Submit your comments on this article |
-Lurid Crime Tales- |
The Unbelievable James Comey |
2018-12-11 |
[WSJ] The former FBI director professes to know little about how the government came to spy on the political opposition. Can the story former FBI Director James Comey told Congress on Friday possibly be true? In a joint executive session of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees, Mr. Comey presented himself as unaware and incurious regarding one of the most consequential investigations the FBI has ever conducted. After describing how little he knew about the federal government’s use of its surveillance powers against associates of the presidential campaign of the party out of power in 2016, Mr. Comey then assured lawmakers that the launching of the investigation was proper and free of political bias. On Saturday a transcript of the Comey testimony was released by the congressional committees. President Donald Trumptweeted without subtlety on Sunday: On 245 occasions, former FBI Director James Comey told House investigators he didn’t know, didn’t recall, or couldn’t remember things when asked. Opened investigations on 4 Americans (not 2) - didn’t know who signed off and didn’t know Christopher Steele. All lies! This is perhaps an overstatement. But some skepticism is clearly in order on the part of the President and every other American who wants free and fair elections. Lawmakers were interested in finding out who exactly initiated the investigation and when. Here’s a portion of the transcript in which the Obama administration FBI boss was questioned by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R., S.C.): Mr. Gowdy. Do you recall who drafted the FBI’s initiation document for that late July 2016 Russia investigation? This was not just any investigation. On the other hand the FBI is a big place and perhaps the director would not recall which of the staff had worked on a particular document. Under further questioning from Mr. Gowdy, Mr. Comey added that he didn’t remember ever even seeing the document. Again, one might hope that consequential cases going to the heart of our democratic process would be closely supervised by the most senior officials, but any case generates some volume of documents and an FBI director may be able to learn enough from staff briefings to make sensible decisions. The next part of the transcript is harder to swallow: Mr. Gowdy. How does the FBI launch counterintelligence investigations? What documents are required? Saying that he’s never dealt with the investigation of a political party may seem like a falsehood but Mr. Comey argues that his bureau was not investigating the 2016 Trump campaign as a whole but particular people associated with it. This must be reassuring for Americans to know that the next time they are surveilled while engaging in political activity, perhaps not all of their friends and colleagues will be subjected to such treatment. However Mr. Comey chooses to characterize the cases he was supposed to be overseeing, he is now saying that neither at that time nor in the more than two years since did he ever know or bother to find out how investigations of political campaigns begin or who authorizes them. Wouldn’t even a passionate anti-Trumper‐which Mr. Comey is‐be at least curious how the machinery operates when his own subordinates take the extraordinary step of investigating the party out of power? At least according to his Friday testimony, Mr. Comey did not become any more interested in details once the FBI surveillance machinery was grinding its way toward a series of wiretaps. By now many Americans have understandably grown weary of the various Russian collusion claims. But in the summer and fall of 2016 the FBI was supposedly trying to determine if a hostile foreign power had compromised a leading candidate for President. This is the stuff of spy novels. But even the real former spy peddling bizarre claims that would assist the Obama administration’s pursuit of those wiretaps didn’t arouse much curiosity or suspicion in the FBI chief, according to Mr. Comey’s Friday testimony. In this portion of the transcript it appears that to this day Mr. Comey doesn’t much care whether the bureau’s source was indirectly paid by the Democratic National Committee to generate dirt on Mr. Trump: Mr. Gowdy. Who is Christopher Steele? How would he know, if the rest of his testimony is accurate? |
Posted by:Besoeker |
#6 Best headline of the day! |
Posted by: Anomalous Sources 2018-12-11 21:53 |
#5 Instead, they should be asking him questions about whether or not things that might have allegedly happened would be good or bad. He should be able to answer those since they are just supposition, not accusations. And then we can hang him with the answers later when the facts are revealed. |
Posted by: gorb 2018-12-11 21:11 |
#4 The guy is a sociopath and serial liar much like HRC. |
Posted by: JohnQC 2018-12-11 18:33 |
#3 It's been working for him, hasn't it? When a criminal keeps committing crimes in open defiance of law enforcement, there's comes a point when you have to scrutinize the "good guys", not just the criminal. |
Posted by: charger 2018-12-11 17:32 |
#2 what a lying sack of shit. |
Posted by: Glolush Whusotch4899 2018-12-11 17:23 |
#1 How would he know, if the rest of his testimony is accurate? Silly WSJ! Because it now appears as though such an action might be perceived to be less than salutatory, in the eyes of some. Therefore, IOTTMCO*, my agency could not have engaged in such activity. * IOTTMCO - From high-school geometry. Intuitively Obvious To The Most Casual Observer. |
Posted by: Bobby 2018-12-11 10:48 |