When Trump said…“James Comey better hope that there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!”..Comey dashed off to see a friend and gave him a memo he said he had written about the meetings he’d had with Trump…written from memory after the meeting….the memo that Comey said was ‘evidence’ Trump ‘ordered’ him to stop an investigation….that incredibly important revelation on the basis of which the BBC tells us Trump has ‘obstructed justice’ and may be impeached and removed from the Presidency. The ultra careful Comey has no copy of it! The man who said he specifically wrote a memo as a record because he would use it to defend himself if Trump turned on him later…and he has no copy!!??
Curiously, given that Comey was sure from the start that Trump was a liar and would need to make a record of everything that was said between them, it turns out the smoking gun memo is nowhere in existence. Comey didn’t keep copies of it. Does his ‘friend’ have one still? Questions are being asked. Not by the BBC of course, they are ignoring or downplaying most of the evidence that is in Trump’s favour and are basing their reports upon this missing memo...which they haven’t reported as missing…how on earth could Comey not have kept a copy when he felt it was of such crucial importance and of such bearing in his relationship with Trump…how could the BBC not think that was important? The sum total of the BBC’s latest indepth report?…
Mr Comey also told senators that he had leaked details of his memos about his conversations with Mr Trump to a friend, who passed them on to a reporter.
After the testimony, Mr Trump’s lawyer accused the former FBI chief of having divulged “privileged communications”.
Not only is the memo missing at present…the firm that manufactured the dodgy dossier on Trump won’t answer questions…..BBC are you there asking questions????
Seems strange that Comey wd give his memo to friend to give to NYT but not give to Congress; now says he has no copy https://t.co/HRrTgewIPk
— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) June 9, 2017
Firm behind the Russian "dossier" on Trump refuses to answer Congressional questions–Senate Judiciary Committee
— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) June 10, 2017
Thanks to Richard Pinder for reminding me of the links Clinton, that’s Clinton not Trump, has to Russia…see video above…not to mention Saudi Arabia [along with her closest advisor….from Saudi Arabia].
I haven’t got a clue what the hell is going on over there….
Can’t they just concentrate on the real and important tasks at hand?
This is the explanation censored by the BBC.
It has been confirmed that Donald Trump was never under investigation by the FBI. On the other hand Hillary Clinton is being investigated by the FBI.
But James Comey was pressured by Loretta Lynch to avoid using the term “investigation” when publicly discussing the investigation. Instead, he was told to use the term “matter” and he promptly agreed to use that term in order to distort the public perception of the severity of the criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton.
While Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, she received one hundred and fifty million dollars from Russian investors at the same time that these investors were seeking approval from the State Department for the Uranium One deal in which Russians gained control of 20% of the U.S. uranium supply. We also know that she received about one hundred million dollars from foreign governments at the same time that the State Department approved $165 billion weapons sales to Algeria, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E. and Kuwait. Its illegal for a US government officer to receive monies from foreign governments and entities. She also allowed classified information to be received by unauthorized persons. She destroyed classified information, failed to return classified information and failed to declare possession of classified information. Each one of these actions is a felony.
With regard to the Russians and the unconstitutional investigation (similar to the police persecution of Tommy Robinson) of a possible connection between Donald Trump and the Russians. It is all based upon an unsupported assertion by the DNC that the Russians hacked the DNC servers. This claim was made by the DNC when it became clear that WikiLeaks had come into possession of DNC emails showing that the DNC had rigged their own primaries against Bernie Sanders. In order to deflect attention from the content of the emails, the DNC (with the help of the MSM) made claims that the emails were hacked by the Russians in order to help the Trump campaign. However, the DNC refused to give the FBI access to the DNC servers and told the FBI that they would just have to take their word for it that the Russians had hacked the servers.
But then, Kim Dotcom claimed that WikiLeaks would be releasing information very damaging to the DNC. He said he got this information from an Internet colleague who went by the pseudonym of Panda. It was eventually revealed that Panda was Seth Rich, who worked for the DNC as their Voter Expansion Data Director. Seth Rich was also a Bernie Sanders supporter and the leaked emails revealed how the DNC had been rigging their primary elections against Sanders.
On the morning of July 10, 2016, Seth Rich was shot twice (or three times) in the back and killed. Although WikiLeaks NEVER reveals their sources, WikiLeaks offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to the killers of Seth Rich. This is something WikiLeaks has never done before.
Kim Dotcom is willing to testify under oath and deliver proof that Seth Rich was the leaker.
Also, a private detective who was previously a homicide detective for the Washington D.C. Police, named Rod Wheeler claims that his sources inside the D.C. Police Department were told to `stand down’ on the Seth Rich investigation. Additionally, even though the officers who arrived at the scene after Seth Rich was shot each had body-cams running, the police department claims that all of the body-cam footage from all of the officers, has mysteriously become lost. Also, in one of the leaked DNC emails, John Podesta writes, “I’m definitely for making an example of a suspected leaker whether or not we have any real basis for it.” It was also revealed that Seth Rich was going to meet with the FBI later in the morning on the day he was killed, to discuss the email leaks.
Political influence in this case is very strongly evident by the fact that a Crisis PR Consultant (damage control), who ONLY works for Democrats, named Brad Bauman was “assigned” to the Rich family by the DNC.
So, instead of trying to help find who killed their son, instead of offering a reward (as others have) for information leading to the identity of the killers, instead of any effort to get to the truth of what happened to Seth Rich, the DNC assigns a damage-control expert to represent the Rich family and to protect the reputation of the DNC. The immediate actions by this damage control expert, hired by the DNC, were to attempt to halt the private investigation and try to suppress all discussion of the Seth Rich murder.
I detect an odour.
A good summary which of course is not being reported on MSM.
One thing that you forgot to mention is that presently the DNC has declined to hand over their server to the FBI. I guess that the DNC do not want the FBI, to get some hard evidence rather than rumours, by examining the server to ascertain what tail tail signs there may be on that server indicating whether the server was hacked, or whether there was simply a leak. Strange that!
Do you have a link for this please ?
As Stefan Molyneux said in one of his recent postings on Youtube, if Mr Comey wasn’t doing anything wrong or underhand, why ask a friend to leak something, why not call a press conference and announce to the world what he had recorded? Or, more appropriately, why didn’t he go to his immediate boss and discuss the matter?
Also, why did he think President Trump a liar and not to be trusted, but he didn’t think the same of Mrs Clinton, who was a proven liar, or Presidents Obama and Bush? Apparently, he didn’t think it necessary to record details of meetings he’d had with them or Loretta Lynch, his boss at the time.
I think Mr Comey has dug a hole for himself and it will be interesting who he takes with him into his pit. I hope that President Trump is getting all his ducks in a row to provide the coup de grace for Mrs Lynch, Mrs Clinton and hopefully Mr Obama.
As an aside, I hope the DUP make the abolition of the bbc a non-negotiable requirement for supporting the Conservative government.
Apparently Comey had several official methods he could have used to bring the matter to notice if he considered that Trump had behaved in an improper manner which would have meant the issue would be dealt with.
Instead of doing that he chose to leak like a broken sewer to a close friend who he knew, or did he prompt him, to hand his leaked Memo to a partisan press outlet. That was done not out of some moral behaviour to bring the matter before the public but for the vindictive reason of virtually forcing the creation of a Special Prosecutor knowing full well that it would drag the non-issue on and on and on ad nauseam. That is not supposition, Comey himself stated that was his intention.
Now the bBBC and their biased equivalents in the US, having failed miserably with their Trump KGB Agent nonsense are now shifting their goalposts yet again in their determination to find absolutely anything, however feeble, as an excuse to Impeach Trump or make his position so impossible that they can force his resignation.
The rapidly growing hysterical overreactions of the US MSM on a day to day basis is the best comedy currently running on TV anywhere. They make Basil Fawlty in full manic mode look completely calm, sane and reasonable.
Comey came very close to being nailed at that hearing, but whilst the knife was dug in once or twice, it was never really tuned around. A pity since Comey could have been made to squeal.
I am very suspicious of the memo thing. Comey is a lawyer. It is standard practice of all lawyers to make attendance notes of all meetings and all telcons of importance. I find it hard to belief that Comey did not make contemporary attendance notes of all important meetings, whether these be with the DOJ, Lynch, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump etc. This should be routine, and I consider it negligent not to have made a contemporaneous memo of all such meetings. As you observe why Trump?
It was not clear whether the memo was typed on an FBI supplied laptop/tablet or on Comey’s personal laptop/tablet. If it was typed on an FBI supplied equipment the memo is definitely the property of the FBI, and not Comeys to do with as he liked. Even if typed on his personal equipment since it related to official FBI business, it is probably the property of the FBI, and not the property of Comey. I think that it must have been typed on FBI supplied equipment since if it was typed on personal equipment Comey would have an electronic copy, and he says that he has not. It is very suspicious to not store an important document on your own electronic equipment, unless you wish to cover your tracks, and why would he want to do that back in January?
Comey is a lawyer. He admitted that language is important. He was unable to cite a single example where the expression of a desire/aspiration or hope was held to be an instruction amounting to obstruction, This is because it is plain to any linguist (lawyer) that expressing a hope/desire is not an instruction. The Committee failed to fully follow up on this since they should have pressed him (i) given that you have admitted that language is important and given that you are a lawyer and therefore a specialist in the interpretation and meaning of words and language, you well knew that the comment ‘I hope…’ is not an instruction to you, and you never took Trump’s comment to be an instruction. Is that not so? No reasonable lawyer would have taken it to be an instruction and you as a reasonable lawyer would not have taken it as an instruction. (ii) If you truly took Trump’s comment to be an instruction then you would have appreciated that that amounts to obstruction doesn’t it (iii) If you come across obstruction, you are legally obliged to report obstruction to the DOJ, and the failure to do so is an offence, is that not so? (iv) you have admitted that you did not report Trump’s comment to the DOJ. You have admitted that you did not report that that Trump had tried to obstruct the investigation to the DOJ. This means either you did not take Trump’s comment as an instruction thereby seeking to obstruct the investigation and this explains why you did not report matters to the DOJ, or you did take Trump’s comment as an instruction and thus an attempt to obstruct the investigation and you are in breach of your legal obligation to report. Which is it?
Comey can’t in truth say that he took Trump’s comment as an instruction and thus an attempt to seek to obstruct the investigation, since if he did so, then following his meeting with Trump he should the next day have reported the incident to the DOJ and the failure to report is a breach of duty and a criminal offence.
Thus Comey is trying to walk a tight rope. He argues that he took the comment as an instruction, but not as an attempt to obstruct the investigation. Once can see from this dance that Comey is in real trouble, but the committee did not quite nail him on it.
Everything I have been reading about James Comey tells me that President Trump was quite right to sack him. As the head of the FBI, Comey was not any sort of investigator, he was a politician, part of the swamp. If he thought the President was ordering him to obstruct justice, he should have told the President to his face that that would not happen. Instead he scurried home like a little bitch and wrote a “memo” to himself, which he then arranged to leak, and which now seems no longer to exist.
God help President Trump when he is faced with duplicity and lies on all sides. He will need the patience of a saint to get anything done in the fetid swamp of Washington ploitics.
Comey’s comments are via a memo, a memory jogger, not an agreed record of a conversation. It was a private uncirculated note. If he really wanted a record of the conversation it should have been minuted and agreed by both parties as a factual record of the conversation. This is pretty much standard business practice.
The reality is without it being taped it is one man’s word against the other. Our media, who just seem to be parroting the US main stream media, Democrats, and anti Trump bitter GOPs, will never give a full unbiased picture.
AG Sessions rebutting every point and becoming angry now at the innuendo and hidden agenda.
Standing up well.