We’ve Been Here Before

The strange case of history repeating itself is ever reoccurring. It feels like we have been here before or as Yogi stated, ‘It’s deja vu all over again.’.

‘Preservation of American Democracy’ is how he said it. Newsweek perhaps said it best, ‘Nothing exactly like it ever happened before in American politics. Willkie had never held public office or even sought it. Virtually a neophyte in politics, he had entered no primaries, made no deals, organized no campaign. . . . His backers were uninitiated volunteers, as strange to the ways of the ward bosses and state chairmen as their hero.’ The new presidential candidate boosted about it, ‘All the headquarters I have are under my hat.’

Sound familiar?

Eighty-Seven years ago today, the Republican Convention got underway in Philadelphia and it was the first time it was ever televised. The convention was a mishmash. Dewey, Taft, some guy named Stassen and an amateur politician took aim at the title of GOP Presidential Candidate.

At the convention, he had only 29% of the vote. But on the 6th ballot he was claimed the victor. The Party was torn apart. The New York faction supporting Dewey was defiant. The Conservative Ohio faction supporting Senator Taft, was steadfast in their candidates rejection. But the nominee stated boldly that he didn’t need any experience to run the country. As he said, ‘All the headquarters I have are under my hat.’

His campaign was full of errors. Campaign errors, in organization; amateur managers and staff, attempted to write all his own speeches, even with speech writer came to many impromptu speeches, his voice could not keep up the speaking schedule. He claimed on the stump that the New Deal had not caused an economic recovery while all evidence was against that statement. He stressed distribution rather than production of goods, both became none issues, especially with the war spending economic upturn. It was as if he wasn’t looking at the country with the same glasses as others.

Willkie’s disagreement with the methods of The Lend Lease program did not help his campaign especially after he attacked that the administration had neglected the nation’s defenses, and the Democrats responded the Republican congress in the 1930s blocked all attempts at defense bills, defense spending increases.

With the Republican slogan, ‘Bring On The Champ’, Willkie made his comeback during the campaign in October 1940 as the anti-war peace candidate, and gained steam in the public opinion polls. ‘Who really thinks that the President is sincerely trying to keep us out of war?” “We are being edged toward war by an administration that is alike careless in speech and action.”… “If you elect me President . . . , no American boys will be sent to the shambles of the European trenches. If his promise to keep our boys out of foreign wars is not better than his promise to balance the budget, they’re almost on the transports! There comes a time when it is very wise to get off that horse in midstream, because if we don’t, both you and the horse will sink. If one man is indispensable, then none of us is free.’

Robert E. Sherwood, one of FDR’s speech-writers on Wilkie creating an anti-war hysteria, ‘The effects of this were felt powerfully in the White House during the last week in October. I had to read the letters and telegrams and reports that flooded in and . . . I was amazed and horrified at the evidences of hysteria. . . . Newspapermen . . . reported mounting waves of fear throughout the country, which might easily merge into tidal proportions by election day and sweep Willkie into office.’

On November 1, 1940, Herbert Hoover, the former President, campaigned in Salt Lake City, Utah, for Wendell Willkie and claimed that the fundamental issue in the present campaign was still “the preservation of democracy,” and that a reelection for Roosevelt would increase his ‘Personal Power’ and it should be defeated. Four day before the campaign, the former defeated President who led the nation into the Great Depression put the nail in the Willkie campaign. ‘The preservation of democracy’ was the nail. Hoover was the hammer. Four days later, on November 5, 1940, Election Day, Democrat Franklin Roosevelt was re-elected for an unprecedented third term and Henry Wallace elected Vice President.

That was then…87 years ago. The results of the Republican Convention of that year represents a mirror of what happened in 2016 during the Presidential Campaign. Then, in 1940, America woke up in time. Will it nearly a Century later?

Today’s Wilkie, another businessman with no governmental experience, gained the office of the President of the United States. But during the first half of his first year, the feel of the amateurism found in 1940 has descended within the White House in 2017. History certainly repeats itself because too few bother to remember the past.

If you take the time to look, you…we all…might learn something.

Posted in Democratic Party, GOP, Political, Presidency of Donald Trump, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

And Then There Were Four

On the day after the Rooster crowed by again winning the last of the special congressional elections giving him a complete sweep, the all white male gaggle of United States Senators from his party, who have been screaming about the Affordable Care Act since it was enacted, offered their version of class enslavement.

And with a majority in the Senate, 52-48, the Ripon founded political party need just 50 of their followers to follow them to push this back to the House. However, with no foreseen leapers from the left about to join them, four of their own have spoken out publicly threatening to jump ship. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Mike Lee of Utah, Ted Cruz of Texas and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin are the leapers. And now there are four.

But today in the business of political patronage, comes the hard negotiations. Pork belly futures will be flying all over the place. More ham for my men. Bacon would be nice. Pork chops would be great. Money would mean more.

Now we are going to find out who are seekers of the flame…profilers in courage.

Will the pressure of the party, or the people win? Will the offer of gifts today or downline win them over? Or will these really be principled men of dignity?

A Day Earlier, Hello Big Rooster Hello!

The Big Rooster in the White House Is Cock-A-Do-A-Doodling today. And for good reason: his opponents fell flat on their faces with a whole lot of their money and left the Big Orange Headed Rooster just peckin and grinin not having to say much at all.

Why? Why did this happen?

First of all, those crazies on the far left coast threw as much money as they could spare at a candidate without doing their due diligence. Yes. Poly Sci 101 says that a candidate running for office should maintain a residence in said area they are running in, in order to defend against the labled carpetbagger. And this is especially important when running for office in the SOUTH…The ATLANTA SOUTH.

And secondly, don’t use the excuse that the woman you are living with (while you are intending to marry her), who is going to school, needs to be closer to said school. None of that flies well in the giggle rooms of the local country clubs where the women of the Grand Old Party socialize. You see they know how to fill out and send in their absentee ballots before hand. The carpetbagging, sleeper with women outside of wedlock, locked that ballot up.


The Big Rooster doesn’t have to say a single word. All he has to do is flip his little fingers on a keyboard of his cellphone. And, by doing so, he has all in his party in his hip pocket. They now think that the Big Rooster can beat them in their own districts and States. Why? Each of his candidates, however flawed, won in the various special elections from Montana to South Carolina to Georgia.

He is Cock-Of-The-Walk. His droppings don’t stink. He can ….

You get the picture.

The Democrats are making the Big Rooster look like a political genius.

Let’s face it, the Dude can crow about the achievements of the day. Give the credit where credit is due.

Berma Shave.

A Day Before That…Follow The Bouncing Ball

He could be…he might be…he isn’t…but he says he is.

This past week, one of the wildest back and forths took place as the man who resides in the White House said he was under investigation.

‘I’m under investigation’.

But then another, who does not live in the White House but in another house said that he was his new lawyer. And, that the man in the White House was NOT under investigation.

Which reminds us of the famous tennis match at which we were given center line tickets. All we were doing, all day long, move our head from left to right and back to left and then to the right over, and over and over again.

‘He’s under investigation’, said the announcer.

‘No I’m not’, said the man in the White House.

‘Yes he is’, said a panelist who was speaking with the announcer.

“No I’m not’, said the man in the White House.

‘He is definitely under investigation’, said another panelist who confirmed it via the Washington Post.

‘Yes I am’, said the man in the White House.

‘No he’s not’, said the lawyer for the man in the White House.

‘Who’s on first? What’s on second. And, I don’t know is on third.

Follow the bouncing ball….

There is a man in the White House who says many things.
One is that he isn’t and another that he is.

Then the man in the White House said something strange.
‘I am under investigation’, and you won’t hear another word from me again.

Jay Sekulow’s head is spinning and so is his mouth.

Posted in Democratic Party, GOP, Political, Presidency of Donald Trump, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

I Forgot

I swear that I will tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me God.

When you speak so fast and in such complex terms, Senator, you … well you confuse me. I just don’t recall or if I go further, if I try… I just don’t remember if that happened in the moment. After all, I just don’t know? I’m not sure I was even there because I don’t recall being there or if I did, I don’t remember if he was there or if we spoke. It could or could not have happened, but I don’t know. I just don’t recall.

Could the honorable Senator from Arizona help me out?

I’m not sure I understand what the Senator from Arizona was sayin. Could you be so kind as to say that again?

Who is the honorable Senator from Arizona? I just don’t remember. I’m not sure if I was at his home last night for dinner with our wives sipping on a lovely wine, and may I add, Thank You, Senator if it was you, after eating crawfish etouffee.

Or was that another Senator, perhaps not from Arizona but who may or may not have had a string tie while we were talking? And I may or may not recall if we had in fact been talking or if that was our wives speaking in hushed tones about a conversation I may have or may not have had with the President and/or President-elect in Washington, New York or another city.

I just can’t recall.

I don’t remember.

I don’t recall.

If I could, I would but I can’t so I shouldn’t. Because it may or may not be protecting the Presidential discussions that I may or may not have had but still need to protect the President because I am not under any silence order or of the like. I just am undergoing the long abided procedure of protecting the confidentiality of the Presidential conversation or Presidential confidentiality if or when the conversation may or may not have happened.

I have served this institution and the judicial justice branch and I detest anyone making false aspersions of me or attacking my reputation or my integrity to impune my character as I am in this position to almost always have to defend my character, which I must say is one that has stood the test of any governmental regulation. But I just do not remember. After all, ‘The thistle is the order for dignity and antiquity; the veritable memo me impune laces sit of chivalry!’ Isn’t it?

I do not know if I have every been to Russia. I may or may not have been in Moscow, Idaho, although I do like their potatoes, but I am sure that I would remember if I had been in Russia. And, why all of a sudden are we speaking about Russia? I don’t even speak Russian…I don’t think.

I hope I have made myself perfectly clear.

Posted in GOP, Political, Presidency of Donald Trump, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Day #140

Statement for the Record

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
James B. Comey
June 8, 2017

Chairman Burr, Ranking Member Warner, Members of the Committee.

Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. I was asked to testify today to describe for you my interactions with President-Elect and President Trump on subjects that I understand are of interest to you. I have not included every detail from my conversations with the President, but, to the best of my recollection, I have tried to include information that may be relevant to the Committee.

January 6 Briefing
I first met then-President-Elect Trump on Friday, January 6 in a conference room at Trump Tower in New York. I was there with other Intelligence Community (IC) leaders to brief him and his new national security team on the findings of an IC assessment concerning Russian efforts to interfere in the election. At the conclusion of that briefing, I remained alone with the President Elect to brief him on some personally sensitive aspects of the information assembled during the assessment.

James Comey testimony: Trump asked me to let Flynn investigation go
The IC leadership thought it important, for a variety of reasons, to alert the incoming President to the existence of this material, even though it was salacious and unverified. Among those reasons were: (1) we knew the media was about to publicly report the material and we believed the IC should not keep knowledge of the material and its imminent release from the President-Elect; and (2) to the extent there was some effort to compromise an incoming President, we could blunt any such effort with a defensive briefing.

The Director of National Intelligence asked that I personally do this portion of the briefing because I was staying in my position and because the material implicated the FBI’s counter-intelligence responsibilities. We also agreed I would do it alone to minimize potential embarrassment to the President-Elect. Although we agreed it made sense for me to do the briefing, the FBI’s leadership and I were concerned that the briefing might create a situation where a new President came into office uncertain about whether the FBI was conducting a counter-intelligence investigation of his personal conduct.

It is important to understand that FBI counter-intelligence investigations are different than the more-commonly known criminal investigative work. The Bureau’s goal in a counter-intelligence investigation is to understand the technical and human methods that hostile foreign powers are using to influence the United States or to steal our secrets. The FBI uses that understanding to disrupt those efforts. Sometimes disruption takes the form of alerting a person who is targeted for recruitment or influence by the foreign power. Sometimes it involves hardening a computer system that is being attacked. Sometimes it involves “turning” the recruited person into a double-agent, or publicly calling out the behavior with sanctions or expulsions of embassy-based intelligence officers. On occasion, criminal prosecution is used to disrupt intelligence activities.

Because the nature of the hostile foreign nation is well known, counterintelligence investigations tend to be centered on individuals the FBI suspects to be witting or unwitting agents of that foreign power. When the FBI develops reason to believe an American has been targeted for recruitment by a foreign power or is covertly acting as an agent of the foreign power, the FBI will “open an investigation” on that American and use legal authorities to try to learn more about the nature of any relationship with the foreign power so it can be disrupted.

In that context, prior to the January 6 meeting, I discussed with the FBI’s leadership team whether I should be prepared to assure President-Elect Trump that we were not investigating him personally. That was true; we did not have an open counter-intelligence case on him. We agreed I should do so if circumstances warranted. During our one-on-one meeting at Trump Tower, based on President Elect Trump’s reaction to the briefing and without him directly asking the question, I offered that assurance.

I felt compelled to document my first conversation with the President-Elect in a memo. To ensure accuracy, I began to type it on a laptop in an FBI vehicle outside Trump Tower the moment I walked out of the meeting. Creating written records immediately after one-on-one conversations with Mr. Trump was my practice from that point forward. This had not been my practice in the past. I spoke alone with President Obama twice in person (and never on the phone) — once in 2015 to discuss law enforcement policy issues and a second time, briefly, for him to say goodbye in late 2016. In neither of those circumstances did I memorialize the discussions. I can recall nine one-on-one conversations with President Trump in four months — three in person and six on the phone.

January 27 Dinner
The President and I had dinner on Friday, January 27 at 6:30 pm in the Green Room at the White House. He had called me at lunchtime that day and invited me to dinner that night, saying he was going to invite my whole family, but decided to have just me this time, with the whole family coming the next time. It was unclear from the conversation who else would be at the dinner, although I assumed there would be others.

It turned out to be just the two of us, seated at a small oval table in the center of the Green Room. Two Navy stewards waited on us, only entering the room to serve food and drinks.
The President began by asking me whether I wanted to stay on as FBI Director, which I found strange because he had already told me twice in earlier conversations that he hoped I would stay, and I had assured him that I intended to. He said that lots of people wanted my job and, given the abuse I had taken during the previous year, he would understand if I wanted to walk away.

My instincts told me that the one-on-one setting, and the pretense that this was our first discussion about my position, meant the dinner was, at least in part, an effort to have me ask for my job and create some sort of patronage relationship. That concerned me greatly, given the FBI’s traditionally independent status in the executive branch.

I replied that I loved my work and intended to stay and serve out my ten-year term as Director. And then, because the set-up made me uneasy, I added that I was not “reliable” in the way politicians use that word, but he could always count on me to tell him the truth. I added that I was not on anybody’s side politically and could not be counted on in the traditional political sense, a stance I said was in his best interest as the President.

A few moments later, the President said, “I need loyalty, I expect loyalty.” I didn’t move, speak, or change my facial expression in any way during the awkward silence that followed. We simply looked at each other in silence. The conversation then moved on, but he returned to the subject near the end of our dinner. At one point, I explained why it was so important that the FBI and the Department of Justice be independent of the White House. I said it was a paradox: Throughout history, some Presidents have decided that because “problems” come from Justice, they should try to hold the Department close. But blurring those boundaries ultimately makes the problems worse by undermining public trust in the institutions and their work.

Near the end of our dinner, the President returned to the subject of my job, saying he was very glad I wanted to stay, adding that he had heard great things about me from Jim Mattis, Jeff Sessions, and many others. He then said, “I need loyalty.” I replied, “You will always get honesty from me.” He paused and then said, “That’s what I want, honest loyalty.” I paused, and then said, “You will get that from me.” As I wrote in the memo I created immediately after the dinner, it is possible we understood the phrase “honest loyalty” differently, but I decided it wouldn’t be productive to push it further. The term — honest loyalty — had helped end a very awkward conversation and my explanations had made clear what he should expect.

During the dinner, the President returned to the salacious material I had briefed him about on January 6, and, as he had done previously, expressed his disgust for the allegations and strongly denied them. He said he was considering ordering me to investigate the alleged incident to prove it didn’t happen. I replied that he should give that careful thought because it might create a narrative that we were investigating him personally, which we weren’t, and because it was very difficult to prove a negative. He said he would think about it and asked me to think about it.

As was my practice for conversations with President Trump, I wrote a detailed memo about the dinner immediately afterwards and shared it with the senior leadership team of the FBI.

February 14 Oval Office Meeting
On February 14, I went to the Oval Office for a scheduled counterterrorism briefing of the President. He sat behind the desk and a group of us sat in a semi-circle of about six chairs facing him on the other side of the desk. The Vice President, Deputy Director of the CIA, Director of the National CounterTerrorism Center, Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney General, and I were in the semi-circle of chairs. I was directly facing the President, sitting between the Deputy CIA Director and the Director of NCTC. There were quite a few others in the room, sitting behind us on couches and chairs.

The President signaled the end of the briefing by thanking the group and telling them all that he wanted to speak to me alone. I stayed in my chair. As the participants started to leave the Oval Office, the Attorney General lingered by my chair, but the President thanked him and said he wanted to speak only with me. The last person to leave was Jared Kushner, who also stood by my chair and exchanged pleasantries with me. The President then excused him, saying he wanted to speak with me.

When the door by the grandfather clock closed, and we were alone, the President began by saying, “I want to talk about Mike Flynn.” Flynn had resigned the previous day. The President began by saying Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong in speaking with the Russians, but he had to let him go because he had misled the Vice President. He added that he had other concerns about Flynn, which he did not then specify.

The President then made a long series of comments about the problem with leaks of classified information — a concern I shared and still share. After he had spoken for a few minutes about leaks, Reince Priebus leaned in through the door by the grandfather clock and I could see a group of people waiting behind him. The President waved at him to close the door, saying he would be done shortly. The door closed.

The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, “He is a good guy and has been through a lot.” He repeated that Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President. He then said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” I replied only that “he is a good guy.” (In fact, I had a positive experience dealing with Mike Flynn when he was a colleague as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency at the beginning of my term at FBI.) I did not say I would “let this go.”

The President returned briefly to the problem of leaks. I then got up and left out the door by the grandfather clock, making my way through the large group of people waiting there, including Mr. Priebus and the Vice President.

I immediately prepared an unclassified memo of the conversation about Flynn and discussed the matter with FBI senior leadership. I had understood the President to be requesting that we drop any investigation of Flynn in connection with false statements about his conversations with the Russian ambassador in December. I did not understand the President to be talking about the broader investigation into Russia or possible links to his campaign. I could be wrong, but I took him to be focusing on what had just happened with Flynn’s departure and the controversy around his account of his phone calls. Regardless, it was very concerning, given the FBI’s role as an independent investigative agency.

The FBI leadership team agreed with me that it was important not to infect the investigative team with the President’s request, which we did not intend to abide. We also concluded that, given that it was a one-on-one conversation, there was nothing available to corroborate my account. We concluded it made little sense to report it to Attorney General Sessions, who we expected would likely recuse himself from involvement in Russia-related investigations. (He did so two weeks later.) The Deputy Attorney General’s role was then filled in an acting capacity by a United States Attorney, who would also not be long in the role. After discussing the matter, we decided to keep it very closely held, resolving to figure out what to do with it down the road as our investigation progressed. The investigation moved ahead at full speed, with none of the investigative team members — or the Department of Justice lawyers supporting them — aware of the President’s request.

Shortly afterwards, I spoke with Attorney General Sessions in person to pass along the President’s concerns about leaks. I took the opportunity to implore the Attorney General to prevent any future direct communication between the President and me. I told the AG that what had just happened — him being asked to leave while the FBI Director, who reports to the AG, remained behind — was inappropriate and should never happen. He did not reply. For the reasons discussed above, I did not mention that the President broached the FBI’s potential investigation of General Flynn.

March 30 Phone Call
On the morning of March 30, the President called me at the FBI. He described the Russia investigation as “a cloud” that was impairing his ability to act on behalf of the country. He said he had nothing to do with Russia, had not been involved with hookers in Russia, and had always assumed he was being recorded when in Russia. He asked what we could do to “lift the cloud.” I responded that we were investigating the matter as quickly as we could, and that there would be great benefit, if we didn’t find anything, to our having done the work well. He agreed, but then re-emphasized the problems this was causing him.

Then the President asked why there had been a congressional hearing about Russia the previous week — at which I had, as the Department of Justice directed, confirmed the investigation into possible coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign. I explained the demands from the leadership of both parties in Congress for more information, and that Senator Grassley had even held up the confirmation of the Deputy Attorney General until we briefed him in detail on the investigation. I explained that we had briefed the leadership of Congress on exactly which individuals we were investigating and that we had told those Congressional leaders that we were not personally investigating President Trump. I reminded him I had previously told him that. He repeatedly told me, “We need to get that fact out.” (I did not tell the President that the FBI and the Department of Justice had been reluctant to make public statements that we did not have an open case on President Trump for a number of reasons, most importantly because it would create a duty to correct, should that change.)
The President went on to say that if there were some “satellite” associates of his who did something wrong, it would be good to find that out, but that he hadn’t done anything wrong and hoped I would find a way to get it out that we weren’t investigating him.

In an abrupt shift, he turned the conversation to FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, saying he hadn’t brought up “the McCabe thing” because I had said McCabe was honorable, although McAuliffe was close to the Clintons and had given him (I think he meant Deputy Director McCabe’s wife) campaign money. Although I didn’t understand why the President was bringing this up, I repeated that Mr. McCabe was an honorable person.

He finished by stressing “the cloud” that was interfering with his ability to make deals for the country and said he hoped I could find a way to get out that he wasn’t being investigated. I told him I would see what we could do, and that we would do our investigative work well and as quickly as we could.

Immediately after that conversation, I called Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente (AG Sessions had by then recused himself on all Russia-related matters), to report the substance of the call from the President, and said I would await his guidance. I did not hear back from him before the President called me again two weeks later.

April 11 Phone Call
On the morning of April 11, the President called me and asked what I had done about his request that I “get out” that he is not personally under investigation. I replied that I had passed his request to the Acting Deputy Attorney General, but I had not heard back. He replied that “the cloud” was getting in the way of his ability to do his job. He said that perhaps he would have his people reach out to the Acting Deputy Attorney General. I said that was the way his request should be handled. I said the White House Counsel should contact the leadership of DOJ to make the request, which was the traditional channel.

He said he would do that and added, “Because I have been very loyal to you, very loyal; we had that thing you know.” I did not reply or ask him what he meant by “that thing.” I said only that the way to handle it was to have the White House Counsel call the Acting Deputy Attorney General. He said that was what he would do and the call ended.

That was the last time I spoke with President Trump.

Posted in Democratic Party, GOP, Political, Presidency of Donald Trump, Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

1BC…On The Day Before Comey

Courtesy of The Washington Post, this is like few days in our history. Social media, legacy media, people talking over the fence, at grocery stores, the story of the day is about what will happen tomorrow.

Some feel it will be a bust.

Others feel it will be a groundbreaker.

While others are critical of Comey giving out the headline of what he will be talking about a day before he testifies before the Senate on Thursday, suggesting he gave the President material to bone up on and use against him tomorrow in a torrent of Tweets with an in-the-moment-flow of counter-comment as Comey would be speaking.

Few felt this way before Butterfield went before the Senate way back when.

Some felt this way before Dean went before the Senate to declare ‘There is a Cancer’….

Whatever tomorrow will bring, people in the nation want to know about the ‘exposure’.

In the meantime, as The Washington Post graphic above suggests, people are changing their opinion of the man who is in the White house right now.

Can he survive?

Will he survive?

In the meantime, the Speaker of the House is talking about the agenda in Congress.

Dear Mr Janesville: nobody cares right now until we get this matter cleared up. But of course, you are from Janesville. Nuff said.

And what is needed to be cleared up?

Is the President of the United States lying?

Are the people surrounding the President of the United States lying about their Russian connection?

Is the President of the United States dealing with Russia for personal and/or business gain?

Is his family dealing with Russia for the President’s personal and/or business gain?

If so, Mr. Janesville is just two steps away from the top spot.

Who’da thunk!

Posted in Democratic Party, GOP, Political, Presidency of Donald Trump, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

It Was On A Wednesday.

“I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to call for the impeachment of the President of the United States of America for obstruction of justice.” – Rep. Al Green

He is the first member of Congress that has called for impeachment of Donald Trump on the House floor.

Per Mahita Gajanan, Time Magazine (051717), Green’s call for impeachment follows a New York Times report that Trump asked former FBI Director James Comey—who he fired last week—to stop investigating Michael Flynn, the administration’s former National Security Adviser. According to the Times, Comey wrote a memo after meeting with Trump the day after Flynn resigned, following revelations that he had misled Vice President Mike Pence about his conversations regarding sanctions with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Comey wrote in the memo that Trump asked him to “let this go” regarding Flynn, according to the Times.

Talk of impeachment has swirled since the report of Comey’s memo broke. Green said Trump should be impeached “for obstructing a lawful investigation” of his presidential campaign’s ties to Russia in a release.

Green said the combined acts of Trump firing Comey, linking the firing to the Russia probe and later threatening Comey via Twitter constituted “intimidation and obstruction.”

According to the Houston Chronicle, in an article written by Kevin Diaz (051717), While some Republicans have expressed concerns about Trump’s response to allegations of collusion between Trump campaign associates and the Russian government, his party has so far defended him.

Green acknowledged that his impeachment call might seem a long shot. “I am a voice in the wilderness,” he said. “But I assure you that history will vindicate me.”

Posted in GOP, Political, Presidency of Donald Trump, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Director of the FBI Fired

FBI Director James Comey has been dismissed by the president, according to White House spokesman Sean Spicer on Tuesday, May 9, 2017.

‘The president has accepted the recommendation of the Attorney General and the deputy Attorney General regarding the dismissal of the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,’ Spicer told reporters in the briefing room.

Spicer also said that Comey was ‘notified a short time ago.’ This is effective ‘immediately,’ he said.

Earlier in the day, the FBI notified Congress that Comey misstated key findings involving the Hillary Clinton email investigation during testimony last week, saying that only a ‘small number’ of emails had been forwarded to disgraced congressman Anthony Weiner, not the ‘hundreds and thousands’ he’d claimed in his testimony.

The letter was sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, more than a week after Comey testified for hours in defense of his handling of the Clinton probe.

‘This letter is intended to supplement that testimony to ensure that the committee has the full context of what was reviewed and found on the laptop,’ wrote FBI Assistant Director Gregory Brower.

In defending the probe at last week’s hearing, Comey offered seemingly new details to underscore the seriousness of the situation FBI agents faced last fall when they discovered thousands of Clinton aide Huma Abedin’s emails on the computer of her husband, Anthony Weiner.

‘Somehow, her emails were being forwarded to Anthony Weiner, including classified information,’ Comey said, adding later, ‘His then-spouse Huma Abedin appears to have had a regular practice of forwarding emails to him for him I think to print out for her so she could then deliver them to the secretary of state.’

At another point in the testimony, Comey said Abedin ‘forwarded hundreds and thousands of emails, some of which contain classified information.’

Neither of those statements is accurate, said people close to the investigation.

Tuesday’s letter said ‘most of the emails found on Mr. Weiner’s laptop computer related to the Clinton investigation occurred as a result of a backup of personal electronic devices, with a small number a result of manual forwarding by Ms. Abedin to Mr. Weiner.’

The letter also corrected the impression Mr. Comey’s testimony had left with some listeners that 12 classified emails were among those forwarded by Abedin to Weiner.

‘Investigators identified approximately 49,000 emails which were potentially relevant to the investigation,’’ the letter said. ‘‘All were reviewed with a particular focus on those containing classified information. Investigators ultimately determined that two e-mail chains containing classified information were manually forwarded to Mr. Weiner’s account.’

Ten other emails chains that contained classified information were found on the laptop as a result of backup activity.

The letter also clarified some of the figures Comey gave regarding ongoing terrorism probes.

The issue of Comey’s misstatements was first reported by ProPublica.

At the hearing, the statements about Abedin’s email practices were immediately seized on by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and others, who demanded to know why Abedin wasn’t charged with a crime. Comey said it was difficult finding evidence those involved in Clinton’s use of private email knowingly engaged in wrongdoing, and that traditionally the Justice Department has not prosecuted such cases without some indicator of intent.

Comey’s incorrect comments about Abedin surfaced again this week at a different Senate hearing, when Cruz pressed former director of national intelligence James Clapper Jr. to say how he would handle an employee who ‘forwarded hundreds or even thousands of emails to a non-government individual, their spouse, on a non-government computer.’

Clapper said such conduct ‘raises all kinds of potential security concerns.’

At the hearing last week, Comey spent hours defending his handling of the investigation of Clinton’s use of a private server for work while she was secretary of state, saying it made him ‘‘mildly nauseous’’ to think his decisions might have affected the outcome of the presidential election, but insisting that he had no regrets and would not have handled it differently.

Comey’s decision-making during the Clinton inquiry has come under sustained criticism from Democrats – including Clinton – who say it was a major factor that contributed to her presidential election defeat in November to Donald Trump. On Oct. 28, less than two weeks before Election Day, the director notified Congress that new Clinton-related emails had been found on a laptop belonging to Weiner.

Days later, investigators obtained a search warrant to examine about 3,000 messages on the device that were work-related. Of those, Comey said, agents found a dozen that contained classified information, but they were messages investigators had already seen.

Comey’s public comments about the Clinton case have been a source of public debate since he first announced last July that he would not recommend charges against anyone in connection with her use of a private server for government business.

At the time, he called the use of the server ‘‘extremely careless’’ but said it did not rise to the level of a crime.

Shortly before the announcement, the FBI notified Congress by letter that Comey had misstated key findings involving the Hillary Clinton email investigation during testimony last week, but nothing about that issue seemed to suggest it might imperil Comey’s job.

The letter was sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, more than a week after Comey testified for hours in defense of his handling of the Clinton probe.

“This letter is intended to supplement that testimony to ensure that the committee has the full context of what was reviewed and found on the laptop,’’ wrote FBI Assistant Director Gregory A. Brower.

The misstatements in testimony aren’t the first time Comey has overstated a key fact in a high-profile probe.

A year ago, while speaking at a security forum in London, the director miscalculated the price the FBI had paid for a technique to crack into a locked iPhone belonging to one of the dead suspects in a terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California.

At the event, he said the cost of the phone hacking tool was ‘more than I will make in the remainder of this job, which is seven years and four months, for sure.’ Based on Comey’s salary, his comment strongly implied the bureau paid at least $1.3 million to get into the phone, which belonged to Syed Rizwan Farook. Farook and his wife killed 14 people during a December 2015 terrorist attack.

People close to that case said the FBI actually paid about $900,000.

Just last week, President Trump publicly accused Comey of giving Clinton “a free pass for many bad deeds’’ when he decided not to recommend criminal charges in the case.

The FBI is currently conducting an investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during last year’s presidential election.

Comey also has been under fire from Democrats for months over his announcement, less than two weeks before the November election, that the FBI was reopening an e-mail investigation into Clinton.

A longtime prosecutor who served as the deputy attorney general during the George W. Bush administration, Mr. Comey came into office with widespread bipartisan support.

Trump’s firing of Comey is ‘Nixonian’, Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) says, calling for special counsel to continue Trump/Russia investigation. ‘This is Nixonian. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein must immediately appoint a special counsel to continue the Trump/Russia investigation. On march 20th, Director comes said, ‘I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and russia’s efforts.’ This investigation must be independent and thorough in order to uphold our nation’s system of justice.’

Andrew McCabe was sworn in as the FBI acting director at 530P(ET), Tuesday, shortly after President Trump fired James Comey.

On Wednesday, The Boston Globe reported that days before he was fired, James B. Comey, the former FBI director, asked the Justice Department for a significant increase in money and personnel for the bureau’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the presidential election, three officials with knowledge of his request told the New York Times.

Comey asked for the resources during a meeting last week with Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general who wrote the Justice Department’s memo that was used to justify the firing of the FBI director this week.

For a further look at today’s action, this link will take you to the New York Times Editorial Board’s Editorial Tuesday evening:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/09/opinion/donald-trumps-firing-of-james-comey.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

For a further look at today’s action, this link will take you to the Los Angeles Times Editorial Tuesday evening:http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-comey-fbi-hillary-trump-firing-20170509-story.html

For a further look at today’s action, this link will take you to the San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Tuesday evening:http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Trump-s-Tuesday-night-massacre-11133931.php

For a further look at today’s action, this link will take you to the Chicago Tribune Editorial Tuesday evening:http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-james-comey-fired-fbi-trump-russia-edit-20170509-story.html

Posted in GOP, Political, Presidency of Donald Trump, Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment