Lies, Obfuscation, Guilt? Comey Can’t Recall, Doesn’t Know, or Doesn’t Remember 245 Times During House Testimony

Elder Patriot – As we watch Special Counsel Robert Mueller pile up guilty pleas for lying to federal investigators from President Trump’s campaign associates one can’t help but wonder how former FBI Director James Comey got away with his own  misleading and false testimony to House investigators on Friday.

Comey answered “I don’t remember” 71 times, “I don’t know” 166 times and “I don’t recall” eight times to questioning about the most significant investigation of his career.

This is beyond incredulous.  

This is not an obscure ten-year-old case that Comey could be excused for not remembering clearly.  It’s the most high-profile case imaginable and one which he was so certain needed additional clarity that he lobbied for and arguably broke the law to secure the appointment of a special counsel.

Now, after being bombarded with conflicting news reports and journalists’ questions endlessly since his firing, that were certain to keep the details of this case front and center in his consciousness, he can’t remember?


When asked if the FBI had any evidence that anyone in the Trump campaign conspired to hack the DNC server, Comey referred to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation as the reason why he couldn’t answer.

“Did we have evidence in July of (2016) that anyone in the Trump campaign conspired to hack the DNC server.  I don’t think that the FBI and special counsel want me answering questions that may relate to their investigation of Russian interference during 2016. And I worry that that would cross that line.”

For Comey not to answer this question is indeed evidence of collusion – not between Trump and Russia but between Comey, Rosenstein, and Mueller in defense of the Deep State-Global Cabal and their mission to protect the criminal construct between multinational corporations, foreign leaders, and our own elected representatives and senators.  

At the center of this was Comey’s FBI.  And, at least one foci of Comey’s FBI investigation was the hack of the DNC server.  

It now looks like Comey was more concerned with creating a case against Donald Trump than in prosecuting a case against the actual hackers because he never had the elite cyber forensics team within the FBI examine the server in order to find definitive evidence.

Forget the granular details that Comey’s FBI had been investigating the hack of the DNC server, had given Hillary Clinton a pass on her server after acknowledging it had likely been hacked by “multiple foreign actors,” and had been investigating at least four Trump campaign members for close to a year when he was fired by President Trump.

Comey either knew, or had every reason to have concluded on his own after many months of investigation, that there had been no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia by the time President Trump fired him.  

Even Comey’s determination to have a special counsel is, more suggestive that the plan all along had been to handcuff the new president, if not to find a way to remove him before he could expose, or undo, the criminal construct within our government.

When reviewing the granular details, all of this predated Mueller’s appointment and necessarily revealed the predicate for the appointment of the special counsel.  In what manner can answering this question challenge, or undermine, anything the special counsel has uncovered since?

In fact, under our Constitution, prosecutors must state the predicate for opening an investigation.  Open-ended fishing expeditions is the hallmark of tyrannical regimes and not of societies that protect individual liberties.