President Vladimir Putin has been asked to comment on the recent firing of the FBI director James Comey. Putin was surprised with the question at an ice rink in Sochi, being asked if the axing of the head of the FBI would affect bilateral relations between Moscow and Washington.

CBS News correspondent Elizabeth Palmer asked the Russian leader the question shortly before he took to the ice for an amateur hockey game in the Russian Olympic city of Sochi on Wednesday.

Putin reacts to Comey firing: "We have nothing to do with that" https://t.co/bq0sLcCAzY

"It will not affect [Russia-US bilateral relations] in any way," Putin said, with his spokesman Dmitry Peskov translating.

"Don't be angry with me, please, but your question looks silly to me. We have nothing to do with it. President Trump acts within his competence, provided by the constitution and the law," Putin said.

Democrats said worst things about Comey, now they play so sad – Trumphttps://t.co/exgUYb1dgVpic.twitter.com/65QNaGGK9l

Looking quite amused, the Russian leader mused, "what do we have to do" with the firing of a US official.

"You see, I'm going to play hockey with amateurs," he said, stick in hand.

read more:

https://www.rt.com/news/387920-putin-comey-dismissal-hockey/

The label on the boot in the cartoon at top means "Made in Russia"... and the cushion at the back says "DEMOCRACY"...

It appears that US President Donald Trump has launched a thorough housecleaning of the US' power structures, RIA Novosti political analyst Vladimir Ardayev notes in his recent op-ed, referring to the dismissal of FBI Director James Comey, Acting Attorney General Sally Caroline Yates and US Attorney for the Southern District of New York Preet Bharara.

Predictably, Trump's political opponents have perceived Comey's firing as Trump's attempts to cover his tracks amid allegations of Russian interference in the US presidential election.

"They fired Sally Yates. They fired Preet Bharara. And they fired James Comey, the very man leading the investigation. This does not seem to be a coincidence," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumertold CNN. "Any person who he appoints to lead the Russian investigation will be concerned that he or she will meet the same fate as Director Comey."

Moscow has repeatedly denied the allegations as nonsensical, qualifying them as Washington's attempts to distract the US public from revelations regarding pressing domestic concerns.

Before his resignation, Comey had come under heavy bipartisan criticism, Ardayev noted, stressing that in fact, Trump did what his predecessor, Barack Obama, had intended to do.

The Russian journalist recalled that Comey had found himself at the epicenter of a scandal in July 2016 when the FBI officially announced that it had closed the investigation into Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's mishandling of official emails containing classified information.

read more:

https://sputniknews.com/politics/201705111053492585-comey-democrats-repu...

I think this is good progress between the US and Russia, but there will be plenty of individuals in this country who complain about it because it just seems like they are very content to keep the aggravation going, Ron Paul told RT.

The focus of a meeting between Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and US President Donald Trump at the White House on Wednesday was the de-escalation of the Syrian conflict.

Despite the positive overtones, the American media preferred to take a different angle focusing on the alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 US elections and the firing of the FBI chief James Comey.

RT: Sergey Lavrov says President Trump wants productive relations with Moscow after the previous administration soured them. Can they be improved considering the storm over the alleged ties between the Trump team and Russia?

Ron Paul: Absolutely. And I think that has been. What is going on right now is an improvement. I think what is going on in Syria with these de-escalation zones; I think that is good. They are talking to each other. I just don’t understand why sometimes there is an impression that we shouldn’t be having diplomatic conversations … All the tough rhetoric doesn’t do any good. Trump’s statement to me sounded pretty good. I think the whole thing about the elections, putting that aside would be a wise thing because the evidence is not there for any intrusion in our election by the Russians. I think this is good progress, and there will be plenty individuals in this country who complain about it because it just seems like they are very content to keep the aggravation going. Right now, the relationship from my viewpoint has greatly improved. I think that is good.

RT: During the media conference, some journalists again raised the question of possible Russian involvement in US politics. How is it possible for such a great nation to think this way?

RP: If it is a fact, we should hear about it, but we haven’t. And those individuals who are trying to stir up trouble like that, they haven’t come up with any facts. Nobody wants anybody’s elections interfered with. But the facts aren’t there, so why dwell on that? Why use that as an excuse to prevent something that we think is positive and that is better relations with Russia. I think what is happening with this conversation is very beneficial.

Unfortunately, Trump’s opponents have been able to frame the issue in Washington and also we have a compliant media that is playing into the hands of his opposition. He has made a good point that the [allegations of Russian interference] does look like fiction. I am certainly prepared to believe that Russia had some interference in the election. But can we see a single fact? We haven’t seen a single fact of it. The media reports it as if it is true. Trump has a very difficult row to hoe if he wants to improve relations with Russia; he is going to have to take a stand and refute some of these things a lot more vociferously than he has. - Daniel McAdams, executive director at Ron Paul Institute

RT: According to Lavrov, Trump also expressed his support for creating safe zones in Syria. Will this pave the way for co-operation between the two coalitions?

RP: With Assad and Russia working together and getting more security for the country, at the same time the US is now talking with Russia. I think this is good. But just the acceptance of the idea that we should be talking and practicing diplomacy rather than threats and intimidation. There are obviously a lot of problems that we have to work out, but I think in the last week and the last couple of days very positive things have been happening.

Elements of our media have made a big deal about contacts Sergei Kislyak [the Russian ambassador to the US] had with various members of Trump’s transition – and I may add, other politicians, both Democrat and Republican, after all, that is his job as an ambassador to our country to interact with elements of our government... Over here in the US, we talk about the need for fair and balanced coverage. When the reality is in the mainstream press, it is all hard-left, Democrat-favoring Republican-conservative bashing press. - Charles Ortel, political commentator, private investor, writer

RT: The meeting came after the firing of the FBI director James Comey. What do you make of the timing?

RP: I don’t think that firing had anything to do with the so-called investigation. I think it has to do with the credibility of Comey as such, where he was involved too politically in the issues. First, it looked like he was supporting Hillary, then the next time he was supporting Trump, and he should not have been out in front on either one of those issues; that should have been done more privately on these charges made that were unconfirmed. I think this represents poor judgment on Comey’s part and certainly, the president had the authority to fire him. It will be politicized now, and the question will be whether there will be a special prosecutor, but if there are no problems, then a special prosecutor in my estimation is unnecessary.

read all:

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/387974-trump-lavrov-meeting-comey/

It is said that nothing improves a man’s character faster than dying. The same, it seems, is true of being fired. 

At least, that’s what you can deduce from the press reactions to Donald Trump’s firing of FBI director James Comey.

You remember James Comey? Last autumn he was the target of media-hate when he told congress the FBI were re-opening the investigation into Clinton’s email issues. Back thn [sic], in the fall, he was widely blamed, even demonised, among Hillary Clinton’s supporters, for costing her the election and being soft on Trump. Hillary even said so herself.

But now Trump has fired him, And everything is different. 

The Chicago Tribune who, back in October were saying he should be fired, are now saying Trump should be impeached – for firing him.

The Boston Globe, back in October, said Comey should resign, but now he has been fired they claim it’s the “worst abuse of presidential power since Watergate”. (Torture camps and assassinations aren’t abuses of Presidential power…but firing people is. So that’s OK).

CNN also said Comey should resign last October. Now he has been fired? Well, they think its “dangerous and unpredictable”.

Back in the fall the Atlantic said Comey was so incompetent both main parties hated him, but still today, now he’s fired, they call it a “Nixonian moment”

Last November Salon said the FBI was full of “partisan hacks” who were fans of Trump and trying to smear Hillary. Now Comey’s been fired? NIXON REDUX!

(The Nixon comparisons are especially thick on the ground. It was clearly in the dispatched list of talking points).

In November Newsweek thought Comey was “unfit for office”, but now think Trump firing him will call down an “hour of reckoning”. Presumably the kind of reckoning reserved for those who fire people that are unfit for office.

In October the Guardian implied Comey was a criminal, and criticised the FBI for being full of an anti-Clinton atmosphere and even suggesting Clinton would fire him when she won. But now Trump has actually fired him the Graun thinks it’s a breach of America’s “unwritten constitution”(whatever that means). 

If only they displayed that much concern for the actual written constitution.

So – seven months ago we were being told  again, and  again that Obama must fire Comey. Today we are being told by the same people that Trump is a new Nixon – for firing Comey. 

‘Reality’ is just torn up and rewritten on a daily basis. October’s Comey-hate has now been dropped down the Memory Hole.

Read more:

https://off-guardian.org/2017/05/10/comeys-sudden-demise-redeems-him-to-...

While FBI Director James Comey's resignation has seemingly come as a bolt from the blue for Americans on both sides of the political spectrum, it has not caught US investigative journalist and Wall Street analyst Charles Ortel by surprise: it was he who told Sputnik back in March 2017 that "Comey must go."

'Comey Must Go'

So, what are potential motives behind Trump's decision to fire James Comey from his job?

"The Federal Bureau of Investigation is America's premier investigative group — its head serves a 10-year term and holds tremendous power," the Wall Street analyst responded. "There should be no question about the impartiality, honesty, and motives of its leader. Now that President Trump has held office for several months, he has had time to install many key appointed officials, and all of them have begun to learn details concerning matters about which they may have had less familiarity prior to 20 January 2017."

Ortel highlighted that Trump's core campaign slogan read "Draining the Swamp" of bi-partisan, conflicted globalists and their cronies.

"I believe James Comey has a series of conflicts that manifestly have prevented him from uncovering the truth," the investigative journalist told Sputnik.

Did Comey Give a Green Light to Bill Clinton, the Clinton Foundation?  

read more:

https://sputniknews.com/politics/201705111053507433-trump-comey-swamp/

Charles Ortel became a lapsed member of the silent majority in August 2007 when he began alerting the public to dangers posed by structural changes in the global economy. Since then, Mr. Ortel has appeared in the print, radio and television media with increasing frequency. Brass Tacks will attempt to offer nonpartisan perspective on factors contributing to the unresolved, burgeoning crisis and discuss potential solutions. Mr. Ortel graduated from Horace Mann School, Yale College and Harvard Business School. 

Note Charles Ortel works for The Washington Times.  It was founded in 1982 by News World Communications, an international media conglomerate associated with the Unification Church which also owns newspapers in South Korea, Japan, and South America, as well as the news agency United Press International.[7] Bo Hi Pak, the chief aide of church founder and leader Sun Myung Moon, was the founding president and the founding chairman of the board.[8] Moon askedRichard L. Rubenstein, a rabbi and college professor who had written on the Holocaust, to serve on the board of directors.[9] The newspaper's first editor and publisher was James R. Whelan.

At the time of founding of the Times Washington had only one major newspaper, the Washington Post. Massimo Introvigne, in his 2000 book The Unification Church, said that the Post had been "the most anti-Unificationist paper in the United States."[10] In 2002, at an event held to celebrate the Times's 20th anniversary, Moon said: "The Washington Times is responsible to let the American people know about God" and "The Washington Times will become the instrument in spreading the truth about God to the world."[11]

read more:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times

WASHINGTON — The acting director of the F.B.I. contradicted the White House on two major issues on Thursday: the support of rank-and-file agents for the fired F.B.I. chief James B. Comey and the importance of its investigation into Russian election interference.

In a striking repudiation of official White House statements, the acting director, Andrew G. McCabe, said the inquiry was “highly significant” and pledged to the Senate Intelligence Committee that the F.B.I. would resist any attempt to influence or hobble the investigation.

“Simply put,” he said, “you cannot stop the men and women of the F.B.I. from doing the right thing.”

That Mr. McCabe felt compelled to assert the F.B.I.’s independence was itself remarkable, a byproduct of the unusually public effort by Mr. Trump and his aides to take focus off the investigations into Russia’s election meddling. He also said the F.B.I. investigation had the resources it needed, partly disputing an account that Mr. Comey had sought more aid.

Mr. McCabe did not hesitate to make clear where Mr. Comey stood in the eyes of F.B.I. agents and employees.

“Director Comey enjoyed broad support within the F.B.I. and still does,” he said, adding that “the vast majority of F.B.I. employees enjoyed a deep and positive connection to Director Comey.”

A spokeswoman for the president, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, disputed agents’ support for Mr. Comey for a second straight day, saying she had heard from “countless members of the F.B.I. that are grateful and thankful for the president’s decision.”

Pressed by reporters, however, Ms. Sanders acknowledged that she did not “even know that many people in the F.B.I.”

read more:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/us/politics/andrew-mccabe-fbi-chief-russia-trump.html

First, there was no Russian interference in the US presidential elections. Second, when Comey was trying to show that Hillary has fudged a few emails that would have send anyone else in prison, he pulled back. Third, the US media has not understood anything and is still bent on its vendetta on Trump for having trumped their Miss Universe, Hillary Clinton...

A top Republican has said he will seek copies of any memos sacked FBI director James Comey wrote about his meetings with Donald Trump, after claims the United States President ordered an investigation into national security adviser Michael Flynn be shut down.

The New York Times has reported Mr Trump made the request of Mr Comey during a February Oval Office meeting.

The newspaper cited a memo Mr Comey wrote shortly after the conversation.

The newspaper's reports have been backed up by a source familiar with the situation, Associated Press said.

According to the person, who spoke on condition of anonymity, they saw the memo but were not authorised to discuss it.

The memo would be the clearest proof to date that the President has tried to influence the investigation.

The Times said it was part of a paper trail created by Mr Comey, who documented what he saw as Mr Trump's efforts to improperly interfere in the ongoing probe.

The Republican chairman of the House oversight committee, Jason Chaffetz, said he had ordered staffers to draft a letter to Justice Department Officials seeking copies of any memos Mr Comey wrote about his meetings with Mr Trump.

Mr Chaffetz said the memo raised concerns "about improper interference placed on an active investigation".

He said in a tweet that he has his "subpoena pen ready".

Mr Flynn resigned the day before the February 14 Oval Office meeting, after it was revealed he apparently had lied about the nature of his contacts with Russia's ambassador.

The Times said Mr Trump told Mr Comey, "I hope you can let this go".

The White House has denied the report.

Read more in the MMMM:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-17/trump-asked-comey-to-shut-down-fly...

And of course Bill Clinton never asked Comey to drop his investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails... Comey has been "damaged goods" for a while...

Meanwhile Flynn made $45,000 (plus perks --hotel, whatever limo, and services) for speaking to a group of Russians, including journalists... We ALL KNOW THIS. 

But for what we don't know, Flynn could be a CIA operative...

General Michael Flynn has another chance to release subpoenaed documents before possibly being held in contempt of Congress, the Senate Intelligence Committee’s leadership said as two new subpoenas were announced.

Following a closed-door intelligence meeting on Tuesday, Committee Chairman Senator Richard Burr (R-North Carolina) and Vice Chairman Senator Mark Warner (D-Virginia) told reporters the committee has issued new subpoenas to compel President Donald Trump’s former national security advisor to produce documents as they investigate alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election.

read more:

https://www.rt.com/usa/389511-intel-committee-flynn-subpoenas/

I could be wrong but I believe that Flynn is holding out as long as possible to make sure that when the "documentation" is released, the whole thing will deflate like a pricked balloon and blow up harder in the face of those trying to make a link between Russia and hilarious Hillary's defeat... So far no link has been proven and nothing will show that the Russians interfered in the elections. They didn't. 

WASHINGTON — President Trump does not plan to invoke executive privilege to try to prevent James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, from providing potentially damaging testimony to Congress on statements the president made about an investigation into his former national security adviser, two senior administration officials said Friday.

Mr. Trump could still move to block the testimony next week, given his history of changing his mind at the last minute about major decisions. But legal experts have said that Mr. Trump has a weak case to invoke executive privilege because he has publicly addressed his conversations with Mr. Comey, and any such move could carry serious political risks.

One of the administration officials said Friday evening that Mr. Trump wanted Mr. Comey to testify because the president had nothing to hide and wanted Mr. Comey’s statements to be publicly aired. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be identified discussing a decision that had not been announced.

A White House spokesman did not respond to a message seeking comment. Earlier on Friday, the White House press secretary, Sean Spicer, would not say what Mr. Trump planned to do.

“The date for the hearing was just set,” Mr. Spicer said. “I haven’t spoken to counsel yet; I don’t know how they’ll respond.”

read more:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/02/us/politics/trump-comey-russia.html

So far, Comey has NOTHING on the Trump/Russia relationship but all that we already know which does not amount to ANY form of interfering of Russia in the US presidential elections. NOTHING... The right wing evangelicals and Mr Uncle Rupe won the election for El Donaldo...

The June 3, 2016, email sent to Donald Trump Jr. could hardly have been more explicit: One of his father’s former Russian business partners had been contacted by a senior Russian government official and was offering to provide the Trump campaign with dirt on Hillary Clinton.

The documents “would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father,” read the email, written by a trusted intermediary, who added, “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”

read more:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/us/politics/trump-russia-email-clinton.html

-------------

It would have been irresponsible for anyone being given a "lead" that a political party in the USA was using "dark", ""illegal" "secret" funding NOT TO INVESTIGATE. Whether this party was the DNC or any other is irrelevant. At this stage, the whole Donald Junior episode is shown to be steam on windows from an overheated media, rather than a "smoking gun" of corrupt behaviour and of Russian interference with he US Presidential elections. The "Russian lawyer" had nothing. The whole lot was organised by friends of the dog of business associates who would not have a clue about the financing of the DNC...

The emails released from Wikileaks have far more chance of coming from a disaffected Bernie operative at the DNC than from a "Russian" hacker in Macedonia or Sydney woopwoop. The email release from Wikileaks had nothing on "financing" of the DNC but about the way the DNC was treating Sanders and other stupid issues which showed that Hillary had lied and had been careless about some aspect of her actions. The FBI could have prosecuted Hillary on this information but chose not to. So far the media has not released the full extend of these "Hillary emails". Why?

Please can we get on with our stupid little lives? If you want to bring down Trump, forget the Russian interference in the US Presidential elections. THERE WAS NONE. 

By all this I mean that had Comey done his job, we would not have the Donald loony tune president but President Sanders instead...

see toon at top...

Files stolen from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) were likely downloaded to a USB drive by someone with physical access to a computer connected to the DNC network, not hacked remotely by Russia, according to a new analysis.

In an interview with Motherboard in June 2016, the hacker who claimed to be Guccifer 2.0 said he used a zero-day exploit to breach the DNC server and steal files he later published under the title “NGP-VAN.”

The leak was quickly attributed to the Russian government. However, a document published Sunday by an individual known as the Forensicator shows how the 7-zip file published by Guccifer 2.0 was transferred at a speed of 23 MB/s, making it “unlikely that this initial data transfer could have been done remotely over the Internet.”

“The initial copying activity was likely done from a computer system that had direct access to the data,” the report from the Forensicator stated. “By ‘direct access’ we mean that the individual who was collecting the data either had physical access to the computer where the data was stored, or the data was copied over a local high speed network (LAN).”

For his analysis, the Forensicator looked at the data from the 7-zip file which showed the .rar files were built on September 1, 2016, while the other files were last modified on July 5, 2016. When the .rar files are unpacked using a program called WinRAR, their timestamps were preserved from the date they were transferred.

read more:

https://www.rt.com/usa/396056-guccifer-forensicator-hack-dnc/

More likely...

America tried to let Hillary Clinton off the hook. Despite cries of “lock her up” during the campaign, most of the nation had little appetite for prosecuting her after the election, with even Donald Trump willing to give her a free pass.

“I don’t want to hurt the Clintons, I really don’t,” Trump told The New York Times two weeks after his victory. “She went through a lot and suffered greatly in many different ways.”

But the Clinton e-mail scandal, like Clinton herself, won’t go away. It remains a blot on the legacy of the Obama administration, the Justice Department and the FBI, and now comes fresh evidence that the investigation that cleared her was a total sham.

The revelation from the Senate Judiciary Committee that J. Edgar Comey drafted his statement exonerating her about two months before FBI agents interviewed Clinton or 16 other witnesses confirms suspicions that the probe was neither honest nor thorough. When the outcome is decided long before the investigation is over, the result can’t be trusted.

read more:

http://nypost.com/2017/09/02/the-case-for-a-special-counsel-to-investiga...

This article is coming from the Trump loving press but there could be some valid point made... See toon at top...

James Comey was so sure that Hillary Clinton would win the 2016 presidential election that he publicly announced re-opening her email investigation because he feared not doing so could make her appear “illegitimate.”

Comey revealed the thoughts behind his explosive decision to go public with information that the FBI had discovered emails from Clinton on Anthony Weiner’s laptop.

“I believed it was my duty to inform Congress that we were restarting the investigation,” Comey writes about the October 2016 statement. “I would say as little as possible, but the FBI had to speak.”

On Oct. 28, 2016, Comey sent a letter to Congress informing them about the investigation. A decision Clinton believes cost her the presidency.

In retrospect, however, Comey said he might have handled it differently if he knew Clinton could lose.

“It is entirely possible that, because I was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president, my concern about making her an illegitimate president by concealing the restarted investigation bore greater weight than it would have if the election appeared closer or if Donald Trump were ahead in all polls,” Comey writes in his new memoir.

“But I don’t know.”

Read more:

https://nypost.com/2018/04/12/comey-feared-making-clinton-an-illegitimat...

So far Comey has saved the life of 250,000 syrians in Damascus.... He should be proud of his "delay"... Read from top.

On Tuesday it was revealed by the Washington Post that US special counsel Robert Mueller was considering the possibility of subpoenaing US President Donald Trump if he declined to speak with investigators regarding Mueller's probe into alleged Russian election interference.

According to the report, which cited multiple people with knowledge of the matter, the notion of a subpoena was brought up after Trump's lawyers indicated that 45 was not obligated to speak with investigators regarding Moscow's alleged meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

This revelation came after The New York Times published a list of leaked questions that Mueller intended to ask Trump.

Read more:

https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201805041064133872-mueller-investigatio...

Read from top.

Robert Mueller last year brought tax and bank fraud charges against Paul Manafort, the first indictment in the Russia investigation. Manafort maintains his innocence.

On Friday TS Ellis, a judge in the eastern district of Virginia, suggested that Mueller’s real motivation for pursuing Manafort was to compel him to “sing” against Trump.

“You don’t really care about Mr Manafort’s bank fraud,” the judge, reportedly losing his temper, challenged lawyers from the office of special counsel. “You really care about getting information Mr Manafort can give you that would reflect on Mr Trump and lead to his prosecution or impeachment.”

The comments, at a tense court hearing in Alexandria, were a boost for Manafort’s lawyers who contend that the charges against him are outside Mueller’s mandate to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Ellis added: “I don’t see what relationship this indictment has with anything the special counsel is authorised to investigate.

“We don’t want anyone in this country with unfettered power. It’s unlikely you’re going to persuade me the special prosecutor has power to do anything he or she wants. The American people feel pretty strongly that no one has unfettered power.”

Read more

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/04/donald-trump-russia-paul...

Read from top...

WASHINGTON — President Trump accused the F.B.I. on Friday, without evidence, of sending a spy to secretly infiltrate his 2016 campaign “for political purposes” even before the bureau had any inkling of the “phony Russia hoax.”

In fact, F.B.I. agents sent an informant to talk to two campaign advisers only after they received evidence that the pair had suspicious contacts linked to Russia during the campaign. The informant, an American academic who teaches in Britain, made contact late that summer with one campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, according to people familiar with the matter. He also met repeatedly in the ensuing months with the other aide, Carter Page, who was also under F.B.I. scrutiny for his ties to Russia.

The role of the informant is at the heart of the newest battle between top law enforcement officials and Mr. Trump’s congressional allies over the F.B.I.’s most politically charged investigations in decades. The lawmakers, who say they are concerned that federal investigators are abusing their authority, have demanded documents from the Justice Department about the informant.

Law enforcement officials have refused, saying that handing over the documents would imperil both the source’s anonymity and safety. The New York Times has learned the source’s identity but typically does not name informants to preserve their safety.

Read more:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/us/politics/trump-fbi-informant-russia-investigation.html?

If you want to know the name of one possible informant see: the death of reality... An American academic who teaches in Britain? Is this a crossword clue?... Is the New York Times taking it readers for idiots?...

Read from top...

Former FBI Director James Comey has refused to apologize to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, saying that nearly a year after the closing of the investigation into her email servers, she “still doesn’t understand what this investigation, in her case, was about.”

Comey took questions about the probe at an event in Berlin, Germany, Tuesday, one day after he was invited — and declined — to attend the US Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on the Office of Inspector General (OIG) report, which focused extensively on the same investigation, marking yet another example of the former director's possible preference for speaking to journalists over speaking to authorities.

Moderator Holger Stark brought up the revelation in the OIG report that Comey had conducted official FBI business from a personal email account. "[Clinton] tweeted, ‘But my emails. Is this a good moment to apologize?" the journalist asked.

"No," Comey fired back. "I don't want to criticize her, but it shows me that even at this late date she doesn't understand what the investigation, in her case, was about. "It was not about her use of personal email system, and she didn't get that during the investigation… That was not what it was about. It was about communicating about classified topics on that system, when those topics have to be done on a classified system," Comey said, adding that he had not violated such rules.

In light of the larger findings in the OIG report, one may wonder why journalists are asking Comey to apologize — Holger told Comey he was "irritated" by his private email use — and not asking Clinton why she isn't thanking Comey for his actions as revealed by the report.

For example, in June 2016, as the investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server, a violation of the Federal Records Act, was beginning to end, investigators found three email chains with a total of eight emails that contained a "(C)" marking — meaning that they contained classified information at the "confidential" level. By the time the investigators found them, Comey was already drafting his statement declaring Clinton innocent of any criminal wrongdoing. Clinton told the FBI that she didn't know what "(C)" meant, and then "speculated" that it could have referred to the alphabetization of the paragraph it stood next to.

FBI agents and Justice Department officials who interviewed Clinton said the explanation "strained credulity," according to the OIG report. One of the agents said, "I filed that in the bucket of hard-to-impossible to believe." Nonetheless, Comey proceeded with the drafting of his statement.

Comey tried to hasten the closure of the investigation by threatening US Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates with bringing in a special counsel "to induce the [Justice] Department to move more quickly… and to complete the investigation," according to the OIG report, which found no evidence that he "ever seriously considered requesting a special counsel." Comey had pushed the department to wrap up its case prior to the Democratic National Convention, which began on July 25th, 2016.

On May 2, 2016, Comey shared a draft of his statement with senior leadership of the FBI, criticizing Clinton's handling of classified material as "grossly negligent." The term was later revised to "extremely careless," and utilized by Comey during his July 5, 2016, announcement that the FBI would recommend no charges against Clinton.

​Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) apparently seized on the switch-up at the Senate Judiciary hearings Monday. "'Gross negligence' is a criminally liable standard," Graham, a former prosecutor, noted. "So if they had said it the way they originally wrote it, she is guilty of a crime, and the reason they changed it is because she's not guilty of a crime and if you want to 'stop him,' it can't be gross negligence."

Graham's reference to ‘stopping him' referred to FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok, who, with then-Special Counsel to the Deputy Director Lisa Page, had exchanged a number of text messages about both "emailgate" and "Russiagate." Page texted Strzok on August 8, 2016: "[Trump's] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!" Strzok replied: "No. No he won't. We'll stop it." Strzok was "in essence" the lead investigator in the Clinton email scandal, according to sworn testimony Monday from Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, who wrote the OIG report.

"As we read this report, we're reminded of Jim Comey's decision to hold the July 5th press conference and appropriate the charging decision away from the prosecutors," US Senator Trey Gowdy (R-SC) said during opening statements at the OIG report hearing. "We see Jim Comey drafting an exoneration memo before important witnesses, like the target, were even interviewed."

Read more:

https://sputniknews.com/us/201806201065600635-Comey-Refuses-Apologize-Em...

Read from top.

When fired FBI Director James Comey endorsed Joe Biden for the Democratic nominee on Super Tuesday, he obviously didn’t expect the brutal rejection from one of Biden’s campaign team members.

Comey posted early on Tuesday that he “voted in first Dem primary to support party dedicated to restoring values in the WH. I agree with @amyklobucher: We need a candidate who cares about all Americans and will restore decency, dignity to the office. There is a reason Trump fears @joebiden and roots for Bernie. #Biden2020”

Bates, the director of Biden’s rapid response team, tweeted back, “Yes, customer service? I just received a package that I very much did not order. How can I return it, free of charge?”

That must hurt but read below to understand one reason why Bates would want to return the endorsement.

“Former Director Comey failed to live up to this responsibility. By not safeguarding sensitive information obtained during the course of his FBI employment, and by using it to create public pressure for official action, Comey set a dangerous example for the over 35,000 current FBI employees—and the many thousands more former FBI employees—who similarly have access to or knowledge of non-public information. Comey said he was compelled to take these actions “if I love this country…and I love the Department of Justice, and I love the FBI.” However, were current or former FBI employees to follow the former Director’s example and disclose sensitive information in service of their own strongly held personal convictions, the FBI would be unable to dispatch its law enforcement duties properly, as Comey himself noted in his March 20, 2017 congressional testimony. Comey expressed a similar concern to President Trump, according to Memo 4, in discussing leaks of FBI information, telling Trump that the FBI’s ability to conduct its work is compromised “if people run around telling the press what we do.” This is no doubt part of the reason why Comey’s closest advisors used the words “surprised,” “stunned,” “shocked,” and “disappointment” to describe their reactions to learning what Comey had done.

Read more:

https://saraacarter.com/a-member-of-joe-bidens-team-wants-to-return-come...

Read from top...

In a letter he sent on 29 September 2020 to the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Lindsey Graham, the Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe claimed that his services learned at the end of July 2016 of a plot concocted by Hillary Clinton against Donald Trump.

Based on his own handwritten notes, then CIA Director John Brennan even submitted to President Barack Obama a memo titled: ”Alleged approval by Hillary Clinton on July 26, 20016 of a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisors to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services."

On 7 September 2016, intelligence officials forwarded to FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Counterintelligence Assistant Peter Strzok a document titled "US Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s approval of a plan concerning US Presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering US elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private mail server."

The above-cited documents have not been released at this time. However, their existence contradicts several statements made to Congress under oath.

Read more:

https://www.voltairenet.org/article211022.html

Read from top.

It was former CIA Director John Brennan’s hand written notes that exposed the alleged plan by Hillary Clinton to ‘stir up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security service.’ Those highly classified notes were declassified Tuesday by Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe, who first made the information public last week. 

The controversy surrounding the disclosure by Ratcliffe led to the decision to present Brennan’s highly redacted notes to the public.

The information, first made public by Fox News, Tuesday, and the documents obtained by SaraACarter.com confirm that Ratcliffe received the information from the highest levels of the U.S. intelligence community. 

In fact, Brennan’s notes also reveal how seriously he took the issue that he debriefed former President Barrack Obama on the alleged Clinton plot and on the information that was intercepted by the United States from Russian spies. 

“We’re getting additional insight into Russian activities from [REDACTED],” Brennan’s notes read. “CITE [summarizing] alleged approved by Hillary Clinton a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisers to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service,” Brennan’s notes read.

The notes were supposedly taken after Brennan briefed the Obama administration on Trump’s now-debunked ties with Russia.

One major question is how did DNI Ratcliffe get these notes? Did Brennan turn them over to John Durham, who was appointed by Attorney General William Barr to investigate the alleged corruption inside Obama’s FBI and intelligence community. Remember, Durham’s already interviewed Brennan.

Also, Brennan is a smart man, why would he leave these notes so readily available when he’s been so open publicly about his support for Clinton before the election and after?

I think I smell a CYA [cover your arse] here, much like Susan Rice’s email to self in January, 2017. Remember these are highly trained manipulators and the smart ones always have a plan B and a plan C. 

The DNI’s release of Brennan’s notes comes after he last week released a slew of documents allegedly showing that Hillary Clinton ok’d the operation to set up Trump and his campaign “by tying him to (Vladimir) Putin and the Russians ‘hacking of the Democratic National Committee.”

Read more:

https://saraacarter.com/brennan-briefed-obama-hrcs-alleged-plan-to-stir-up-trouble-for-trump-dni-reveals/

Read from top.

I trust that should Assange "be eliminated" by the US or the UK, by default or intentionally, He would have an "insurance policy" that would release the name(s) of who (most likely dead now) in the DNC passed on the Clinton's emails that sunk Bernie's chances in the Democrat party...

Will Comey’s Words Come Back To Haunt Him?

On Jan. 12, 2017, former FBI Director James Comey attested to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that the now-discredited information from former British spy Christopher Steele regarding Russian collusion had been "verified". Thanks to an FOIA request, we now have documentary evidence showing Comey pressing ahead to validate Steele amid a distinct lack of enthusiasm on the part of other agency heads. Clearly, the latter were reluctant to push Steele’s salacious storytelling, lest they throw additional doubt on their own threadbare tales of Trump’s collusion with Russia.

Comey wanted to use Steele’s reporting to buttress an already flaw-filled FBI filing for a warrant to prolong eavesdropping on Carter Page. (Page was a foreign policy adviser who began working with the Trump campaign in March 2016.). Trouble is that on the same day (Jan. 12, 2017) that Comey told the FISA Court that Steele’s reporting was "verified", Comey emailed then-National Intelligence Director James Clapper admitting that the FBI was "not able to sufficiently corroborate the [Steele’s] reporting".

If you find it difficult to reconcile those two statements, you are not alone. Was Steele’s reporting "verified"? Or was it uncorroborated? How to explain.

Comey was hell-bent on renewing the original (October 21, 2016 ) 90-day warrant he signed to surveil Carter Page. And if that required morphing "uncorroborated" into "verified", no big deal? The rubber-stamp FISA judge would be none the wiser, and who knows what juicy tidbits might turn up in that surveillance.

Comey’s email to Clapper betrays concern that his colleague intelligence gurus might not want to go out on the shaky Steele limb. Comey knew of the pungent odor in which Steele’s reporting was widely held/smelled. So, in an effort to head off unnecessary trouble, in his email, Comey suggested, "… it may not be best to say ‘The IC [Intelligence Community] has not made any judgment that the information in the [Steele] document is reliable’".

What Comey knew is that Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan were equally determined to avoid adding the Steele fiasco to the list of other smelly irons they had in the fire. As things turned out, Comey’s demurral about what his colleagues should say about Steele came too late.

In his email explanation to Comey, Clapper said "I apologize for not running this by you … We caucused this afternoon and decided I should call the president-elect…I spoke to him for 20 minutes and expressed my profound dismay at the leaks that have been appearing in the press … I told him I do not believe these leaks are coming from the Intelligence Community (sic). (Buzzfeed had published the Steele dossier on Jan. 10.). Was it actually profound dismay Clapper felt, or more likely crocodile tears?

As for Steele’s reporting, Clapper told Comey that he had already given the offending sentence to the media; namely, "The IC has not made any judgment that the information in the [Steele] document is reliable" – the wording that Comey wanted changed – and that CNN had "already picked it up…"

So What’s the Big Deal About Carter Page?

Carter Page was simply low hanging fruit – a target of opportunity because he was known to have had contacts with Russians; he was easy pickings. Trump and higher-ups were the real target. As explained below, snoopers could get at Trump and others by getting just one warrant – on whatever flimsy grounds.

The "evidence" used by Comey and his "folks" to "justify" the FISA warrants included not only Page’s known contacts with Russian officials (even though CIA had told the FBI from the outset that those contacts had been approved), but also the phony-as-a-three-dollar-bill "Steele dossier".

The first FISA warrant renewal application, signed by Comey on Jan. 12, 2017, shows him determined to attempt to spy on Trump and his associates afterTrump had become president-elect and then president. At a Senate hearing on Sept. 30, 2020, Sen. Lindsey Graham gave a chronological rundown of the evidence that Comey and his "folks" either knew, or should have known, so that by signing fraudulent FISA warrant applications they were perpetrating fraud on the court.

The original FBI application for a FISA warrant on Carter Page was dated Oct. 21, 2016. The three renewal applications were on January 12, April 7, and June 29, 2017. A different FISC judge considered each application and issued the requested orders, collectively resulting in about 11 months of FISA coverage targeting Carter Page from October 21, 2016, to September 22, 2017.

Spy on Trump?

Few outsiders are aware that those warrants covered not only Page but also anyone Page was in contact with – as well as anyone Page’s contacts were in contact with – under the so-called two-hop surveillance practice. In other words, the warrants extend coverage two hops from the target – that is, anyone Page talks to and anyone they, in turn, talk to.

According to two former technical directors at NSA, Bill Binney and Ed Loomis, when President Barack Obama approved the current version of "two hops," the NSA was ecstatic. It is easy to see why. Let’s say Page was in touch with Donald Trump (as candidate or president); Trump’s communications would then be surveilled, as well – and not just his communications with Page.  Or, let’s say Page was in touch with Google. That would enable NSA to cover pretty much the entire world.

A thorough reading of the transcript of the Sept. 30, 2020 Senate hearing mentioned above, including the Q-and-A, shows that this crucial two-hop authorization never came up. Those Senators aware of it may have been too afraid to mention it.  Observers were left with the impression that Page were the only one being surveilled (producing a yawn and a "what’s the big deal?").

Now Clear

With this latest documentary disclosure, what was already fairly transparent is now obvious in all its squalor. Steele was hired by the Democrats in June 2016 to come up with material embarrassing to rival candidate Donald Trump. He must have been paid by-the-page, for he seriously outdid himself in soliciting and reporting a kitchen sink’s worth of bar-talk – including highly salacious material – to character-assassinate Trump.

What the recent FOIA revelations confirm is that Steele’s drivel could not pass the smell test – not even among intelligence chiefs like National Intelligence Director James Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan. They took care to dissociate themselves from Steele, even though they were working on parallel paths to ensure Trump could not win. Comey went ahead anyway. What’s to lose?

It is helpful to note that, back in October 2016 when the FBI obtained the first FISA surveillance warrant on Page a few weeks before the Nov. 2016 election, there seemed to be little need to hide tracks, because, even if these extracurricular activities were discovered, the perps would have looked forward to award certificates from a President Clinton rather than possible legal problems under a Trump presidency. Mrs. Clinton was a shoo-in, remember? In his "A Higher Loyalty", Comey writes, "I was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president …"

Let’s harken back to what was happening in January 2017 when Comey decided to use the Steele material to fortify his application for renewal of the FISA warrant on Carter Page. Remember: Trump may have been supremely confident, but he was new to the ways of Washington and the portages of J. Edgar Hoover still lurking in the shadows.

Here’s what went down in Jan. 2017:

Jan. 3, 2017: In a highly revealing interview with Rachel Maddow, then-minority leader Sen. Chuck Schumer (D, NY) warns in no uncertain terms that President-elect Trump should not get crosswise with U.S. intelligence. Schumer: "Take on the intelligence community and they have six ways from Sunday of getting back at you." Donald Trump probably was not watching Maddow that evening, so he had to learn from experience, which began like this:

Jan. 5: The "Gang of Four" (Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, FBI Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, and NSA Director Adm. Michael Rogers) brief Obama and Biden on the evidence-impoverished CIA/FBI/NSA "assessment" (to be published on Jan. 6) that Vladimir Putin did all he could to help Trump become president. As for Steele’s information, VP Biden’s office confirmed that Obama and Biden were also briefed on the Steele dossier. The Gang of Four had decided that Comey would be the one to handle what would inevitably be a sensitive session with Trump on the Steele allegations. Comey later told ABC that when Obama was told that Comey would brief Trump on the Steele material, the president gave him a "double eyebrow raise". Comey interpreted the eyebrow raise as Obama’s way of saying, "Good luck with that … You poor bastard".

Jan. 6: All goes according to script. The Gang of Four visit Trump Tower and tell the president-elect that the Intelligence Community believes Putin helped him win and that, by the way, the misnomered "Intelligence Community Assessment", saying that, is being published that same day (Jan. 6). The NY Times immediately rushed onto its website an article titled "Putin Led a Complex Cyberattack Scheme to Aid Trump, Report Finds". And on Jan. 7, the Times’s front-page banner headline read: "Putin Led Scheme to Aid Trump, Report Says", providing credulous readers with "proof" that Trump owed his election win to Russia’s "influence campaign". A shot of adrenaline for Russia-gate. As planned, after his three colleagues depart, Comey tells Trump of the Steele allegations, adding that the FBI had not validated the allegations, but thought it was important for the president to know.

Jan. 10: Buzzfeed publishes the Steele dossier.

Jan. 12: Comey tells FISA Court Steele material is "verified"; tells Clapper it is "not sufficiently corroborated".

Jan. 24, 2017: FBI agents begin to interview Steele’s main subsource, who casts strong doubt on Steele’s reporting. 

April 15, 2018: Comey tells ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that Steele’s reporting was "still unverified" when Comey was fired (May 9, 2017); that an agency effort to verify as much as possible about the report was still under way; and he was "not sure" how much of the information in the dossier checked out. (Note: the superb acting in this interview is a treat to watch, including gee-wiz parts played by Comey and a professionally credulous Stephanopoulos.)

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. His 27-year career as a CIA analyst includes serving as Chief of the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and preparer/briefer of the President’s Daily Brief. He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

Read more:

https://original.antiwar.com/mcgovern/2021/02/18/will-comeys-words-come-...

Read from top.