Is there new evidence Comey LIED in sworn testimony to CONGRESS over scandalous TRUMP probe?

(National SentinelConflict: During sworn testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee June 8, 2017, after he’d been fired by President Donald J. Trump, former FBI Director James Comey testified that he had only had two interactions with President Obama.

One, he said, was an hour-long conversation with Obama on policing, law enforcement and race. The other was a “brief” encounter to say goodbye on Obama’s way out the door, according to published testimony.

Via Politico:

SEN. MARK WARNER (D-VA): And so in all your experience, this was the only president that you felt like in every meeting you needed to document because at some point, using your words, he might put out a non-truthful representation of that meeting.

COMEY: That’s right, senator. As I said, as FBI director I interacted with President Obama, I spoke only twice in three years, and didn’t document it. When I was Deputy Attorney General I had a one one-on-one with President Bush been I sent an email to my staff but I didn’t feel with president bush the need to document it in that I way. Again, because of the combination of those factors, just wasn’t present with either President Bush or President Obama.

…SEN. MARTIN HEINRICH (D-NM): Mr. Comey, prior to January 27th of this year, have you ever had a one-on-one meeting or a private dinner with a president of the United States?

Live Fire Gear - FireCord

COMEY: No. Dinner, no. I had two one-on-ones with President Obama. One to talk about law enforcement issues, law enforcement and race, which was an important topic throughout for me and for the president. Then once very briefly for him to say goodbye.

But on Monday night during an interview with Fox News, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., and Rep. John Radcliffe, R-Texas, appeared with host Martha McCallum to discuss some of what they discovered after reviewing 50,000 text messages exchanged between anti-Trump FBI agent Peter Strzok and his mistress, FBI lawyer Lisa Page.

Among those, Gowdy said, was a message exchange discussing Comey’s plans to “brief the president” about an ongoing investigation close to the November 2016 election.

“And I saw an interesting text that Director Comey was going to update the President of the United States about an investigation,” Gowdy said.

“I don’t know if it was an Hillary Clinton investigation because that had been reopened in the fall of 2016 or whether it was the Trump investigation. I just find it interesting that the head of the FBI was gonna update the President of the United States who at that point would have been President Obama,” he said.

Nowhere in the published transcript of Comey’s testimony does he mention briefing Obama about an ongoing investigation.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

Gowdy to Mueller: ‘Don’t build case’ against TRUMP based on Steve Bannon statements (Video)

(National SentinelUnbelievable: South Carolina Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy on Wednesday said during an interview with Fox News‘ Martha McCallum that former top White House political adviser Steve Bannon has a “credibility problem.”

As such, Gowdy warned special counsel Robert Mueller to avoid using his past criticisms of President Donald J. Trump, his son Donald Jr., and other members of the Trump campaign to build a case against them regarding alleged Russian collusion.

Gowdy was basing his statements on testimony Bannon, former head of Breitbart News, gave to the House Intelligence Committee, on which Gowdy sits, earlier this week.

“I think the only thing dangerous for President Trump or his campaign is credible evidence,” Gowdy said.

“This is the same witness that said there was a zero percent chance that the Russian lawyer wasn’t walked up to Trump, and when he was asked what that evidence was, he came up with nothing,” he added.

“This is the same witness that said that members of the president’s family committed acts of treason,” Gowdy noted further.

“So he’s got a credibility issue. If they’re hinging the entire case on Steve Bannon‘s credibility, good luck to the prosecution.”

Bannon testified for some 10 hours on Tuesday, refusing to answer many of the panel’s questions, much to their chagrin.

At one point, according to one report, Gowdy himself grilled Bannon over why he would say things about the Trump campaign and campaign team to Michael Wolff, author of the highly controversial new book, “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House,” but not answer lawmakers’ questions.

Here’s Gowdy’s interview with McCallum:

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

Trump CALLS OUT Feinstein over possible ‘ILLEGAL’ release of Fusion GPS transcript

(National SentinelScandalous: On Thursday President Donald J. Trump criticized Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California for “possibly illegally” releasing the transcript of Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson.

Earlier in the week Feinstein claimed that she was pressured to release the transcript, but then backtracked, suggesting that a “bad cold” affected her judgement.

In August, congressional investigators interviewed Simpson about his firm’s role in the creation of the so-called “Trump dossier.” The firm hired former British spy Christopher Steele to compile the dossier, in which he used Russian sources.

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, along with the Democratic National Committee, financed a major portion of the dossier.

Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee pushed back against Feinstein’s release of the transcripts, which they had sought to block.

“It’s totally confounding that Senator Feinstein would unilaterally release a transcript of a witness interview in the middle of an ongoing investigation. Her decision was made without consulting Chairman [Chuck] Grassley [R-Iowa],” reported Fox News’ Chad Pergram.

“The innuendo and misinformation circulating about the transcript are part of a deeply troubling effort to undermine the investigation into potential collusion and obstruction of justice,” Feinstein said in a statement at the time the transcript release. “The only way to set the record straight is to make the transcript public.”

Her actions were heavily criticized by Trump.

“Democrat Dianne Feinstein should never have released secret committee testimony to the public without authorization. Very disrespectful to committee members and possibly illegal. She blamed her poor decision on the fact she had a cold – a first!” he tweeted.

He added: “The fact that Sneaky Dianne Feinstein, who has on numerous occasions stated that collusion between Trump/Russia has not been found, would release testimony in such an underhanded and possibly illegal way, totally without authorization, is a disgrace. Must have tough Primary!”

According to the transcripts, Simpson said he was “stunned” when he learned about a meeting between Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya and Donald Trump Jr., in Trump Tower in June 2017. He also said he learned about the meeting in news reports.

However, Simpson met with Veselnitskaya the morning of the Trump Tower meeting, and also afterward.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

DEAL with DoJ gives House Intel Chair Nunes access to ALL documents, witnesses, in Russia witch-hunt collusion probe

(National SentinelWinning: A deal between House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., and the Trump Justice Department struck on Thursday will give investigators access to “all remaining investigative documents” in an unredacted form that the panel has been seeking as part of its Russia probe.

The deal was revealed in a letter between Nunes and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein that was obtained by Fox News.

The letter was sent by Nunes to Rosenstein and it summarizes an “agreement” that had been reached during a phone call Wednesday evening. The letter also notes that key FBI and Justice Department witnesses will now be provided to the Intelligence Committee later in January.

“It is my hope that this agreement will provide the Committee with all outstanding documents and witnesses necessary to complete its investigations,” Nunes wrote.

Fox News reported further:

The agreement comes after the DOJ and FBI faced a Wednesday deadline to comply, under the threat of new subpoenas and even contempt citations. Under deadline pressure, FBI Director Christopher Wray and Rosenstein met Wednesday with House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., to discuss the demands from the intelligence committee.

Nunes’ letter outlines the terms of the deal reached, as he continues looking for information that helps prove or disprove whether the controversial anti-Trump “dossier” was used as justification to open the Russia probe and conduct surveillance on Trump campaign officials.

After more than a year-and-a-half, no one in the media, in government or in Congress has been able to verify the dossier’s most explosive and salacious claims about President Donald J. Trump and his campaign team.

Republicans on the committee have also expressed concerns that the dossier was paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

In his letter, the Intelligence Committee chairman said that the panel is “extremely concerned by indications that top U.S. Government officials who were investigating a presidential campaign relied on unverified information that was funded by the opposing political campaign and was based on Russian sources.”

Initially, Nunes issued subpoenas for all related records on Aug. 24, and they remain in effect.

However, the committee has been stonewalled by the Justice Department and FBI for months.

According to the agreement between Nunes and Rosenstein, the House panel will also get access to eight key witnesses, Fox News reported, “including FBI agent Peter Strzok, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who exchanged anti-Trump text messages during an affair and previously worked on the special counsel’s Russia probe; FBI general counsel James Baker, who was reassigned; FBI head of counterintelligence Bill Priestap, whom ex-FBI boss James Comey testified made the decision not to brief Congress about the Russia case during last year’s election; and Bruce Ohr, a DOJ official reassigned after concealing meetings with figures involved in the dossier.”

All witnesses are tied directly to allegations of political bias against the president.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

EXPOSED? Trump assistant Dan Scavino calls out ‘Leaker Adam Schiff’

(National SentinelLeaks and Leaks: President Donald J. Trump’s assistant Dan Scavino appeared to call out Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, as being one of the people responsible for leaking sensitive information to the media.

During Donald J. Trump Jr.’s marathon eight-hour closed-door testimony before the committee earlier this month, Schiff was seen by observers leaving the hearing room several times. Shortly thereafter, CNN began publishing snippets of information from the hearing itself.

Scavino, Trump’s assistant and director of White House social media, mentioned “Leaker Adam Schiff” in a Tuesday evening tweet that went viral. Scavino’s tweet came in a response to a tweet sent by former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer.

“Just a reminder that CNN, CBS and MSNBC have yet to explain how numerous ‘independent’ sources all misread the date on an email in calls to each of those three outlets. No explanation. None,” Fleischer tweeted.

The former Bush administration official was referencing a botched story involving an email sent by a representative of Wikileaks to Don. Jr. last fall with an encryption key to unlock a trove of emails from the Democratic National Committee.

The networks’ “sources” got the dates wrong, as the the encryption key had already been available to the public for days by the time Don Jr. was sent the email.

Following Fleischer’s tweet, Scavino pointed to Schiff.

“Perhaps they are waiting to hear back from Leaker Schiff?” he tweeted.

Fox News‘ Ed Henry was the first to report that Schiff was seen leaving the hearing room on several occasions, and that shortly afterward stories began appearing at CNN while Don Jr. was still providing testimony.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

BUSTED? Deputy AG Rosenstein to appear before House Judiciary Committee to answer questions about Mueller’s political BIAS

(National SentinelTestimony: Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has been called to appear before the House Judiciary Committee next week to answer questions regarding reports of political bias against President Donald J. Trump on the staff of special counsel Robert Mueller.

In a statement issued Wednesday, Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., said he is deeply troubled by recent reports regarding suspect political motives among Mueller’s staff.

In particular, Goodlatte and other Republican members of the committee want to know more about former lead FBI counterintelligence investigator Peter Strzok, who was removed by Mueller earlier this year after the Justice Department’s inspector general discovered he exchanged anti-Trump texts messages with an FBI lawyer, Lisa Page, and Mueller staff lawyer Andrew Weissmann, who praised former acting AG Sally Yates after she refused to defend the president’s first travel ban.

“I am very troubled by the recent controversy surrounding staff assigned to the special counsel’s investigation into Russian interference in last year’s presidential election. For example, one investigator allegedly has been removed from the special counsel’s team for sending anti-Trump texts,” Goodlatte said.

“He is also believed to have played a key role in the Clinton investigation, which allowed her and her associates to go unpunished for their use of a private email server to send and receive classified information, he added. “Another prosecutor, who remains on the special counsel’s team, has expressed views opposing President Trump’s agenda.”

He added, “Next week, Members of the House Judiciary Committee will have the opportunity to ask Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein about these developments since he is tasked with overseeing the special counsel’s investigation.

“We look forward to hearing from Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein on the many issues facing the Justice Department and on answers to the many questions Members have regarding issues before the Department,” the chairman said.

Rosenstein appointed Mueller after Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from any Russia-related Justice Department investigation.

During testimony before the House earlier this year, fired FBI Director James Comey said he leaked a memo he had written after an alleged conversation with Trump regarding dropping the bureau’s investigation into Trump’s first national security advisor, Michael Flynn, who pleaded guilty last week in federal court for lying to FBI agents, one of whom was Strzok.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

Southern Poverty Law Center won’t label Antifa a HATE group, even though DHS calls them ‘domestic terrorists’

(National SentinelDouble Standards: The Southern Poverty Law Center, a liberal organization best known for its so-called “Hate Map,” refuses to label Antifa a “hate group,” despite its members committing violence against Trump supporters and its federal designation as a domestic terrorist organization.

The SPLC’s hate map feature groups and organizations it has classified as hateful based on its own criteria. The U.S. Border Patrol and the Christian-themed Family Research Council are featured on the map.

But Antifa organizations are not included, The Washington Times reported.

Despite the domestic terrorist designation by the Department of Homeland Security and the existence of countless videos online documenting the Left-wing extremist group’s violence and hateful rhetoric, SPLC president Richard Cohen said Antifa does not represent hate.

“If you are familiar with our work, we write about antifa often,” Cohen said last week in a testimony he gave to the House Homeland Security Committee. “We condemn their tactics — I’ve said so publicly and we do so always — but antifa is not a group that vilifies people on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion and the like.”

The group does, however, base its violence on political affiliation, as most of it has been, and continues to be, directed at conservatives and supporters of President Donald J. Trump, as DHS and the FBI have said.

Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., said during Cohen’s testimony on domestic terrorism that his defense of Antifa “reduces” the SPLC’s “credibility.”

“So you’re OK with Antifa as long as they don’t say things that you don’t agree with, but it’s OK if they hit people on the head with a bike lock or set things on fire or riot and flout the law by wearing face masks and incite riots — you’re OK with that?” Perry asked.

“We condemn groups like antifa, we write about them often. We don’t list them as hate groups,” Cohen responded.

Cohen was also asked why the SPLC doesn’t include groups on its Hate Map such as the Students for Justice in Palestine who have reportedly advocated for violence against Jewish people.

“I don’t know about that particular group,” Cohen said. “We try to call hate as we see it. We limit our list not by left versus right but by groups that vilify others for factors such as race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion or the like.”

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

Rep. Luis Gutierrez tried ‘gotcha’ with Jeff Sessions…not so much

(National SentinelAlt-Left: Democratic Rep. Luis Gutierrez on Tuesday attempted to use an article from the Left-wing magazine Mother Jones along with an offer to end ongoing investigations into President Donald J. Trump in an unsuccessful attempt to trap Attorney General Jeff Sessions during testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.

At one point during the hearing, Gutierrez attempted to use the article which claimed that Sessions has lied to Congress on three occasions when he asserted that he never had communications with Russian officials.

“Did you have campaign communications with the Russians?” Gutierrez asked. “Because it appears you had had campaign communications with the Russians.”

Sessions responded that the context of the congressman’s question was wrong.

“My focus was on responding to the concern that I, as a surrogate, was participating in a continuing series of meetings with intermediaries for the Russian government,” Sessions said. “I certainly didn’t mean I had never met a Russian in the history of my life.”

“My response was, according to the way I heard the question, as honestly I could give it at the time. I hope you’ll treat me fairly when you evaluate that,” he added.

The Illinois lawmaker had come prepared for theatrics, however, bringing a salt shaker with him to the hearing to imply that Sessions’ remarks could be taken only with a grain of salt.

That led Sessions to fire back at the committee, mostly targeting Democrats like Gutierrez who were making insinuations that he wasn’t being honest.

“I have been asked to remember details from a year ago, such as who I saw on what day, in what meeting, and who said what to when. In all of my testimony, I can only do my best to answer all of your questions as I understand them and to the best of my memory,” Sessions said, as reported by CBS News.

“But I will not accept and reject accusations that I have ever lied. That is a lie,” he said emphatically. “As I said before, my story has never changed. I have always told the truth, and I have answered every question to the best of my recollection as I will continue to do today,” he added.

Earlier, Gutierrez proposed a way to end the investigation into alleged Russian collusion, as well as any possible investigation into Hillary Clinton.

Get this $25 credit card knife absolutely FREE — Click here!

“My solution would save the American taxpayers a lot of grief and a lot of money by eliminating the need for the investigations. I propose we simply go to the president and the former secretary of state and ask them both to resign. I’ll go to Hillary Clinton, you can go to Donald Trump and we’ll say to them both to resign,” he said.

“Then we can move on as a nation and from an election that just never seems to end.”

Sessions responded simply that he will continue to do his job as attorney general.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

So, Susan Rice will talk to MSNBC but not the House Intelligence Committee?

(National SentinelConspiracy: President Obama’s former National Security Advisor Susan Rice, facilitator of the “anti-Muslim video” lie regarding Benghazi and serial unmasker of Team Trump associates, canceled her scheduled closed-door testimony before the House Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, Breitbart News reports.

Rice was supposed to discuss her unmasking of the identities of Trump campaign and transition team members who were caught up in Obama-era surveillance of foreign targets that many believe were politically motivated.

As Breitbart noted further:

During that surveillance, Americans’ names are masked for moral, privacy, and legal reasons, but U.S. officials can request the unmasking of their identities through a formal process.

NCAA College Football Tailgate Time

The House intelligence committee is looking into the issue of improper unmasking of campaign officials and politicians and have subpoenaed the NSA, CIA, and FBI for records related to Rice, former CIA Director John Brennan, and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power.

A number of news sources reported in March that Rice was responsible for unmasking Team Trump members; a conversation one-time Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn had with Russia’s Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak was leaked illegally to the Washington Post in February. The fallout led to Flynn’s resignation, but questions began circulating almost immediately about why an American citizen’s identity was revealed during foreign surveillance.

Originally Rice — who got real good at being untruthful during her Obama tenure — told PBS she didn’t know anything at all about the unmasking. But later she admitted engaging in the unmasking of Team Trump members, insisting she did so as a matter of national security, not for political reasons.

Her House Intelligence Committee testimony would have been the first time she discussed the unmasking since the first news reports, though she’s given interviews to friendly news outlets like MSNBC.

Also recently, Rice told New York Magazine she believes the congressional testimony is just an extension of being targeted by conservatives as a follow-up to her bogus Benghazi narrative in 2012, which led to an extensive congressional investigation.

And of course, there is always this lingering question when discussing Obama-era scandal: What did the 44th president know about it?

Former Trump campaign aide blasts Dems on House Intel Committee for insinuating he played role in Russian election ‘meddling’

(National SentinelCongress: A former aide to President Donald J. Trump’s campaign ripped into some Democrats on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for attempting to tie him into Russia’s alleged 2016 election meddling.

Michael Caputo, a former senior advisor to the Trump campaign, posed his opening and and closing statements on PoliticsNY, a site he runs, for the world to see.

In them, he ripped into Democratic committee member Rep. Jackie Speier, for claiming he was Russia President Vladimir Putin’s image consultant back on March 20.

“Contrary to Rep. Jackie Speier’s comments in your March 20 public hearing, I was never President Vladimir Putin’s ‘image consultant.’ To the contrary, a simple Google search would have revealed a great deal, including my July 2004 op-ed in the Washington Post, written after my colleague was murdered in Moscow,” said Caputo.

And later, he noted: “Other statements made during the March 20 public hearing about me were also inaccurate. For instance, Rep. Speier mentioned that my business failed in Russia without noting a simple historical fact: tens of thousands of businesses failed there in the wake of the 1998 Ruble devaluation and the subsequent economic meltdown.

“For some reason,” he continued, “the congresswoman also got personal, unnecessarily mentioning my wife. Of course, my wife is Ukrainian – and you don’t need Google to understand why our marriage does not support the Congresswoman’s hypothesis that I’m a Putinist,” Caputo added. “Just as not every Italian American is associated with organized crime, not every Ukrainian woman is connected to President Putin.”

Caputo went on to describe how he and his wife, who in February became an American citizen, were also accused of impropriety by Speier and other Democratic committee members, adding they both were “buried in threats,” The Daily Caller reported.

“That day and those that followed were both terrifying and, ultimately, ironic: My wife, a hardworking wife and mother, proudly became an American citizen in February. A month later, she was unfairly scrutinized, demonized and threatened as a result of comments made by members of this Committee that lacked investigation and context,” he noted.

The DC noted further:

Caputo testified that he worked for the Trump campaign from late November 2015 to June 20, 2016 as director of the New York State primary campaign in Buffalo. Following the primary, he moved to the Trump New York City headquarters. He testified he had “no autonomy” and was “not a decision maker.”

Around June 1, 2016, he said he was appointed Director of Communications for the Caucus Operations at the Republican National Convention.

Emergency Foods

“From the day President Trump announced his candidacy until Inauguration Day, to my knowledge I never spoke about his campaign with anyone remotely associated with the Russian government. At no time did I ever talk about Russian contacts with any member of the campaign. I certainly did not hear talk of collusion with Russia or any foreign nation,” he continued. “The only time I spoke about Russia with Donald Trump was in passing, during a dinner conversation in 2013, long before he decided to run for President. He simply asked: ‘What was it like to live in Russia.’ Our exchange may have lasted 30 seconds.”

He also lashed out at having to appear before the committee in the first place, and under such unjustified conditions (as in, the Russia collusion hoax).

“I’m a Bills fan. I’m not a Gucci-loafered lobbyist. I’m not selling a book. I’m not a celebrity seeking publicity. I won’t be profiting in any manner from my appearance here today, or future appearances. In fact, your investigation and others into the allegations of Trump campaign collusion with Russia are costing my family a great deal of money. I’m paying for this in the only way an average guy can: I have liquidated my children’s college fund,” he said.

Gingrich to Congress: Call Obama to testify

(National SentinelCongress: Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has a message for congressional committees investigating “Russian collusion” with President Donald J. Trump, as well as Moscow’s alleged efforts to interfere with the November election: Call former President Obama to testify.

Gingrich, in an appearance on Fox News‘ “Hannity,” was responding to reports that Obama and his national security team were aware of Russian attempts to disrupt the election process, but the president elected to do little to intervene – largely because, as host Sean Hannity said, to avoid tainting Hillary Clinton’s expected victory.

Per Breitbart News:

Gingrich responded by saying there was “no question” Congress should call the former president to testify under oath about his handling of potential Russian interference.

“There’s no question that Congress should call the former president in to testify under oath to explain what he was doing and why he was doing it,” Gingrich said. “There’s no question that they should build the case from the ground up. Who was doing the investigating? Who was reporting to the president? Who did it go through? What were the meetings like when they decided not to pursue it? I mean, talk about an extraordinary failure of national security.”

Of course, this all assumes that the narrative – Russian interference – is even true. We know now, after months of leaks, that there isn’t any there, there when it comes to Trump-Russia “collusion,” because that information would have come out by now, since the FBI has reportedly been investigating the claimed connection for a year.

So it could be that 80 percent or more of the entire Russia narrative has been completely manufactured. That said, Russia has attempted to subvert our democratic processes for decades, just as we’ve attempted to subvert the Russian political process. So if Russia’s attempt last year was something out of the ordinary, and Obama did nothing because everyone expected Clinton to win (and ‘Russian interference’ would have tainted her victory), then sure, Congress ought to find out what happened.

But Obama very likely would never respond to any pointed questions regarding his role in all of this, at least not in an open session. Presidents fall under scrutiny all the time for actions they took (or did not take) while in office, but few have ever been called before Congress to answer for them. So we don’t expect that Obama will, either.

Still, Gingrich raises an interesting proposition.

Trump lawyer: Prez feels ‘completely vindicated’ by Comey’s pre-testimony statement

By J.D. Heyes, editor-in-chief

(National SentinelPolitical nothing burger: Fired FBI Director James Comey released his pre-testimony statement on Wednesday that he will make before the Senate Intelligence Committee later this morning, and President Donald J. Trump couldn’t be happier.

His lawyer said the boss feels “completely and totally vindicated” by what Comey had to say – about private meetings with the president, about what was allegedly said during those meetings, and the fact that he will say Trump was never a target of FBI investigations into potential “collusion” with Russia to “steal” the election from Hillary Clinton.

chief-organics-msm“The president is pleased that Mr. Comey has finally publicly confirmed his private reports that the president was not under investigation in any Russian probe,” attorney Mark Kasowitz said in a statement. “The president feels completely and totally vindicated. He is eager to continue to move forward with his agenda.”

Mind you, the disgusting fake news establishment media is trying to spin this every which way it can to make it look as though the president has indeed done something wrong – something that rises to the level of, say, obstruction of justice. But while Comey may say he was “disconcerted” by Trump’s “pressuring” of him to back off on investigations into at least one member of his campaign/transition team, fired National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, experts from the Justice Department have said plainly that there is no there, there: None of that comes close to rising to a level of illegality.

And if it did, Comey had a duty to report that conduct to congressional committees and the Justice Department.

He didn’t. Instead, he wrote “memos.” And now it’s too late to claim any presidential improprieties.

Earlier, the acting FBI director, Andrew McCabe, also testified that the bureau was under no pressure to end any investigations. And yesterday, all the head of U.S. intelligence told the same panel the same thing – at no time did any of them feel any pressure from the White House to drop investigations, change investigations, or prematurely end investigations.

Meanwhile, these nothing burgers did not stop Senate Democrats on the intelligence committee from engaging in political theatrics, accusing men of integrity and decades of flawless government service of trying to hide something.

There is still much to criticize about the president, namely, his seeming lack of understanding of the independent nature of the Judicial Branch, and how presidents can be perceived to be demanding something when they may not intend it that way. In this respect, it can certainly be said that Trump applied inappropriate pressure on the FBI director, though we don’t know to what extent because Comey hasn’t turned over his memos to Congress (and he should because they are government property under Open Records laws).

But did he break the law? It hardly appears so.

The Democrats are going to have a day (or three) in the sun, and because the hearing will be widely watched, they’re going to try their best to make it appear as though the country itself has been torn asunder by Trump’s boorish behavior.

It hasn’t; not even close – especially when you take into consideration all of the political motivations behind former President Obama’s unmasking and monitoring of Team Trump. That kind of all-powerful government surveillance is far more dangerous to the future of our republic than an oafish, amateurish approach by a brand new politician and president seeking to defend a loyal colleague and friend.


Experts: Don’t expect many ‘bombshells’ from Comey’s testimony

(National SentinelPolitical theater: As we reported yesterday, official Washington is all abuzz and atwitter over fired FBI Director James Comey’s upcoming testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, with many politicos and especially Democrats believing that he’s going to lay the pipe to President Donald J. Trump and his inner circle over this “Russian collusion” business.

We wrote:

chief-organics-msmCNN has a countdown clock, billing the ‘The Comey Show’ as something bigger even than the Super Bowl. Most other mainstream media networks announced plans to broadcast his congressional testimony live. Some DC bars are opening early, featuring “Russian-themed drinks.” Oh, how clever; we get it. ‘Cause “Russia stole the election for Trump, and collusion, and Hillary should be president…”

But while the bulk of Americans are fed up with the BS, have no interest in “The Comey Show” and are far more interested in kitchen table issues like getting a better job offer and paying less for their health care, a number of experts are pouring water on the blazing self-interest in D.C., noting that Comey’s public testimony will fall far short of its “bombshells” hype.

As reported by Lifezette:

Liberals and media pundits are anticipating fired FBI Director James Comey’s upcoming Senate testimony like football fans look toward the Super Bowl.

It will be the biggest congressional testimony since the Clarence Thomas hearings! No, since Oliver North testified about the Iran-Contra affair! No, wait — since Watergate!

For all the salivating, Comey’s appearance before the Senate Intelligence Committee may end up disappointing, according to national security and law enforcement experts.

For instance:

CNN on Tuesday cited anonymous sources as saying that Comey will dispute President Donald Trump’s account of a February meeting between the two men in which the president reportedly asked if the FBI director could back off the investigation of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

Trump’s critics have interpreted that as obstruction of justice. But experts noted that federal law would have required Comey to inform the Department of Justice if he was concerned that the president was trying to obstruct justice. He apparently did not do so or even inform senior officials at the FBI. What’s more, Acting Director Andrew McCabe testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee last month that “there has been no effort to impede our investigation today.”

James Kallstrom, a former assistant director of the FBI, told LifeZette that it would be hard for Comey then to drop a bombshell and tell the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday that Trump was trying to improperly shut down the probe.

“I don’t see how that could possibly be,” he said.

Yeah, but couldn’t he now just say that he came to believe Trump’s actions amounted to obstruction of justice after the president fired him?

“He could say that, but who in the world would believe it other than the corrupt media?” Kallstrom said.

Well, lots of Democrats would believe Comey because they want to – you know, all that Trump hate – even though their hatred was directed at Comey when Queen Hillary was under the Comey-led FBI’s investigation (and why wasn’t she indicted, Mr. Comey?)

Chris Stecker, a former assistant FBI director, told CNN yesterday evening that it didn’t appear as though Comey discussed Trump’s alleged request with senior staff regarding whether it even justified opening a preliminary investigation, and that included supervisors who reportedly saw a memo Comey said he wrote after meeting with the president.

“He apparently didn’t do that, and he showed the memo and shared his conversation with other executive staff around him, and nobody thought it rose to the level of at least even a preliminary inquiry, which is a very low bar,” he said. “So he’s going to have to answer those questions” if he now makes an alternate claim.

Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor in Manhattan, told Lifezette he believes that Comey may say he felt as though Trump pressured him, but that’s all. And that ain’t illegal.

“Pressure is not obstruction of justice; it’s pressure,” he said. “It’s not legally sufficient to make out a legal case for obstruction.”

And while McCarthy, who has said he is friendly with Comey and has a lot of respect for him, could argue that pressure combined with the firing amounted to obstruction, “then he’d also have to conclude the case was never shut down,” he said.

As the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, Trump has the legal right to order the Justice Department or the FBI to stop any investigation. And he said that Trump could have just pardoned Flynn, which he did not.

The president, meanwhile, had little for reporters when asked yesterday about Comey’s testimony.

“I wish him luck,” Trump said.


Serial liar James Clapper says, again, that Russia tried to smear Clinton and help Trump – without any evidence

By J. D. Heyes

(NationalSentinelIntelligence: Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper appeared before a Senate subcommittee investigating potential Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election and repeated an unsubstantiated theory: That Vladimir Putin’s Kremlin sought to influence the election against Democrat Hillary Clinton and for Republican Donald J. Trump.

“While it’s been over four months since the issuance of the assessment, as [FBI and NSA] Directors [James] Comey and [Michael] Rogers testified … the conclusions and confidence levels reached at the time still stand,” Clapper told a Senate Judiciary subcommittee in his prepared remarks.

Clapper said the assessment was completed by three agencies: the CIA, the FBI and the National Security Agency, the Washington Examiner reported.

Here we go again.

It should be noted that this claim is not hard-and-fast, it’s a theory. Clapper, who was a political appointee we must remember, can throw around official-sounding rhetoric and imply anything and everything he wants as a former DNI, and to the uninitiated or chronic #nevertrumper, it’s going to sound believable.

Once again, it’s worth reminding everyone that not a single U.S. intelligence agency has produced one shred of documented proof of what Clapper is alleging. Not one single shred.

Furthermore, there is no evidence whatsoever that any alleged Russian activity in any way changed the outcome of the election, which is what Democrats have been attempting to claim by using this phony baloney narrative.

Not a single person said to be “tied to Russia” from Team Trump was charged or arrested for any illegal activities, after being under surveillance for nearly a year by the Obama adminstration.

NO one.

Finally, no evidence has been produced (through leaks of course) that anyone on Team Trump has illicit contacts with the Russian government or Putin. NONE.

And yet this discredited, goofy theory persists because it’s what the fake news ‘mainstream media’ has concocted and, thus, so it becomes reality to the Democrats. Worse, far too many Americans have been duped by this garbage simply because they don’t like or agree with the man in the Oval Office. Sad.

And there is this: Clapper, in the past, has had problems with the truth:

— In March 2013, Clapper said in response to a question from Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., about whether NSA colleges “any type of data on millions, hundreds of millions of Americans,” the agency didn’t.

Wyden: “It does not?”

Clapper: “Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly.”

Wyden: “All right. Thank you. I’ll have additional questions to give you in writing on that point, but I thank you for the answer.”

The following year, revelations about NSA activities leaked by former contractor Edward Snowden revealed Clapper was lying his you-know-what off. He later apologized to the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time, Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., claiming he ‘misunderstood’ Wyden’s question (leading many to speculate at the time if Clapper was smart enough to hold his position if he couldn’t even understand a very simple question).

— In March, during a televised interview on NBC News, Clapper fudged again, claiming that no, the Obama administration did not have Team Trump under surveillance – a lie that has been exposed so many times by now we’ve lost count.

“I will say that for the part of the national security apparatus that I oversaw as DNI, there was no such wiretap activity,” he said.

Uh, “the part of the national security apparatus” that the DNI oversees is all of it. He’s the director of national intelligence; all intel activity – especially that which involved the campaign of a major party candidate – would have been known to the DNI (and to Obama, by the way).

Many in Congress – including Wyden – hoped that charges would be filed against him for lying to the committee, which is against U.S. law. None were, but clearly Clapper has issues with the truth when it comes to political agendas.


Obama allies have nothing new to add to the bogus ‘Russia hacked the election’ narrative

(NationalSentinel) Politics: Former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, a darling of the Marxist Democratic Left, is testifying before a Senate subcommittee today as the panel continues to probe the fake news narrative that Russia somehow intervened in the Nov. presidential election on behalf of Donald J. Trump.

But despite some of the breathless reporting before her testimony – and what will undoubtedly come after it – Yates, appointed to her position by Barack Obama, will have little to add to this narrative of any substance.

Already the salient point she is expected to make – that she “warned” the incoming Trump administration about retired U.S Army Gen. Michael Flynn, whom Trump initially named as his national security advisor, over his alleged “ties” to Russia – is being disputed. President Obama also, reportedly, ‘warned’ Trump about Flynn.

“Obama made it known that he wasn’t exactly a fan of General Flynn’s,” White House press secretary Sean Spicer told the press gaggle today when asked about Flynn. He also said that if Obama was really worried that Flynn was this big security risk, he should have taken action.

“Why didn’t he suspend General Flynn’s security clearance, which they had just re-approved months earlier?”

Flynn served nearly three years as the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency after being appointed by Obama; he was fired, some say, because he wasn’t ‘fully on board’ with Obama’s apologetic, absent-minded, amateurish foreign policy.

In any event, Flynn’s “ties to Russia” have amounted to little more than a couple of paid appearances and some lobbying, nothing illegal or even illicit. That he wasn’t completely truthful about those activities with Vice President Mike Pence has more to do with why he’s no longer Trump’s advisor than anything else the Democrats and the narrative-driving establishment media are claiming. Also, Flynn’s trip to Russia in 2015 was carried out under that security clearance granted by Team Obama. Yeah, about that

Nevertheless, the loony Left and their sycophants in the media will paint Yates as the hero, the “non-partisan careerist” and voice of reason attempting to do the incoming Trump administration this huge favor by “warning” Trump to dump Flynn. Ask yourself when the last time anyone on the Left was sincerely trying to help Trump out. The answer: Never. And let’s not forget, this “non-partisan” public servant was fired by Trump because she refused to defend his first executive order barring travel to the U.S. from seven terrorist-infested countries the Obama regime had already identified as such.

For his part, Trump is defending Flynn by questioning the Obama administration’s decision to continue certifying that he was no security risk by reinstating his clearance. He’s also said to be frustrated with some of his own team members who appear all too willing to cast Flynn to the dogs, Axios reports.

As for Yates, Trump has a question for the panel to ask:

Leaking was rampant during the weeks before and after Trump ascended to the Oval Office. It’s a legitimate question that perhaps the ranking official at the Justice Department could and should answer.