Image 01 Image 03

FBI Director Comey Testifies Before House Oversight Committee

FBI Director Comey Testifies Before House Oversight Committee

Kabuki theatre: Act 3

FBI Director, James Comey, will testified before the House Oversight Committee Thursday morning to answering questions about Hillary’s mishandling of classified information.

Political media reaction:


Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Humphrey's Executor | July 7, 2016 at 10:01 am

Here one question I hope they ask him: “Assume we want to outlaw what she did, what changes do we need to make to the existing law?”

What difference, at this point, does it make?

Does this establish a precedent that the rest of us can enjoy?

Whoa! Comey’s actually telling the truth!

Common Sense | July 7, 2016 at 11:04 am

I guess they are trying to find out how the decision was made not to move forward with charges.

But in reality it’s just a dog and pony show! Nothing is going to happen other than maybe a sound bite for a political ad.

We all know what happened!! Are we going to vote for Clinton as President? God I hope not!

    Absolutely. A dog and pony show. It’s all about power, and the political elite are content to trade the the top positions back and forth from time to time, while we fund it all. Republicans aren’t going to turn back the excesses of the federal government. The Republic was nice while it lasted. Nothing will come of this testimony, even if it was revealed that Hillary dropped puppies and kittens into a wood chipper along with the Constitution.

Wow! The House Oversight Committee is questioning someone about Hillary Clinton? You know what this means, right? Right?

It means there will be a nice buffet down the hall when they break for lunch. Ooo, I hope they have some of those meatballs in red stuff! I love those.

    You deserve an upvote to counter the downvote some stupid #never T-rumper gave you.

      Paul in reply to secondwind. | July 7, 2016 at 12:28 pm

      What on earth are you blathering about? You think that people who are opposed to Trump think things are working well in Washington? You think we aren’t disgusted by Hillary and what is happening here?

      What on earth makes you think that Trump can, or will, or even wants to fix any of this? He’s a lying, greedy, crony-capitalist narcissist on steroids. That’s all he is. You’re delusional if you think he’s going to accomplish any of the bullshit he’s spouting off about.

        Why did you respond to me, & not John C who made the main point I was only responding to?
        It comes down to this, I don’t really care who you are. All of you think & respond with the same hive mind, Aka “principled conservative.”

        You think attaching that label gives you some sort of imprimatur as a “constitutionalist” as you seek to bring others under the influence of that same hive mind.

          Paul in reply to secondwind. | July 7, 2016 at 3:06 pm

          Because JohnC merely made a statement about the Kabuki Theater nature of these hearings, and the “business as usual” corruption we’re seeing in Washington. I agree with him.

          You, on the other hand, made the unhinged leap to throwing ad hominem at people who don’t support Trump and the implied non sequitur that somehow Trump is going to fix everything that is wrong with Washington, when the reality of his actions and words tell us that he’ll do nothing of the sort.

          If we follow Obama with Trump, we’ll simply be trading one crony-capitalist big government thug for another. No thanks, I’m not voting for that.

          Johnson/Weld 2016!!! Throw the election to the House!!!

          Support Article V COS!!!

          Paul :
          You’ve just done what you accuse me of doing. You imply & assert actions & motivations to me that roil & scramble your own thought processes. Though I’ve gone through how I’ve arrived at where I’m coming from several times on this site you’ve either missed them or projected your own biases or limited interpretations on what I’ve stated.

          I have no intention of repeating those explanations yet again to yet another hive mind incapable of forming original thinking on their own initiative.

          As I’ve already stated earlier, I don’t care what either you or other drones of the hive think of me or anything I say. I learned a long time ago it is pointless to expect any understanding from your kind. Unlike all of you, it’s not in my purpose to impose my beliefs on others. That’s in all of your arenas.

          Paul in reply to secondwind. | July 7, 2016 at 5:35 pm

          LOL! Read the thread again, from JohnC down to here. Then go take your medication, you’re losing your grip on reality.

I hope somebody asks Comey how many times Hillary took the Fifth during her weekend interview.

    Anchovy in reply to Observer. | July 7, 2016 at 12:28 pm

    By “fifth” do you mean amendments or liquor?

      Observer in reply to Anchovy. | July 7, 2016 at 2:00 pm

      Fifth Amendment, although I’m not sure it matters at this point. The fix was in, as we all suspected. The interview was just for show. Something to soothe us rubes into thinking the FBI was actually investigating, rather than just coordinating their political whitewash of Hillary’s crimes.

      Hillary’s subordinates reportedly took the Fifth repeatedly in their own questioning about her illegal e-mail set-up. But “unsophisticated” Hillary was probably allowed to answer “I don’t recall” a couple hundred times, and then they called it a day, and took old Hill down to the local bar for a different kind of fifth.

I am hoping that Comey testifies that his lawyers wanted to charge her with a crime but that the DoJ lawyers said they could not get a conviction and that his lawyers are not experienced prosecutors so … .

Comey is a yet another republican. We all know any “hearing’s” held by republicans are a joke. They’re getting worried about how all this unconstitutional bushwah republicans have been pulling for years will now hold up.

Millions of Trump supporters who until now may have voted GOP downticket now won’t. All we need to do is look at Ted Cruz who has yet to endorse Trump & hasn’t ; while he angles for a prime speaking assignment in Cleveland, with an eye on 2020.

If in 2020 Trump isn’t accepting the renomination for his reelection to a second term the republican party as a viable party is over. The party of Lincoln will be dead. Republicans & “principled conservatives” will have killed it.

And it doesn’t really matter what “principled conservative”, # never T-rumpers on a website called Legal Insurrection have to say to the contrary.

    Paul in reply to secondwind. | July 7, 2016 at 12:31 pm

    You’re unhinged. You should put your Trump sock-puppet down and seek help.

      Isn’t that clever, Ragspecker has opened a 4th account to cover his pathetic tracks. Ragspecker, Patterico, now Paul, & I hate John Hughes (me) specifically to address me in response to things I Fwd to him as Patterico.

      Which proves his protestations to the contrary are a lie.

        Paul in reply to secondwind. | July 7, 2016 at 2:08 pm

        Sorry, but your last post just provides more evidence how unhinged you truly are. I’ve been posting here for years and I’m most certainly not Rags. I often agree with him, but I am not he.

I have complete faith in the system. Take those hearings with the IRS for targeting conservatives for example.

A simple question well worth asking: “Director Comey, based upon your investigation, do you agree with President Obama’s assertion that Hillary Clinton’s actions did not put American security interests at risk?”

thalesofmiletus | July 7, 2016 at 2:04 pm

Comey did not put HRC under oath, did not record her testimony, did not take this investigation seriously. The fix appears to have been in for some time now.

Nobody seems to be asking questions about the interview. They’re either dumb or are deliberately avoiding the issue.

I like how he said they did not investigate whether hillary was trying to avoid FOIA .

He did not consider Clinton’s lawyers clearance status as important . he did not know whether they were cleared o not.

Another Voice | July 7, 2016 at 4:04 pm

One very interesting point which was not addressed or mentioned here, is that FBI Dir. Comey has a full file with documentation (FOILs), testimony and subpoena power that may very well lead to indictments on the Clinton Foundation. He will not comment on this. Perhaps this is a trade off of wherein he has elected to hold back now in order to go deeper and farther with locked in Grand Jury evidence. (Bigger fish to fry-perhaps a BOGO). Tuesdays speech and his answers to the committee today, do not come across as a “friend of Hillary” camp. As a resident of NY, I would have you look at Preet Bharara, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York who is on a mission to purge Albany. He has prosecuted and convicted State Senate Leaders who are doing 15-20 yrs. and continues in handling the investigations of Cuomo’s cabinet appointments as well as other elected. Bharara is on record of not given Gov. Cuomo nor Mayor De Basio (NYC) a green flag as they are in his headlights with intent to prosecute where he finds evidence for a grand jury and when and where convictions can be made. It is a slow process but the success has been the reward. For those who have gone to jail, they were guilty of having received illegal mega donations and kick backs and were prosecuted on the quid pro quo for enriching their own pockets. Hillary may have to pay the piper yet.

I do not believe the Dir. Comey has closed the book on prosecuting Hillary. He’s in office until 2023…if he doesn’t have an “accident”.

    dmi60ex in reply to Another Voice. | July 7, 2016 at 4:20 pm

    He also refused to answer on the Foundation , whether that investigation was closed

    2nd Ammendment Mother in reply to Another Voice. | July 7, 2016 at 6:00 pm

    I had hope that Comey was playing a longer game until I watched his prevarications this morning. A smart PAC will run ads showing folks who were convicted on Federal Charges who didn’t intend to break the law but were either in the wrong place at the wrong time or didn’t know their actions were illegal.

    Time to go re-read Dr Reynold’s article on convicting a ham sandwich.

Maybe Judicial Watch will be able to depose her and we can see her squirm . Maybe the light will cause the roach to go back under the rock