April 14, 2018

"Prosecutors like Mueller generally cringe when a witness speaks at length in public before a case has wrapped up."

"Comey’s blockbuster book and accompanying media tour, which kicks off in primetime on Sunday, will also expose him to the watchful eye of Trump allies and defense lawyers ready to exploit any inconsistencies in his accounts to their clients’ benefit. 'I’d have a conniption if I knew one of my witnesses was going to be writing a book,' said Nick Akerman, a former assistant U.S. attorney and Watergate prosecutor. 'From a prosecutor standpoint, you want a witness who hasn’t gone out and made lots of statements that can be used to cross examine him.... What he puts in there, he’s got to realize that’s his story and that’s what he’s sticking by.'"

From "Risks loom for Comey's book blitz/The former FBI director faces attacks on his reputation and could complicate Robert Mueller's Russia probe." (Politico).

151 comments:

Fabi said...

How quaint that they're still calling it a "Russia probe".

traditionalguy said...

His point is summed up by the lawyer's aphorism: Plead not what you need not for fear you will have to prove what you cannot.

n1r0l anynonmouse said...

This article assumes that the case will lead to a criminal trial before a judge where testimony is elicited from James Comey. Any trial that Mueller is preparing this case for will be an impeachment trial in the US Senate. Any such proceeding will not be hindered by such minor things as facts and testimony. The votes of the jury are already determined. Any inconsistencies in testimony will only be of concern to the public, whose opinion does not matter.

Saint Croix said...

What he puts in there, he’s got to realize that’s his story and that’s what he’s sticking by.'"

What a bizarre comment.

If you tell the truth, it's relatively easy to remember what "the story" is. It's only when you're fabricating and making shit up that you have to worry about the stuff you said before.

From a prosecutor standpoint

You want honest witnesses who speak the truth. Your job is not to win but to discover the truth of what really happened. If you're worried about your witness writing a book, then you're worried about the honesty of your own witness. If you're worried about that, you shouldn't be calling him as a witness. And if you're worried about the honesty of all your witnesses, you should dismiss your case.

David Begley said...

Comey knows that the whole goal is the impeachment and conviction of Trump. This thing has always been political; not criminal. Other than Manafort, there won’t be criminal trials.

Henry said...

Good.

David Begley said...

Last night on MSNBC, both Chris Matthews and Chris Hayes had already impeached Trump. Sure thing! Inevitable! Just like Hillary was a sure and inevitable winner.

Browndog said...

Prosecutors generally cringe when another prosecutor speaks at length in public that exposing the truth of a case can be detrimental to the case of a prosecutor.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

exploit!

Yeah- because the FBI director is allowed all sorts of inconsistencies.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Comey needs the money. Selling his soul is easy, because Trump is volatile and has small hands.
+ Trump's hair is good hair.

traditionalguy said...

@ St Croix... Discovering truth is for scientists. Trial lawyers deal in stories that persuade Juries. And we do not let scientists/engineers on the Jury.

May the best story win.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

this man who ruined it for poor honest Hillary, is now a darling of the collective left.

Man hands.

CWJ said...

Dangerous yes. Unless Comey knows there is no case, and won't be any trial.

rehajm said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rehajm said...

The rules are different when you are trying your case in the Court of Public Opinion.

Bay Area Guy said...

1. Rosenstein recommended that Crazy Comey be fired.
2. Rosenstein is therefore a witness in any "case" concerning said firing.
3. Rosenstein appointed Mueller as Special Counsel for the Russian Probe
4. Mueller has expanded the Russian probe to include possible obstruction of justice charge based on Trump's firing of Crazy Comey.
5. Rosenstein, technically the supervisor of Mueller, will be a defense witness in the case pursued by Mueller.

Therefore, Rosenstein has a conflict of interest and should recuse himself.

QED

J2 said...


Haven't read the book.

I would like to know whether Comey showed Trump the dossier or just briefed him on It? 33 pages or just Golden Showers?
Clapper and Brennan were aware of the dossiers' content but they left the Meeting before Comey briefed Trump Why? Plausible deniability.
Anyone know?

rhhardin said...

The government is allowed to lie.

J2 said...

N1 r0I (nice kearning)

Mueller may not plan to implicate Comey, but someone who is not Mueller might.

How long has that IG report on McCabe been hanging around waiting for Comey's book and book tour?

David Begley said...

Bay Area Guy:

Rod has life tenure. Also infallible and incorruptible. Don't you know what the Constitution says?

tcrosse said...

The government is allowed to lie.

Please. The government can be excused for a lack of candor.

dreams said...

Comey isn't very smart, he would have never risen as high as he did if not for his impressive height.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

@ Bay Area Guy

1. Rosenstein recommended that Crazy Comey be fired.
[...]
4. Mueller has expanded the Russian probe to include possible obstruction of justice charge based on Trump's firing of Crazy Comey.



Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

The leftwing is corrupt and they can do anything.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

.... for poor Hillary

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

LOL

Megan McCain nails it

" He Just Wants to Be a 'View' Co-Host "

Michael K said...

Nixon gave up too easily. Trump has these guys in his sights.

Totally different situations except for the role of the FBI, which is the same.

Mark said...

If the aim is a fair and just search for the truth, then "witnesses" talking is not a problem. Only if the prosecutor's aim is to "get" someone, to convict regardless of truth or justice, is it a concern that witnesses might publicly say something that does not fit the prosecutor's artificially constructed narrative.

Bruce Hayden said...

I don’t see Comey getting prosecuted. The big FBI trophy is very likely going to be McCabe. As I noted yesterday, I think that the DoJ pretty much has to prosecute him for lying to the FBI and lying under oath, if they ever want to prosecute anyone else for process crimes, and they need to be able to do that, in order to keep people honest with the FBI. Last thing that they want defense attorneys to have is proof that FBI agents, from the top down, lie with impunity. Sure, McCabe is having his pension delayed, but their clients are facing prison. Big difference.

EDH said...

And in the end
The love you take
Is equal to the love
You make


Golden Showers

Once there was a way
To get back homeward
Once there was a way
To get back home
Sleep, little Comey, do not cry
I will sing a lullaby

Golden showers fill your eyes
Smiles await you when you rise
Sleep, little media darling, do not cry
And I will sing a lullaby

Boy, you're gonna carry that weight
Carry that weight a long time
Boy, you're gonna carry that weight
Carry that weight a long time

Oh yeah, I never give you my pillow
I only send you my invitations
And in the middle of a celebration, I lay down

Oh yeah, all right
Well, you're gonna be in my dreams tonight
Love you, love you
Love you, love you
Love you, love you
Love you, love you

And in the end
The love you take
Is equal to the love
You make
Oh, oh
Yeah-yeah-yeah-yeah-yeah

buwaya said...

As above, and above, and above.
This is not a legal matter, it is a power struggle.
There are no actual judges, there aren't even any disinterested parties. Everyone involved, even the spectators, already have a "side".

Any "legal" element is merely camouflage painted on the war-machines.

pacwest said...

"Comey needs the money."

I doubt this very much. He has been well paid by the Clintons for his services. One instance: A $6M payoff (from Lockheed Martin) after his role in the DOJ clearing the Marc Rich pardon.

Michael K said...

Only if the prosecutor's aim is to "get" someone, to convict regardless of truth or justice, is it a concern

Note the latest example of prosecutorial misconduct was in the Bundy case, dismissed with prejudice.

Navarro didn't buy it and shredded the government for a "reckless disregard for Constitutional obligations." She said she was troubled by the prosecution's tardiness in delivering information about the government's placing of surveillance cameras and snipers outside the ranch.

The similarity to the Ted Stevens case is striking.

Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, speaking in a slow and deliberate manner that failed to conceal his anger, said that in 25 years on the bench, he had “never seen mishandling and misconduct like what I have seen” by the Justice Department prosecutors who tried the Stevens case.

Judge Sullivan’s lacerating 14-minute speech, focusing on disclosures that prosecutors had improperly withheld evidence in the case, virtually guaranteed reverberations beyond the morning’s dismissal of the verdict that helped end Mr. Stevens’s Senate career.


Of course, the Stevens prosecution achieved its purpose. Obamacare was passed.

Hagar said...

Totally different situations except for the role of the FBI, which is the same.

Mmm, no, I don't think so. With Nixon it was more of a "revenge of the nerds" kind of thing by the Agency - this time the top brass joined up with gentry left "deep state;" it was not so much of a "cosa nostra" thing.

Chris N said...

If anything, this has lowered my trust, and perhaps the public trust, in the FBI.

We, The People, give you, the public servants, the power.

You, the public servants are exposed to a lot of information, intelligence, and a lot of danger and lawbreaking. Thank you for doing this.

Please avoid righteous conviction and politics when you can....or at least crusades like this.

Also, we seem to have design problems, which means the FBI probably displays what most institutions do most of the time: A few bad apples. Quite a bit of incompetence. Unsung competence. Company men and ladder-climbers. Some true-believers, drama queens and higher ups who also can be politicos. A few really honorable, wise and brave people.

Trump is kind of a huckster and a buffoon; mercurial, pussy-chasing, shrewd, pretty smart, self aggrandizing etc. He seems to be doing a lot of things I agree with.

He’s also got a lot a worse lot opposed to him; mindless zealots, Bureaucrats 4 life, media and academic nitwits, ideologues and power hungry establishment noblesse oblige gunning for him.

Please keep the core institution dry, if possible. There are always worse people ready to take power.

traditionalguy said...

Buwaya @9:25 wins for most succinct comment ever made.

Michael K said...

With Nixon it was more of a "revenge of the nerds" kind of thing by the Agency - this time the top brass joined up with gentry left "deep state;

It was a less organized Administrative State, I'll grant, but Mark Felt ran this operation from the FBI.

Woodward and Bernstein shielded Felt so that Nixon did not know who was running the op.

He even pardoned Felt for a "black bag job" he had been involved in.

Goldwater and the GOP participated. Goldwater showed no loyalty for Nixon's efforts on his behalf.

It was clearly a coup but that fact was successfully concealed.

EDH said...

I don't even have to change the lyrics, they're perfect!

And in the middle of investigations
I break down...


You Never Give Me Your Money

You never give me your money
You only give me your funny paper
And in the middle of negotiations
You break down

I never give you my number
I only give you my situation
And in the middle of investigation
I break down

Out of college, money spent
See no future, pay no rent
All the money's gone, nowhere to go

Any jobber got the sack
Monday morning, turning back
Yellow lorry slow, nowhere to go
But oh, that magic feeling, nowhere to go
Oh, that magic feeling, nowhere to go
Nowhere to go

Aaaaahhhhhhhhhh...

One sweet dream
Pick up the bags and get in the limousine
Soon we'll be away from here
Step on the gas and wipe that tear away
One sweet dream came true today
Came true today
Came true today (Yes it did)

One two three four five six seven
All good children go to Heaven
One two three four five six seven
All good children go to Heaven (fade out)

Ralph L said...

Prosecutors also don't like it when witnesses sell their stories for money.

Ralph L said...

Michael K, Wiki says Reagan pardoned Felt. Guessing RR didn't know what he done.

buwaya said...

Nixon did give up quite easily. I suspect he did it in part because he was a responsible man, and most concerned about the state of the Cold War and the nuclear standoff. Above all he was a global strategist, and these matters consumed him.

The US could not stand a leadership crisis, and it was better for the US and the world that power pass without fuss to an acceptable alternative. This is very much like the situation of 1960, where he did not contest the election results against Kennedy in spite of gross and blatant election fraud. That was a different time.

One has to contrast Nixon and his enemies here; his opponents were by contrast grossly irresponsible, repeatedly exploiting the legitimate concerns of a conscientious man and taking terrible risks for petty gains, not only endangering the US population but that of the entire world. It is not an exaggeration to call them evil.

Nixon I think gave them far too much credit. When his enemies were in power they came close to destroying the structure of alliances the US had built up, and moreover permitted the Soviet Union to expand its own tremendously. The 1970s were a disastrous period in the Cold War.

I keep a small portrait of Nixon in a black frame, in my office. I have had it since 1994, the year of his death.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

I think that the DoJ pretty much has to prosecute him for lying to the FBI and lying under oath, if they ever want to prosecute anyone else for process crimes,

We heard this same BS with Hillary and her mishandling of secret information. At the same time Hillary was deleting subpoenaed records, some poor navy shlep was prosecuted for taking a selfie inside a submarine. His lawyer even asked the government and judge for the Hillary special. He was sent to prison.

The rules are different for the little guys. Don't ever forget it.

Angle-Dyne, Angelic Buzzard said...

Michael K: Nixon gave up too easily. Trump has these guys in his sights.

Same rolling coup, different decade.

Michael K said...


Blogger Ralph L said...
Michael K, Wiki says Reagan pardoned Felt. Guessing RR didn't know what he done.


I guess I should have consulted Wiki. I had read the other version in an artlcle or book on Nixon.

buwaya said...

Also missing from the Nixon picture is the matter of class.

His enemies were largely the Ivy League educated, traditional American powers that be. He himself was the son of a landless California farm-hand and failed convenience-store owner, brought up in a one-room shack. His brothers died of tuberculosis. He had, perhaps, the humblest origins of any US President, other than Lincoln.

Nixon educated himself really, taking advantage of everything available for that purpose. And in the US of the 1920s-30s there was a lot of opportunity for genuine education, better perhaps than today, as there were fewer ways to be misdirected. He became a very cultured man.

But always, always, not socially acceptable.

Michael K said...

When his enemies were in power they came close to destroying the structure of alliances the US had built up, and moreover permitted the Soviet Union to expand its own tremendously. The 1970s were a disastrous period in the Cold War.

He and Kissinger were blamed but I agree the Democrats that took over gave us 13% inflation, the loss of Vietnam (although I think it was lost by Kennedy when he OK'd Lodge's assassination of Diem and his brother), and the near loss of the Cold War.

Reagan saved us.,

Angle-Dyne, Angelic Buzzard said...

buwaya: I keep a small portrait of Nixon in a black frame, in my office. I have had it since 1994, the year of his death.

My mother died on the same day as Nixon. We joked that she'd no doubt be keeping an eye out for him in the queue in front of St. Peter's desk, in order to introduce herself and have a nice long chat about things.

Michael K said...

Nixon educated himself really, taking advantage of everything available for that purpose.

And was left with a permanent inferiority complex. Whittier College vs Harvard.

buwaya said...

I think it was more of Harvards attitude towards Whittier.
Or of the Harvard (et al) clique vs anyone else.

Molly said...

Molly
Eaglebeak


It's a matter of class with Trump, too. He comes from Queens. He has the wrong accent. His mother came over from Scotland as a maid. His father started working in high school.

(His father put his uncle John through college; John wound up as a well-known physicist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Trump)

Trump is declasse all the way--wrong accent, wrong clothes, too garish, too gaudy, a braggart--all the things the WASP gentry hates, just as they hate his voters and supporters.

One difference from Nixon is that Trump loves to embarrass and taunt the gentry--read up on his behavior in Palm Beach, the retreat of the moneyed and the tasteful (that is, till Trump showed up).

This is why so many have compared him to Andrew Jackson (another President of humble beginnings).

For the gentry, it's never about money. It's always about class. Money is good only if it's inherited. God forbid you have to earn it.

For all of these reasons, Trump is beloved of the "deplorables." He is a slap in the face to the snobs, the celebrities, the posh, on behalf of Middle America.

Howard said...

The deal is that Deep State gets deficit democrat spending, tax breaks for banks, shock and awe in Syria, TPP, and who knows what else while Trump gets a legal pass while being convicted in the court of liberal MSM opinion and tell-all books. Everyone wins!

Michael K said...

uwaya said...
I think it was more of Harvards attitude towards Whittier.
Or of the Harvard (et al) clique vs anyone else.


That's what is going on with Trump. The difference is that Nixon cringed from it.

Trump is Rodney Dangerfield in "Caddyshack."

Angle-Dyne, Angelic Buzzard said...

buwaya: Also missing from the Nixon picture is the matter of class.
[...]


It's interesting that everything you mentioned here was discussed in depth in, of all places, the required freshman social science course at university I attended in the late '70s. The professor, as one would expect, was extremely politically liberal. No cartoon analysis, though. Better (saner?) class of liberal profs in those days, I guess.

rcocean said...

Nixon should have burned the tapes, and then gone on TV and justified it. But he didn't have the guts. He kept thinking the SCOTUS would uphold executive privilege.

And he never thought of himself as a conservative, and surrounded himself with unreliable "Liberal Republicans" like Garment, Dean, and Erlichmann.

rcocean said...

As for Comey, I can't think of single public figure who's damaged himself so much by his own words and behavior.

We all thought he was an honorable man, because everyone said so. Then we got to know him...

Inga said...

“What he puts in there, he’s got to realize that’s his story and that’s what he’s sticking by.'"
—————
“What a bizarre comment.

If you tell the truth, it's relatively easy to remember what "the story" is. It's only when you're fabricating and making shit up that you have to worry about the stuff you said before.”
——————-

Exactly. It’s Trump who needs to be careful as his story changes even in the same sentence.

Angle-Dyne, Angelic Buzzard said...

Molly: For the gentry, it's never about money. It's always about class. Money is good only if it's inherited. God forbid you have to earn it.

I don't think there's an animus against earning money, Molly. Even earning money by working very hard for it. What field you earn it in, and whether you're "sound" (as the Brits used to say) in your political views - now, those things matter. And where you went to school, of course. Far more so now than even in Nixon's day.

AZ Bob said...

This article assumes that the case will lead to a criminal trial before a judge where testimony is elicited from James Comey. Any trial that Mueller is preparing this case for will be an impeachment trial in the US Senate. Any such proceeding will not be hindered by such minor things as facts and testimony. The votes of the jury are already determined. Any inconsistencies in testimony will only be of concern to the public, whose opinion does not matter.

Exactly n1r0l anynonmouse. The history of the Russian collusion story is ripe with law enforcement sources going back to the election. This was political from the start. How does an ambassador to the UN undertake more than 260 unmaskings without anyone raising an eyebrow? And once this was finally revealed, Samantha Power could only say that others unmasked in her name without her knowledge? Why isn't this a crime?

What pisses me off is that prosecutors and cops are not supposed to be manipulating public opinion by acting as news sources. I have never seen this happen anywhere before this.

rcocean said...

Nixon vs. The Establishment was a case of unrequited love. Nixon was very upset that JFK never invited him to the White House, so he invited Jackie O and the kids to visit in 1969. He was constantly berating the NYT and liberal Democrats for letting him down and turning isolationist over Vietnam. He was accepted into Harvard - but couldn't afford to go. He applied to Wall Street Law firms in 1938, but was turned down.

Domestically, he wanted to pull a Disraeli - and steal the Democrats clothes - by the guaranteed income program, affirmative action, and wage/price controls.

Even his SCOTUS records was mixed. Note: that after he lost in 1962, he didn't stay in SoCal but went to NYC. And moved to NYC area after Watergate. He was an Establishment guy at heart.

Inga said...

“For all of these reasons, Trump is beloved of the "deplorables." He is a slap in the face to the snobs, the celebrities, the posh, on behalf of Middle America.”

The problem with this comment is that there are liberals, progressives and Democrats who also inhabit Middle America. Sarah Palin made a similar mistake when she referred to Republicans as “the real Americans”.

Michael K said...

And he never thought of himself as a conservative, and surrounded himself with unreliable "Liberal Republicans" like Garment, Dean, and Erlichmann.

Yes, especially Garment. You should read Pat Buchanan's book, "Nixon's White House Wars."

It's delightful. Pat loved Agnew who has been forgotten.

My personal opinion is that Dean ordered the Watergate breakin to see if Larry O'Brian had anything on his wife, Maureen, who had been an "escort" around DC.

Dean then stabbed Nixon in the back.

Buchanan told Nixon he should burn the tapes but he waited too long.

Molly said...

Molly
Eaglebeak

Inga--That's why I said Middle America rather than Middle Americans or real Americans or some such. We're all real Americans--it's just that in the eyes of the upper crust, some are realer than others.

Perhaps I should have said on behalf of the middle class, the lower middle class, the working class...

Michael K said...

What pisses me off is that prosecutors and cops are not supposed to be manipulating public opinion by acting as news sources. I have never seen this happen anywhere before this.

Nixon and Watergate was the last big example. Thats why the two situations are so similar.

Inga thinks that the left, who are trying to destroy America to get revenge on Trump, are "real Americans."

Inga said...

“Perhaps I should have said on behalf of the middle class, the lower middle class, the working class...”

Molly,
Democrats, liberals and progressives also belong to the middle class, the lower class, the working class, do they not? We don’t consider ourselves part of “the deplorables”. We don’t consider Trump to be a slap in the face only to snobs, celebrities and the posh, we consider him to be a slap in the face to all Americans.

Sebastian said...

Back to the post: Russia probe? What Russia probe?

Inga said...

“Inga thinks that the left, who are trying to destroy America to get revenge on Trump, are "real Americans."

Every person who is a citizen of this country is a “real American.” There is no partisan test one must pass to be a real American. Just be a citizen. It’s you and your fellow extremists that seem to think the left is trying to destroy America, just more stupid ideological garbage.

Howard said...

I don't know Mike. I can't imagine Howard Hunt and Gordon Liddy doing anything on orders from John Dean.

elkh1 said...

Mueller wants to get Trump in the Court of Politics (Impeachment), not the Court of Law.

Innuendo not evidence is paramount. They got Tom Delay, Ted Stevens, Rick Perry, and almost got most Republicans and Walker in Wisconsin with their John Doe investigations. Everyone of the "cases" got thrown out of court after the election, prosecutors (should it be "persecutors") were reprimanded with no further consequences.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Narayanan Subramanian said...

Mueller as prosecutor?
I have 3 questions!

... Reasonable?
... Honest?
... Honorable?

His career answers negatively.

Inga said...

“Back to the post: Russia probe? What Russia probe?”

Mueller could probably answer that question. As in the IG report, there will be more than one report coming from the Mueller investigation. Covering Obstruction of Justice, Conspiracy ( the criminal aspect of Collusion) and probably Money Laundering. It’s shortsighted to think these investigations are not going forward just because they have not come to a conclusion yet. Think about the enormity of the consequences to our country when the Mueller investigation is over and America hears the results. Of course it’s taking a long time, would you want these rushed?

Michael K said...

An interesting tidbit from Ace, this morning.

Why else would Wemple choose not to write about Miller's stunning disclosure that Libby lawyer Joseph Tate told her, "Fitzgerald had twice offered to drop all charges against Libby if his client would 'deliver' Cheney to him"?


Ah yes. Nothing new.


Blogger Howard said...
I don't know Mike. I can't imagine Howard Hunt and Gordon Liddy doing anything on orders from John Dean.


Oh, if he did it it was described as "the boss's orders."

I have never seen any evidence that Nixon knew about or ordered the Watergate breakin. He had just won 49 states.

Inga's memory extends to the previous 30 seconds.

buwaya said...

"Investigations" that take this long are not actual investigations. Any collusion that was material to an event of the scale of the elections of 2016 would have been obvious.

Investigations of this length and scale are not intended to cpme to a conclusion but are ends in themselves.

It is a fundamentally corrupt process.

Francisco D said...

When I think of "Real American," I think of a person grounded in reality rather than fantasy. It is not necessarily a question of class. It is a question of the ability and willingness to separate reality from fantasy.

The left and their Hollywood friends are real Americans, but not Americans grounded in reality.

Inga, Trumpit, Ritmo and some of the other leftists here are good examples of people who are neither grounded in reality nor capable of the independent analytical thought needed to separate fantasy from reality. It's sadly obvious.

Inga said...

“Inga's memory extends to the previous 30 seconds.”

Michael K, as I said yesterday, if you don’t want me to reciprocate when you make insulting comments, just don’t make them. As for memory, my memory is quite good, however yours seems to be veering off toward dementia. You just don’t seem to grasp that when you initiate insults, you open the door to being insulted back (the you whine about it like a little bitch). Even my dog learns a lesson quicker than you seem to. Maybe you can’t teach an old dog new tricks afterall.

So MichaelK, to reinforce the lesson, don’t insult if you don’t want to be insulted back. Get it?

Inga said...

“Inga, Trumpit, Ritmo and some of the other leftists here are good examples of people who are neither grounded in reality nor capable of the independent analytical thought needed to separate fantasy from reality. It's sadly obvious.”

Coming from the nutty psychologist, this bucket has holes.

Iowan2 said...

We don’t consider ourselves part of “the deplorables”.

So niave. What you consider, is of no interest to your betters. They know you are deplorable, and a useful idiot to boot.

Luke Lea said...

To say nothing of the fact that Comey comes off as a shifty-eyed liar. At least that is the way he looks to me.

Amadeus 48 said...

The IG’s report on McCabe makes great reading. The Lynch DOJ says stop the NY office of the FBI from telling the public the truth about the Clinton Foundation investigation. McCabe throws the DOJ under the bus, with a self-serving leak that makes him look good and the DOJ look bad. Comey says please stop the leaking, the AG is on my case. McCabe says he don’t know nothin’. Then he realizes that his colleages ratted him out to the IG. He says that Comey knew about his leak. Comey throws McCabe under the bus, saying he, Comey, don’t know nothin’. Then McCabe gets nailed by the IG because Comey played dumb, and Comey tweets that McCabe stood tall, when in fact they all pointed the finger at each other, and McCabe was the chump.

Did Comey know about the McCabe leak? Any bets?

Bob said...

"I have never seen any evidence that Nixon knew about or ordered the Watergate breakin. He had just won 49 states."

Just to set the record straight, the Watergate break-in occurred several months beforeNixon won 49 states.

I'm skeptical Nixon knew about the break-in. I think he expected more professional activities from his people, but he didn't always get them.

Inga said...

“So niave. What you consider, is of no interest to your betters. They know you are deplorable, and a useful idiot to boot.”

“My betters”, yet you embrace Trump who is an Oligarch, loves Oligarchs, made numerous deals with Oligarchs, appointed people to his cabinet that are mostly millionaires and billionaires. What ever would make a rational person think that Trump doesn’t consider himself to be your “better”? What makes you think anything Trump does is for the benefit of the working class? What has he done to benefit the working class, the poor? Speak of being naive!

Yancey Ward said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Yancey Ward said...

You really never have to worry about keeping your truths straight- only the lies.

Michael K said...

Investigations of this length and scale are not intended to cpme to a conclusion but are ends in themselves.

Lawfare has been a tactic of the left going back beyond Reagan's Secretary of Labor, Ray Donovan.

Lyndon Johnson's theft of the 1948 Senate election was consummated when Hugo Black, formerly a Klan member, agreed to end the recount at the request of Johnson lawyer Abe Fortas, for which service Johnson appointed him to the Supreme Court.

If the left considers Cohen a "fixer" he cannot hold a candle to Abe Fortas.

buwaya said...

Both the Roman Populares and Optimates made use of elements of the Roman mob, and of the Roman demimonde (infames - actors, singers, gladiators, prostitutes).

You have the same situation in the US today. The modern political split follows the ancient Roman model quite well, rather better than the US party alignments do at this point.

Michael K said...

Just to set the record straight, the Watergate break-in occurred several months beforeNixon won 49 states.

Good point. He still was rolling at that point having seen Muskie self destruct and having watched the Democrats go to the most radical candidate since Henry Wallace.

His error was in trying to help the underlings who had screwed up. Hillary or Obama would never have made such a mistake.

buwaya said...

Modern American oligarchs (if you want to analyze the Forbes lists, say) are split roughly 80:20 against Trump.

This is irrefutable, and can only be deflected for dishonest reasons.

Amadeus 48 said...

The thing that comes out loud and clear is that the DOJ and the FBI headquarters were determined to hide from the public that there was an ongoing investigation of the Clinton Foundation during the election campaign. If Hillary had won, the whole subject would have gone into the Memory Hole. Instead, the FBI had to change the subject fast so we got the Trump/Comey drama and Mueller.

I can’t wait to see the IG’s report on the Clinton investigation.

That Comey is a one-man wrecking crew.

Inga said...

“The thing that comes out loud and clear is that the DOJ and the FBI headquarters were determined to hide from the public that there was an ongoing investigation of the Clinton Foundation during the election campaign.”

Nor did they tell America that Trump was under investigation starting in July of 2016. That would’ve been good to know.

Yancey Ward said...

The ever ignorant Inga wrote:

"Nor did they tell America that Trump was under investigation starting in July of 2016. That would’ve been good to know."

This isn't true, Inga. Brennan and Comey both told Harry Reid and every other member of the Gang of Eight, and Harry Reid told the public, under his own name, on at least two occasions prior to the election. In addition, there were numerous leaks to the press about the various aspects of the investigation and the details of the Steele Dossier. The only things we actually learned after the election were that almost all of the allegations came from Clinton Campaign's opposition "research".

buwaya said...

It does however seem that the American demimonde, those infamous parts of analogous Roman society, are anti Trump. In spite of the fact that he was a member in good standing of that lot. All those actors and models and porno "actresses" and beauty contestants and TV producers, the whole pack.

Trump is an interesting figure. A traitor to most categories of his former associates. Its been interesting to see the rancorous break he made with all these people, 2015-16. I can only conclude that he had a long-standing distaste for them.

Such a switch is not common. The greatest in history, probably, is when Pompey became the champion of the Optimates, which had once feared and despised him. But in truth Trump made just as big a switch, and maybe a greater one, events TBD.

Trump is a fascinating character, his biographers will have no end of work to do, and I don't doubt they will be coming up with entirely contradictory conclusions for the next century or more.

Amadeus 48 said...

I can’t wait to see the IG report. Maybe he’ll clear everbody and recommend that Comey get the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Nobel Peace Prize.

Inga said...

When just days before the election, Comey announced to the world that the Clinton investigation was being reopened, he could’ve taken the time to tell us about Trump’s investigation being opened in July.

chickelit said...

Mueller you're a boy make a big noise
Playin' in the street gonna be a big man some day
You got Comey on yo' face
You big disgrace
Kickin' your can all over the place
Singin'
We will we will rock you
We will we will rock you

Inga said...

“This isn't true, Inga. Brennan and Comey both told Harry Reid and every other member of the Gang of Eight, and Harry Reid told the public, under his own name, on at least two occasions prior to the election. In addition, there were numerous leaks to the press about the various aspects of the investigation and the details of the Steele Dossier. The only things we actually learned after the election were that almost all of the allegations came from Clinton Campaign's opposition "research".”

Yet this wasn’t leaked to the public just days before the election, was it?

Yancey Ward said...

No, Inga, it was leaked a few weeks before the election. Sheesh!

Amadeus 48 said...

Like I said, Comey is a wrecking crew all by himself. C’mon, Inga, you agree with me.

Martin said...

The biggest complication to Mueller's investigation is that after all this time there is not even a hint of any evidence there is an underlying crime to investigate.

And the main thing the investigation has revealed to date is that Mueller and his team are willing to destroy anyone, over anything even if unrelated to their charge, to get someone to turn on Trump, and by "turn on" I mean "lie about," because if there was any underlying crime they would have brought charges eons ago.

buwaya said...

Reid leaked re FBI investigations several times in October 2016. These were covered by CNN, the NYT, etc.

One re the"Russia" investigation on Oct. 31 2016.

Michael K said...


Blogger buwaya said...
Modern American oligarchs (if you want to analyze the Forbes lists, say) are split roughly 80:20 against Trump.


Yes, but I think it is a combination of crony capitalism, which links them to the Democrats/Fascists and social issues like abortion.

I remember one billionaire, maybe Schmidt, saying his wife was pro-abortion and so he was.

The stock market boomed on ZIRP and this helped tie them to Obama. His race, of course. was another attraction. Not that would let affirmative action into their real operation but virtue signaling is cheap when you can afford a few drones around for decoration.

Dalrymple has a good essay on this today.

Yancey Ward said...

For example, Inga: Link. Note that Isikoff got confirmation for this story from law enforcement officials. Now, ask yourself this- who were those officials, do you suppose? Do you think they might have been named Comey or McCabe?

Inga said...

“No, Inga, it was leaked a few weeks before the election. Sheesh!”

Actually, you’re right and you’re wrong. It wasn’t made public that Trump was under investigation until November 1. And if wasn’t an official announcement until March 2017.

“On 1 November 2016, the liberal blog Occupy Democrats posted a story headlined, “FBI Just Announced It’s Looking Into the Trump Campaign’s Ties to Russia” that made it appear as if a criminal case against Donald Trump’s former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, were imminent.”

While an unnamed source apparently spoke to NBC, the FBI at that time had not not announced an inquiry into Manafort’s activities — the Bureau, generally, does not officially confirm whether or not they are investigating a matter, and they responded to our inquiry by saying just that. Similarly, they gave no formal statement to NBC.

But on 20 March 2017, then-FBI Director James Comey broke from that practice to announce the FBI was in fact investigating allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. During a public hearing of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Comey said:

The FBI, as part of our counterintelligence effort, is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 president election.”

Ralph L said...

Remember, the FBI sent full FBI background files on 900 Republicans to the Clinton White House. Was anyone punished at the FBI? We know the Clintons skated.

His error was in trying to help the underlings who had screwed up. Hillary or Obama would never have made such a mistake.

To be fair, no president has dared to do so since Nixon that I can think of. But Bill C had so many screwups it's hard to remember. Trump's good word about Flynn to His Queasiness is an exception.

Yancey Ward said...

You are just dishonest aren't you, Inga? You last comment doesn't show I am wrong in any way. Unless my memory is failing, though, Comey didn't publicly announce the reopening of the Clinton Investigation- he informed Congress, as he had promised to do, and Congress released the letter.

Ralph L said...

How much of limo liberalism is guilt, how much is cover for misdeeds & champagne lifestyle, and how much is sincere?

Inga said...

“You are just dishonest aren't you, Inga? You last comment doesn't show I am wrong in any way.”

“No, Inga, it was leaked a few weeks before the election. Sheesh!” Your own words. Weeks?? One week, not weeks.

“Unless my memory is failing, though, Comey didn't publicly announce the reopening of the Clinton Investigation- he informed Congress, as he had promised to do, and Congress released the letter.”

Yes, why didn’t Congress say a word publicly about the ongoing Trump investigation.

Yancey Ward said...

Inga wrote:

"Yes, why didn’t Congress say a word publicly about the ongoing Trump investigation."

I suppose Harry Reid wasn't a member of Congress at the time, was he, Inga?

Yancey Ward said...

And my memory was a bit faulty, but still proves my point- the reopening of the Clinton Investigation was also leaked initially from within the DoJ, but was not a public announcement. The letter was leaked from Congress later that day.

buwaya said...

The elite reaction to Trump has also been interesting.
I know that in my case it was all predictable, because I am a cynic, but even so. The forming of a unified phalanx among the powers-that-be and the super-rich was telling.

Its the little things, sometimes, that point most clearly to underlying realities. Trump wanted to get an opera singer to do "Nessun Dorma" from Turandot, live, at the inauguration. The Pavarotti recording was regularly played at his rallies. But Opera being as it is these days simply a luxurious subsidized extravagance of the very wealthy (Opera certainly doesnt survive on ticket sales or recordings) it was not to be.

No singer could be found - for a capable newbie it would have meant career death through being blackballed, and even for a great foreign "star" like Andrea Bocelli, with hit albums and such, and no political issues moreover (he has long been an open and active supporter of Berlusconi after all), it was too dangerous.

That all did not surprise me, quite, but the episode fit so remarkably well. They hate him, they really hate him.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Yancey Ward said...

Reid on two occasions publicly pleaded with the FBI to publicly and officially state that the Trump Campaign was under investigation, but instead DoJ officials stuck with leaks to the press under unnamed sources, exactly the same thing was done during the reopening of the Clinton Investigation. What you are criticizing the DoJ of the time for- not publicly announcing Trump was under investigation rather than just leaking it- would have been unequal treatment when compared to Clinton at the time since we only knew of the reopening via leaks, as well. Indeed, your position is made even worse since Clinton received a public and official exoneration two days before election.

Inga said...

“I suppose Harry Reid wasn't a member of Congress at the time, was he, Inga?””

Did Reid let it be known publicly “a few weeks” before the election that Trump was under formal FBI investigation?

No he did not.

Yancey Ward said...

Inga asked

"Did Reid say let it be known publicly that Trump was under formal FBI investigation?"

Yes, he did! He explicitly asked Comey to publicly confirm that an investigation had been opened. For whatever reasons, though, the DoJ chose, instead, to leak the information to the press without attribution. Almost every single story about the investigation in the press before the election claims to have gotten the information and/or confirmation from law enforcement officials- in other words, the FBI. Remember, Reid had been told by Brennan about the intelligence and that it was being looked into. What Reid wanted was for Brennan and Comey to make a public statement- they refused- they leaked instead to the press repeatedly.

Inga said...

“Reid on two occasions publicly pleaded with the FBI to publicly and officially state that the Trump Campaign was under investigation...”

And he was right! They should’ve.

Michael K said...

"To be fair, no president has dared to do so since Nixon that I can think of."

Reagan was friendly with the Secret Service, especially the agent who was assigned to him right after the election because he was the only one who could ride a horse.

At the Inauguration, Nancy referred to him by name and Roslyn Carter turned to her and said, "You know their names ?"

After four years. The agent stayed with the Reagans even after he retired. His book, "Riding with Reagan is excellent.

Reagan also got into trouble with Iran Contra which occurred only because the Democrats were supporting the communists.

We got deficits because Reagan's deal with Tip O'Neill was that they would let him win the Cold War if he would let them spend.

Inga said...

"Did Reid say let it be known publicly that Trump was under formal FBI investigation?"

“Yes, he did!”

You’re refuting your own story here. Did he or did he not let the PUBLIC know Trump was under investigation? No he did not. Asking the FBI to make it public is not making it public. That’s silly.

“He explicitly asked Comey to publicly confirm that an investigation had been opened.”

Asking is not getting. He did not announce to the public that Trump was under formal FBI investigation. You just said so yourself. Sheesh.

Comanche Voter said...

Is Comey a witness--or simply (and more accurately) a prevaricating, posturing, pustulent Buffalo Dung Artist?

Achilles said...

Inga said...

When just days before the election, Comey announced to the world that the Clinton investigation was being reopened, he could’ve taken the time to tell us about Trump’s investigation being opened in July.

An investigation based wholly and completely on a dossier full of lies that were paid for by Hillary Clinton's campaign. The FBI is entirely corrupt and needs to be disbanded and reformed. The DOJ needs to be cleaned out and there need to be term limits on employment there.

Everyone supporting this farce is an enemy of this country. You are a cancer on freedom.

Please impeach Trump over hush money to pornstars and playboy bunnies. Please complete your coup. Do it. Let's get this over with.

Michael K said...

"They hate him, they really hate him."

They do and they hated Nixon although that was considerably different. The donor class was pretty much with him although a lot of them had flipped on the Vietnam War.

He was bitter that the Democrat elites had begun the war, then when they had screwed it up, they turned around and blamed the guy trying to clean up the mess.

The theory that Kennedy would not have gotten so deep is contradicted by his agreeing to let Cabot Lodge assassinate the Diems.

That made it "our war."

Yancey Ward said...

To Willfully Ignorant Inga:

Reid's letters to Comey were released by Reid before the election. Here you can find the NYTimes publishing the letter Reid wrote. In addition, the media were already publishing leaks that an investigation had already been opened- I gave you a link to the Isikoff story, but you can find them from WaPo and the NYTimes, too- leaks that came from within the DoJ according to the journalists themselves. What Reid wanted was for the FBI director to make an official statement about the investigation being opened- this was something Reid himself could not do. Reid already knew an investigation had been opened because John Brennan had briefed him about it- Brennan has publicly stated this and that he had sent all the intelligence to the FBI by that point, but no on in the DoJ was willing to go on the record- that is what Reid wanted, but didn't get. Sure, wanting is not getting, but the point is that it was public knowledge that an investigation had been opened by the end of August 2016- completely disproving your initial statement that it was so closely guarded a secret that no one outside the DoJ knew about before the election. Can you at least concede that much, Inga- or is your dishonesty boundless?

I am just curious, Inga, do you ever get tired of being proven ignorant. First you claim that it was a deeply held secret that Trump was under investigation prior to the election, then I show you that it was being leaked to the media in the months prior to the election and by sources in the DoJ. Then you complain that it was only leaked where as the Clinton reopening was publicly confirmed- but then I show you that the reopening of the Clinton investigation was also a leak- only her exoneration the Sunday before the election was a public statement by the DoJ. You got anything else you need disproven?

Achilles said...

No Bombshells in this report.

"As deputy director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe “admonished” other FBI officials over leaks he himself authorized.

That’s one of the damning revelations the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General released in a Friday report."


He admonished subordinates to cover his illegality. He and Comey knew it was illegal when they conspired to do it. Both are going to jail.

McCabe is a piece of shit. So are the people supporting him.

Comanche Voter said...

Re the string of comments on Nixon's rather humble beginnings. Okay Whittier College is not Harvard. And Duke Law in the 1930's wasn't Harvard Law either. Today it's a middling good law school, but certainly nowhere near the dozen or so elite law schools in the US.

But I was and am impressed by the story of Nixon at Duke Law. Law school can be a humbling intellectual experience. No matter who you are, or how able you are, or what law school you do go to, you are likely to find that a bunch of your classmates are simply smarter than you are. That's the experience of most law students.

Nixon decided that he would survive by developing an "iron ass" and simply studying more than any of his fellow Duke Law students. That's good--and it means you'll graduate. But it doesn't mean that you will necessarily be "socially acceptable" either at Duke Law or in your post graduate career.

But I view Nixon's decision not to contest the results of the 1960 election (where the dead in Chicago rose from the grave to vote not just once, but three times each) as the act of a true patriot. In marked contrast to Al Gore in 2000, and the ongoing "resistance" sparked by Hillary Clinton in 2016. Would that those two weasel losers had emulated Richard Nixon's action. We'd be better off for it.

Yancey Ward said...

If I were Comey, I would be worried about McCabe. While I think it possible and plausible that Comey didn't know about McCabe's leak, the very fact that McCabe appears to have done it through Lisa Page does add weight to McCabe's assertion that Comey knew about it. Why do I believe this? Because using Page doesn't make sense to me unless McCabe thought he had every right to approve the leak, and he couldn't believe this without having gotten the director's approval most likely. If McCabe knew the leak was fishy and likely improper, despite his self-serving statements afterwards, it seems more likely to me that McCabe would have involved no one he couldn't literally trust with his life.

Can McCabe prove he didn't do this all on his own? If he can, does it make sense to save it for when it might most be needed?

Dad29 said...

Did Comey know about the McCabe leak?

That's not The Question.

THE Question is this: how much did Obozo know, and when did he know it?

The answer does NOT begin with 'When I saw it in the newspapers.....'

Achilles said...

Yancey Ward said...

Can McCabe prove he didn't do this all on his own? If he can, does it make sense to save it for when it might most be needed?

That just makes him guilty of conspiracy to commit a felony as well as leaking classified information.

AZ Bob said...

Comey felt that Hillary's win was in the bank. But he was afraid to find McCabe had slow walked the investigation into Hillary's top secret documents going to Carlos Danger's email account. Comey didn't want this to reflect poorly on him after Hillary's election. So, he announced the investigation and then shortly thereafter, he cleared her.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael K said...

Can McCabe prove he didn't do this all on his own? If he can, does it make sense to save it for when it might most be needed?

Either McCabe did not cooperate or the IG thought he didn't need him as he had page and it sounds like she is pissed at being blamed by her superior McCabe.

It will all come out. I just hope it is not too late for the election.
Inga most affected, just like the women and children at the end of the world.

Inga said...

“Reid's letters to Comey were released by Reid before the election. Here you can find the NYTimes publishing the letter Reid wrote.”

You are a dumbass. I am NOT refuting that Ried sent a letter to Comey before the election asking the FBI to formally announce the investigation into Trump. It did not happen though DID IT???? The FBI did NOT do as Reid requested. What I’m refuting is your assertion that Ried or the FBI made it PUBLIC that Trump was under formal investigation by the FBI. The FBI did NOT let the public know that Trump was under investigation until March 2017. Democratic Underground published their suspicions that Trump was under investigation on Novemeber 1, 2016. In your haste to prove me wrong, you don’t even bother understanding my argument, my premise. You’ve done this time after time. It’s really a waste of my time bothering with you, You seem very good at misunderstanding and mischaracterization. What is your problem?

Michael K said...

"I am just curious, Inga, do you ever get tired of being proven ignorant."

Do you guys get tired of exchanging stuff with her ?

I occasionally slip and refer to her as she is such an easy target but it is better to stay with adult conversation, at least I think so.

buwaya said...

Reid sent letters on this, note bene, to Comey AND the New York Times.
That is as public as it gets. He said, in public, you told us x, now please formally tell the public.
It's a bit hard to not tell the public something you have just told the public.
Also, note bene, Reid was Senate minority leader.
That is about as semi-official as it gets.
No unnamed sources here.

Inga said...

“Do you guys get tired of exchanging stuff with her ?”

I get tired. I’ve never run across so many people who seem oblivious to the argument being presented and who want you to argue against something you’ve never said. It’s uncanny. Mischaracterization is the modus operendi here.

And Michael, I try not to by mean to you because you have such thin skin, but you are really are a senile old curmudgeon.

Michael K said...

Inga is oblivious to reason and logic. All she has is insults and crazy theories.

Jim at said...

we consider him to be a slap in the face to all Americans.

Your arrogance never ceases to amaze me.

You don't speak for all Americans, Inga.

Inga said...

“According to the former FBI Director James Comey, the FBI began investigating the Trump campaign’s relation to Russia’s interference in the election in July 2016. Though American intelligence had by then received multiple leads regarding contacts between the Trump campaign and Kremlin-linked individuals.

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.

Comey officially announced that the FBI was investigating the Trump campaign on March 20, 2017. Testifying before Congress, Comey said that “the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. That includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government, and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.”

walter said...

dreams said...Comey isn't very smart, he would have never risen as high as he did if not for his impressive height.
--
"All these people look up to me!"

walter said...

5 hr interview with Stephie.
Maybe they will chop it into a mini-series.

Hagar said...

I think the pettiness and vulgarity displayed by Comey in that interview has done him a lot a damage, even among Democrats.

Kevin said...

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.

A year and a half later, they still haven't.

Nevertheless Inga persisted.

Achilles said...

Inga said...

“Do you guys get tired of exchanging stuff with her ?”

I get tired. I’ve never run across so many people who seem oblivious to the argument being presented and who want you to argue against something you’ve never said. It’s uncanny. Mischaracterization is the modus operendi here.

Stalinists never get tired.

They get defeated.

I would much prefer the criminals who broke the law are peacefully marched off to prison and the lawfully elected president completes his term representing the country that elected him.

Obama and Hillary and all of their underlings committed treason by soliciting help from and paying millions of dollars to foreign powers to create the Steele memo. Millions of dollars Hillary got from foreign powers in obvious quid pro quos as secretary of state. Prison is more than they deserve.

But this choice will be up to Obama and Hillary and the Deep state. If they choose to keep pushing this coup and their tool followers like Inga and ARM keep supporting it the coup will have to be put down.

FIDO said...

If he doesn't write a book, how can the Clinton Foundation buy a few million copies to a) give a false sense of credibility to his words by putting him on the NYT bestseller list and b) pay him off for letting Felonia VonPantsuit off the hook for her blatantly illegal behavior?

Since the Clintons don't care about anyone but themselves, they don't mind if it let's Trump off the hook (much) and the media will do their very best to avoid ANY inconsistencies because they are Leftist Swine.

n.n said...

Mueller's investigation is a cover-up of the Obama/Clinton/DNC axis that spied on its political opponents, and efforts to influence the election through foreign collusion and gerrymandered votes.

cronus titan said...

Comey is finished as a witness. His sanctimonious tweets were bad enough since it established his personal animosity THis book completes it. Already, Comey's characterizations of his conversations with Loretta Lynch and John Kelly are under scrutiny and likely never happened (at least in Comey's telling). Comey's need to make himself the hero in every story undercuts his testimony, like writing about how Obama profusely thanked him for Comey's greatness, yet Comey testified he never talked to Obama alone.

I am not sure if Comey is a partisan hack. But I am sure he is a sanctimonious narcissist who loves telling melodramatic versions of stories in which he is the knight in shining armor and everyone else is a villain. he would be aweome at middle school girls' lunch tables. As DIrector, FBI, he was in over his head and dangerous.

Birkel said...

Inga used the word refute without any understanding of the definition of the word refute.

I picture 10,000 monkeys typing. And after the first 9,999 years we get Inga.

Francisco D said...

Inga said ... "Coming from the nutty psychologist, this bucket has holes."

You really are a total waste of space. All you have to offer are pitifully weak insults and cut and paste jobs.

You know nothing and understand nothing. Yet, you believe everything (uncritically) that fits the narrative of your leftist pals.

Again, the example of a perfectly loyal Democrat. Arrogant in her ignorance and inability to think critically.

I am referring to the space you take up on the planet. There is nothing in the space between your ears. I think the DNC has rented that wasteland for a long time.


Michael K said...

Inga, I thought you had a good point about statins and Coenzyme Q 10 so I ordered some.

We don't agree on politics but you are OK with medicine.

Bad Lieutenant said...

buwaya said...
Modern American oligarchs (if you want to analyze the Forbes lists, say) are split roughly 80:20 against Trump.

This is irrefutable, and can only be deflected for dishonest reasons.

4/14/18, 11:38 AM


It would behoove you, but Wyatt, to either do the work or to link to where that has been broken out. I would be interested to see where this information is gathered. Also, can you explain this phenomenon of the Rothschilds to me? Treat me as a naive subject.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Buwaya. Stupid phone

Ken B said...

A prosecutor working in good faith to prepare a court case would be unhappy. A political operative working on a campaign would be ecstatic.

Has Mueller complained?