sundance:
Knowing that former Campaign Manager Paul Manafort was wiretapped by the Obama Administration via the FBI, James Comey, let’s take another look at Comey’s testimony.
New York Representative Elise Stefanik begins her March 20th, 2017, questioning by asking director Comey what are the typical protocols, broad standards and procedures for notifying the Director of National Intelligence, the White House and senior congressional leadership (aka the intelligence Gang of Eight), when the FBI has opened a counter-intelligence investigation.
The parseltongue response from Comey is a generalized reply (with uncomfortable body language) that notification of counter-intel investigations are discussed with the White House, and other pertinent officials, on a calendar basis, ie. “quarterly”.
With the statement that such counter-intel notifications happen “generally quarterly”, and against the backdrop that Comey stated in July of 2016 a counter-intel investigation began, Stefanik asks:
…”when did you notify the White House, the DNI and congressional leadership”?
Watch an extremely uncomfortable Director James Comey lie by claiming there was no active DNI -which is entirely false- James Clapper was Obama’s DNI.
.
Watch it again.
Watch that first 3:00 minutes again. Ending with:
…”Because of the sensitivity of the matter” ~ James Comey
Director Comey intentionally obfuscates knowledge of the question from Rep Stefanik; using parseltongue verbiage to get himself away from the sunlight within the timeline.
The counter-intel investigation, by his own admission, began in July 2016. Congress was not notified until March 2017. That’s an eight month period – Obviously obfuscating the quarterly claim moments earlier.
From June 2016 through March 2017 the FBI was operating without any congressional oversight over this counter-intelligence activity. Why?
The uncomfortable aspect to this line of inquiry is Comey’s transparent knowledge of the politicized Office of the DNI James Clapper by President Obama. Clapper was used rather extensively by the Obama Administration as an intelligence shield, a firewall or useful idiot, on several occasions. Clapper is now a CNN contributor.
Anyone who followed the Obama White House intel policy outcomes will have a lengthy frame of reference for DNI Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan as the two primary political operatives weaponizing intelligence. Director Brennan admitted investigating, and spying on, the Senate Intelligence Committee as they held oversight responsibility for the CIA itself.
The first and second questions from Stefanik were clear. Comey’s understanding of the questions was clear. However, Comey directly evaded truthful response to the second question. When you watch the video, you can see Comey quickly connecting the dots on where this inquiry was going.
There is only one reasonable explanation for FBI Director James Comey to be launching a counter-intel investigation in July 2016, notifying the White House and Clapper, and keeping it hidden from congressional oversight. Comey was a participant in using the FBI for intelligence gathering for political purposes.
As a direct consequence of this mid-thought-stream Comey obfuscation, it is increasingly clear FBI Director Comey was using his office as a facilitating conduit for the political purposes of the Obama White House.
Keep on with the Russia investigation, Democrats. You just keep digging deeper and deeper.
Knowing that the wiretapping couldn’t have been done without first convincing a judge that there was reasonable suspicion of criminal acts, maybe we should think more about the actual reasons Trump fired him.
Firing Comey was a spectacularly bad move. Because he did it, he won’t be able get away with the same b.s. in Mueller’s case.
@Greg: If Mueller begins charges not Russia election tampering into his investigation, no matter how Wretched Madcow lows the American people will scream for Mueller be discharged.
Comey was fired because he lied to congress, I guess thats no crime.
@Greg:
You mean like they convinced a judge that James Rosen needed to be wiretapped for espionage? Maybe they found a judge that would rule an EO should be blocked because he thought he knew what the issuer of the EO REALLY meant? Cmon, Greg. Wise up. The Obama administration politicized and weaponized the entire justice and intelligence services.
The only thing bad about it is that it wasn’t done on January 20. We now know that Comey made his decision to give Hillary a pass before he even began his investigation. The real crime would have been to have allowed Comey to stay any longer than he did.
@kitt:
Not for liberals. They seem to honor it.
@kitt, #3:
Was that your view when Ken Starr was conducting his wide-ranging investigations of Bill and Hillary Clinton?
Trump’s average approval rating now stands at 39.7 percent. He hasn’t been in positive territory in any national poll for months. His ridiculous performance at the U.N. today isn’t likely to close that gap. Somebody should have explained to him that he wasn’t at a Trump rally. You don’t stand in front of an international body and taunt and ridicule a foreign leader like you’re on an elementary school playground, threaten to totally destroy their nation, and suggest you’re going to unilaterally ditch an internationally supported nuclear treaty that has successfully set back the emergence of another nuclear state that is living up to its side of the agreement, without being viewed as a dangerous buffoon.
@Bill… Deplorable Me, #4:
That’s probably why Steve Bannon recently publicly declared it to have been the worst mistake in modern political history.
Last time I checked, Bannon wasn’t in the habit of speaking from a leftist perspective. I don’t believe he’s recently become a registered democrat, or a left-wing propagandist.
@Greg: I don’t remember voting for Steve Bannon. Do you believe it good, solid investigative procedure to declare someone not guilty before you have conducted the investigation, as Comey did with Hillary?
It is more than apparent that since you support such empty suits (or pant suits) as Obama and Hillary, you have no earthly idea what a leader actually is or does. Trump is trying to make it clear, in clear, unambiguous terms, that if the UN is interested in maintaining world peace, they have to do something besides line their pockets with bribes. The US WILL react to threats and if the UN doesn’t want to see that reaction, THEY had better remove the threat, which is after all their JOB.
Going before the entire world and and citing “hands up, don’t shoot” as proof the US is a racist nation is not leadership. Calling capitalism, the economic system that has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system in history “unfair”, trying to promote more failed socialism and globalism is not leadership. Obama was nothing but the personification of weakness and weakness promotes and invites aggression. Trump makes it clear what will happen in the event of aggression and that promotes peace.
@Greg: Bannon is your new hero, right about everything?
Greg…. take a breath! Try that one nostril breathing.
It was not a mistake he lied to congress, his investigation into espionage charges a complete sham. Laying out the entire case then saying no one would prosecute was priceless. Any first year law student could get a conviction on the evidence that was revealed.
The impeached President lied, any witnesses against the Clintons have real bad luck.
http://thepoliticalinsider.com/another-clinton-associate-found-dead-bill-hillarys-body-count-increases/
Do you mean as opposed to supporting a lying, bombastic, insulting, ego-driven casino owner and reality television host with orange hair wearing clown pants?
I’ve never been particularly fond of Hillary Clinton, but readily voted for her before Donald Trump. Obama I supported with great enthusiasm. Obama is a true statesman, a gifted politician, and a genuinely good man. We won’t see another like him anytime soon. We’ll be lucky to survive Trump without some major disaster. He shouldn’t be in the White House. I don’t trust or believe anything he says, and think his ego and impulsiveness are a clear and present danger.
@Greg:
Thats ok neither was Billy
WP, today, September 20: Manafort offered to give Russian billionaire ‘private briefings’ on 2016 campaign
NYT, today: Mueller Seeks White House Documents Related to Trump’s Actions as President
@Greg:
As opposed to a leader that leads. My criticisms of Obama and Hillary are based on their performance (or lack thereof) while you make silly insults about caricatures and imaginary physical defects. Trump lies? You LIKE lies; you vote for none BUT the biggest of liars. If Trump lies, you should be pleased.
Insulting? Insulting of whom? Our ENEMIES? Kissing our enemies asses is no longer the official foreign policy of the United States of America. After 8 years of projecting weakness all around the world, Trump will HAVE to exert force somewhere because it will have to be PROVEN he is not the weak, folding coward Obama was or the easily bribed money-whore Hillary was. But, Trump is making it as clear as he possibly can what is going to happen if challenged and that is all he can do. Obama made the world a much more dangerous place and Trump has to restore order.
I cannot fathom the thought process that favors a proven incompetent, pathological liar, influence peddling criminal over even someone that presented a lot of variables yet was a proven leader and success. This boggles my mind. For me, it was not the optimal choice, but is was a clear and easy choice; Hillary should NEVER be allowed to handle Presidential power.
We can pray this is the case. Obama was a destructive failure that left dangerous situations all around the world. Statesman? Would a statesmen give radical Islamic Iran everything they want for their nuclear program AND pay them billions of dollars to finance more terrorism? Would a statesman ignore all the warnings and obvious threats to pulling all US troops out of Iraq and give birth to ISIS? Would a statesman lay out the phony “red line” and, so back out, give Russia a free hand in Syria?
Yeah boy… WHAT a statesman. Perhaps you should look the term up; I don’t think you know what it means.
A strong leader doesn’t have to strut around puffing himself up and taunting and insulting his enemies—which is a particularly bad idea when they’re far crazier and more volatile than he is himself. His need to prove something could get a million people killed on the Korean peninsula, and they wouldn’t all be our enemies.
If he ditches the Iranian nuclear treaty—and he’s making noises suggesting he might—we’ll soon have another crisis on our hands. What does Trump not understand about the fact that the Iranians have been complying with the terms of the nuclear agreement? His own administration confirmed that they are, this past April—and then pronounced the agreement a failure. These people are idiots. A failure would have been an Iran with nuclear weapons—which is precisely what we would have had by this point, without the agreement. That would be better? And don’t throw out some bull about how we could have militarily eliminated the threat with surgical airstrikes. We didn’t because we couldn’t. If the chances of success had been high, we would have done so. The most likely outcome would have been all hell breaking loose in the region. That would have been good for the economy.
@Greg:
But that is merely your whiny, sore loser characterization of Trump’s leadership. In reality, he is clearly and unambiguously issuing a warning, not only to N. Korea, but also to the corrupt UN, that the US will act with overwhelming force in the event of a threat but it is the UN’s duty to mitigate the threat.
What agreement? That was Obama’s agreement because he was too afraid of the details being known to ask Congress to make it a treaty.
Iran can easily obtain nuclear weapons from N. Korea and they are NOT supposed to be testing missiles… but they are. Of course the Iranians are complying with the agreement; they dictated it and got everything they wanted. What about this stupidity do you not understand?
We didn’t because Obama wouldn’t. Obama supported Iran before Israel. There was certainly a time it could have been done, but not only would Obama not do it but he prevented Israel from carrying it out themselves.
Kick the can down the road. Kick the can further down the road and leave office. Obama the failure. Obama the coward.
There’s a formal agreement that was accepted by Iran, all five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, Germany, and the European Union. The provisions are clearly spelled out. The document with all of it’s provisions is available for public examination.
The republican-controlled House had no constructive input, owing to their unbridled hostility toward the Obama administration. They actually haven’t had much useful input regarding anything for years. They couldn’t even take the political risk of authorizing the President to use of military force against ISIS, which should have been a no-brainer.
Now they can’t seem to get their ducks in a row to accomplish the one single thing they were supposedly most fired up to do—even with a republican president in the White House.
The right accused Obama of an unacceptable expansion of Executive power, with regard to this and other matters. That would be the same right that now whines and accuses Obama of indecisiveness, a lack of leadership, and weakness. They’re need to get their story straight. Maybe they can work on that after the people they keep electing repeal Obamacare and sort out the chaos that follows, do something constructive about immigration, pass their tax reform bill, and get that wall built that Mexico is going to pay for.
Hopefully we’ll see some speedy bipartisan action regarding Puerto Rico—a totally devastated American island that’s home to 3.4 million of our fellow citizens.
@Greg:
Well, that’s a cryin’ shame, ain’t it? Because, as I said, that means this Iran deal, the worst agreement made by the worst President in history, is NOTHING. It is another EO; a personal edict by Obama. Since he did not follow Constitutional rules, this deal is easily discarded… as it should be.
Obama knew he would never get Americans to sign off on that terrible deal and that Congress would see it for what it truly is; a give-up for a headline at the expense of Israel… and the world. Obama was dishonest with Congress, keeping the numerous secret side deals from them, knowing there would be patriotic outrage at such surrender. So, it’s not a treaty… it’s garbage.
It is true that Obama was weak and indecisive. Afghanistan and McChrystal is evidence of that. Even the decision to move on bin Laden shows a fear of making a decision that might harm HIM politically. Yet, because his policies were so bad and unacceptable to so many, he had to rely on EO’s to enact them, which leaves them all vulnerable to easy reversal (thank God). Obama should NEVER have gotten involved in Syria, but when he declared his “red line”, he needed to act in order to preserve US resolve. Instead, he allowed Russia, who had his weak-ass number, to totally out-maneuver him and gain a strong foothold in the region. Pulling out of Iraq showed weakness… and stupidity. His Iran deal was the coup de grace to US resolve, showing how weak and naive he and the botox-addict Kerry (have you seen THAT Muppet lately?) are and how easily duped they are when they are desperate for some favorable headlines. Just imagine someone else making a deal with the duplicitous Iranians that no one but THEMSELVES are allowed to inspect their facilities for violations of the agreement!! Who but a moron would consider such a deal? No wonder that was kept secret! Perhaps they were finally embarrassed by their girlish weakness. Logic fails to explain it.
Either they were morons or they intentionally enabled Iran to gain nuclear weapons while continuing missile delivery research in full disregard of Israel’s security. Those are your options; take your pick.
One thing you can rely on; that even if Trump donates ANOTHER million of his own dollars to help Puerto Ricans, you leftist crybabies will bitch about it and criticize his every move and motive. Don’t worry; you have a leader in the White House that does not politicize every tragedy.
@Bill… Deplorable Me, #16:
Yeah, I’m sure republicans can ditch it and replace it with a more constructive policy, just as easily as they’ve repealed Obamacare and replaced it with something better. They’ve got control of the House, the Senate, and the White House, but they continue to cr-p in their own hats, while blaming it all on the media, on Obama, on the Clintons, on democrats in general, on assorted celebrities, on undocumented aliens, anti-fascists, the liberal education system, scientific conspiracies, or whatever they can get people worked up about.
The agreement with Iran was a big win. The fact that it’s not a formal, legally binding treaty as defined by U.S. Constitutional law and process isn’t the point. The fact that it has effectively put Iran’s former crash program to develop nuclear weapons on hold is the point. That’s one particular tin can that we should kick farther down the road at every possible opportunity—unless, of course, we want to go for something spectacularly stupid, which is always an option, and one that we’ve availed ourselves of in the past. Perhaps we should save that for North Korea.
Entering into the Iran nuclear accord was an entirely legal Chief Executive action that actually got a couple of unquestionably positive results: an Iran that continues to be without nuclear warheads, and the blocking of their two quickest paths to having them. They exported much of their low-enriched stockpiles of uranium abroad, and destroyed the core of their single reactor capable of producing plutonium—both of which have been verified by international inspection. Some people don’t want to acknowledge the significance of those actions.
And what did Congress contribute in the way of constructive alternatives? Nothing, as usual. They thumped their chests, pointed their fingers, and pitched for their reelection—but did nothing. Much as now.
@Greg:
Well, you have to realize that Obamacare is a terrific disaster and a huge mess left in the laps of Republicans. Fixing the mess left by Obama is neither easy nor quick.
Oh, well perhaps Obama should have ASKED them to assist. Of course, then he would have to reveal all the secret, stupid side deals, like no one but Iran (who is totally trustworthy) is allowed to check to see if they are violating the accord. But, Obama didn’t, did he? He didn’t because he KNEW the deal would be laughed off of capital hill.
And who else do we have to trust that the details of the deal are being carried out? Why, THE RUSSIANS!! Now, would this be the same Russians that you whiny leftists INSIST colluded with Trump to turn the 2016 election away from deserving Hillary or is there another Russia that I missed? Are the Russians trustworthy enough to count on to keep all that fissile material out of extremist Islamic lunatics’ hands or what?
The deal stinks, Greg, and endangers the entire world, but mostly Israel.
Inspections have been conducted by the International Atomic Energy Agency, not by the Russians.
Do you think Israel would be safer if Iran already had nuclear weapons? I think they’re probably safer because Iran doesn’t. How safe does Iran feel, with respect to Israel? Or with respect to our good buddies, the wahabist Saudis?
@Greg: Dang Greg. Cmon. I thought you knew the details of this stinking pile of negotiation. Russia was to take Iran’s bomb stuff. Remember? Did they? Let’s ask them. While you are at it, ask them if they hacked the DNC and altered the election. Let me know which answers you liked.
Uh, NOT inside the nuclear facilities. Only Iranians are allowed to inspect in there. Remember?
There would be no program if Obama had allowed Israel to defend herself. Yes, without this deal, Israel would be safer.
It keeps slipping my mind that some people believe every meme and bogus detail bouncing around inside the right-wing echo box.
@Greg: It does? But that is what you base your entire belief system on.