Relying a bogus Russian intel document in the 2016 campaign to investigate former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, 56-year-old FBI Director James Comey showed why he deserved to get fired May 9 by 70-year-old President Donald Trump. Comey testified May 3 before the Senate Judiciary Committee, emphatically stating he’d open up the Hillary email investigation again before the election. Saying he was “mildly nauseous” over tipping the election to Trump, Comey defended his Oct. 28, 2016 decision to go public, reopening Hillary’s email investigation only 11 days before the election. Comey used a bogus document prepared by Russian intelligence that said former Atty. Gen Loretta Lynch had a deal with Hillary not to pursue any prosecution related to the FBI’s email investigation. Comey told the Senate Judiciary Committee May 3 he could no longer trust Lynch.
Comey came unhinged with overly emotional testimony why he couldn’t sit on the new email information without notifying Congress 11 days before the Nov. 8 election. When Comey decided July 5, 2016 he would not pursue charges against Hillary for her email breaches, he usurped the Department of Justice’s legal right to review the evidence and decide whether there was enough evidence to prosecute the case. Comey talked at length May 3 about how Lynch’s June 29, 2016 meeting with former President Bill Clinton, leaving him unable to trust the Department of Justice to pursue Hillary. Comey decided, regardless of how it affected the election, he would go public, reopening the email probe Oct. 28, 2016. When Comey decided Nov. 3, 2016 there was no new compelling evidence on which to charge Hillary, the damage had already been done to her campaign.
Since Trump fired Comey May 9, Democrats and the press have backed the former FBI Director, despite calling for his head after reopening the email probe before the election. Comey’s reliance on a fraudulent Russian intel reports raises disturbing questions about the entire FBI investigation into alleged ties between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. FBI officials determined the Russian document lacked validity. He went into great detail about an email from former Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultx to Leonard Bernardo, an official at an organization funded by billionaire Democratic donor George Soros. Wasserman-Schultz said in the email she would limit the FBI investigation into Hillary’s email servers. No one at the FBI ever saw the email in question, nor did they check whether or not Wasserman-Schultz and Bernardo ever communicated.
Comey’s reliance on a bogus intel document is not a fluke. When he decided to open an investigation into the Trump campaign in July 2016, he relied on Hillary’s paid opposition research concocted by former MI6 agent Christopher Steele. Hillary’s dossier on Trump accused him of a close relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin, not to mention soliciting prostitutes in Moscow while hosting the Miss World beauty pageant in 2013. Opening an investigation into Trump and his campaign associates based on bogus opposition research doesn’t qualify by anyone’s standards as probable cause. Ordering incidental surveillance on foreign actors to unmask and ensnare Trump campaign officials goes beyond the pale, turning the FBI into a police state. No law enforcement official can fabricate or use phony evidence to justify a criminal investigation.
When Comey testified May 3, he mentioned nothing about the Russian document on which he justified bypassing the DOJ in Hillary’s email investigation. Worried about the document last July leaking to the press, Comey shut down the email investigation July 5, 2016, until reopening it for some unknown reason Oct. 28, 2016. “It was a very powerful factor in the decision to go forward in July with the state that there shouldn’t be a prosecution,” said an unnamed source to the Washington Post. FBI officials determined that the Russian document was fake, another attempt to plant fake news in the 2016 campaign. Comey’s reliance a fraudulent document mirrored his use of Hillary opposition research to find probable cause to go after Trump campaign officials. When Comey testifies in open session before the Senate Intelligence Committee, he should be asked about both fake intel reports.
Calling Comey a “nut-job” to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Amb. Sergey Kislyak May 19, Trump received quite a backlash among the anti-Trump crowd. Even House Speaker Paul Ryan defended Comey, saying he was anything but a nut-job. But when you consider Comey usurped the Department of Justice, relied on specious Russian intel, used paid opposition research to investigate Trump and associates, it’s getting harder to defend Comey’s actions. “He made a few mistakes,” said Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) May 24, failing to acknowledge Comey’s breach of protocol deciding to end then reopen the Hillary email investigation. When you consider Comey’s sources of intel he was manipulating both the Hillary email and Trump Russian investigation to justify unwarranted surveillance against Trump officials and whether or not to charge Hillary for mishandling classified emails.
