FBI director: I have ‘never’ been anonymous source on Clinton, Trump investigations

FBI Director Comey

… from Russia Today, Moscow

[ Editor’s Note: Director Comey is nothing if not a good “testifier”. It is not a common talent to find on an executive resume, but a much needed one for department head inside the Beltway, and even more so for an investigative agency that many politicians have a love-hate relationship with, like the FBI.

Nobody ever lays a glove on Comey. He is actually treated with kid gloves, as overly zealous questioners risk exposing themselves to be filleted in public, something politicians don’t want on their resumes.

Today’s hearing gave the Director the podium to deny that he had been the source of controversial leaks to the news over the Hillary and the Donald investigations, and going further to say he did not authorize anyone else to do it either.

RT has a good selection of the director’s answers while on the Senate firing line – questions always prepared in advance by staff, and of course Comey is always prepared to answer everything, up to a point.

And yes there were inquiries about the Trump-Russia investigation, and the director handled that quite well. The respective parties are always trying to use investigations of the other party to draw as much blood as they can, and then scream bloody murder when their turn in the dock comes.

This is some of the best Reality TV that you can watch, because it’s the real thing. I might even watch the whole hearing tonight with a good beerJim W. Dean ]

Jim’s Editor’s Notes are solely crowdfunded via PayPal[email protected]

This includes research, needed field trips, Heritage TV Legacy archiving, and more – Thanks for helping out

*

–  First published  …  May 03, 2017  –

During a Senate hearing on FBI oversight, Director James Comey said he had not served as an anonymous news source on investigations into Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, nor had he authorized anyone else to do so. Comey also outlined the decision-making process for announcing on October 28 that the FBI had reopened the probe into Clinton’s use of a private email server during her time as secretary of state.

“It was a hard choice. I still believe in retrospect the right choice” Comey told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “I can’t consider for a second whose political fortunes will be affected.”

He said it would have been a “catastrophic” act of concealment if he had not spoken out about the discovery of emails related to the probe on a laptop belonging to Anthony Weiner, the husband of Clinton aide Huma Abedin.

Comey’s defense of the FBI decision comes a day after Clinton said that she would have been elected president if the vote had been held on October 27.

“It makes me mildly nauseous to think we had an impact on the election,” Comey said.

 

Senators also asked about the FBI’s investigation into possible collusion between Trump and his associates with Russia, as well as into the Kremlin’s alleged interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Comey announced in July that he had closed the probe into Clinton’s emails before reopening it days before the election. However, it was not until March 20 that Comey confirmed that the bureau was looking into Russia’s involvement in the election, including alleged links between Moscow and the Trump campaign.

“It’s still very unclear ‒ and I hope, director, that you will clear this up ‒ why the FBI’s treatment of these two investigations was so dramatically different,’’ Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein (D-California) said, noting that the FBI “summarily refused to even acknowledge the existence of any investigation.”

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) asked a similar question, wondering if it was “appropriate for you to comment on one investigation repeatedly and not say anything about the other?”

“I think so,” Comey replied. “I think I treated both investigations consistently under the same principles. People forget we would not confirm the existence of the Hillary Clinton email investigation until three months after it began, even though it began with a public referral and the candidate herself talked about it.”

Once it was confirmed in October 2015, Comey added, the FBI said “not a peep about it” until the investigation was closed. The only reason he sent the October 2016 letter to Congress about reopening the Clinton probe was because he had “testified under oath repeatedly that we were done.”

In his response to questioning by Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Nebraska) about Wikileaks, Comey refused to comment because he didn’t want to confirm whether or not there are charges pending for founder Julian Assange, but noted that “Wikileaks is an important focus of our attention.”

Wikileaks “crosses a line when it moves from being about trying to educate a public, and instead just becomes about intelligence porn,” Comey said. The organization just “pushes out information… without regard to the First Amendment values… and simply becomes a conduit for the Russian intelligence services… to damage the United States.”

*

Related Posts:



The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT, VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians, or the Veterans Today Network and its assigns. LEGAL NOTICE - COMMENT POLICY

Posted by on May 3, 2017, With 1689 Reads Filed under Russia, World. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments Closed

9 Responses to "FBI director: I have ‘never’ been anonymous source on Clinton, Trump investigations"

  1. JohninMK  May 9, 2017 at 3:43 pm

    Oh well, “you’re fired” said Trump today.

  2. DrKenTennant  May 5, 2017 at 12:32 pm

    You Tube: IOWA CORRUPT JUDGES COURTS POLICE 2

  3. nawlins  May 4, 2017 at 6:44 am

    I caught his performance while I was working a ship yesterday. I told the crew I had to mute the TV in the (empty) mess so I wouldn’t puke all over their nice clean deck. Good photo choice. Could this guy look any more smug?

    • Alex__B  May 4, 2017 at 8:00 am

      A good one ! No decent doctor would recommend watching a talking head of Deep State.
      Neither before, nor after lunch.

  4. Garry Compton  May 4, 2017 at 4:04 am

    One of the worst things about getting old is looking back at ones life and seeing that – I could have done that better – or if I did this – that would have been better etc. But another large Jolt, is having the time to catch up on what the world really is all about. My gut feeling and re education thru VT and other reading honest websites/histories is that the US Gov. all along was corrupt and their end results in just about everything for the folks in America – was Deceit, Dishonesty, Manipulation, Secrets, Selfishness,Theft,Murder, Conceit, and ending with the treasonous acts to end the American Dream, which most Americans had a right to and at one time – could achieve it with hard honest work.

  5. davor  May 4, 2017 at 2:05 am

    Noone asked him what he and Pompeo were plotting fortnight ago with “the heads of the five dollar-sterling families” in New Zealand.

  6. Eduardo  May 3, 2017 at 8:31 pm

    The point of the story might as well be that in an America’s web of naturalized lies Truth does not matter at all. Where does perjury under Oath fits in if lies are the new American truth Jim?

  7. wjabbe  May 3, 2017 at 4:06 pm

    This pious lying lawyer lives in Connecticut and even has a birthday of Sandy Hook Dec. 14, 1960 but remains silent about the Sandy Hook Hoax. The big question is why did Trump leave him in as FBI director with all the smoke around him? I think he did this because of the same reasons Jim outlined for the whores in Congress refusing to ask rude questions. Comey knows all the dirt on Trump just as he knows all the lies about Sandy Hook as FBI Director but remains mum on all of it. He is a liar like Trump and most of Congress. Trump left him in so he won’t spill the beans on anything of importance especially on Trump himself.

  8. Jim W. Dean, Managing Editor  May 3, 2017 at 3:32 pm

    The point of the story Pav is that if he did do it, then he committed perjury under oath, and anyone with the proof can sell him out. So we will see what happens now.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login


TOP 50 READ ARTICLES THIS MONTH
From Veterans Today Network