Comey and Mueller

Just out of curiosity, what does "working on" mean? Is he a prosecutor, or is a private party paying him to to look into it?

Honestly, the Rich case feels like the Foster case. It happened at a suspect time and under circumstances that do reasonably warrant suspicion, but too many people are jumping to conclusions. As we found out with Foster, some people just commit suicide. And of course, some people (in fact many people) who hang out in Washington, D.C. in the middle of the night get rubbed out. It's a dangerous city, and I think Rich lived in or near an area that was pretty ghetto - not an area where a scrawny white boy should be hanging out at night.

 

Steele produced over 100 reports at the request of the State Dept

 

Unnamed sources inside the FBI say McCabe gave a 'stand down' order in the early phases of the FBI probe into Hillary Clinton email investigation

Obstruction of justice?

 

Somebody would have to go on the record with this.

 

The IG just investigated this and didn't have this in their findings. Hannity now uncovered this. It just as likely this is a distraction technique by Hannity to turn the fingers away from his efforts as a "talk show host", not to be confused with a journalist per his statements and FoxNews.

 

He's an attorney working on preparing a lawsuit - I think he told me it was with the Rich family but I don't remember for certain. He's actually tried a couple of things in the last couple of years that have been deflected, such as filing a grievance against Hillary in front of the Arkansas state bar. Predictably, that didn't go anywhere. TO be fair, he's also been at war with Ken Paxton for years and has been working on getting charges brought against him for some of his shady dealings.

 

Anytime I hear "unnamed success," I pretty much blow it off. I don't assume it's false, but until somebody goes on the record, I give the story little or no weight. And yes, if it's true I would assume it would be in the IG report. There would also need to be a plausible explanation for why it isn't.

 

I see. I'm about 99 percent sure I know who you're talking about. He has done some good things, but he's a little bit of a crazy man. I would be pretty surprised if he represented the Rich family. Considering what he does and what he has tried to do on the Rich case, his interests are adverse to the Rich family's. They shouldn't necessarily be adverse, but they are adverse.

 

Anybody notice that Comey lawyered up with former US Attorney Pat Fitzgerald yesterday? Pal Fitzgerald may have been one of the parties to which Comey leaked his memos detailing his conversations with Trump, along with Columbia's Daniel Richman. Think Comey is looking to invoke attorney/client privilege somewhere down the road? If so, do you think the FBI would dare raid Fitzgerald's office?

 

Word is McCabe is talking

 

If we are going tio start randomly raiding atty offices, then Perkins Coie is the top of my list

 

This is an indictment of CNN's entire business model

 

If interested in this part of the story, click the tweet, read the full thread

 

There are multiple paths forward to prosecute Comey. One of them is Criminal Espionage. Here is how that would work.

18 USC 793(f) gives espionage a 10 year federal prison sentence. A person does not have to leak classified material to be found guilty. The law also falls on a person who only removes national security information, even if they did not share it (this law was written before the current classification system)

Criminal Espionage only requires proof that a person entrusted with "national defense related" information remove that information from its proper place or disclose that information to an unauthorized person in either an intentional act or because of "gross negligence." The courts have defined "national defense related" information broadly. In Gorin v. US, the court deferred to the judgment of the jury as to what was "national defense related" information. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/312/19/case.html

Some courts have limited Criminal Espionage information to that which is "potentially dangerous" and "closely held" information. BUT, information does not have to be classified for it to be a crime to disclose it.

Applying this to Comey -- in order for him to ever classify his memos as either "confidential" or "secret," he had to necessarily admit those memos were government proprietary information and related to national security -- the disclosure of which was "reasonably expected" to hurt national security. This is fatal to his defense.

On top of that, in order to become Director, Comey was required to sign a Classified Information NDA. Plus, he already had a long history of dealing with classified information. Plus, in his infamous Hillary press conference, he openly admitted information did not have to be marked classified. Plus, he also had a long history of prosecuting whistleblowers.

In summary, there is probable cause Comey committed Criminal Espionage when he removed his own Memos from FBI exclusive control and custody after he was fired. That was one crime. He then committed a second crime by giving them to an unauthorized person. Thus Comey committed multiple felonies.

 

Comey went on CNN (go figure) and claims he did not leak.
He merely 'asked a friend to communicate the substance' of one of the memos

 

He didn't leak them. He merely communicated them. Oh boy.

Comey seems to be sinking deeper and deeper into swamp muck and he's pissed off some high ranking Dems and Repubs. It'll be interesting to watch.

 

The infamous Judge Napolitano, a Foxnews analyst, has apologized and said that Comey is not guilty of breaking the law. Given the security clearance of the Professor that Comey gave the documents to and the fact that the professor read the non-confidential part of the memos, no violation of the law per Napolitano this morning on Fox & Friends.

 

Why is he infamous?

 

That referred to his press conference on Hillary
Sorry if it wasnt clear

 

There were already off the record indications that the main players at the FBI's 7th Floor HQ had already flipped, which explains why they were kept on as employees instead of being fired like McCabe, Bruce Ohr and a few others. The biggest fish in this bunch is FBI Counterintelligence Head Bill Priestap who I have written about before.

“Last guy I would have thought would cooperate is cooperating,” one high-ranking Justice official said about Priestap. “He knows about everything the IG is looking at because he was involved in it all.”

The Justice official called Priestap’s cooperation “devastating” especially to McCabe. The source would not elaborate.​

Priestap answered directly to McCabe and Peter Strzok answered directly to him. The other flipper is Strzok's married lover, FBI lawyer Lisa Page who worked as the right hand to McCabe.

The IG's report is due out next month sometime.

 

He's definitely not crazy, just more "in your face" than I think he should be a lot of times. He's not shy about calling people out publicly, and he picks fights a lot, but he does it because he sees people in power (on both sides) who basically steamroll through life being unaccountable to their constituents. Having known him for more than 30 years (wow...) I can definitely say I trust him regarding the truth, even if he does take the "bull in a china shop" approach at times.

 

But there's a reason why we don't let bulls into china shops. It's because they are crazy by human standards. To be clear, I'm not attacking your friend's entire enterprise. We need people like him, and on balance his presence is a good thing. If it was up to me for him to be around or not be around, I'd want to have him around. However, he is a bull in a china shop, and some of his pursuits are misguided and yes, a little crazy. Frankly, he's a little like Trump in that regard.

 

There are a myriad of reasons but i was pointing to his wiretap claims that got him suspended from Foxnews for a bit.

 

I don't think being wrong on issues makes one "infamous". Infamous is being well known (or famous) for a heinous, wicked act(s). Nikolas Cruz is infamous. Osama bin Laden was infamous.

Hillary Clinton is a despicable, corrupt, soulless, power hungry, washed up politician who sharts her pantsuits and has an ugly-assed daughter, but you'd have to stretch the definition of the word to call her infamous. Likewise, nothing Napolitano has done would qualify him for that descriptor.

 

That's rough. She's not hot. Trump's daughters and Bush's daughters are better looking. However, she's not ugly-assed. I'd bet my left arm that you've gone worse at least once.

 

No, I can say without hesitation I haven't. Of course, part of that lies in the fact that I can count all of the women I've been with on only one hand.

 

What about the men? Lol.

In all seriousness, my guess is that it depends on which Chelsea Clinton. She's a bit of a decepticon. At her best, she's not that bad.

 

Just out of curiosity, how many fingers on that one hand?