthood (PP) to investigate pro-life activists who took a series of “sting” videos showing PP selling aborted baby parts to medical researchers. In the 2016 presidential campaign, Fusion GPS was first hired by Republicans to conduct “opposition research” on Donald Trump, which ended when Trump became the GOP’s presidential nominee. Hillary Clinton then became Fusion GPS’s client to dig up dirt on Trump. Fusion GPS hired former MI-6 agent Christopher Steele to compile a dossier on Trump, which became infamous for its entirely-fake allegation that Trump had hired Russian prostitutes to urinate (“golden shower”) on a Russian hotel bed supposedly used by Obama.]

(7) Any and all potential leaks originated by James B. Comey and provided to author Michael Schmidt dating back to 1993.

(8) James B. Comey’s knowledge of

(A) the purchase of majority stake in the company Uranium One by the company Rosatom;

(B) whether the approval of the sale was connected to any donations made to the Clinton Foundation;

(C) what role then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton played in the approval of that sale; and

(D) whether the sale could have affected the national security of the United States of America.

[Note: Uranium One is a uranium mining company, headquartered in Toronto,  Canada. It has operations in Australia, Canada, Kazakhstan, South Africa and the United States. In January 2013, Russian state-owned enterprise Rosatom, through its subsidiary ARMZ Uranium Holding, purchased Uranium One for $1.3 billion. For Bill Clinton and John Podesta’s involvement in Uranium One and Rosatom, click here.]

(9) James B. Comey’s refusal to investigate then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton regarding

(A) selling access to the U.S. State Department through Clinton Foundation donations;

(B) Huma Abedin’s dual employment at the State Department and the Clinton Foundation simultaneously; or

(C) utilization of the State Department to further paid speaking opportunities for her husband.

(10) Any collusion between former FBI Director James B. Comey and special counsel Robert Mueller; including —

(A) the information James B. Comey admitted to leaking to the Columbia University law professor, being intentional such that a special counsel, his longtime friend, Robert Mueller, would be appointed to lead the investigation against the Trump administration; and

(B) any communication between Robert Mueller and James B. Comey in advance of the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing.

(10) Whether James B. Comey had any advance knowledge of

(A) efforts made by any federal agency

(i) to monitor communications of then-candidate Donald Trump;

(ii) to assess any knowledge by James B. Comey about the “unmasking” of individuals on Donald Trump’s campaign team, transition team or both;

(iii) to assess the role that former National Security Adviser Susan Rice played in the unmasking of these individuals; or

(iv) to reveal the purpose served by unmasking any individual or individuals serving on the staff of then-candidate Donald Trump; or

(B) the dissemination of unredacted information to various intelligence agencies, and any attempts to use surveillance of then-candidate Donald Trump for the purposes of damaging the credibility of his campaign, his presidency, or both.

Here’s Rep. Matt Gaetz’s press release on the amended HRes. 446:

“On Wednesday, July 26, Congressman Matt Gaetz brought an amendment before the House Judiciary Committee, seeking answers to questions that have weighed heavily on the minds of American voters. In his amendment, which passed the House Judiciary Committee and has been reported favorably to the House, Rep. Gaetz requested documents and information from President Trump and Attorney General Sessions surrounding the firing of former FBI Director James B. Comey, and Mr. Comey’s knowledge of, and connection to, the many worrisome scandals of the previous administration.”

Read the rest of the press release here.

Congressmen Matt Gaetz, 35, and Andy Biggs, 58, you are my heroes!

Please thank Rep. Gaetz and Biggs. Here’s their contact info.:

  • Rep. Matt Gaetz: (202) 225-4136 (phone); email.
  • Rep. Andy Biggs: (202) 225-2635 (phone); email.

H/t Voat

~Eowyn

Why not? Stephen Colbert Says He’s Considering 2020 Run for President

stephen colbert

Run on that Trump Derangement Syndrome platform Colbert!

Stephen’s got a potty mouth just like other demorat supporters/leaders. And we know how well that’s worked for them

From Hollywood Reporter: Stephen Colbert may have just announced a desire to run for president while appearing on a Russian late-night show Friday during his highly publicized trip to Russia.

The Late Show host, who is in Russia on assignment for his show, appeared on Evening Urgant, a popular Russian late-night program hosted by Ivan Urgant, on Friday.

In a clip posted on the show’s website, Colbert, after taking a few shots of vodka, asks Urgant if he can make an announcement. “OK. I am here to announce that I am considering a run for president in 2020, and I thought it would be better to cut out the middle man and just tell the Russians myself,” Colbert said as the crowd applauded. The American host added: “If anyone would like to work on my campaign, in an unofficial capacity, please just let me know.”

Taking one last shot of vodka, Colbert toasted, “A strong America, a strong Russia!”

Urgant also made a toast, saying, “I’d like to make a toast to the beautiful country of the USA, which invented the Internet. Thanks to it, we can meddle with US elections.” He went on to support Colbert’s potential presidential run: “To you, Stephen! Good luck! We’ll do everything possible to make sure you get elected.”

Colbert took a brief hiatus from The Late Show on Thursday and Friday to travel to Russia, but will return with a new episode on Monday night.

He tweeted a photo of himself in Russia Thursday in response to President Donald Trump’s tweet stating he did not in fact have any tapes on former FBI director James Comey, despite previously suggesting otherwise.

This is not the first time the late-night host has announced a run for president. In October 2007, Colbert announced his candidacy following public pressure. While many at the time thought his comments were made in jest, he insisted his candidacy was serious — though that was in line with his “Stephen Colbert” alter ego on Comedy Central’s Colbert Report.

He paid the $2,500 fee necessary to be included on the Democratic ballot in South Carolina, but his request was denied. Colbert ultimately dropped his bid on Nov. 5, 2007.

DCG

Senate opens probe into Obama’s AG Loretta Lynch’s interference in FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton

In his testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on June 8, 2017, former FBI Director James B. Comey said Obama’s attorney general Loretta Lynch had tried to shape the way Comey described the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails, to “align with” and “mirror” the way Hillary’s campaign was describing the investigation.

Stephen Dinan reports for The Washington Times, June 23, 2017, that Comey told the committee:

“At one point, [Lynch] directed me not to call it an ‘investigation’ but instead to call it a ‘matter,’ which confused me and concerned me. That was one of the bricks in the load that led me to conclude I have to step away from the department if we are to close this case credibly.”

Despite his discomfort, Comey said he agreed to the language prescribed by Lynch. Comey also hinted at Lynch’s other behaviors “which I cannot talk about yet” which led to his concerns about Lynch’s ability to make impartial decisions. That was one reason why Comey, last year, bucked Justice Department tradition in making public the FBI’s findings on Hillary.

Now, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee has opened a probe into exactly Loretta Lynch’s interference in the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton, the committee’s chairman Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) announced yesterday.

The probe is a bi-partisan undertaking.

Sen. Grassley said in his press release:

“Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein, Crime and Terrorism Subcommittee Chairman Lindsey Graham and Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse sought information about alleged political interference by then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch during the FBI’s investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. The bipartisan inquiry comes as the Judiciary Committee is examining the circumstances surrounding the removal of James Comey as FBI Director.

In April, The New York Times reported that the FBI came into possession of a batch of hacked documents, one of which was said to be authored by a “Democratic operative who expressed confidence that Ms. Lynch would keep the Clinton investigation from going too far.”  Chairman Grassley then requested a copy of the document from the Justice Department, which has failed to respond. A month later, The Washington Post reported similar facts and provided further details about individuals involved in these communications. The Post reported that the email in question, sent by then-chair of the Democratic National Committee Debbie Wasserman Schultz to Leonard Benardo of the Open Society Foundations, indicated that Lynch had privately assured Clinton campaign staffer Amanda Renteria that the FBI’s investigation wouldn’t ‘go too far.’

(Note: The Open Society Foundations, formerly the Open Society Institute, is an international grantmaking network founded by George Soros.)

Comey was reportedly concerned that the communication would raise doubts about the investigation’s independence and began discussing plans to announce the end of the Clinton email investigation rather than simply referring it to the Department for a prosecutorial decision. Comey’s extraordinary action to announce the end of the investigation was a break from Justice Department protocol, and was later cited as justification for his removal from the FBI.

In their letters to Benardo, Open Society Foundations’ General Counsel Gail Scovell, Renteria and former Attorney General Lynch, the Senators seek details about the reported communication, copies of any related documents and whether the FBI contacted them to investigate the alleged communication.

The reports come amidst numerous allegations of political inference in controversial and high-profile investigations spanning the current and previous administrations. The Senate Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over the FBI and Justice Department and is obliged to oversee any potential misconduct or inappropriate political influence at these agencies.

Full text of the letters can be found at the following links:

~Eowyn

Patrick Buchanan: Civil war and the deep-state coup of President Trump

Are We Nearing Civil War?

By Patrick J. Buchanan – June 13, 2017

President Trump may be chief of state, head of government and commander in chief, but his administration is shot through with disloyalists plotting to bring him down.

We are approaching something of a civil war where the capital city seeks the overthrow of the sovereign and its own restoration.

Thus far, it is a nonviolent struggle, though street clashes between pro- and anti-Trump forces are increasingly marked by fistfights and brawls. Police are having difficulty keeping people apart. A few have been arrested carrying concealed weapons.

That the objective of this city is to bring Trump down via a deep state-media coup is no secret. Few deny it.

Last week, fired Director of the FBI James Comey, a successor to J. Edgar Hoover, admitted under oath that he used a cutout to leak to The New York Times an Oval Office conversation with the president.

Goal: have the Times story trigger the appointment of a special prosecutor to bring down the president.

Comey wanted a special prosecutor to target Trump, despite his knowledge, from his own FBI investigation, that Trump was innocent of the pervasive charge that he colluded with the Kremlin in the hacking of the DNC.

Comey’s deceit was designed to enlist the police powers of the state to bring down his president. And it worked. For the special counsel named, with broad powers to pursue Trump, is Comey’s friend and predecessor at the FBI, Robert Mueller.

As Newt Gingrich said Sunday: “Look at who Mueller’s starting to hire. … (T)hese are people that … look to me like they’re … setting up to go after Trump … including people, by the way, who have been reprimanded for hiding from the defense information into major cases. …

“This is going to be a witch hunt.”

Another example. According to Daily Kos, Trump planned a swift lifting of sanctions on Russia after inauguration and a summit meeting with Vladimir Putin to prevent a second Cold War.

The State Department was tasked with working out the details.

Instead, says Daniel Fried, the coordinator for sanctions policy, he received “panicky” calls of “Please, my God, can you stop this?”

Operatives at State, disloyal to the president and hostile to the Russia policy on which he had been elected, collaborated with elements in Congress to sabotage any detente. They succeeded.

“It would have been a win-win for Moscow,” said Tom Malinowski of State, who boasted last week of his role in blocking a rapprochement with Russia. State employees sabotaged one of the principal policies for which Americans had voted, and they substituted their own.

Note: Tom Malinowski, 51, was Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor from 2014 to January 20, 2017.


Not in memory have there been so many leaks to injure a president from within his own government, and not just political leaks, but leaks of confidential, classified and secret documents. The leaks are coming out of the supposedly secure investigative and intelligence agencies of the U.S. government.

The media, the beneficiaries of these leaks, are giving cover to those breaking the law. The real criminal “collusion” in Washington is between Big Media and the deep state, colluding to destroy a president they detest and to sink the policies they oppose.

Yet another example is the unfolding “unmasking” scandal.

While all the evidence is not yet in, it appears an abnormal number of conversations between Trump associates and Russians were intercepted by U.S. intelligence agencies.

On orders higher up, the conversations were transcribed, and, contrary to law, the names of Trump associates unmasked.

Then those transcripts, with names revealed, were spread to all 16 agencies of the intel community at the direction of Susan Rice, and with the possible knowledge of Barack Obama, assuring some would be leaked after Trump became president.

The leak of Gen. Michael Flynn’s conversation with the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, after Obama imposed sanctions on Russia for the hacking of the DNC, may have been a product of the unmasking operation. The media hit on Flynn cost him the National Security Council post.

Trump has had many accomplishments since his election. Yet his enemies in the media and their deep state allies have often made a purgatory of his presidency.

What he and his White House need to understand is that this is not going to end, that this is a fight to the finish, that his enemies will not relent until they see him impeached or resigning in disgrace.

To prevail, Trump will have to campaign across this country and wage guerrilla war in this capital, using the legal and political weapons at his disposal to ferret out the enemies within his own government.

Not only is this battle essential, if Trump hopes to realize his agenda, it is winnable. For the people sense that the Beltway elites are cynically engaged in preserving their own privileges, positions and power.

If the president cannot rewrite Obamacare or achieve tax reform, he should not go around the country in 2018 wailing about Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer. They are not the real adversaries. They are but interchangeable parts.

He should campaign against the real enemies of America First by promising to purge the deep state and flog its media collaborators.

Time to burn down the Bastille.

See also “The Left are trying to start a civil war“.

Pray for President Trump.

Pray for America.

~Eowyn

TV Producers Discuss Ripple Effects of “Traumatic” Trump Election

GIF-Giraffe-eating-Popcorn

Gonna be a loooooooong four years for libtards.

From Hollywood Reporter:  It was only fitting that the Television in a Trumped Up America panel Friday at the ATX Festival started out with a reading of the President’s latest tweet, centered on former FBI director James Comey’s testimony Thursday.

TV writer-producers including Liz Tigelaar (Casual), Javier Grillo-Marxuach (The Middleman), Paul Garnes (Queen Sugar), Michael Rauch (Royal Pains), Julie Plec (The Vampire Diaries) and Beau Willimon (House of Cards), gathered to dive deep into the impact of the presidential election, and specifically Donald Trump’s rise from Celebrity Apprentice host to the 45th President of the United States (as if Trump didn’t absolutely nothing else in his life).

Looking back on Nov. 8th, Plec recalled the ” absolute horror and depression” felt in her writers’ room the day after, while Tigelaar remembered that “we didn’t know whether to cancel the room, we didn’t know whether to keep working” at Hulu’s Casual, which was early into breaking its third season.

It ultimately found it’s [sic] way into the scripts. “We all had this call to action,” she said. “We were at this point of still being able to decide our season arcs and it definitely impacted our younger character, Laura’s story, on the show. We decided with her we were going to go a more political route. … We were able to create this different backdrop for her story that I don’t think would have occurred to us to do.”

On Underground, Garnes discussed how the election inspired co-creator Misha Green’s writing of one of the final episodes of the WGN America’s second season, despite the fact that it centered on Harriet Tubman and took place more than a century ago. “The election influenced Misha’s tone in that monologue. It ended with this amazing call to action almost directed to the audience: ‘Are you a citizen or a soldier?‘” he said.

Plec said the election influenced her outlook on feminist issues, and even caused her to break up a central romance on one of her series because the male character had beaten up the female character. “We all decided on that day, those two can’t be together anymore and we killed the love story that day,” she said of the script, which came in the day after the election. “That’s a really weird feeling to know that narratively you’ve been going down this path but your conscious can’t advocate that kind of violence and lean into that.”

That push towards more feminist-friendly storytelling was also felt by Tigelaar in terms of the projects she’s looking to develop. “What I’ve been attracted to lately is about women who are refusing to play the game and put themselves in a box,” she said.

Willimon, now working on the Hulu space drama The First, said the impact of the election reaches far beyond just political storylines. “We’re hyper-aware,” he said. “There are political implications to every story choice you make.”

While Trump’s presidency, and the many issues that have stemmed from his time in office thus far, has greatly impacted television writing, the producers discussed the difficulty in finding a way to stay informed with the news cycle while also getting work done. “There’s a lot of stress-eating involved,” Grillo-Marxuach said. “More than anything else, the torrent of news and information is more about the stuff you do to mitigate your stress.”

Willimon, who returned to the political roots from his earlier days in the immediate aftermath of the election, admitted it was tough to return to TV writing. “For the first couple months after the election, it was really hard to focus on anything else it felt as thought [sic] the whole country had been slapped across the face by a two-by-four,” he said. “It’s become a negotiation to balance one’s time between what you’re able to do as an artist creatively in terms of holding a mirror up to society reflecting.”

“That’s a new reality for people that want to be involved. It’s been an interesting balance to strike,” he continued. “But the resistance is strong. We’re seeing that everyday and I maintain hope.”

Willimon’s new series is set 15-20 years in the future, which has made him contemplate the long-term impact of the Trump presidency. “You have to speculate and imagine what the world will look like 20 years from now on, prior to November 8, 2016, what the world looked like was a lot different,” he said. “Whether you support Trump or not… it’s still a traumatic event for the country one way or another in terms of the schism and the divisiveness and the polarization and we will be contending with those consequences and ripple effects for decades to come.”

DCG

James Comey: ‘I’ve had a lot of conversations with humans’

Yesterday, during his appearance before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, former FBI Director James Comey was grilled by a very confusing-sounding Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) on what McCain called Comey’s “double standard” — in the FBI ending its investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private unsecure email server vs. the agency’s ongoing investigation of Donald Trump’s connections, if any, with Russia.

Beginning at the 6:04 mark of the video clip above, McCain and Comey had a rather incoherent exchange:

McCain: “Then when the President said to you you talked about the April 11th phone call and he said, ‘Because I’ve been very loyal to you, very loyal, we had that thing, you know.’ Did that arouse your curiosity as to what ‘that thing’ was?”

Comey: “Yes.”

McCain: “Why didn’t you ask him.”

Comey: “It didn’t seem to me to be important for the conversation we were having to understand it. I took it to some, um, effort to, to, erh, communicate to me that there is a relationship between us, where I’ve been good to you, you should be good to me.”

McCain: “Yea, but I think it would intensely arouse my curiosity if the President of the United States said we had that thing, you know. I’d like to know what the hell that thing is, particularly if I’m the director of the FBI.”

Comey: “Yeah, I get that, senator. Honestly, I’ll tell you what, this is speculation, but what I concluded at the time is in his [Trump’s] memory, he was searching back to our encounter at the dinner and was preparing himself to say ‘I offer loyalty to you, you promise loyalty to me,’ and all of a sudden, his memory showed him that did not happen, and I think he pulled up short. That’s just a guess. But I, I’ve had a lot of conversations with humans over the years.

Now why would Comey say that?

“I’ve had a lot of conversations with humans over the years” implies that Comey also had conversations with non-humans.

Like this?

A reptilian Secret Service agent at the 2012 AIPAC conference

Or McCain? LOL

I took the above 2 screenshots from a video of an interview McCain did with Larry King some time during the Obama administration.

See also:

H/t FOTM‘s bongiornoc

~Eowyn