Big headline but proves the point that in this rarified air that the DC/New York/international business lives in- everybody knows everybody.
Let’s throw out the issue that Mueller and Comey are friends.
Let’s throw out the BIG issue that John Podesta, Clinton’s chief of staff, lobbied for a Ukrainian business, and is lobbying for a Russian bank…currently! Understand, this is payoffs and bribery in the 21st century. Instead of money in a paper bag handed under a table, this system was developed to make it all seem legal. They hire Hillary’s Chief of Staff’s brother, pay him big money for nothing, HRC’s chief of staff owes a favor. If John is part owner of lobbying firm, he gets paid directly too. This is the big “establishment” scam that domestic and international interests have used to payoff politicians for years.
Let’s throw out the millions paid Bill and Hill WHILE Hill was Sec of State, giving favors to people who “donated” to her so-called money laundering charity.
So when the MSM screams about Trump and the Russians, remember from what hilltop they are standing on.
It was easier when I was young because we never actually saw the corruption as blatant as this. It was there, just in the backroom because it mattered to the politicians that we didn’t know, a sense of respect and maybe some fear. Now it is a finger in the eye and a middle finger in general when we complain. It has now become their “right” to steal.
So, getting to Mueller. I have an issue with someone like him, a friend of Comey’s, looking into what is going to really jam Comey up if someone who wasn’t his friend was looking into this mess.
First and foremost, this whole Russian deal was created by the Hillary Clinton campaign as a way to excuse her loss and screw with Trump. With the media and democrats helping it worked.
Second, it is becoming apparent that Comey is all about Comey. I admit I still agree with what he did in July with the press conference. I was convinced by his public reputation that he just couldn’t stand the corruption any longer. I was wrong. The problem with Comey is that it is all about Comey. He had massaged stories and remembrances of events in order to promote his public reputation of being a straight shooter. He may be, compared to the rest of corrupt politicians and bureaucrats, but he works hard making sure everybody believe “He’s the guy!”. So him coming out in July may have been more about him getting in front of a scandal he knew was coming if Hillary won. My point, he was doing it more for himself than us, it just worked out good for America. Hillary would have been a corruption machine!
Alberto Gonzales tells his version of the well known Comey story about how he stopped Gonzales from getting a program reauthorized by AG John Ashcroft, when Ashcroft was hospitalized. The Comey version is he had a problem with the program, he didn’t want to sign it, Ashcroft was in a hospital and he went there to stop Gonzales from getting Ashcroft to sign what COMEY thought wasn’t right. Not illegal, not unapproved, just what Comey -in his Diogenes moment- one of many apparently- decided could not be authorized. Comey said he was sitting by the bedside and confronted Gonzales- thus saving the day (From what? Not sure.).
However, Gonzales remembers it differently and make sure you read the whole article to grasp an idea of what is the Comey perception problem.
Gonzales’s descriptions of his interactions with Comey, included in his 2016 book “True Faith And Allegiance,” are detailed and extensive. While his tone is measured, the language he uses to describe Comey’s actions in 2004 and 2007 leaves little doubt about the former top Bush official’s views on Comey’s character. Gonzales’s opinion is clearly colored by the fact that Comey cravenly used him to jumpstart his own political career by going public with surprise (and questionable) testimony that Gonzales had attempted to take advantage of a deathly ill man in order to ram through authorization of an illegal surveillance program.
Bush’s Attorney General John Ashcroft had taken ill and was in the hospital at a pivotal time. The legal authorization of a surveillance program meant to find and root out terrorist threats was days from expiring. What happened in Ashcroft’s hospital room in March of 2004 later became political fodder for a hearing in which Senate Democrats used Comey to dredge up the 2004 hospital meeting to tar Gonzales’ credibility and suggest he was unfit to continue serving as attorney general. As the 2004 and 2007 sagas show, Comey is clearly no stranger to using the unarguably legal dismissal of government employees as the backdrop for casting himself as the story’s protaganist standing up to the forces of corruption.
“[I] told my security detail that I needed to get to George Washington Hospital immediately. They turned on the emergency equipment and drove very quickly to the hospital,” Comey testified. “I got out of the car and ran up — literally ran up the stairs with my security detail.”
“I was concerned that, given how ill I knew the attorney general was, that there might be an effort to ask him to overrule me when he was in no condition to do that,” Comey said.
Comey’s use of the phrase “overrule me” is especially noteworthy, given that the authority he referenced belongs not to the deputy attorney general, but to the attorney general himself. However, unbeknownst to anyone at the White House on that day, Comey had assumed for himself the authorities attendant to Ashcroft’s position. Rather than personally informing anyone at the White House, including the president, the vice president, the White House chief of staff, or the White House counsel, the Department of Justice sent a mere fax to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue noting the change in power. For some reason, the newly designated acting attorney general didn’t feel compelled to personally inform any of his superiors that he was now a cabinet official.
It’s at this point in the narrative that Comey’s testimony took a turn for the dramatic:
I sat down in an armchair by the head of the attorney general’s bed. The two other Justice Department people stood behind me. And Mrs. Ashcroft stood by the bed holding her husband’s arm. And we waited.
And it was only a matter of minutes that the door opened and in walked Mr. Gonzales, carrying an envelope, and Mr. Card. They came over and stood by the bed. They greeted the attorney general very briefly. And then Mr. Gonzales began to discuss why they were there — to seek his approval for a matter, and explained what the matter was — which I will not do.
And Attorney General Ashcroft then stunned me. He lifted his head off the pillow and in very strong terms expressed his view of the matter, rich in both substance and fact, which stunned me — drawn from the hour-long meeting we’d had a week earlier — and in very strong terms expressed himself, and then laid his head back down on the pillow, seemed spent, and said to them, ‘But that doesn’t matter, because I’m not the attorney general.’
And as he laid back down, he said, ‘But that doesn’t matter, because I’m not the attorney general. There is the attorney general,’ and he pointed to me, and I was just to his left. The two men did not acknowledge me. They turned and walked from the room. And within just a few moments after that, Director Mueller arrived. I told him quickly what had happened. He had a brief — a memorable brief exchange with the attorney general and then we went outside in the hallway.
Gonzales was taken aback by Comey’s appearance and testimony. It turns out that was by design. Comey kept secret his pre-hearing planning with Schumer and his staff to maximize the fallout of the bomb he planned to drop on Gonzales and the Bush administration. In a significant breach of protocol, Comey also refused to share with the White House or the Department of Justice that he had planned to testify about his work at DOJ, a move which made it impossible for the White House to consider whether it needed to assert executive privilege over portions of Comey’s planned testimony.
As fate would have it, the Schumer staffer who spearheaded the entire spectacle was none other than Preet Bharara, a former employee of Comey’s in the U.S. attorney’s office in New York. Bharara, like Comey, was fired by President Donald Trump earlier this year. And Bharara, like Comey, owes his most recent position of authority in the U.S. government to Schumer and President Barack Obama.
“When I found out from our DOJ legislative liaison that Comey was testifying, I was surprised,” Gonzales wrote after noting that Comey hadn’t worked at DOJ for years when the U.S. attorneys were fired. “It was also odd that we had received no notice at DOJ regarding the appearance of one of the former members of our leadership team at a Senate hearing.”
“I called the White House counsel Fred Fielding, and Fred confirmed that he had no prior notice of Comey’s testimony either,” Gonzales continued. “I was disappointed that the man who had been given so much in his legal career — appointed by President Bush as a U.S. attorney and then as deputy attorney general — did not even notify the White House or me in advance of his testimony.”
“It felt to me that Jim’s loyalty was more to his friend Preet Bharara and to Chuck Schumer,” he wrote.
Gonzales also questioned whether Bharara’s role in ambushing the previous Republican presidential administration was the reason Obama later appointed Bharara to Comey’s old job as U.S. attorney for the southern district of New York.
Comey’s 2007 testimony went off just as he, Bharara, and Schumer planned. It was shocking and dramatic. Comey weaved a tale that involved him being notified at the last possible second that Bush’s chief of staff and counsel planned to ambush Ashcroft in his hospital bed and force him against his will to sign a legal document authorizing an ongoing mass surveillance program that Comey and his deputy, Jack Goldsmith, had very recently decided was illegal despite multiple DOJ and National Security Agency legal opinions to the contrary. According to Gonzales, despite having been on the job for months, Comey and Goldsmith didn’t disclose their concerns to the White House counsel about the legality of the surveillance initiative until March 6, just five days before the program’s authorization expired.
The narrative Comey provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee was riveting. But according to Gonzales, it didn’t actually happen the way it was presented. And the conflicting details between Comey’s and Gonzales’ account, given Comey’s current attempts to use his credibility and recollection of events witnessed only by himself to take down a Republican official, raise significant questions about the trustworthiness of Comey’s current claims.
According to Gonzales, rather than sitting directly next to Ashcroft, Comey and his two deputies, Goldsmith and Pat Philbin, never made their presence known, and neither Gonzales nor Andy Card, Bush’s chief of staff, had any clue they were there during the 10-minute meeting. To the contrary, Gonzales noted in his book that he assumed the small handful of people hiding in the periphery of a darkened room were actually Ashcroft’s security detail doing their best to stay out of the way.
More important, in Gonzales’ telling, Ashcroft never even mentioned Comey, let alone pointed him out to Gonzales as being physically present in the room.
“I was told this morning that I’m no longer attorney general,” Gonzales wrote was Ashcroft’s response to a request to re-authorize the Stellar Wind program, a far cry from the forceful declaration Comey attributed to Ashcroft.
“Certainly, had the vice president, Andy, or I known about the matter, we would have informed the president, and he could have simply summoned the deputy attorney general,” Gonzales wrote. “But none of us knew until John Ashcroft announced the news to us in his hospital room.”
President George W. Bush himself, in his book “Decision Points,” expressed his feeling of shock when he found out that Comey had seized the attorney general’s authority in March of 2004.
Hmmm…self aggrandizing much?
In this light comes the “notes” read to an anti-Trump newspaper by an associate of Comey’s. Which, on a side note, is just weird. Who does that?
Anyway, Comey took notes saying Trump may have tried to influence his investigation into Flynn by saying Flynn’s a good guy and to be easy on him. Of course Comey resisted, as only Diogenes can!, and wrote it down. Here’s the rub. Comey didn’t say a word UNTIL he got canned. Suddenly, he has all this information on how Trump acted badly, something he was willing to accept as long as he could stay in the spotlight. (Shades of the Hilllary/Lynch/Obama days!)
Trump did him wrong by just firing him unceremoniously. Bad form. Comey is going to seek revenge, because that is what Comey’s ego demands be done. So strap in. But before you do, ask yourself this. If Comey felt pressured by an attempt at obstruction- why didn’t he report it? He was required to, had a chance before Congress, while under oath. But he denied it. And if by saying now it was obstruction, but in front of Congress lied about it, doesn’t that put him in the trick bag? Mueller, Comey’s friend needs to address this.
Mueller, who is compromised out the door, needs to do some other things if he is serious.
One- seize ALL of Comey’s notes. Raw and unedited from his entire time as FBI director. Why? Because for one, they no longer belong to him. By using them as a source to undermine a sitting President, and because at the time he was taking those notes he was personally involved in investigations as a paid employee of the federal government- those notes belong to us. Further, the notes can be used to create context. Will we see a series of notes reflecting accurately the facts of events we can verify? Or will we see a perception of a man who thinks he is the last honest man left in DC, always the hero? That is very, very important. It is a duty of any investigating detective to make sure any witness is accurate and vetted for veracity. If not, the detective needs to information the attorney involved and the jury if need be.
Does Comey embellish? The short answer is yes. Here is a perfect example. Comey tells a friend, who tells the papers (again, wtf?) that he avoided hugging the President. First, the question is why does he hate Trump so much to start out. They don’t even know each other. So there is that bias. Then he tells the story of how he tried to hide from Trump to avoid shaking his hand, telling us more about Comey than about Trump. THEN he says that he didn’t let Trump hug him. This is all to set up Comey as the guy who realizes early that Trump is unfit and does “the right thing”. All about reputation.
Sadly, for Comey, there is video.
As for him being pressured to the level of obstruction? Well, either he’s lying then, or he’s lying now. But will Mueller do anything to harm his inner circle buddy?
And this is the rub for Mueller, IF he can stay on. There seems to be a legal problem.
Robert Mueller has a serious conflict of interest that should disqualify him from serving as special counsel.
He has had a long and close relationship with someone who will surely become a pivotal witness –James Comey.
No one doubts Mueller’s sterling credentials. That is not the issue. He is eminently qualified. The problem arises in his duty to fairly and objectively evaluate the evidence he gathers.
How can Americans have confidence in the results if they know the special counsel may harbor a conspicuous bias? They cannot. The conflict inevitably discredits whatever conclusion is reached. It renders the entire investigatory exercise suspect, and it only elevates the controversy surrounding it.
For this reason, Mueller should not serve as special counsel.
The law governing the special counsel (28 CFR 600.7) specifically prohibits him from serving if he has a conflict of interest in the case. The rule has been interpreted to mean that even the appearance of a conflict is sufficient for disqualification.
A conflict of interest is a situation in which an individual has competing interests or loyalties. The conflict itself creates a clash between that individual’s self-interest or bias and his professional or public interest. It calls into question whether he can discharge his responsibilities in a fair, objective and impartial manner.
Identical rules govern prosecutors who, for example, must recuse themselves from handling a case against a person with whom they have worked or had a personal relationship. The same would be true if a prosecutor had a close relationship with a witness in the case. The prior association raises the real or perceived possibility of prejudice or favoritism which is contrary to the fair administration of justice.
So what exactly is Mueller’s conflict? He and Comey are good friends and former colleagues who worked hand-in-hand at the FBI and Department of Justice. Agents will tell you they were joined at the hip. They stood together in solidarity, both threatening to resign over the warrantless wiretapping fiasco involving then-Attorney General John Ashcroft in 2004.
Comey regards his predecessor as a mentor, while Mueller considers Comey his protégé. When Comey was appointed to succeed Mueller as FBI Director, both men appeared together and were effusive in their praise of one another. Their relationship is not merely a casual one. It is precisely the kind of association which ethical rules are designed to guard against.
If I were Trump I would bring this up and demand someone TRULY on the outside of the DC swamp if possible. It also makes you wonder what the hell the assistant DOJ attorney was thinking when he offered up Mueller!
Plus, we learn that Mueller’s legal firm worked for Jared Kushner in a business deal, plus Manafort- arguably the biggest interest in this “investigation.”
Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said Thursday that the agency will conduct a background investigation and detailed review of conflict-of-interest issues, a process outlined in the regulation governing special counsels under which he was appointed.
For the past three years, Mueller has been a partner in the Washington office of WilmerHale, whose attorneys represent former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, Trump’s daughter Ivanka and Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law.
Federal regulations prohibit officials from participating in matters involving their former employers for two years after joining the government unless they receive a waiver to do so.
Bruce Berman, WilmerHale’s general counsel, said that Mueller had no involvement in the representation of Manafort, Kushner or Trump, or any client in connection with any Russia-related inquiry. The firm says there are no potential conflicts regarding Mueller’s role as special counsel, Berman said.
Ahhh, whatever dude! This is typical, amoral legal crap from lawyers. To make this simpler, would parents let the cousin of the opposition coach umpire a ballgame for their kids? NOOOOO!!
Yet, here we are. And frankly PJ media points out IF Mueller makes it, has some serious steps he must take- none of which I have confidence he will do. In fact, I am convinced that the smartest thing Trump can do is say no- point out the conflicts and demand a truly impartial attorney. Maybe pull in some guy from the Arizona or Florida office.
For Mueller to separate them or to disregard any of the three will mean his investigation is essentially a useless charade. They are:
One: the matter of the Hillary Clinton email server. This has resurfaced dramatically in the firing of James Comey, reasons for which are laid out in Rod Rosenstein’s memo. Whether he wrote this memo before or after Trump decided to get rid of Comey is immaterial since the Deputy AG has now stated he stands behind its contents. Further to this portion of the narrative is the overall question of putative Russian government hacking into the Clinton campaign. So far we have seen no public evidence that this is true. We have actually seen circumstantial evidence (the Seth Rich murder) to the contrary. Mueller must also explain why the DNC refused to open its servers to the FBI after it was supposedly hacked by the Russians and why the FBI, incredibly, acquiesced in this. The questions here are endless—including why the FBI gave immunity in so many cases and allowed for the destruction of evidence.
This is about establishing a baseline. IF the Russians did not hack into the DNC, NOTHING ELSE MATTERS!
Two: the matter of government surveillance of Trump and his people. The president famously complained in a tweet of being “wiretapped” by Obama. Despite endless criticisms of his language when he actually put the word in quotes, the possibility of this obviously high-tech surveillance and the various attendant unmaskings is by far the most serious question that must be dealt with in this investigation. If the massive intelligence capabilities of the NSA and the CIA are being used for internal political purposes, the United States of America, as we know it and the Founders envisioned it, no longer exists.
How did Yates, Rice, Obama and all news outlets get any information at all about anyone talking to the Russians? Again, illegally obtained information is out!
Three: Trump and the Russians, of course. It’s clear from his campaign statements that Trump wanted better relations with Russia and Putin. This was nothing new. Several American presidents have sought the same thing at the beginning of their administrations only to be blindsided by reality. Obama seemed particularly desperate when he got caught on camera naively whispering to Dmitry Medvedev that he would have more to offer Putin after the election (as if Vladimir didn’t know). The rest, including the failed “red line,” Iran on the rampage, and the endless Syrian civil war, is history. The question now is to what extent Trump and his people may have colluded with the Russians and whether this “collusion” meant anything. In the case of Manafort, as it was with John Podesta, this seems to have been no more than normal (and somewhat repellent) greed.
All true. In 2008 as Obama was running against McCain, his people were actively undermining the GW Bush administration efforts to get a deal with the Iranians by CONTACTING THE IRANIANS and telling them to sign no deal until they got into power and would offer something far sweeter- which they did.
So, what does Donald Trump winning the White House expose? The HUGE, CORRUPT, INCESTUOUS CABAL of DC elites who are parasitically feeding off our nation- and do not want to stop.
That’s the bottom line. He ripped the cover back and we now see just how lost our nation is. Despite Comey’s insistence, there are no honest men left.