Image 01 Image 03

Dems and Media spun political dispute into a criminal investigation

Dems and Media spun political dispute into a criminal investigation

“by spinning this narrative without evidence of alleged collusion, have taken what’s a political matter and … turned it into a criminal investigation”

Another day, another series of NY Times and WaPo stories based on leaks.

The NY Times reports that Trump told the Russian Foreign Minister and Ambassador that Comey was a “nut job” who had politicized the investigation, and that his firing relieved “great pressure”. The report was based on someone reading a memo about the meeting to the Times reporter. Here is the White House’s response, issued in Sean Spicer’s name:

“By grandstanding and politicizing the investigation into Russia’s actions, James Comey created unnecessary pressure on our ability to engage and negotiate with Russia,” Mr. Spicer said. “The investigation would have always continued, and obviously, the termination of Comey would not have ended it. Once again, the real story is that our national security has been undermined by the leaking of private and highly classified conversations.”

The story is being taken as more evidence of possible obstruction of justice, though as the Spicer response indicates, the counter-argument is that it’s nothing new: Trump has been telling just about everyone that Comey was a nut job who Trump accused of grandstanding and showboating. While perhaps it was unseemly to make the comment to the Russians, it is not new evidence.

The WaPo story says there is a “senior White House advisor” who is “a significant person of interest” in the Russia investigation.

These two latest leaks don’t seem as bombshell-y as the breathless media is making them out to be. If you thought Trump was unfit for office before, you still think that. If you think he’s being undermined by leaks and media hype, you still think that.

The appointment of Robert Mueller earlier this week to serve as special counsel seems like ancient history in our 6-hour news cycles, but it is undoubtedly the biggest event of the week. Democrats are now fretting that the appointment of a special counsel, which they have demanded for months, may actually serve Trump’s interests because it lowers the likelihood of public hearings. After all, Congress wouldn’t want to do anything that might interfere with the special counsel’s investigation, and that investigation now may be less leaky than before.

I discussed the appointment of the special counsel on Thursday, May 18, 2017, on the Tony Katz radio show.

“He will have the authority to investigate and the authority to prosecute any crimes that he finds, and the scope of what he’s investigating under the order is fairly broad, it’s anything related to Russian interference in the campaign and any collusion, or any matters arising out of that. So it’s very broad, and very easily in the wrong hands could be a prosecutor in search of a crime, as opposed to a prosecutor prosecuting a crime.”

* * *

“Let’s be clear, the alleged collusion, while certainly nobody’s in favor of it, may not even be a crime. So let’s put that out of the way.

And that’s the perverse thing about this whole process, is that the allegations used to create this special counsel, or prosecutor, arise out of what’s a political matter. Certainly it would be extremely damaging politically to Trump and anyone involved if there were evidence of collusion, of which there is none as of now, but that would not necessarily be a crime. There’s no law that I’m aware of that prevents somebody in a campaign from talking to a foreigner or a foreign government. It may not be a good thing, may be a bad thing. But it’s not necessarily criminal.

So one of the amazing things, in my view, about this is that Democrats and the media, by spinning this narrative without evidence of alleged collusion, have taken what’s a political matter and now potentially turned it into a criminal investigation, or they have turned it into a criminal investigation….”

* * *

Q. Do you think Robert Mueller is the wrong hands [for the investigation]?

A. I don’t think so, I have no reason to believe that … but until you get there, you don’t know. If we see this turning into what I’ll call ‘process crimes,’ which is somebody wasn’t completely truthful, or was evasive, not necessarily perjury, but obstruction of justice …. If that’s where this ends up, then this would be another example of a special counsel, or special prosecutor, gone wrong.



Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Lavrentiy Beria is laughing in his grave . . .

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | May 19, 2017 at 7:38 pm

Never fear.

“No weapon formed against you shall prosper.”

practicalconservative | May 19, 2017 at 7:43 pm

It seems rather apparent now that Comey has been the source of many of these leaks. Based on that alone, he needed to go.

He is almost certainly the Times leaker for the “memo” story. Strange. Comey testified under oath in early may that no pressure had been put on him to end an investigation. The testimony contradicts what he leaked about his memo.

I wonder, are Comey’s notes and memorandum government property? How does he get to take them with him? Could he face charges?

    Read what he ACTUALLY said. We know that he reported people “oftimes” expressed opinions. We know Barracula did it at least four times.

    What he said was that nobody had ordered him to curtail an investigation.

      practicalconservative in reply to Ragspierre. | May 19, 2017 at 8:24 pm

      Not sure I need to listen to Comey’s testimony again. It is raw meat to a skilled litigator. Beautiful material for cross examination.

      As a logic problem — you can parse the words. Democrats do that all the time. Where did the parsing get them? Out of power.

        HE said waht he said. Read it…listen to it..quote it HONESTLY. It always says what I represented.

        I’m a pretty skilled litigator, and cross-exams are kind of a forte.

        He still said what he said, which is what I said he said.

          objection in reply to Ragspierre. | May 19, 2017 at 8:38 pm

          Skilled litigator. Maybe.

          But from my perspective, the man had you beautifully boxed in. I would stop cross or move on to another topic.

          In other words, I would not have re-engaged.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | May 19, 2017 at 8:42 pm

          I don’t give a good shit what you think.

          Comey is on record. Read the flucking record. Or don’t. And just be another liar who loves his lie. Always up to you.

          objection in reply to Ragspierre. | May 19, 2017 at 8:50 pm

          Thank you. Sir. I would give anything to have a witness respond, as you just did, under cross in a Court. You made my day.

          You may be an excellent litigator. But at this moment a political rather than litigation side of you is on display.

          SDN in reply to Ragspierre. | May 19, 2017 at 8:52 pm

          You’re a legend in your own mind.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | May 19, 2017 at 8:58 pm

          Thank you, sir, for your broke-dick opinion.

          I’m NOT your witness, and I’d gut you like a trout if I were.

          Did Comey say what I said he said (i.e., he had never been ordered to curtail an inquiry, but had had people express opinions that it would be “good”, or words to that same effect)?

          Yes or no, please. DO try to answer honestly.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | May 19, 2017 at 9:02 pm

          SDN, just suck me. See if you can make me sq-eek….


          mailman in reply to Ragspierre. | May 20, 2017 at 3:04 am

          Its funny cause Rags can’t help but keep digging!!! 🙂

          Barry in reply to Ragspierre. | May 20, 2017 at 2:14 pm

          I hope, for your sake, that you’re a better lawyer than commenter.

          I rather doubt it.

      dystopia in reply to Ragspierre. | May 19, 2017 at 8:31 pm

      In cop terms — James Comey is a prime suspect as a leaker. Too bad Mueller and Comey are so tight. (They made a power play against Bush and Ashcroft together in March 2004 over warrantless wiretaps — so ironic).Given that relationship we will never know the truth about Comey.

        mariner in reply to dystopia. | May 20, 2017 at 9:52 am

        And given that a continuing mission of Comey’s was shielding the Clinton’s, the chances of Mueller piercing that shield are about zero.

      Obie1 in reply to Ragspierre. | May 20, 2017 at 7:33 am

      Dear Rags–I once enjoyed your commentary, even when I disagreed with it. It was usually well reasoned and well argued. You have lately become little more than a buffoon and an egoist, curiously the exact things of which you (with justification) accuse Trump. As an aside, trout are better filleted than gutted.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to practicalconservative. | May 19, 2017 at 8:11 pm

    Comey, long-time Clinton cronie…. Safe to assume Comey is a big Liar I believe…imo

    “I wonder, are Comey’s notes and memorandum government property?”

    Yes. As a government employee in an appointee position, everything he put down on paper or tape regarding the job is government property. The only exception to that is material subject to Executive Privilege, and that can only be brought up by the Executive, so I don’t think that’s an option for him to hide stuff. Now. (thankfully)

    In the event that he took home material that should have been kept at the office… well, let’s just say a few dozen FBI agents will visit his house and pick up *everything* that might be associated with his former job, and maybe/possibly/sometime return any extras that they picked up.

Maybe the russian “donations” to the klinton crime syndicate will pop up on the radar. That would be a nice tangent for the special prosecutor to follow.

    mariner in reply to 4fun. | May 20, 2017 at 9:54 am

    Maybe, and maybe I’ll be elected Pope.

    Nothing that implicates the Clintons or Obama will “pop up”; it will be ignored/suppressed.

Anonymous hearsay of anonymous hearsay equals a criminal investigation when the President isn’t of the Establishment.

    Ragspierre in reply to JohnC. | May 19, 2017 at 8:11 pm

    Hearsay is a legal rule of evidence with many exceptions.

    Newpapers and you and I are NOT in any way effected by hearsay rules.

This is NOT a “political dispute”. This is an orchestrated attempt to destroy a lawfully elected President through the use of innuendo and outright lies. Make no mistake about this.

This investigation could very well destroy the former Director of the FBI as well as the integrity of that institution and the legacy of President Obama. Part of the investigation will have to include the source of the information which triggered the FBI “investigation”. The best case, for the Dems, Libs and the Obama Administration is if it can be dumped off onto some third party. It might make Comey look incompetent, but it would save the rest of the former administration. However, if it comes to light that improper, possibly illegal, surveillance took place and it was done by the FBI and with the knowledge of the upper levels of the Obama administration, this makes Watergate look like lying about an overdue library book. And, there is a reasonably good chance that such information will be uncovered. And, that could lead to the investigation of whether Comey [for sure], and possibly other members of the Obama Administration, used the power of the US Government to improperly or illegally interfere in the 2016 election on behalf of HRC.

This Trump-Russia Collusion rant could easily backfire on the Democrats by undermining the Obama Administration.

    snopercod in reply to Mac45. | May 19, 2017 at 8:19 pm

    You have more faith in Robert Mueller seeking the truth than I do.

      Mac45 in reply to snopercod. | May 19, 2017 at 11:53 pm

      Mueller is likely an Establishment actor. However, like everyone else in Washington he is subject to pressure. And pressure can be applied from a variety of directions.

      If Mueller attempts to conduct any kind of a legitimate investigation, even one simply for show, he is going to have to locate the sources for the idea that Russia interfered in the US elections. This will take him to the Trump/Russia collusion arena, as that has been touted as being prima facia evidence of interference. And, that is very likely going to identify the manner in which “information” on the activities of Trump and his associates was obtained. In other words, Mueller is going to trip over evidence of improper and probably illegal surveillance even if he does not go looking for it. And, Mueller would be foolish to ignore hard evidence of criminal wrong-doing. Because, to do so is going to come back and bite him the butt, just as it did Comey.

      Whenever you see all the people who should have known what was going on suddenly start using the phase, “not to my knowledge”, it is a pretty safe bet that the action occurred and that this person knew about it. And, it becomes even more likely when the person switches from an emphatic “No” to “not to my knowledge”.

      The Special Counsel has the left and everyone else worried.

amatuerwrangler | May 19, 2017 at 8:58 pm

And at the end of the day, maybe the Ruskies did influence the election. The Obama administration, with Hillary! as SoS, provided that nuclear material to them, and they sat on their hands while the Ruskies invaded the Ukraine and annexed Crimea, and refused to honor a “red line” they drew themselves in Syria (where the Ruskies apparently hold much influence), and the favorable treatment of Iran(another Russian fellow traveler). The average American voter decided that all this cow-towing to the Russians was not good and used that opinion to cast votes for Hillary!’s opponent; maybe without all her pro-Russia baggage she would have received enough of those votes to win…

So they did influence the election, just not how they want us to think they did.

    Ragspierre in reply to amatuerwrangler. | May 19, 2017 at 9:15 pm

    This is where we embrace the power of “and”…

    It is TOTALLY consistent with KGB training to work both ends against the Soviet (or Russian) middle.

    Why the fluck NOT? Win-win…!!!

    We don’t know the extent of Russian messing with our election.

    We have no doubt it happened.

This is NYT and WaPo colluding with the DNC to coverup Water Closet.

We are simply witnessing the Revenge of the Swamp Things.

Before there is anything to revenge.

VaGentleman | May 20, 2017 at 4:26 am

And you ain’t allowed to criticize them either. The death of honest speech and free speech. And it isn’t just US. Stay safe prof, please!

Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch posts.

Robert Spencer Poisoned After Giving Anti-Jihad Speech in Iceland.

After the event, my security chief, the organizers of the event, Ms. Williams, and I went to a local restaurant to celebrate its success. But I was quickly recognized: a young Icelander called me by name, shook my hand, and said he was a big fan. Shortly after that, another citizen of that famously courteous land likewise called me by my name, shook my hand, and said “f*** you.”

We left.

Back in my hotel room, I began to feel numbness in my face, hands, and feet. I began trembling and vomiting. My heart was racing dangerously. I spent the night in a Reykjavik hospital.

A hospital test confirmed that I had been poisoned — Ritalin mixed with MDMA (Ecstasy). One of the local Icelanders who had approached me (likely the one who said he was a big fan, as he came much closer to me than the “f*** you” guy) had dropped drugs into my drink. I was ill for several days afterward.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | May 20, 2017 at 9:43 am

Alan Dershowitz made almost the exact same points you did on Tucker last night. I personally think the best part of the whole video is the very beginning where Tucker shows a very brief clip of Dershowitz’s appearance on CNN. Jeffrey Toobin has sad puppy dog eyes. He looks like he is about to cry as he and Anderson Cooper get schooled by Dersh.

“Let’s be clear, the alleged collusion, while certainly nobody’s in favor of it, may not even be a crime. So let’s put that out of the way.”

Alan Dershowitz says in fact there isn’t a criminal act involved in colluding with the Russians on, say, when to have Wikileaks dump the DNC emails. So why the special counsel???

Well… I don’t know, but I think this appoinment was an error.
It may be though, as stated…. an end to some of the yammer.
My strategy would have been a little more reserved:
” Never interrupt your enemy when he is on the brink of tragic error ”
Something like that..

If they want evidence of collusion, ( As well as much worse ) we should start with the previous Administration. They have plenty of evidence they are not doing anything with.