Comey, Trump, Russia, Gorsuch, hearings, leaks leaks leaks

Posted on by

FBI Director James Comey spoke publicly in DC on Monday in front of the House Intelligence Committee, stating there were in fact investigations occurring with regard to Russia’s meddling in the presidential election and also between the Russian government and the Trump campaign.

It was clear to me, from the outset, that it was politics, politics, politics. Something of which Director Comey has become quite adroit in at least the past year.

The line was drawn in this fashion: Demorats wanted President Trump’s wiretap allegation smashed and derided, whilst Republicans were primarily concerned with the leaking of classified information.

Trey Gowdy begins the interaction with Director Comey and sets the foundation for his line of questioning involving FISA and safeguards.

Please note that Congressman Gowdy specifically utilizes the term “wiretap” to describe the acquisition of communications belonging to an “unnamed US citizen.” Again, Comey outs the Trump investigation but refuses to discuss anything to do with the leaks at all. Do you see my point and my resulting frustration?

I highlight this portion because of its incredible importance. Do you see?

GOWDY: Admiral Rogers said there are 20 people within the NSA that are part of the unmasking process. How many people within the FBI are part of the unmasking process?

COMEY: I don’t know for sure. As I sit here, surely more, given the nature the FBI’s work. We come into contact with U.S. persons a whole lot more than the NSA does because we may be conducting — we only conduct our operations in the United States to collect electronic surveillance — to conduct electronic surveillance, so I don’t — I can find out the exact number, I don’t know it as I sit here.

GOWDY: Well, I think, Director Comey, given the fact that you and I agree this is critical, vital, indispensable, a similar program is coming up for reauthorization this fall with a pretty strong head wind right now. It would be nice to know the universe of people who have the power to unmask a U.S. citizen’s name. Because that might provide something of a roadmap to investigate who might’ve actually disseminated a masked U.S. citizen’s name.

COMEY: Sure. The number is relevant but what I hope the U.S. — the American people realize is the number’s important, but the culture behind it is in fact even more important. The training, the rigor, the discipline. We are obsessive about FISA in the FBI for reasons I hope make sense to this committee but we are — everything that’s FISA has to be labeled in such a way to warn people this is FISA, we treat this in a special way.

So we can get you the number, but I want to assure you the culture of the FBI and the NSA around how we treat U.S. person information is obsessive and I mean that in a good way.

GOWDY: Director Comey, I am not arguing with you and I do agree that culture is important, but if there are 100 people who have the ability to unmask and the knowledge of a previously masked name, then that’s 100 different potential sources of investigation and the smaller the number is, the easier your investigation is.

So the number is relevant. I can see the culture is relevant. NSA, FBI, what other U.S. government agencies have the authority to unmask a U.S. citizen’s name?

COMEY: I think all agencies that collect information pursuant to FISA have what are called standard minimization procedures, which are approved by the FISA court that govern how they will treat U.S. person information. So I know the NSA does, I know the CIA does, obviously the FBI does. I don’t know for sure beyond that.

GOWDY: How about the department of — how about Main Justice?

COMEY: Main Justice, I think does have standard minimization procedures.

GOWDY: All right, so that’s four. The NSA, FBI, CIA, Main Justice. Does the White House have the authority to unmask a U.S. citizen’s name?

COMEY: I think other elements of the government that are consumers of our products can ask the collectors to unmask. The unmasking resides with those who collected the information.

And so if Mike Rogers’s folks collected something and they sent it to me in a report and it says U.S. person number one and it’s important for the FBI to know who that is, our request will go back to them. The White House can make similar requests of the FBI or of NSA but they can’t on their — they don’t own their own collect and so they can’t on their own unmask. I got that about right?

ROGERS: No, that’s correct.

COMEY: Yeah.

GOWDY: I guess what I’m getting at, Director Comey, is you say it’s vital, you say it’s critical, you say it’s indispensable. We both know it’s a threat to the reauthorization of 702 later on this fall. And by the way, it’s also a felony punishable by up to 10 years.

So how would you begin your investigation, assuming for the sake of argument that a U.S. citizen’s name appeared in the Washington Post and the New York Times unlawfully. Where would you begin that investigation?

COMEY: Well, I’m not gonna talk about any particular investigation…

GOWDY: That’s why I said in theory.

COMEY: You would start by figuring out, so who are the suspects? Who touched the information that you’ve concluded ended up unlawfully in the newspaper and start with that universe and then use investigative tools and techniques to see if you can eliminate people, or include people as more serious suspects.

GOWDY: Do you know whether Director Clapper knew the name of the U.S. citizen that appeared in the New York Times and Washington Post?

COMEY: I can’t say in this forum because again, I don’t wanna confirm that there was classified information in the newspaper.

GOWDY: Would he have access to an unmasked name?

COMEY: In — in some circumstances, sure, he was the director of national intelligence. But I’m not talking about the particular.

GOWDY: Would Director Brennan have access to an unmasked U.S. citizen’s name?

COMEY: In some circumstances, yes.

GOWDY: Would National Security Adviser Susan Rice have access to an unmasked U.S. citizen’s name?

COMEY: I think any — yes, in general, and any other national security adviser would, I think, as a matter of their ordinary course of their business.

GOWDY: Would former White House Advisor Ben Rhodes have access to an unmasked U.S. citizen’s name?

COMEY: I don’t know the answer to that.

GOWDY: Would former Attorney General Loretta Lynch have access to an unmasked U.S. citizen’s name? COMEY: In general, yes, as would any attorney general.

GOWDY: So that would also include Acting AG Sally Yates?

COMEY: Same answer.

GOWDY: Did you brief President Obama on — well, I’ll just ask you. Did you brief President Obama on any calls involving Michael Flynn?

COMEY: I’m not gonna get into either that particular case that matter, or any conversations I had with the president. So I can’t answer that.

But wait. I have what I consider to be an obvious question but one I’ve not yet heard people ask. Director Comey stated the investigation has been ongoing since July of 2016. If so, wouldn’t an integral part of such an investigation be surveillance of the Trump campaign and others aligned or linked therein?

Yet Mr Comey says there was no surveillance going on. How can that be? Was the FBI conducting half an investigation? A fraction of an investigation? How otherwise can one explain the information collected regarding General Michael Flynn? How was it gathered? How was it distributed? How did it get leaked and by whom? How does one acquire telephone conversation content — on Michael Flynn or Trump’s conversations with Australia’s PM Turnbull or Mexican President Nieto for example — absent wiretapping or surveillance in the first place?

In the process of conducting said highly important investigations wouldn’t you want to use all the tools at your disposal and, furthermore, collect as much pertinent evidence as possible? Of course you would. The statement makes no sense.

Where was James Comey with regard to Obama’s aides improperly accessing the names of Americans swept up in foreign surveillance or whether they leaked classified documents to the US press? Director Comey could confirm that, well, yes, we’re closely examining President Trump’s Russian “collusion” but otherwise could not confirm there was any sort of investigation on the matters of felonious leaking by government officials (Who else could have done so?) and would not talk about it. Why not? What’s the difference?

Another very important question. By the FBI’s own account and everyone else’s, including the Russians, it was believed with certainty that Hillary Clinton was a shoe-in for the presidency. Why, then, did the Russians magically decide to assist Donald Trump — as James Comey alleges — when people were convinced Trump would lose in a spectacular manner?

It doesn’t make sense. Neither the investigation nor the assumption about the Russians.

Perhaps the biggest question is this: will the leakers be identified and, if so, will they be arrested? Or is it in the best interest of the deep state to obfuscate the matter to the point that the leakers are never found?

Because, trust me, if the leakers are prosecuted and there is federal penitentiary time attached, you’ll hear sphincters slamming shut all around DC and the warm breezes will turn cold. That’s called a chilling effect.

Also quite disturbing is this, from McClatchyDC.com:

FBI’s Russian-influence probe includes a look at far-right news sites

by Peter Stone & Greg Gordon

WASHINGTON – Federal investigators are examining whether far-right news sites played any role last year in a Russian cyber operation that dramatically widened the reach of news stories — some fictional — that favored Donald Trump’s presidential bid, two people familiar with the inquiry say.

Operatives for Russia appear to have strategically timed the computer commands, known as “bots,” to blitz social media with links to the pro-Trump stories at times when the billionaire businessman was on the defensive in his race against Democrat Hillary Clinton, these sources said.

In other words, the FBI under Comey is investigating “fake news.” What is fake news?

The bots’ end products were largely millions of Twitter and Facebook posts carrying links to stories on conservative internet sites such as Breitbart News and InfoWars, as well as on the Kremlin-backed RT News and Sputnik News, the sources said. Some of the stories were false or mixed fact and fiction, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the bot attacks are part of an FBI-led investigation into a multifaceted Russian operation to influence last year’s elections.

For every individual arguing that InfoWars or Breitbart is fake news, I can provide a great deal of documentation indicating, over numerous years, that what people term the mainstream media such as ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and many others are equally or more fake than those two named above, and have been specifically colluding with the Democrats and Leftist-themed ideologues for a lengthy period of time.

The FBI investigating “fake news” is indeed disturbing. It is no less true now than any time prior that one must be an enlightened consumer of news and, as an adult, know enough about your country, your surroundings and your world in order to make the best informed decision regarding the portrayal of information to you by various news organizations. In other words, it blows to be stupid and there are penalties for being so, though we know that a “sucker is born every minute.”

Perhaps we should ask what there was to learn from the hearing today with FBI Director James Comey. I conclude below with the real lesson to be intuited from the hearing, but in terms of hard facts we discovered there are, well, no real hard facts. There is still no evidence that Russia hacked the election or somehow influenced the presidential election despite what the American Media Maggots emphatically say. There is still no evidence that Russia colluded with the Trump campaign or his staffers. We learned that James Comey is rather selective in terms of the political topics he’s willing to address.

We learned that no evidence was provided that indicated Obama wiretapped Trump. But if that were true, then why has Fox News summarily fired Judge Napolitano for saying this?

Why indeed.

House Intel Chair Devin Nunes weighed in, and he wasn’t terribly happy.

Then there was this little-publicized questioning of Director Comey by NY newbie freshman Rep. Elise Stefanik, who zeroes in on Comey immediately.

Did you notice Director Comey was a bit nonplussed at her direct first question? I did. She has taken Comey aback. He did not anticipate such pointed and informed questions from a neophyte. When Comey said he didn’t have a DNI, that was bullshit. He did. It was James Clapper. The lying James Clapper. The lying under oath James Clapper. You know. That guy.

Did you also hear James Comey admit to Rep. Stefanik that, along with the Demorats and DNC, the Republicans were tapped as well? He stated so. But what was the difference between the GOP being tapped and the DNC being tapped? That’s right. The lack of corruption in the content of the emails and information.

But let me say this. Elise Stefanik has a great career ahead of her because she appears fearless, resolute, and unimpressed by dark, carved wood. You get my drift. “When did you notify the White House?” Boom. Done. Owned.

Let us transition.

“I am a faithful servant to the Constitution.” So said Judge Neal Gorsuch in his opening statement with regard to his SCOTUS nomination, on Monday. The actual flames and grilling begin Tuesday morning at 9:30. First, here’s the Demorat take on Gorsuch, from CBS.

Then there are the actual words of Judge Gorsuch himself as he makes his opening statement.

Bottom line regarding Neil Gorsuch? He will be confirmed. I also predict the Demorats will not choose to use their filibuster against him. You’re dealing with an individual who

  • Presided over 2,750 case on the 10th Circuit;
  • Wrote 175 majority opinions;
  • Wrote 65 concurrences or dissents;
  • Had 72 in-person meetings with US Senators

Charles Krauthammer may have jinxed things when, on Monday, he said: “Too stupid. Even the Democrats won’t do it.”

But never minimize the ability of Demorats and Leftists to see racists and sexists everywhere. Joe Dinkin, National Communications Director for the Working Families Party (yes, that is a party) states that Neil Gorsuch is a white supremacist and nationalist because Gorsuch hasn’t overtly and publicly disavowed President Trump’s travel ban. It’s a Muslim ban, you see. So Gorsuch wears a white robe and a pointy hat. Insanity.

In conclusion, do not doubt that there is a message to be acquired from Comey’s hearing today, and the message to President Trump as well as his advisors, staff and assistants comes from not just Director James Comey, the Demorats and a portion of the GOP, but much of the embedded deep state as well.

The message is: back off. Leave the DC swamp as it is. Undrained. The creatures prefer it unmolested. If you fail to heed our warning, we’ll destroy you at all costs and by any means necessary.

If you were President Trump you’d have to be asking yourself: whom can you trust?

That potential pool is dwindling by the day.

BZ

P.S.

You should now be asking yourself: is FBI Director James Comey the source of the leaks?

 

 Share

CNN’s Trump Derangement Syndrome, Pt. XLIV

Posted on by

Fear not good people, TDS — Trump Derangement Syndrome — is alive and well and, if drinking a carbonated beverage, will still make you spew it out your nose in laughter.

First, let’s look at the story from an — ahem — MSM viewpoint, as Philly.com writes:

CNN host Fareed Zakaria gets profane in uncensored Trump discussion

by Rob Tornoe

Late Friday night, CNN host Fareed Zakaria had some complaints about President Trump that revolved around one word in particular.

My. What might that be?

Appearing beside host Don Lemon on CNN Tonight in a discussion about the president’s unsubstantiated claims that President Obama wiretapped Trump Tower during the election, a frustrated Zakaria said Trump is “indifferent” to the truth before launching into a profanity-laced comment about the commander-in-chief.

Ah, the buttery goodness of the informed, cogent, rational, level-headed, sensitive, well-grounded cadre of Leftists.

After all, everyone knows emesis of that nature advances the argument of mainstream media outlets.

Right?

BZ

 

 Share

Let’s listen to Canada’s Leftist PM Justin Trudeau

Posted on by

This is simply too good to pass up.

Then there is this lengthier compilation.

So Leftists, Demorats, anarchists, progressives and the like think President Donald Trump is daft and embraces “too many Russians”?

Shelby Steele (author, columnist, film-maker, Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution) explains wonderfully the Leftist mindset:

Tell you what, Canada. You keep Trudeau. We’ll keep Trump.

BZ

 

 Share

Donna Brazile confesses: yes, she gave questions to Hillary Clinton

Posted on by

All along Donna Brazile, CNN, Hillary Clinton, the Demorats, the DNC, Debbie Wassermann Schultz, John Podesta, the American Media Maggots insisted and maintained that Donna Brazile did not provide debate questions in advance to Hillary Rodham Clinton, so that she would have a tactical debate advantage over Donald Trump during the presidential candidacy.

We knew that was false, and so did Donald Trump. Concurrently, the “mainstream media” — what I term the American Media Maggots — was wounded and bled martyrdom by insisting the only fake news in town was everyone but them.

Now we discover two very important things:

  • Donna Brazile was in fact lying, and
  • The MSM continues to confirm they are Fake News

From the WashingtonExaminer.com:

Donna Brazile finally admits she shared debate questions with Clinton campaign

by Eddie Scarry

Veteran Democratic operative Donna Brazile finally admitted that she used her former position as a CNN commentator to relay questions ahead of debates to Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primary.

For months, Brazile has avoided confirming that hacked emails from the campaign showed her forwarding the questions, which were asked at separate debates. But in a new essay for Time magazine looking back on the hackings, she said it was true.

“[I]n October, a subsequent release of emails revealed that among the many things I did in my role as a Democratic operative and [Democratic National Committee] Vice Chair prior to assuming the interim D.N.C. Chair position was to share potential town hall topics with the Clinton campaign,” she said.

Of course you did. Anyone halfway paying attention or possessing half a wheelhouse — oh wait, sorry, that leaves out the majority of Demorats and all Leftists, progressives and anarchists — could intuit, considering history, that Donna Brazile was lying her arse off. She continued to lie whilst holding the position of temporary DNC chair, following the problems with Debbie Wasserman Schultz under whose guidance a leak of internal DNC emails occurred, which clearly showed Demorats obviously favoring Hillary Clinton during the presidential primary and plotting against Clinton’s rival, Bernie Sanders.

Guess who won the nomination? It wasn’t Bernie Sanders.

And who had a front row, primary seat in this corruption?

Correct. Donna Brazile.

Brazile herself refuted the claim every time she was pressed on the issue.

“My job was to make all our Democratic candidates look good, and I worked closely with both campaigns to make that happen,” she said. “But sending those emails was a mistake I will forever regret.”

Brazile has since resigned from CNN.

Notice how, when Demorats are corrupt, cheat or do something wrong or illegal, it’s simply a “mistake.” A “miscalculation.” An “error.” A “prevarication.” It’s seldom if ever a lie. But those of us familiar with the English language know a lie when we see or hear one.

Is Donna Brazile ashamed or mortified? Of course not. From TheHill.com (h/t to Well Seasoned Fool):

For the good of the party: It’s time for Donna Brazile to go

by Norman Soloman

It’s time for Donna Brazile to go.

Like Debbie Wasserman Schultz before her, Brazile has lost credibility as an honest broker at the Democratic National Committee. The DNC chair should be evenhanded — but, thanks to leaked emails, Brazile’s cover is blown.

Cover. Interesting choice of words. “Cover.”

At the same time that Brazile was publicly claiming to be neutral in the fierce Clinton-Sanders primary battle, she was using her job as a CNN political analyst to give the Clinton campaign advance notice of questions that would be asked during a CNN debate between the two candidates.

Yet Brazile seems tone deaf about her integrity breach — just as the Democratic Party establishment has been tone deaf about the corrosive effects of servicing Wall Street and wealthy contributors. 

“Tone deaf.” Again, interesting choice of words. Me, I think I’d exchange those two words for one word: liar. But hell, that’s just my bias about the truth coming through.

As the Washington Post reported a week ago, “Donna Brazile is not apologizing for leaking CNN debate questions and topics to the Hillary Clinton campaign during the Democratic primary. Her only regret, it seems, is that she got caught.”

Correct; just like, hmmm, well, let’s see. Hillary Clinton, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, John Podesta, the DNC, I could go on and on. But here’s the best part.

Consider Brazile’s response after the email hack exposed the chasm between her public claims of being evenhanded and her furtive effort to help Clinton gain an improper debate advantage over Sanders. “My conscience, as an activist, as a strategist — my conscience is very clear,” Brazile said in a radio interview, adding that “if I had to do it all over again, I would know a hell of a lot more about cybersecurity.”

What did she learn? To cheat more efficiently. What did the DNC learn? To cheat more efficiently. What did the Demorats learn in general?

It’s seldom if ever their fault. The Demorats and Leftists no more possess the attribute of introspection or self-examination than does the average paramecium. Even a single mecium.

Frankly, I’m surprised this was even revealed at all.

BZ

 

 Share

Article 50 triggered: Brexit truly begins

Posted on by

As opposed to all of the forces aligned against the very concept of Brexit itself by most every monied and arrogantly-assumptive elitist in Europe, a very critical step to the UK removing itself from the European Union begins.

From the Australian.com:

Brexit trigger approved as UK parliament approves Article 50

Parliament has given its approval for Prime Minister Theresa May to start Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union, even as Scotland signalled its opposition by announcing plans for a fresh independence vote.

The House of Lords rejected a last-ditch attempt to amend a bill empowering Mrs May to begin Brexit, paving the way for it to become law as early as Tuesday.

Let me be blunt: this exists as a dagger to the heart of the Caucasoid GOWPs extant throughout the European Union whose life revolves only but about the One World Barbecue.

Just as Chuck Schumer is currently weakening America in order to provide more power to the Demorats by refusing to approve the final cabinet positions and appointments of President Trump, the Caucasoid GOWPs of the EU have done their level best to weaken Europe by trying to obstruct Brexit with all their might. Both are maliciously destructive, purposefully so.

The prime minister could then trigger Article 50 of the EU’s Lisbon Treaty at any time, starting two years of talks that will end with Britain becoming the first country to leave the bloc.

Mrs May’s spokesman sought to play down speculation that she would send her notification letter to the European Council on Tuesday, when the bill is expected to receive royal assent from the Queen.

But if independence is the issue, so it is “locally.”

But the prospect of an imminent start to Brexit was enough to push the nationalist devolved government in Scotland into calling for a new independence referendum.

For those ignorant of geography or history, let’s not forget that England is on an island, and so is Ireland. Scotland exists on the northern portion of the island. I apologize if I insult the older readers amongst us, but newer readers have no idea what is the United Kingdom.

For his service to country and courage in the face of overwhelming odds, Nigel Farage should be knighted.

Steve Hilton, former Senior Advisor to David Cameron, proposed a series of questions to be considered for roughly every bill or movement in any government:

  • Should the federal government be involved in this at all?
  • Is it a function of government and is it really necessary?
  • Should we be doing this at the federal level?
  • Power and accountability should be placed in the hands of persons in local communities in terms of decision-making, not larger government

Additionally, I would — as the Bloviating Zeppelin for the US — add these critical questions and qualifiers:

  • Is it Constitutional?
  • Is it fiscally prudent?
  • How will it be funded?
  • Does it add to the deficit?
  • Does it reduce or enhance freedoms?
  • Does it enhance or diminish US sovereignty and power?

I can guarantee you this: the instigation for Brexit revolves around the perceived and actual loss of control forced upon the EU client states by Brussels and, to an equal or greater degree, by Angela Merkel’s insistence that the EU be overwhelmed by Muslims who have no intention of assimilation whatsoever.

  • Borders
  • Language
  • Culture

You couldn’t see this coming, could you, elitists?

No. Because they couldn’t understand that, after a period of time, the proles, the serfs, the groundlings, the commoners — they sometimes come to their senses.

When they do, they are not pleased.

BZ

 

 Share