ELDER PATRIOT – While looking back over my notes I realized that Comey told another whopping lie during his testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Follow this line of questioning:
Senator Tom Cotton: Let’s turn our attention to the underlying activity at issue here – Russia’s hacking of those emails and the allegation of collusion. Do you think Donald Trump colluded with Russia?
Comey: That’s a question that I don’t think I should answer in an opening setting. As I said when I left, we did not have an investigation focused on President Trump. But that’s a question that will be answered by the investigation, I think.
WTF? If Comey hadn’t opened an investigation into President Trump then that could only have been because he didn’t believe any form of collusion had occurred. Wanting the appointment of a Special Prosecutor when he saw no evidence of any wrongdoing is tantamount to attempting a coup.
With enough time and ample lies under oath from similar Deep State actors, Special Counsel Robert Mueller, having been given broad investigatory powers, will be free to come to any conclusion he wants to.
And you can bet that the MSM will be only too happy to report it as the truth.
After all, what makes Mueller an angel and something more than another protector of the Deep State?
Cotton: Let me turn to a couple of statements by one of my colleagues, Senator Feinstein. She was the ranking member on this committee until January, which means that she had access to information that only she and Chairman Burr did. She’s now the senior Democrat on the F.B.I. Committee, which means she had access to information many of us don’t. On May 3rd on the Wolf Blitzer Show she was asked, “Do you believe you have evidence that in fact there was collusion between Trump associates and Russia during the campaign? She answered not at this time. On May 18th on the same show Mr. Blitzer said, “The last time you came on this show I asked if you had seen any evidence that Russia had colluded with the Trump campaign.” You said not at this time. Has anything changed since we last spoke? Senator Feinstein no, it hasn’t. Do you have any reason to doubt those statements?
Here comes Comey’s homina homina moment.
Comey: I don’t doubt that the Senator Feinstein understood what she said. I just don’t want to go down that route anymore because I’m — I want to be fair to President Trump. I am not trying to suggest something nefarious but I don’t want to get into the business of not to this person, not to that person.
Well that was conveniently unintelligible, wasn’t it? As far as being fair to President Trump is concerned, Comey’s claim is absurd.
Despite never seeing any evidence that would lead him to open an investigation into either candidate Trump or later President Trump, Comey refused to admit that there was no investigation of the president being conducted and lift the cloud over the Trump administration that he had helped put there.
So he calls it being fair to President Trump by refusing to tell the public what he knows – that he has found no evidence to open an investigation into Trump – and then admits to orchestrating the appointment of a Special Counsel to investigate Trump.
What does he call ignoring – that’s not really fair because he listed all of her email crimes – the overwhelming evidence of Clinton’s criminal behavior under pressure from Loretta Lynch?
Cotton: On February 14th the New York Times published the story, the headline of which was “Trump campaign aides had repeated contacts with Russian intelligence.” You were asked if that was an inaccurate story. Would it be fair to characterize that story as almost entirely wrong?
Now let’s turn our attention back to July 5,2016 when Comey laid out the case against Hillary Clinton before letting her off the hook, as per Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s order. During his explanation Comey admitted:
“With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence.”
Not a single mention of Russia.
Comey allowed Clinton’s illegal server, as well as the personal devices of her associate to be destroyed forever burying the evidence that could prove, or disprove his findings. Conveniently, Comey had positioned himself so that his word would “trump” everyone else’s.
He decided to similarly ignore the probative value that might be gleaned from conducting a forensic examination of the DNC and DCCC servers.
Let’s return to Thursday’s testimony.
Senator Richard Burr: And the FBI in this case, unlike other cases that you might investigate, did you ever have access to the actual hardware that was hacked, or did you have to rely on a third party to provide you the day that that they had collected?
Comey: In the case of the DNC, and I believe the D triple C, but I’m sure the DNC, we did not have access to the devices themselves. We got relevant forensic information from a private party, a high-class entity, that had done the work but we didn’t get direct access.
On July 5, 2016 Comey concluded his investigation into Clinton’s illegal server with this statement; “given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence.”
When presented with two additional hacking cases against the DNC and the DCCC, Comey once again saw no reason to seize the computer servers in question for evidence. Instead he followed the same pattern as he had with Hillary’s server, he allowed the computers to be examined by third parties chosen and passed those findings off as gospel.
What the heck was he trying not to find?
This wasn’t a case where the only unlawful activity that took place was the hacking of information as in the case of stolen credit card numbers. In all three instances the substance of the hacked information warranted serious criminal investigations on their own counts.
Comey admitted there was almost no likelihood of knowing who hacked Clinton’s server yet he allowed the Russian hacker story to simmer in what can only be thought to be an attempt to topple a sitting president of the United States.
Comey’s decisions to turn his back on all of these investigative trails has served to protect Hillary Clinton, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Donna Brazile, John Podesta, and Deep State actors as yet unknown because of his unconscionably shoddy investigation.
President Trump knowing all of this tweeted this statement less than a month ago:
That is a question Comey shoud be made to answer, as well as the Democrats perpetuating this witch-hunt against Trump.
Let me be perfectly clear about this. If an investigation into President Trump is warranted then, by all means, one should be conducted. But employing a fog machine and then claiming there’s smoke so there must be a fire is both anti-American and damaging to our Democracy. Until then, investigate away but in privacy, as every other F.B.I. investigation is conducted.
Comey is nothing more than a political operative and now he’s squarely in the center of this attempted coup against President Trump. It’s time he lawyers up.