HARRY REID – A CRIMINAL BY NO OTHER NAME – A VAIN ATTEMPT TO TAKE DOWN THE FREELY ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

To protect Hillary “lock her up” Clinton in the run for the White House FAKE information given to pugnacious Senator, “Harry Black Eye” Reid was the meal ticket utilized to sabotage the Trump run for the Presidency of the United States.  JOHN BRENNAN! Yes Brennan, under the head of the CIA under Obama told Reid not to release it, but did he?

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) sends a letter to then-FBI Director Comey voicing concern over Russian interference in the election and asking Comey to open an FBI investigation.

 – The Washington Times – Saturday, May 12, 2018

Then-Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid released a letter in the heat of the 2016 election alleging Trump-Russia collusion even though the CIA director at the time urged him not to, according to a person familiar with their conversation.

Mr. Reid’s Aug. 27 letter to the FBI appears to mark the first time a Democrat officially accused President’ Trump’s campaign of colluding with the Russian government to hack his party’s computers.

The letter has come to represent for conservatives the “deep state” — Obama loyalists leaking unproven allegations to the press against Mr. Trump and his people to ruin the campaign, the transition and the White House.

“The evidence of a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign continues to mount,” Mr. Reid wrote to FBI Director James B. Comey.

Mr. Reid wrote and leaked his letter after receiving a secret telephone briefing from then-CIA Director John Brennan.

The retired senator has portrayed the letter as having the blessing of Mr. Brennan, a fierce Trump critic who suggests the president is beholden to Russian President Vladimir Putin for fear of blackmail.

But now the Brennan side rebuts Mr. Reid’s contention that the then-CIA director was actively trying to leak damaging anti-Trump information during the election.

Nick Shapiro, former deputy chief of staff for Mr. Brennan as CIA director, told The Washington Times that his ex-boss considered the information sensitive. He expressly urged Mr. Reid to confine the information to private discussions with Mr. Comey.

That August, Mr. Brennan was briefing the so called “gang of eight” congressional leaders on Russian computer hacking and on suspicious that Trump people were involved.

Mr. Shapiro, now a Brennan adviser, provided this version of the Brennan-Reid phone call:

“Brennan used the same exact notes to brief Reid as he used with the other members of the Gang of Eight. In fact, most of the conversation was spent with Senator Reid telling Brennan what he had heard about Russians and the Trump campaign. Senator Reid informed Brennan that he was in the process of drafting a letter to Comey about his concerns. When Senator Reid asked Brennan whether he could reference this information in the letter to Comey, Brennan said ‘no,’ as the intelligence was being tightly controlled and he was worried that the letter would get out into the public. Brennan told him that Comey had been fully briefed on the intelligence and if he wanted to, it would be better to talk to him about it in a secure manner when he returned to D.C. instead of putting it in a letter.”

Mr. Reid, Nevada Democrat, wrote the letter anyway. And it was leaked to The New York Times and then migrated throughout the mainstream media.

It contained references to a Trump aide traveling to Moscow and allegedly meeting with two sanctioned Kremlin figures — an allegation contained in the Democratic Party-financed dossier written by ex-British spy Christopher Steele. The unnamed person is Carter Page, who has denied under oath he ever met the two people named by Mr. Steele.

The dossier at that point had not been published. The FBI possessed copies and had opened a counter-intelligence investigation into Russia meddling the previous month.

Mr. Reid’s version of his phone call from Mr. Brennan is contained in the best-selling book, “Russian Roulette,” which embraces the Trump-Russia conspiracy and promotes the Steele dossier.

The book says:

“Reid also had the impression that Brennan had an ulterior motive,” the authors said. “He concluded the CIA chief believed the public needed to know about the Russian operation, including the information about the possible links to the Trump campaign. When Reid later was asked if Brennan directly or indirectly had enlisted him to push information held by the intelligence community into the public realm, he told an interviewer, ‘Why do you think he called me?’

Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Brennan’s adviser, said that specific book excerpt is inaccurate. He also told The Times that rather than trying to sell Trump-Russia collusion during the campaign, the Obama White House and Mr. Brennan stayed silent.

The Washington Times submitted questions to Mr. Reid’s associates at a public policy institute in Nevada where he serves as co-chairman. The queries went unanswered.

Mr. Reid did not stop his drumbeat on Trump-Russia. After Mr. Steele leaked his dossier narrative to selected reporters in Washington, Yahoo News, whose Michael Isikoff co-authored “Russian Roulette,” wrote a story.

But The New York Times dampened the narrative with an Oct. 31 story headlined, “Investigating Donald Trump, FBISees No Clear Link to Russia.”

Mr. Reid was furious

Adam Jentleson, his deputy chief of staff, tweeted, “I’ll say it: NYT interviewed Reid for this story. He said things contrary to the story. NYT discarded the interview.”

“Maybe some want to know why the NYT seemed to cover for Comey’s FBI? Maybe even some at the NYT? Maybe not? I’m just asking questions,” Jentleson said. The New York Times would go on to become one of journalism’s chief proponents of Trump-Russia collusion.

The Washington Times has examined Mr. Steele’s series of collusion charges and found that none has been confirmed independently and publicly at this point. Special counsel Robert Mueller continues to investigate.

However, the FBI’s investigation remained a secret during the campaign. Despite public pressure, including public letters from then-Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid on August 29 and October 30, 2016, the latter claiming that the FBI was concealing “explosive information about close ties and coordination between Trump and his top advisers, and the Russian government,” the FBI did not disclose its investigation until after the election. In fact, on October 31, 2016, The New York Times reported that FBI officials had not found evidence demonstrating links between the Trump campaign and Russian officials.
David Kris is a founder of Culper Partners LLC. He previously served as assistant attorney general for national security, associate deputy attorney general, trial attorney at the Department of Justice, general counsel at Intellectual Ventures, and deputy general counsel and chief ethics and compliance officer at Time Warner. He is the author or co-author of several works on national security, including the treatise National Security Investigations and Prosecutions, and has taught at Georgetown University and the University of Washington.

The Carter Page FISAs are out via the Freedom of Information Act. Here are a few observations, relatively brief but still just a bit too long for Twitter.

First, a huge amount of information is redacted in these FISA applications, but they still represent a monumental disclosure to the public. The government considers FISA applications to be very sensitive—and their disclosure, even heavily redacted, may have long-term, programmatic consequences long after we’re finished with President Trump. The government seems to have accepted that FOIA applies to FISA. Without taking a position on the issue it made me recall this Lawfare post that argues to the contrary.

Second, for those who don’t remember, the controversy about these FISA applications first arose in February when House intelligence committee Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes released a memo claiming that the FBI misled the FISA Court about Christopher Steele, the former British secret agent who compiled the “dossier” on Trump-Russia ties and who was a source of information in the FISA applications on Page. The main complaint in the Nunes memo was that FBI whitewashed Steele—that the FISA applications did not “disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior and FBI officials.”

In response to the Nunes memo, the Democrats on the committee released their own memo. That memo quoted from parts of the FISA applications, including a footnote in which the FBI explained that Steele was hired to “conduct research regarding Candidate #1,” Donald Trump, and Trump’s “ties to Russia,” and that the man who hired him was “likely looking for information that could be used to discredit [Trump’s] campaign.”

Based on this back and forth between the HPSCI partisans, I wrote on Lawfare at the time that the FBI’s disclosures on Steele “amply satisfie[d] the requirements” for FISA applications, and that the central irony of the Nunes memo was that it “tried to deceive the American people in precisely the same way that it falsely accused the FBI of deceiving the FISA Court.” The Nunes memo accused the FBI of dishonesty in failing to disclose information about Steele, but in fact the Nunes memo itself was dishonest in failing to disclose what the FBI disclosed. I said then, and I still believe, that the “Nunes memo was dishonest. And if it is allowed to stand, we risk significant collateral damage to essential elements of our democracy.”

Now we have some additional information in the form of the redacted FISA applications themselves, and the Nunes memo looks even worse. In my earlier post, I observed that the FBI’s disclosures about Steele were contained in a footnote, but argued that this did not detract from their sufficiency: “As someone who has read and approved many FISA applications and dealt extensively with the FISA Court, I will anticipate and reject a claim that the disclosure was somehow insufficient because it appeared in a footnote; in my experience, the court reads the footnotes.” Now we can see that the footnote disclosing Steele’s possible bias takes up more than a full page in the applications, so there is literally no way the FISA Court could have missed it. The FBI gave the court enough information to evaluate Steele’s credibility.

There’s also more detail on the previous disclosure from the House intelligence committee Democrats’ memo on how Steele went to the press with the “dossier” when FBI Director James Comey sent his October 2016 letter to Congress disclosing the possible newfound importance of the Weiner laptop in the Clinton investigation. According to the FISA applications, Steele complained that Comey’s action could influence the election. But when Steele went to the press, it caused FBI to close him out as an informant—facts which are disclosed and cross-referenced in the footnote in bold text.

While I am sure people will try, my initial impression is that with all the redactions it is going to be very tough to figure out the full scope of information supporting the Court’s repeated finding of probable cause to believe that Carter Page was an agent of Russia. There is a mention of two Russians, one of whom pleaded guilty to being an unregistered agent of a foreign government and was sentenced to 30 months, but even that is disconnected from the redacted discussion that precedes it. Substantively, the government seems to have hewed as closely to the prior disclosures as it could in applying FOIA.

But it is worth noting that—and as the Democrats previously pointed out—the judges who signed off on these four FISA applications were all appointed by Republican presidents, including one George H.W. Bush appointee (Anne Conway), two George W. Bush appointees (Rosemary Collyer and Michael Mosman) and one Reagan appointee (Raymond Dearie). I know some of those judges, and they certainly are not the types to let partisan politics affect their legal judgments.

This illusion to the Republican appointed judges is in fact not telling the whole story because,  the FISA applications did not “disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior and FBI officials.”

TIME TO BRING THE HAMMER DOWN

James Comey and his memoir are tripping the media light fantastic, though what’s defined that trip so far is its lack of news. Mr. Comey explains the many and varied ways that he does not like President Trump. Mr. Comey explains the many and varied ways that he does like himself. Tell us something we don’t know.

People forget that directors of the Federal Bureau of Investigation — by necessity — are among Washington’s most skilled operators, experts in appearing to answer questions even as they provide pablum. Yet the publicity tour rolls on, which means that upcoming interviewers still have an opportunity to do the country — and our profession — a favor. Here are a few basic questions Mr. Comey should be expected to answer:

You admit the Christopher Steele dossier was still “unverified” when the FBI used it as the basis of a surveillance warrant against Carter Page. Please explain. Also explain the decision to withhold from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that the dossier was financed by the Hillary Clinton campaign.

You refer to Mr. Steele as a “credible” source. Does the FBI routinely view as “credible” sources who work for political operatives? Did the FBI do any due diligence on his employer, Fusion GPS? Were you aware it is an opposition-research firm? If not, why not?

Keep reading Kimberley Strassel’s column in the Wall Street Journal.

JAMES COMEY’S CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE

Steve Hilton: Will Comey be held accountable for his behavior? Law enforcement cannot be above the law

 

Here are four specific areas where there are serious grounds to suspect that James Comey broke the law while he was FBI Director:

First, his handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation. Why was no Grand Jury empanelled in this case? Why was no search warrant issued? Why was immunity granted to Clinton aides, which effectively stripped Congress of its power to issue subpoenas to gather evidence from phones and laptops before they were destroyed?

And does all this amount to Obstruction of Justice?

Second, the manner in which James Comey closed the Clinton email investigation. He testified to Congress that he made the decision to clear Hillary Clinton after she was interviewed by the FBI. But FBI documents suggest that it was before. Does this constitute Perjury/Lying to Congress?

Third, Comey has publicly admitted that he gave memos recording his interactions with President Trump to a friend at Columbia Law School with the intention that the contents would be leaked to the media in order to prompt the appointment of a Special Counsel. These were documents created on an FBI computer and which dealt with an ongoing, highly sensitive investigation. Reasonable observers would conclude that these memos were FBI property. So: does leaking them in this unauthorized way mean Comey is guilty of Theft of Government Property or Records?

Finally, the infamous Russia dossier which was used to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign. Two Congressional Committees have already established that the FBI knew the dossier was largely fabricated – indeed James Comey himself described it as “salacious and unverified.” The FBI also knew that it was paid for by the Clinton campaign (as part of the campaign), and that the dossier was compiled by someone with a clearly stated bias against Donald Trump. The FBI knew that they needed the dossier to spy on the Trump campaign, and so relied on it to obtain the FISA warrant anyway.

All of this may be profoundly unethical and disturbing. But the legal question is: do these actions pass the threshold for Abuse of Power, Perjury, Making False and Misleading Statements, and again, Obstruction of Justice?

MUELLER – A CRIMINAL’S CRIMINAL

Gregg Jarrett: Mueller’s allegedly lawless acts have corrupted his probe and demand his removal

Special Counsel Robert Mueller is accused of acting in complete disregard for the law and must be removed.  And so, too, must his entire team.

There is devastating new evidence to suggest that Mueller and his staff of lawyers improperly, if not illegally, obtained tens of thousands of private documents belonging to President-elect Trump’s Presidential Transition Team (PTT).  The material includes emails, laptops and cell phones used by 13 PTT members.

Critically, a “significant volume of privileged material” was taken by Mueller, according to the Trump transition lawyer, and then used by the special counsel team in its investigation. Mueller’s staff apparently admits this egregious violation, which the law strictly forbids.

The Records Are Private

The Presidential Transition Act states that all records of transition operations are private and confidential.

On November 16, 2016, roughly ten days after Trump was elected president, the Chief Records Officer of the U.S. Government sent a letter to all federal agencies reminding them that “the materials that PTT members create or receive are not Federal or Presidential records, but are considered private materials.”

Yet Mueller seems to have ignored the law.  Without a warrant or subpoena, his team of lawyers brazenly demanded these private records from the General Services Administration (GSA) which held custody of the materials.  The GSA does this as a service to all incoming presidents out of courtesy, but it neither owns the documents nor is authorized to release them to anyone under any circumstances because they are deemed entirely private.

If true, Mueller’s conduct is not only unethical and improper, it constitutes lawlessness. On this basis, he must be removed and replaced.

Counsel for the Trump Transition Team has sent a letter to Congress alleging the Fourth Amendment was violated in “failing to obtain a warrant for the search or seizure of private property in which the owner has a reasonable expectation of privacy (Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 489).”

Mueller might contest the claim of an unlawful seizure because the GSA willingly handed over the documents, but this disregards the fact that the GSA broke the law and Mueller surely knew it when he pressured the agency to do so.

Privileged Material

The most serious charge against Mueller is that he obtained, reviewed and used material that is privileged.

For months, Mueller allegedly failed to disclose to the transition team that he acquired these privileged documents.  Under the law, he and his lawyers are not entitled to possess or read any of them.  Even worse, the transition team says it warned the special counsel six months ago that it had no right to access the records without gaining permission from the PTT.

Courts have clearly stated what prosecutors are supposed to do under these circumstances: “An attorney who receives privileged documents has an ethical duty to cease review of the documents, notify the privilege holder, and return the documents.”  (U.S. v. Taylor 764 Fed Sup 2nd, 230, 235)

Did Mueller do this?  Apparently not.  He never notified PTT when his staff of lawyers encountered the privileged documents and he compounded his violation of the law by possessing and accessing them for months.

Only the owner of such materials can waive the privileged that protects them.  Since the GSA does not, under the law, own the records, only the transition team can make such a waiver.  It did not.

Hence, if any illegally obtained documents have been used in the Trump-Russia case, then the results are tainted and invalid.  This is a well-established principle of law.

Mueller Must Be Removed

The use by Mueller of even one privileged document can, and must, result in his disqualification from the case.

The case of Finn v. Schiller, 72 F.3rd 1182, 1189 spells out the required remedy for this violation of the law: “Courts have frequently used their supervisory authority to disqualify prosecutors for obtaining materials protected by the attorney-client privilege.” 

Statutory law also demands Mueller’s removal.  Pursuant to 5 C.F.R. 2635.501, government employees, including prosecutors, are directed to “take appropriate steps to avoid an appearance of loss of impartiality in the performance of his or her official duties.”  

The lawyer for the Trump transition team states that the special counsel’s office admitted in a telephone conversation on Friday that it failed to use an “ethical wall” or “taint team” to segregate any privileged records.  This is often done to keep them isolated from lawyers and investigators involved in the case.

Yet, Mueller did not adopt such precautionary measures.  Instead, he apparently allowed his team to utilize the documents while questioning witnesses in the Trump-Russia case.

If true, Mueller’s conduct is not only unethical and improper, it constitutes lawlessness.  On this basis, he must be removed and replaced.

Given the insular nature of the special counsel operation, it is reasonable to conclude that all the lawyers and investigators likely accessed the privileged documents.  Therefore, not just Mueller, but his entire team must be dismissed.  This would include Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein who oversees the case.

Either Congress should take aggressive action or the Presidential Transition Team (now Trump for America, Inc.) must petition a federal judge to order their removal.

The integrity of the special counsel probe has been deeply compromised by numerous allegations of corrupt acts.  In its current composition, it seems beyond repair.

Gregg Jarrett joined FOX News Channel (FNC) in 2002 and is based in New York. He currently serves as legal analyst and offers commentary across both FNC and FOX Business Network (FBN).

‘F TRUMP’: Texts between ex-Mueller team members emerge, calling Trump ‘loathsome human,’ ‘an idiot’

 

NO WAY!” Page answered, adding “God, it’s just a two-bit organization. I do so hope his disorganization comes to bite him hard in November.”

On Aug. 6, Page texted Strzok a New York Times article about Muslim lawyer Khzir Khan, who became embroiled in a war of words with Trump after Khan spoke at the Democratic National Convention.

“Jesus. You should read this. And Trump should go f himself,” Page wrote in a message attached to the article.

“God that’s a great article,” Strzok answered. “Thanks for sharing. And F TRUMP.”

THE POLITICALIZATION OF THE FBI – AN INSIDE JOB

The initiated comprehend the ramifications of a special prosecutor due to the politicalization of the Deep State; including the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The pass given to Hillary (LOCK HER UP) Clinton was the icing on the cake. Caught in lie after lie she still has not been brought to justice. And the same goes for Loretta Lynch, breaking bread in a collusive tarmac meeting with Slick Willie. Of course this was planned in advance, no coincidence on this one.

And James Comey, what needs to be said about him; a political hack who lacked the independence we would expect from the Bureau. Again we must emphasize the DEEP STATE is filled with Democrat lackeys who do the bidding for the progressive-liberals who appointed them.

But the icing on the cake is the revelation of a department employee who messaged anti-Trump remarks to a colleague. Two senior Justice Department officials have confirmed to Fox News that the department’s Office of Inspector General is reviewing the role played in the Hillary Clinton email investigation by Peter Strzok, a former deputy director for counterintelligence at the FBI who was removed from the staff of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III earlier this year, after (CLICK-IMPORTANT READ)Mueller learned that Strzok had exchanged anti-Trump texts with a colleague.

The swamp is deeper than anyone every envisioned; it is a quagmire of political appointees knee deep in corruption and cloak and dagger.

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST OF THE CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION AKA FBI

President Trump suggested Sunday that news reports about an FBI agent on the agency’s Hillary Clinton email investigation who also opposed Trump explains why the Clinton case was closed without criminal charges.

“Report: ‘ANTI-TRUMP FBI AGENT LED CLINTON EMAIL PROBE’ Now it all starts to make sense!” Trump said in one of three tweets Sunday on the issue.

The office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller confirmed with Fox News on Saturday that agent Peter Strzok had been removed from Mueller’s investigation into Russia collusion after the Justice Department’s inspector general started examining Strzok’s electronic messages with a colleague, which reportedly included ones that were anti-Trump and pro-Hillary Clinton.

THE WARDEN AND JAILER

Mr X, a cold blooded killer, alleged to have ordered buttons pushed on fellow gangsters, civilians and lawmen alike. This Capo di tutti Capi Big built a deadly organization that reached all levels and back allies of society. Governors, mayors and police were at his beck and call.  Down through the years his organization cloaked society with a web of threats and blood, lead and brass. But an undercover sleuth was elected to drain the swamp. His charge – to eliminate the scum that has permeated American life for fifty years. This was not to be an easy task because the innocent may go down with the guilty. However, a free and democratic society lies in the balance.

Gangster wars are no longer front page news, like Blacks killing Blacks in Chicago, the media got sick and tired of covering what was now old news. So who cares how many died today? In war zones killing became as ubiquitous as suicide bombers. Blood filled streets didn’t sell like the old days; new stories were mined to attract today’s audiences. But the past still lingered. The new sheriff in town was ready to accept the challenges. Of course he met resistance from the criminals who saturated the land. Being an outsider did not sit well with the local populous, he had a tough road ahead, many saw him as the enemy, he was to challenge the status quo; his objective was to find out the truth, he would call a spade a spade. This was the United States where legal terms were parsed by hired guns, the rich and powerful never seem to face the music.

Not only was the Deep State out to sabotage our hired gun, but the fourth estate took and active role too with biased reporting and false news. Image result

The hierarchy of past was on the warpath, with the help of judges, regulations and media outlets and the corrupt bureaucracy they began to unload their shotguns in the hope that one shot will take him down. Calls for impeachment reached a crescendo and from none other than those with brains the size of peas. Locked and loaded from the beginning he is facing his adversaries massive firepower,

His posse is on the trail of a ruthless individual who was threatened at gunpoint. Documents will reveal the truth that her ovaries were pulverized by Mr. Big, she lied down like a cheap whore; was it to be life or death? – in the end it was life. Mr. Big has silenced another threat continuing down the teflon paved road.  The way was now clear, no more obstacles were in the way, so he thought. In the end it was not to be. A egomaniac couldn’t hold his mouth, a speed bump, a roadblock put an end to the dream.

However, all is not lost. The force be with us now.  Ankle chains and wrist bracelets wait to be locked, keys to be thrown away. Americans who seek truth and justice wait for the guilty one to tell all,  to face the crime she committed.

They are coming for you Loretta Lynch, you will talk. Waterboarding or not. Lock her up.

 

HEY LORETTA – PRIME TIME AWAITS

Ex Attorney General Loretta Lynch is now the focus of an investigation culminating in her affair with Slick Willie.  “The MATTER” rather than the investigation is at the heart of investigation. We know what happened behind closed aircraft doors. President Clinton put it to Lynch. Slick Willie is the author of the new Webster dictionary; depends on what the definition of what “is is“. So Lynch was given an ultimatum to do what must be done to help Hillary’s run for the White House. In the meantime Hillary was able to tell America that she was not under investigation.

Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch should testify before the Senate, top Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said Sunday, in the wake of fired FBI Director James Comey calling into question her handling of the Hillary Clinton email probe.

“I want to hear from Loretta Lynch,” Graham said.

The call follows Comey’s claim during a Senate committee hearing that Lynch once directed him to describe the email probe as a “matter” and not an “investigation” — an alleged intervention Comey said made him “queasy.” He also said that directive, combined with Lynch’s unusual Arizona tarmac meeting with former President Bill Clinton, led him to make his independent announcement regarding the Clinton email probe last July.

Asked Sunday on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” whether he wants Lynch to appear before the judiciary committee on which he sits, Graham, R-S.C., said: “Absolutely.”

Several GOP lawmakers have shown interest in learning more about Lynch’s actions following Comey’s testimony.

Lynch and former President Clinton met on a tarmac in Phoenix, Ariz., on June 27, 2016, which immediately raised questions about whether she — or the Justice Department — could be impartial in the Hillary Clinton email investigation. Days later, Comey called Hillary Clinton’s actions “extremely careless” but declined to recommend charges.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union” that she would have had a “queasy feeling, too.” She said lawmakers need to know more about that, and the judiciary committee should “take a look” at it.

THE JAMES COMEDY HOUR

Fortunately for us Trump gave him the bounce. For Pete’s sake, this guy is every which way but loose. Does he know what his job (ex job) was. For some reason he is conflicted. He is in need of some truth serum. By the looks of it John McCain has trumped them all. Click here for McCain’s questioning of Comedy; time to go Senator, join Hillary in the Alzheimer’s ward. 

This was Mr. FBI beeping his horn, dancing to the music, parsing out words slower than molasses on a cold day. A political liberal hack who could not find the intestinal fortitude to do what was right – drop dead. Now that the Comedy hour is over we can get back to business. But as Yogi said it ain’t over till its over.

That’s right – the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigations admits to being the leaker-in-chief – taking it upon himself to do what others are being prosecuted for – leaking information in order to damage the President and the Trump Administration.  It was revenge – pure and simple.

 

TELL US LORETTA WAS IT A 9MM OR 45 SPECIAL

 

Comey ordered to cover up the Hillary scandal by calling it a matter rather than investigation. So Clinton, while on the campaign trail says “I am not under investigation.” Time to bring Lynch in. Jail the bird. 

Comey usurped the decision that rested in the attorney general’s hands. He was not the one to make the call, only the recommendation. His job was to investigate, then determine what if any laws were broken. Lynch was the one to make the decision to prosecute; she turned out to be a political lackey after the visit from Slick Willie.

What happened behind close doors? Did ex-POTUS point a gun at her head making a deal she couldn’t refuse? Why not bring Lynch in front of the House Intelligence Committee? The public wants answers. Why? Because the libtards are going whole hog on investigating Trump; pure retribution!

The old saying, “people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones applies here.” Democrats don’t understand who is in charge here. Comey is out and Trump is in.  Democrats working in the Obama administration have been subpoenaed. Suddenly the shoe is on the other foot. We shall see if these alleged criminals go Yellow Pants. For sure they will circle the wagons, but as always, lies are hard to remember, so expect a very combative inquiry.

SLICK WILLIE LAYS DOWN THE LAW TO LORETTA LYNCH

Let’s figure this one. Attorney General Loretta Lynch exchanges spit with Slick Willie aboard a United States jumbo jet parked on the tarmac in Arizona. We know the guy is slick, he didn’t get moniker for being goodie two shoes, but for the life of us we can’t understand Loretta Lynch accommodating the ex-President when in fact the FBI was in the thick of an investigation into Hillary (jail the bird) Clinton. The FBI director Comey, usurps Lynch’s call and declares Hillary careless, but not in violation of any crime. This scenario is not a pipe dream.

When Comey broadcast the news exonerating Clinton, the Democrats gave him a standing ovation. Their crook was off the hook. The campaign now can move on toward victory, but wait – Comey wasn’t through, he was waiting in the wings with another bombshell. Two weeks before the election a determination was made that the investigation still had legs. Apparently Huma Abedin and her perv husband shared computers. And HRG on several occasions emailed Huma instructions to print out emails. What? Are we to believe that Hillary trusted nobody except Huma. Well apparently so. When the election turned on Hillary, the Democrats smelled blood, Comey’s blood. He went from receiving an Oscar to a persona non-grata; another words the Democrats wanted his head.  

Moving forward to Trump’s swearing in, the liberal press and their acolytes have gone to war; protesting, crashing and burning everything under the sun. It is obvious that these childish antics are due to being on the losing side, something they aren’t use to. Taking candy from a baby will create much anguish, fits and tantrums. With all that being said, the most disturbing thing is the Lynch – Clinton rendezvous.

We didn’t recalling hearing the Democrats calling for a special prosecutor to investigate their love-in? In all of years of government investigations there has never been a situation where the chief law enforcement officer met privately with the husband of the accused. No explanation can explain such a breach. However,  expect the new FBI director teaming up with Attorney General Jeff Sessions to  get to the bottom of Spitgate.Jail the Bird!