Three Strikes Against James Comey

Comey and Trump

This morning’s news was abuzz with liberals attempting to further obfuscate the firing of former FBI Director James Comey:

“Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe told lawmakers Thursday there has been “no effort to impede” the Russia investigation…” ”

This strongly supports the fact that Trump did NOT fire Comey to impede any sort of investigation.

“…and said former FBI Director James Comey continues to have “broad support” in the agency even after the White House claimed he lost the trust of his employees.”

I hear that Comey was well-liked, that he was a good leader of men.

That doesn’t for one second negate the Department of Justice’s claims that both his decisions and actions routinely violated both FBI and Department of Justice policy, and in ways which undermined the trust of the American people — from BOTH political parties — over the last year.

Ok, liberals, I’m going to stretch your brains a bit. Hopefully, most of you can handle it. This goes for conservatives, too, as most of you haven’t read Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein’s recommendations on Comey, either. This memorandum was sent to AG Sessions, who in turn recommended Comey’s dismissal to President Trump, who considered the matter, concurred, and sent Director Comey a termination letter.

This letter details precisely WHY Comey was fired:

May 9, 2017

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

FROM: ROD J. ROSENSTEIN

DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL

SUBJECT: RESTORING PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE FBI

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has long been regarded as our nation’s premier federal investigative agency. Over the past year, however, the FBI’s reputation and credibility have suffered substantial damage, and it has affected the entire Department of Justice. That is deeply troubling to many Department employees and veterans, legislators and citizens.

The current FBI Director is an articulate and persuasive speaker about leadership and the immutable principles of the Department of Justice. He deserves our appreciation for his public service. As you and I have discussed, however, I cannot defend the Director’s handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton’s emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken. Almost everyone agrees that the Director made serious mistakes; it is one of the few issues that unites people of diverse perspectives.

The director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General’s authority on July 5, 2016, and announce his conclusion that the case should be closed without prosecution.

It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement. At most, the Director should have said the FBI had completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors. The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department. There is a well-established process for other officials to step in when a conflict requires the recusal of the Attorney General. On July 5, however, the Director announced his own conclusions about the nation’s most sensitive criminal investigation, without the authorization of duly appointed Justice Department leaders.

Compounding the error, the Director ignored another longstanding principle: we do not hold press conferences to release derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal investigation. Derogatory information sometimes is disclosed in the course of criminal investigations and prosecutions, but we never release it gratuitously. The Director laid out his version of the facts for the news media as if it were a closing argument, but without a trial. It is a textbook example of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do.

In response to skeptical question at a congressional hearing, the Director defended his remarks by saying that his “goal was to say what is true. What did we do, what did we find, what do we think about it.” But the goal of a federal criminal investigation is not to announce our thoughts at a press conference. The goal is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a federal criminal prosecution, then allow a federal prosecutor who exercises authority delegated by the Attorney General to make a prosecutorial decision, and then – if prosecution is warranted – let the judge and jury determine the facts. We sometimes release information about closed investigations in appropriate ways, but the FBI does not do it sua sponte.

Concerning his letter to the Congress on October 28, 2016, the Director cast his decision as a choice between whether he would “speak” about the decision to investigate the newly-discovered email messages or “conceal” it. “Conceal” is a loaded term that misstates the issue. When federal agents and prosecutors quietly open a criminal investigation, we are not concealing anything; we are simply following the longstanding policy that we refrain from publicizing non-public information. In that context, silence is not concealment.

My perspective on these issues is shared by former Attorneys General and Deputy Attorneys General from different eras and both political parties. Judge Laurence Silberman, who served as Deputy Attorney General under President Ford, wrote that “it is not the bureau’s responsibility to opine on whether a matter should be prosecuted.” Silberman believes that the Director’s “Performance was so inappropriate for an FBI director that [he] doubt[s] the bureau will ever completely recover.” Jamie Gorelick, Deputy Attorney General under President Clinton, joined with Larry Thompson, Deputy Attorney General under President George W. Bush, to opine that the Director had “chosen personally to restrike the balance between transparency and fairness, departing from the department’s traditions.” They concluded that the Director violated his obligation to “preserve, protect and defend” the traditions of the Department and the FBI.

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who served under President George W. Bush, observed the Director “stepped way outside his job in disclosing the recommendation in that fashion” because the FBI director “doesn’t make that decision.”
Alberto Gonzales, who also served as Attorney General under President George W. Bush, called the decision “an error in judgement.” Eric Holder, who served as Deputy Attorney General under President Clinton and Attorney General under President Obama, said the Director’s decision”was incorrect. It violated long-standing Justice Department policies and traditions. And it ran counter to guidance that I put in place four years ago laying out the proper way to conduct investigations during an election season.” Holder concluded that the Director “broke with these fundamental principles” and “negatively affected public trust in both the Justice Department and the FBI.”

Former Deputy Attorneys General Gorelick and Thompson described the unusual events as”real-time, raw-take transparency taken to its illogical limit, a kind of reality TV of federal criminal investigation,” that is “antithetical to the interests of justice.”
Donald Ayer, who served as Deputy Attorney General under President H.W. Bush, along with former Justice Department officials, was”astonished and perplexed” by the decision to “break[] with longstanding practices followed by officials of both parties during past elections.” Ayer’s letter noted, “Perhaps most troubling… is the precedent set by this departure from the Department’s widely-respected, non-partisan traditions.”

We should reject the departure and return to the traditions.

Although the President has the power to remove an FBI director, the decision should not be taken lightly. I agree with the nearly unanimous opinions of former Department officials. The way the Director handled the conclusion of the email investigation was wrong. As a result, the FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a Director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them. Having refused to admit his errors, the Director cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions.

You can also read photocopies of all three letters, at The New York Times article entitled, “White House Announces Firing of James Comey.”

So, STRIKE ONE.

***

Intermission:  The Comey Chronology:

Comey

***

But this isn’t all.  There’s another reason Comey may also have been fired.

20 years ago James Comey was an attorney on the Senate Whitewater Investigation looking into the conduct of President Bill Clinton and first lady Hillary Clinton. The investigation was to determine whether Bill Clinton used his political position as governor of Arkansas (in the 1980s) to push through an illegal loan to benefit Bill and Hillary’s business partner in Whitewater.

Several people involved in Whitewater went to jail, but no criminal prosecution was in the cards for Bill and Hillary. Remember James Comey was the Deputy Special Counsel for the Whitewater investigation.

In Christopher Anderson’s book, “American Evita: Hillary Clinton’s Rise to Power”, Anderson gives details of the New Square offenders pardon by Bill Clinton (they had been convicted of bilking the government of $30 million dollars). Christopher Anderson relates that at Hillary’s urging Bill gave clemency to 16 Puerto Rican terrorists who took the lives of 16 Americans and wounded many others.

Anderson tells us that Hillary admired the Marxist Carl Oglesby and Saul Alinsky. It is from her admiration for Saul Alinsky that she formed her belief that “the only way to make a real difference is to acquire power.”

The pardon of billionaire Marc Rich (who traded illegally with America’s enemies including Iran) by President Bill Clinton was something that everyone knew reeked of impropriety after learning that Rich’s wife donated $450,000 to the Clinton Library.

Again, James Comey oversaw investigations of the pardon matters as well. Unbelievably, James Comey did not recommend charging the Clintons in any of these matters. Wouldn’t it be fair and balanced to give news coverage to these facts?

The Clintons controlled Comey for DECADES.

So, STRIKE TWO

***

But even that’s not the end of it!  No…

Trena Jarnagin-Blackburn Here’s the real reason COMEY got fired.
BOMBSHELL: Young Congresswoman Gets Comey Fired, Here’s What He Was Hiding

Re: Former FBI Director James Comey and Rep. Elise Stefanik

The firing of James Comey comes as a relief to most patriotic Americans who lost trust in his leadership over his handling of the Hillary Clinton investigation, but most people don’t know all the events that led up to President Donald Trump actually firing him. It involves a young congresswoman, who uncovered Comey’s explosive secrets, and that’s all Trump needed to get rid of the disgraced FBI Director.

This will blow your mind.

Rep. Elise M. Stefanik (R-NY) is the youngest member of congress at 32 years old, and on March 20, she singlehandedly finished Comey’s career. Not many people were paying attention to a junior congresswoman questioning the FBI Director, but what she uncovered is pure gold. Remember, at this time, Trump had accused Obama of wiretapping him and the Democrats were accusing Trump of colluding with Russia.

During questioning, Rep. Stefanik lured Comey into a trap. She got Comey to admit that a counter-intel investigation into the Russia-Trump connection started way back in July 2016. Think about that; this is so fishy because Trump had just been nominated by the GOP, and immediately, the Obama White House starts a bogus investigation trying to link Russia to Trump. That’s called a political witch hunt.

But, that’s not all.

The damning admission leads to questions about wiretapping private citizens like Trump and his staff. Then, Comey tripped up and couldn’t recover. Rep. Stefanik knew Comey was required to alert congress about this investigation into Russia and Trump, but he couldn’t do that, could he? If Comey followed the rules set out by the Department of Justice, he had to inform congress, but if he did, the GOP would have blown up and exposed this as an obvious political witch hunt to destroy their presidential candidate.

“On March 20th the mask fully came off. Comey was a solid Black Hat. The March 20th appearance before congress was the final straw in showcasing just how politically corrupt James Comey was,” The Conservative Treehouse reports.
Rep. Stefanik cornered Comey on the timeline and got him to stumble and squirm.
She asked, “When did you notify the White House, the DNI, and congressional leadership [of the bogus investigation]?” Comey immediately started sweating after admitting that it’s protocol to inform congress quarterly and the investigation started in July 2016. Then, came the kicker. Comey didn’t inform congress until March 2017, only after he had no other choice as these hearings were set to begin.

Watch as Rep. Stefanik outsmarted Comey and lured him into admitting he was in essence spying on GOP candidate Trump for former President Barack Obama. One other point of note, James Comey outright lies by claiming there was no active DNI (Department of National Intelligence), which is entirely false since James Clapper was Obama’s DNI.

The Conservative Treehouse weighed in, explaining, “Former FBI Director James Comey intentionally kept congress in the dark on his investigative activity. Our system of checks and balances are specifically set up to stop this from happening, and to keep a watch on the ‘watchers.’ Director Comey subverted the oversight for his own political purposes.”

There is no defense for the former FBI director acting alone and not notifying congress of what he is doing through the established protocols. It doesn’t matter who the FBI director is. Comey should have been fired on March 20th after he told congress he was intentionally not allowing them oversight over his conduct.

So, when the liberal loons accuse President Donald Trump of firing James Comey to stop an investigation into Russia, that’s a pile of crap. They have investigated it ad infinitum, and they can’t prove a damn thing because it is something the Obama White House and former Director Comey invented way back in July 2016.

So, STRIKE THREE.

***

When then FBI Director James Comey attested to Hillary’s criminal wrongdoing just a couple of weeks before the election, I was elated, as the truth was being confirmed by a credible source, the principle investigative agency of the U.S. Federal Government.  Sadly, it was a great litany, but it ended in…  NOTHING.  That’s

Author: patriot

It was a distinct honor, as well as my pleasure, to serve my country for more than twenty years. I love my country, but sometimes I’m not too happy with its leaders. I’m working to change that, and I could use your help. Please join me!

Thanks. : )

– Patriot

Leave a Reply