Tag: James Comey

Trump DESTROYS Andrew McCabe After Disgraced Fmr. Official’s Stunning Claims

President Trump blasted former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe after he revealed in an new book and interview just how far he and other DOJ officials went to try to destroy the commander-in-chief.

“Disgraced FBI Acting Director Andrew McCabe pretends to be a “poor little Angel” when in fact he was a big part of the Crooked Hillary Scandal & the Russia Hoax – a puppet for Leakin’ James Comey. I.G. report on McCabe was devastating. Part of “insurance policy” in case I won….,” the President wrote on Twitter.”

He continued, “….Many of the top FBI brass were fired, forced to leave, or left. McCabe’s wife received BIG DOLLARS from Clinton people for her campaign – he gave Hillary a pass. McCabe is a disgrace to the FBI and a disgrace to our Country. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

In an interview with CBS’s 60 Minutes, McCabe said he ordered investigators to look into whether or not the President obstructed justice by firing disgraced FBI Director James Comey.

According to 60 Minutes host Scott Pelley, McCabe also confirmed reports that the Department of Justice was, indeed, looking into invoking the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office.

He also “confirms” a September 2018 New York Times report which claimed that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein offered to wear a wire and secretly record President Trump.

Rosenstein has denied the reports about him, and stories surfaced that he made the comments “in jest.” However, McCabe’s confirmation seems to be in line with former FBI General Counsel James Baker, who told Congress in a closed-door testimony he took Rosenstein’s recording comments “seriously.”

In a statement today, a DOJ spokesman again denied the claims, writing, “As the Deputy Attorney General previously has stated, based on his personal dealings with the President, there is no basis to invoke the 25th Amendment, nor was the DAG in a position to consider invoking the 25th Amendment,” the statement read.

Corrupt Comey Says “Zero Chance” Hillary Will be Prosecuted for Email Scandal

Disgraced former FBI Director James Comey said there’s “zero chance” Hillary Clinton will be prosecuted for her email scandal.

The Washington Examiner reported that at a town hall event in Sarasota, FL yesterday, Comey said, “There is zero chance, zero chance, on the facts in the Hillary Clinton case, that she would be prosecuted. You are out of your mind if you don’t think the FBI wanted to make a case if we could. The facts weren’t there. Period. Full stop.”

In July of 2016, Comey announced during a press conference that the FBI would not recommend the Department of Justice charge Clinton for her use of a private email server.

The former FBI Director said at the time, “Although 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.”

However, as the Daily Caller points out, a federal court recently ruled Clinton must answer more questions about her use of the server.

In November, federal Judge Emmet Sullivan ruled that Clinton must answer the following two questions under oath:

  1. Describe the creation of the clintonemail.com system, including who decided to create the system, the date it was decided to create the system, why it was created, who set it up, and when it became operational.
  2. During your October 22, 2015 appearance before the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Benghazi, you testified that 90 to 95 percent of your emails “were in the State’s system” and “if they wanted to see them, they would certainly have been able to do so.” Identify the basis for this statement, including all facts on which you relied in support of the statement, how and when you became aware of these facts, and, if you were made aware of these facts by or through another person, identify the person who made you aware of these facts.

Devin Nunes: We Will Make Criminal Referrals in FBI Misconduct Investigation



Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) said that despite losing control of the House of Representatives to Democrats, he and his Republican colleagues will continue to investigate allegations of bias and misconduct within the FBI, and even make criminal referrals to the Department of Justice.

Speaking to Fox News’ Tucker Carlson last night, Nunes said, “We’re going to make several referrals.”

While the Congressman would not name anyone specific, Carlson suggested former FBI agent Peter Strzok and former FBI Director James Comey as possible candidates for criminal referrals.

Nunes also said that he doesn’t think much will get accomplished with the referrals until a new attorney general is in place.

“Don’t forget, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) actually made a referral on Christopher Steele–the British agent who worked for the Clinton campaign. He was referred. Nothing is happening to him,” he said. “So, I think until there’s a new AG that gets in there and starts to clean this up, I think its going to be tough for the American people to have confidence in what’s happening over there.”

“A lot of people think just because Republicans are out of power that we are not conducting an investigation. We still are.” He continued, “Whether or not people will come in and interview with us, we don’t have gavels, we don’t have subpoena power. But we will still be trying to interview people and we will still be making criminal referrals.”

Nunes also suggested the White House create a “transparency office,” to determine whether or not the FISA application to spy on Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page would be made public

“The government’s gotten so big, you’ve got so many of these different agencies. There needs to be someone in the White House or the President of the United States, who’s the boss, who can make that decision and make it quickly.”

Top FBI Lawyer to Congress: Hillary Clinton Should Have Been Charged in Email Scandal

Transcripts of former FBI General Counsel James Baker’s October testimony to Congress reveal that he believed Hillary Clinton should have been charged for her “alarming, appalling” mishandling of classified information, according to the Epoch Times.

Baker told Congress he argued with other members of the FBI, including disgraced former director, James Comey about the Clinton investigation.

“My original belief … after having conducted the investigation and towards the end of it, then sitting down and reading a binder of her materials, I thought that it was alarming, appalling, whatever words I said, and argued with others about why they thought she shouldn’t be charged,” he said.

Baker also seemed to take issue with the handling of the Trump-Russia investigation.

The Epoch Times writes:

Confronted with a damning summary of abnormalities, bias, and omissions, which transpired during the investigation, Baker told Congress that the investigation indeed was “highly unusual.”

“I had a jaundiced eye about everything, yes. I had skepticism about all this stuff. I was concerned about all of this. This whole situation was horrible, and it was novel and we were trying to figure out what to do, and it was highly unusual,” Baker told lawmakers.

**LISTEN: Dan breaks down the explosive revelations from Baker’s testimony**

Baker resigned from the FBI in May 2018 and it was recently revealed that he is the subject of a criminal leak investigation.

During his October testimony, Baker’s attorney, Daniel Levin told lawmakers, “You may or may not know, [Baker has] been the subject of a leak investigation … a criminal leak investigation that’s still active at the Justice Department.”

Baker’s congressional testimony made headlines last fall when it was revealed that he believed Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was “serious” when telling colleagues he wanted to secretly record President Trump.

While Baker himself was not in the room with Rosenstein when he made the comments, two of his associates were: FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and FBI lawyer, Lisa Page. Both McCabe and Page allegedly took Rosenstein seriously and conveyed that to Baker.

For the full story from the Epoch Times–which includes even more shocking revelations–click HERE.

Comey to Congress: “Who Cares” Who Paid for the Anti-Trump Dossier

Former FBI Director James Comey doesn’t seem to think it’s important who paid for the salacious, unverified anti-Trump dossier.

When asked by Congressman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) who paid for the document during yesterday’s closed-door interview, Comey replied, “Who cares?”

Meadows tweeted today just after the transcript of Comey’s interview was released to the public:

I asked Director Comey about who paid for the dossier.

His response:

1) Republicans paid for it — (Republicans did not pay for it)

2) “Who cares?” Yes, this is an FBI Director apparently not caring to know who paid for information used to surveil Americans with a FISA warrant.”

According to Fox News, the transcript also reveals Comey’s rationale for sending the two FBI agents to interview Flynn in January 2017 without following standard protocol and the fact that the FBI knew “exactly” what Flynn had said to Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak prior to their questioning.

“The agents went to interview Flynn to try and understand why the national security adviser was making false statements to the vice president of the United States about his interactions with the Russians during the transition,” Comey said in response to a question from House Oversight Committee chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.).

He continued, “I knew certain classified facts about the nature of his interactions with the Russians. I knew that the Vice President was making statements that he attributed to conversations he’d had with Mr. Flynn that were starkly at odds with those classified facts.”

When Gowdy stated, “You knew exactly what General Flynn had said to the Russian Ambassador before you interviewed him.” Comey replied, “Yes.”

Other highlights from Comey’s testimony:

  • He claims he didn’t hand pick the FBI agents to interview Flynn–one of whom is known anti-Trump special agent Peter Strzok. He told Gowdy, “I didn’t know what agents would go. I wanted Flynn interviewed as soon as possible.”
  • He attempted to clarify his remarks that he “got away” with not involving the White House Counsel in the Flynn interview, telling lawmakers, “In a more established environment, there would’ve been an expectation that the FBI would coordinate the interview through White House Counsel.”
  • He pushed back against claims that the FBI didn’t tell Flynn the severity of the consequences of lying to Congress:  “He was an extraordinarily experienced person and so reasonably should be assumed to understand you can’t lie to the FBI,” Comey told House Republicans .”Second, it’s not protocol. The FBI does not do that in noncustodial interviews. And, third, you want to find out what the witness will say to you before you heat up an interview by raising the prospect that the witness might be lying to you.”

NBC News reporter Mike Memoli noted the apparent inconsistencies between Comey’s testimony to Congress and his interview with NBC’s Nicolle Wallace just days prior.

Tweeting a transcript of Comey’s comments, Memoli wrote:

What’s at odds:

Comey, to Wallace 12/9: Q: What did he think they were coming there for?

COMEY: “I don’t think he knew. We didn’t tell him.”

Comey, to Gowdy 12/17: “The Deputy Director … told him what the subject matter was. … He knew what he was going to be asked about.”

 

 

 

The Russia Hoax has Collapsed

The final nails are finally being hammered into the “Russian collusion” narrative’s coffin, and new developments from the past week should cause even Trump’s most hysterical critics to reconsider (which they won’t, of course).

Dan documented the death of the collusion narrative yesterday on the podcast. If you missed it – here’s what you need to know.

Comey Deflects Dossier Dirt

After speaking with the House Judiciary and Oversight Committee, fired FBI head James Comey came out firing against Fox News and Trump. “So another day of Hillary Clinton’s emails and the Steele dossier. This while the President of the United States is lying about the FBI, attacking the FBI and attacking the rule of law in this country. How does that make any sense at all?” Comey asked, before then blaming distrust of the FBI on Fox News.

Though truly, Comey should be blaming distrust of the FBI on the FBI’s actions. Even former assistant FBI counterintelligence division director Bill Priestap acknowledged that dossier wasn’t verified before being used to justify surveillance on members of the Trump campaign team. And as we documented in “Spygate,” there are countless other procedures the FBI ignored or violated in using the Steele dossier. Is concern over the FBI ignoring procedures to justify politically-motivated spying something that only concerns Fox News viewers? If so, that paints Fox News viewers in a positive light.

Of course, Comey is only deflecting to blame Fox News to deflect away from his own role in pushing the bogus dossier, which is even more bogus than we thought.

The Dossier – Glaring Errors Remain, Trump Critics Express Doubt, and Steele Admits Political Motivation

While it’s not like the dossier had any credibility in the first place, we can revise its “D-” grade for truthfulness to a straight “F” for a number of reasons.

  1. The dossier story that Michael Cohen visited Prague to pay Russian hackers remained unverified. Cohen’s spokesman Lanny Davis (a Clinton ally) laughed off the alleged Prague trip when asked about if it happened on MSNBC, telling host Kasie Hunt “No. No. Everybody, America, we all love Kasie’s show. No, no Prague, ever, never.” And Cohen, who is now turning on Trump, still denies the Prague story and hasn’t corroborated any elements of the collusion narrative (which he probably would if it were true).
  2. Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post reporter Greg Miller said during a book interview that sources at the FBI and CIA don’t believe that the Prague incident ever happened. Miller said that Post reporters “literally spent weeks and months trying to run down” leads from the dossier, and that they “sent reporters through every hotel in Prague, through all over the place, just to try to figure out if he was ever there, and came away empty.” Interestingly, that fact has yet to be reported in the Washington Post.
  3. “Russian Roulette” author Michael Isikoff (which pushes the collusion narrative) now acknowledges that the dossier is “likely false.”
  4. There’s no secret that the dossier is politically motivated (as indicated by the Clinton campaign funding its creation), but we finally have Steele on record admitting as much thanks to a lawsuit from Russian bankers smeared in his dossier. In an answer to questions from interrogators, Steele wrote “Fusion’s immediate client was law firm Perkins Coie. It engaged Fusion to obtain information necessary for Perkins Coie LLP to provide legal advice on the potential impact of Russian involvement on the legal validity of the outcome of the 2016 US Presidential election. Based on that advice, parties such as the Democratic National Committee and HFACC Inc. (also known as ‘Hillary for America’) could consider steps they would be legally entitled to take to challenge the validity of the outcome of that election.”

Is there anyone not in agreement that the dossier is a politically motivated hoax, except James Comey? It’s certainly not just “Fox News” saying as much, and thus far, the only evidence of attempted foreign meddling in the 2016 election came from the Clinton camp. Comey doesn’t have a problem with that, apparently.

The Framing of Flynn – New Information

In the past we’ve documented how Michael Flynn was setup, having not been charged with a crime relating to collusion, but rather for misremembering the contents of a telephone conversation he had with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak over sanctions. In late December 2016, the two discussed the sanctions against Russia Obama had just passed, and Kislyak promised that Russia would not react with sanctions of their own. Other sanctions related to Israel were also discussed. Flynn reportedly didn’t recall discussing sanctions when quizzed by the FBI.

At worst, it seemed that Flynn simply misremembered his conversation, which is extremely likely.

In a stunning new development, we’ve learned from a 302 report that proper protocol wasn’t followed to protect Flynn against entrapment. A 302 report contains accounts from the agents of what they said and did while interviewing Flynn, and the FBI waited over half a year to detail the Flynn interview. Interestingly, there were two 302 reports, which Robert Mueller claims was due to a drafting error (though many are speculating it proves the 302 was edited). The 302 contains numerous pieces of damaging information, including:

  • Flynn saying “yes, good reminder” when being asked about whether he discussed sanctions related to Israel with Kislyak (he did), even though the public was told Flynn lied in response to that question.
  • The fact that Flynn spoke with representatives from thirty other countries on December 22nd, making it likely that Flynn could’ve been confusing his calls when answering the FBI’s questions.
  • The revelation that Flynn had at least one other conversation with Kisylak (again, making it likely he could be truthful about the contents of a conversation he was confusing with another). Flynn thanks the FBI for this reminder (which isn’t indicative of an adversarial interview), and says he doesn’t remember if he discussed sanctions about Russia (which is radically different from a denial).

If I were asked to recall a random phone conversation while on vacation, I doubt I’d be able to do it. Add in thirty other calls, and faulty memory is to be expected. No one has yet to put forward a convincing motive for why Flynn would knowingly lie to the FBI. Given he didn’t do anything illegal, why would he bother?

For a more extensive summary, give the podcast a listen for yourself.

White House Slams Comey After Yesterday’s Anti-Trump Tirade

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders blasted former FBI Director James Comey today after his comments yesterday which were critical of the President and Republicans.

After his testimony yesterday, Comey spoke with reporters where he said that Trump undermined the “rule of law.” The disgraced former FBI Director continued, “This is the president of the United States calling a witness who has cooperated with his own justice department a ‘rat.’ This is not about Republicans and Democrats. This is about what does it mean to be an American…There’s a set of values that represent the glue of this country and they are under attack…”

Sanders issued a scathing response, telling Fox News, “I think the last person that we’re going to take any lecture from about the values of this country is from a self-admitted liar and leaker that we know James Comey to be,” she said.

She continued, “There’s no doubt that he did a tremendous number of things wrong and brought outrageous corruption to the FBI. He led it with a political bias that is unheard of at an agency like that and so he’ll be the last person that we’re going to take any type of lecture from.”

Last night, after Comey’s comments Sanders took to Twitter to call on the GOP to stand up to the former FBI Director and his “tremendous corruption.”

“Republicans should stand up to Comey and his tremendous corruption – from the fake Hillary Clinton investigation, to lying and leaking, to FISA abuse, and a list too long to name,” she wrote. “The President did the country a service by firing him and exposing him for the shameless fraud he is”

Disgraced Comey Attacks Fox News, Trump, GOP After Congressional Interview

Disgraced former FBI Director James Comey spoke with reporters after his interview today with the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees and hurled insults at Fox News, President Trump and Republican lawmakers.

“So another day of Hillary Clinton’s emails and the Steele dossier. This while the President of the United States is lying about the FBI, attacking the FBI and attacking the rule of law in this country. How does that make any sense at all?” Comey said to reporters.

He then attacked Republicans and Fox News, saying, “Republicans used to understand that the actions of a president matter, that words of a president matter, the rule of law matters, and the truth matters…At some point, someone has to stand up and in the face of fear of Fox News, fear of their base, fear of mean tweets, stand up for the values of this country.”

Comey also attacked Fox News reporter Catherine Herridge. When asked if he bears any responsibility for the FBI’s reputation taking a “big hit,” the former FBI director responded, “No. The FBI’s reputation has taken a big hit because the President of the United States, with his acolytes, has lied about it constantly, and in the face of those lies, a whole lot of good people who watch your network believe that nonsense! That’s a tragedy. That will be undone eventually, but that damage has nothing to do with me.”

 

Top GOP Rep: “I Would Not Be Surprised” If Flynn Conviction Overturned

House Judiciary and Oversight committee member Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) told Fox News yesterday that he wouldn’t be surprised if former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s conviction is overturned.

“I would not be surprised a bit if the conviction of Flynn is overturned because of the Justice Department FBI’s misconduct,” Issa said to Maria Bartiromo.

“When the FBI and the Department of Justice lies to someone and tricks them into making statements, and then charges them with a lie they entrapped them. This is conduct that we haven’t seen in a long time,” he continued.

Issa was referring to the shocking memo from Flynn’s attorneys last week which stated the FBI interviewed the three-star general under questionable pretenses and did not disclose to him the severity of the consequences if he lied to the agents because they wanted him to be “relaxed.”

That FBI interview eventually led to Flynn’s pleading guilty to lying to the FBI.

Former FBI Director James Comey was in charge at the time of the Flynn interview and will testify before Congress again today behind closed doors. He is expected to address these latest revelations in the Flynn case.

Congress will also press him on his disturbing comments–which came after his December 7 testimony–in which he told NBC’s Nicolle Wallace that he wouldn’t have “gotten away” with the Flynn interview if it was done in a “more organized administration.”

In a forum on December 9, Wallace said to Comey, “It’s hard to imagine two FBI agents ending up in the State Room. How did that happen?”

“I sent them,” said Comey. “Something we’ve, I probably wouldn’t have done or maybe gotten away with in a more organized investigation, a more organized administration.”

He continued, “So if the FBI wanted to send agents into the White House itself to interview a senior official, you would work through the White House counsel and there would be discussions and approvals and it would be there. I thought, ‘It’s early enough, let’s just send a couple of guys over.’”

Issa also told Bartiromo that he believed Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein will still testify before Congress prior to the Democratic leadership takeover in the new year.

“I talked to Chairman Goodlatte. He is still working on it,” he said of the possibility of Rosenstein’s testimony. “Rosenstein would like to avoid it, but I think we’ll get him,” he said.

The Framing of Michael Flynn

Author’s Note: This essay is largely based off of our new book “Spygate: The Attempted Sabotage of Donald Trump.”

On December 29th, 2016, Michael Flynn received a phone call while on vacation in the Dominican Republic from Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak that would change his life forever.

Earlier in the day, in retaliation for Russian interference in the election (not collusion), then-President Barack Obama forced the closure of Russian-owned compounds in New York and Maryland, and slapped new sanctions against Russia. Is there any doubt that such a move would prompt Ambassador Kislyak to call Flynn, Trump’s National Security Adviser at the time, to discuss what had just happened?

In taking Kislyak’s call, Flynn must’ve been aware that the call would be intercepted and monitored, given that he was speaking on an unsecured line in the Dominican Republic. Had Flynn been on U.S. soil he would’ve been able to prevent such surveillance, but due to the timing of Obama’s firings and Flynn’s location in the Dominican Republic, his conversation with Kislyak was intercepted and recorded.

The two discussed the sanctions against Russia Obama had just passed, and Kislyak promised that Russia would not react with sanctions of their own.

Since the call was recorded, the FBI had an entire transcript of the conversation. If there were any wrongdoing, it would be evident in the transcript. Clearly, it was not, as at the direction of Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, Flynn was questioned about the contents of his conversation with Kislyak on January 24th, 2017 by special agents Peter Strzok and Joe Pientka in a meeting set up by then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.

Rather than try to pry information from Flynn about the call, Flynn was merely quizzed about the contents of his own conversation, with Strzok and Pientka presumably looking for any deviation from the script to claim Flynn was technically “lying to the FBI,” even if unintentionally.

Sally Yates immediate concern from the Kislyak phone call was that Flynn violated the “Logan Act,” a rarely enforced law from 1799 that prevents Americans from corresponding with foreign governments (which is ridiculous, given’s Flynn’s political position). If the Logan Act actually were enforced, it would’ve been used to prevent Dennis Rodman from visiting North Korea, or Jimmy Carter’s various peace efforts. If Flynn had truly done something wrong, why would Yates be so desperately grasping at straws in citing the Logan Act?

Setting the Trap: Flynn Advised Against Legal Counsel

In a stunning new development, we’ve learned from a 302 report that proper protocol wasn’t followed to protect Flynn against entrapment. A 302 report contains accounts from the agents of what they said and did while interviewing Flynn, and the FBI waited over half a year to detail the Flynn interview. According to Fox News:

The August date on the FBI 302 cited by the Flynn team is nearly seven months after the Flynn interview took place, and about a week after reports surfaced that Strzok had been summarily removed from Mueller’s Russia probe because his persistent anti-Trump communications had surfaced.

Flynn “clearly saw the FBI agents as allies,” according to the 302 prepared by Strzok and another agent.

Flynn’s attorneys alleged that Andrew McCabe pushed Flynn not to have an attorney present during the questioning that ultimately led to his guilty plea on a single charge of lying to federal authorities. According to Flynn’s legal team [and the 302 itself], FBI agents in his case deliberately did not instruct Flynn that any false statements he made could constitute a crime, and decided not to “confront” him directly about anything he said that contradicted their knowledge of his wiretapped communications with former Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

Bear in mind, the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign was a secret at the time. Flynn had no reason to have his guard up.

Comey and McCabe’s Defense Seems Unbelievable

Even stranger, despite the charges Flynn now faces following the Kafkaesque line of questioning, when James Comey briefed a number of Capitol Hill lawmakers about the Bureau’s counterintelligence operation into the Trump campaign, two sources familiar with the meetings said Comey told lawmakers the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn didn’t believe he lied or intentionally provided any misleading answers. The report also said FBI Director McCabe testified that the FBI agents didn’t suspect wrongdoing either. Yet McCabe also pushed Flynn to speak without a lawyer. For those reasons, and the role that Peter Strzok played in trying to thwart a Trump presidency, I find these claims doubtworthy.

It also doesn’t help the FBI’s credibility when two of those involved in Flynn’s entrapment (Strzok and McCabe) have since been fired for misconduct. Clearly, their claims that they “actually thought Flynn was innocent” cannot possibly be true, as if they were, Flynn wouldn’t have had to plead guilty to manufactured charges to avoid a personal bankruptcy. And let’s suppose for a second that they are true – that McCabe, Strzok, and Pientka all thought Flynn did nothing wrong. Then who was pulling the strings to decide otherwise?

What do you think is more likely? That Michael Flynn couldn’t perfectly recall the contents of a phone call made while on vacation, or that Flynn decided that he’d lie to the FBI’s face without any legal counsel over the contents of a phone call where nothing illegal is discussed? To ask such a question is to answer it, so it’s no wonder that entrapment was the goal all along.