What is the FBI hiding in its war to protect Comey?

Fusion GPS and the Trump Dossier

As the James Comey saga continues to unfold, the James Comey legend continues to unravel. The more we learn about his involvement in the deep state’s illicit targeting of President Trump, the more reason the American people have to question both his motives and his management as director of the FBI, the now-disgraced agency he headed before Trump fired him on May 16, 2017. Comey has left a trail of suspicious activities in his wake.

Comey now looms large over a burgeoning constitutional crisis that could soon overshadow Watergate at its worst. To deepen the crisis even further, it now appears some of Comey’s former FBI and Justice Department colleagues continue to protect him from accountability.

Three suspicious activities stand out, all intertwined: The so-called Comey Memos, Comey’s controversial testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee and Comey’s book deal.

After Comey was fired by President Trump on May 9, 2017, he arranged to give the New York Times a Feb. 14, 2017 memorandum he had written about a one-on-one conversation with Trump regarding former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. The New York Times published a report about the memo on May 16, 2017. Special Counsel Robert Mueller was appointed the following day.

On June 8, 2017, Comey testified under oath before the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, where he stated he authored as many as nine such memos. Regarding the Flynn memo, Comey admitted: “I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter [for The New York Times]. I didn’t do it myself for a variety of reasons, but I asked him to because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.”

Comey also testified about President Trump’s firing of him, and he detailed multiple conversations with President Trump, during which Comey confirmed he told President Trump three times that he was not a target of investigation. Judicial Watch is pursuing numerous FOIA lawsuitsrelating to Comey’s memoranda and FBI exit records as well a lawsuit for Justice Department communications about Comey’s Senate testimony. The American people deserve to know what, if any, complicity his former colleagues had in drafting that testimony and/or in engineering the appointment of Robert Mueller.

The day before Comey’s testimony, Fox News reported: “A source close to James Comey tells Fox News the former FBI director’s Senate testimony has been ‘closely coordinated’ with Robert Mueller…”. Comey may have violated the law in leaking his official FBI memos to the media, and it would be a scandal if Comey coordinated his Senate testimony with Mr. Mueller’s special counsel office.

That we have had to sue in federal court to discover the truth speaks volumes. The FBI has built a protective stonewall around Comey by refusing to release the Comey Memos and refusing to disclose records of communications between the FBI and Comey prior to and regarding Comey’s testimony before the Senate Intel Committee.

Since his forced departure from the FBI, Comey signed a book deal in August 2017, set for publication in April 2018, for which he reportedly received an advance in excess of $2 million. Given the fact that the FBI appears to be letting Comey get away with stealing and leaking official government documents and colluding with the special counsel to get Trump, even a trusting person must be suspicions about his book deal.

The FBI has fanned those suspicions by, you guessed it, adding a new layer to the protective stonewall around Comey. Again, Judicial Watch has been forced to sue a recalcitrant FBI for records, including but not limited to forms Comey was required to complete relating to prepublication review of the book by the FBI. Did Comey’s cronies give the fired FBI director a pass on this long-standing requirement? Is that why they are stonewalling the Judicial Watch FOIA?

Read More: http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/374675-what-is-the-fbi-hiding-in-its-war-to-protect-comey

Plot Holes, by Robert Gore

There has been a deluge of articles about the Michael Flynn affair from an array of political and ideological vantage points, and SLL has reposted some of them. What’s lacking are coherent and cohesive explanations for what would be, if this were a novel or movie, gaping plot holes. The upshot of many commentators is that Trump has underestimated the Deep State, he’s floundering, and so on. This article takes the opposite tack, out of innate contrariness and because President Trump has been so consistently underestimated by both friends and foes.

Why was Michael Flynn cashiered? The administration’s story is that he talked with a Russian diplomat and mentioned lifting sanctions, then lied about his conversations to Vice President Pence. What’s become the conventional subtext is that the intelligence agencies have launched a “soft coup” against Trump, he has been significantly weakened, and the Deep State has scored a major victory.

Plot hole: if Trump had wanted to keep Flynn, he could have kept him and rode out the media firestorm. Blogger The_Real_Fly has suggested there was either a prearranged plan for Flynn to make an early exit, or Trump did an about-face, determined Flynn was not a good fit, and decided to get rid of him.

A subplot hole: Flynn, an intelligence veteran, undoubtedly knew his phone was tapped. Either he knowingly said what he said to set a trap, or when the Washington Post story surfaced, Trump saw his chance and got rid of Flynn. He has demonstrated a cold-blooded capacity to quickly cut his losses: “You’re fired!” It’s telling that Flynn’s replacement, H.R. McMaster, authored Dereliction of Duty: Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, The Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies that Led to Vietnam. This looks like a classic Trump double down, replacing a maverick the Deep State didn’t like with a bigger one they’ll like even less.

Whatever the real story, Trump has gained valuable leverage on the intelligence agencies. Somebody leaked an intelligence agency transcript of Flynn’s call to the Washington Post, and that’s illegal. Just before he left office, President Obama relaxed limits on the NSA’s dissemination of its information to other intelligence agencies, the FBI, and the Drug Enforcement Administration. Obama probably thought he’d be turning those agencies into a collective sieve of untraceable leaks that would plague Trump, but this may backfire spectacularly. With the new rules, the illegal leak could conceivably come from any agency that has access to NSA data. The Trump Justice Department now has carte blanche to investigate them all, unless the agency responsible coughs up the leaker to protect itself and the other agencies.

A gaping plot hole: the Deep State’s stratagems scream weakness, not the strength so many are attributing to it. The Deep State likes to stay in the shadows, zealously protecting its power by shielding it from public view. Trump has forced it into the open, and it doesn’t adjust well to the light. It has resorted to tissue-thin stories planted in the captive media that speak of assessments and opinions, but don’t offer source material that’s supposedly the basis of those subjective judgments.

The Flynn disclosure was in the same vein; the original transcript on which the Post’s story was based has not been made public. This tees it up for Trump to lambaste the mainstream media and intelligence agencies, which he has done repeatedly and to great effect. He was in rare form at his recent press conference. You only plant stories in media organs nobody trusts, sourced to anonymous operatives within an intelligence community nobody trusts, obviously breaking the law, and setting yourself up for abuse from the president, because that’s all you’ve got.

The whole Russian story reeks of “Desperation.” It is flimsy and flimsier still is the rationale offered for the Deep State’s dogged loyalty to this concoction. Any rapprochement with Russia supposedly threatens the empire and must be quashed, even if that entails ham-handed efforts to depose an elected president. However, it’s child’s play for Trump to beat a tactical retreat, talk out of the other side of his mouth, and take the wind out of his enemies’ sails.

To counter the Putin puppet fairy tale, he could have his ambassador to the UN condemn Russia’s annexation of Crimea. He could continue Obama’s military build up on Russia’s western border. Trump and team could tweet and talk tough about Russia and its allies China and Iran, and reject any joint military operations with Russia in Syria. Oh wait, all this has already happened. So why has the Deep State resorted to repeatedly discredited tactics to propagate its concocted story, ultimately helping the president in his battles with it and its captive press, supposedly in service of a foreign policy criticism of the president that he easily undercuts by adjusting his rhetoric and moving toward their position? What’s going on?

The real story isn’t Russia. Do you mount a “soft coup” over policy differences when, after all the Washington give and take, those policies will, at worst, marginally affect your influence, power, and payola? Doubtful. (Keep in mind Trump wants to increase military budgets.) If, on the other hand, you’re facing complete disgrace and ruin, including a long stretch in a penal institution, there’s nothing you won’t do to save yourself.

It’s not what politicians and bureaucrats do sub rosa that poses the biggest danger to the country and the world, but what they do in broad daylight. However, there’s no denying that Washington is the world capital of sub rosa—the unethical, immoral, and illegal.

Read More: straightlinelogic.com/2017/02/26/plot-holes-by-robert-gore/

MSM says: Russia Russia Russia!


Jan Brady says Russia Russia Russia
What Michael Flynn and the Russian Ambassador REALLY Discussed

February 15, 2017 by Washington’sBlog

National Security Advisor Michael Flynn was fired by Trump.  Flynn was caught discussing sanctions with the Russian ambassador even before Trump took office.

Sounds bad, right?

Maybe …

But Bloomberg columnist Eli Lake – the former senior national security correspondent for the Daily Beast, who covered national security and intelligence for the Washington Times, the New York Sun and UPI notes:

One White House official with knowledge of the conversations told me that the Russian ambassador raised the sanctions to Flynn and that Flynn responded that the Trump team would be taking office in a few weeks and would review Russia policy and sanctions. That’s neither illegal nor improper.

If true, then all that happened is that the Russian ambassador asked about sanctions, and Flynn responded that he couldn’t say anything until he got marching orders from the Trump administration after it took the helm.

In other words, just more anti-Russia hysteria.