↓
 
Home » Comey’s moles

Comey’s moles

The New Neo Posted on by

See this.

One thing I have to say is that I await IG Horowitz’s report with interest. If only half of what’s alleged to be in it is really in it, it will still make fascinating reading.

[NOTE: Now, somebody somewhere is probably going to say I didn’t use the word “mole” properly. But it’s close, anyway, and I like the sound of “Comey’s moles.”]

Comments

Comey’s moles — 20 Comments

  1. I’d love to see Comey in a jumpsuit and his mentors -Herren Müller und Weißmannn hanged in Nuremberg

  2. Mole is too gentle a word to describe these scum who would destroy our constitutional republic.

    They are deep state black widow spiders, spinning their crazy webs throughout our government, waiting to sink their poisonous fangs into you if they suspect you might disturb their nests.

    I always wondered why Ross Perot suddenly backed out of the campaign for president, given that he had reachd 20% popularity. I suspect that they got to him “six ways from Sunday” as Schumer warned a few years ago.

    They did not realize how strong Trump would be.

  3. I am waiting to read the news, not predictions nor opinions, just actual news and if it turns out that these folks set up a trap to trip up Trump and cast him aside when he won, which I think might have happened, then I hope they are actually prosecuted and serve some real time. Until then I am not interested in maybe or could be or perhaps.

  4. Larry the Cable Guy had a story about moles…

    My sister used to be covered in moles.
    We called her Ol’ Moley.
    Then she got religion
    and we had to start calling her
    Holy Moley.

    Sorry…it’s Tuesday & I got a sick kid at home with me. That’s the best I could do.

  5. If Comey was spying on Trump, he must have had accomplices. As the light starts shining in the dark corners, they will squeal like the “dirty rats” featured in a recent Neo post.

  7. The Realclear article reads like the convoluted plot of a spy novel. I am not confident this will identify the rotting head of the fish…. BHO and HRC.

  10. AG Barr had said “May into June”. Then new evidence shook loose, new interviews, re-interviews, more new evidence, etc. Now we’re told Sept.

    Hopefully the fine grinding wheels of justice turn these fucks into short lived fermions.

  11. Just getting those ducks in a nice, orderly row….

    And making ’em sweat just a bit, perhaps? (Do ducks actually sweat?)

    Curious that Brennan and Clapper have been relatively quiet of late. (But maybe it’s just my imagination—might one wonder if CNN’s having a wee bit of trouble paying their hefty salaries?)

    True, Schiff is still making a lot of noise (signifying less than nothing), but Nadler’s not been nattering nearly as much as before.

    Wonder why.

    Maybe the four “weird sisters” have sucked all the oxygen out of the room?

    Maybe everyone’s waiting (with bated breath) for Robert “American Patriot” Mueller’s upcoming horse and pony show, which the Democrats are (once again?) absolutely certain will enable them to (once again?) “catch the conscience of the king (the tyrant! the despot! the criminal! the fascist!)”?

    Yes, a sure shot. (With the MSM ready to roll with their likely-already-written first-page, right-hand column, bodice-ripping “commentary”—or maybe it’s just dark comedy (Op-ed Noir?).

    Horowitz may well be a tad conflicted. Barr will be steady at the helm and unshakeable. Rosenstein will see which way the winds are blowing, but his credibility isn’t in such hot shape.

    Alas, no matter what emerges, the Democrats and their MSM lackeys—their minds already made up—will be baying for blood while circling the wagons around their tribe.

    The question is, what will actually be reported, and to what extent. And how many will actually notice what is really going on?

  12. https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2019/07/22/oh-ig-report-allege-comey-lied-trump-spied/

    If Sperry’s sources are accurate, and if Horowitz can document all this, hoo boy. The allegation that Comey repeatedly lied to Trump about his status in Comey’s probe may not be impossible to explain; if Trump was suspected of espionage, the FBI wouldn’t have wanted him to know it too soon. The problem with this explanation is that the FBI had no evidence of any such suspicion. The Horowitz report will supposedly confirm that, but Robert Mueller has already done that work for Horowitz. Under those circumstances, Comey acted with significant insubordination to his superior and constitutional officer, which matters even if Comey didn’t like Trump or think he should be president.

    Spying on Trump by coopting one of his aides hikes that to a level not seen since the FBI’s bad old days. It’s true that the FBI has the main charter for domestic counterespionage activities, but the FBI is not supposed to spy on elected officials — not without bulletproof substantiation of a threat. And again, we know now that the FBI never had even a reasonable suspicion to spy on Trump.

    At least in RCI’s telling, the FBI under Comey had reverted to its J. Edgar roots and was attempting to manipulate the American political system for its director’s ends. If that’s also Horowitz’ telling, then Comey’s firing averted a disaster. This also provides significant context for the claims of obstruction of justice against Trump in the Mueller report. If Comey had corrupted the FBI in this manner, Trump was well within his authority to put an end to it and not to cooperate with a poisoned FBI operation targeting his administration.

  14. Wow! There’s a fair bit of material in Neo’s link that is new to me.

    I worry though. Even if almost everything is uncovered, will the public be willing and able to connect the 100 dots. Nearly every one of the complete “plot” elements contain multiple sub-elements that represent an attempt to “launder” the overall action, its motive, and its instigators. If you are Andrew McCarthy, that’s not a big deal, but don’t think the average Jane is going to wade through it all.

    From the RCI article:

    Devin Nunes believe[s] that Comey, like his top counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok, was attempting to “stop” the Trump presidency for political reasons.

    This, and the context of it suggests that the overall motive was to damage or oust Trump after his inauguration. The article itemizes are large amount of highly suspect activity on what is ultimately a very long shot. (Although much damage has been done.)

    I still tend to think that our intelligence apparatus and maybe those in other countries were involved in throwing the election long before election day. The suspect activity is perhaps a bunch of smoke to either legitimize or obfuscate the election subterfuge that included the use of the FISC and NSA surveillance and even human intelligence to spy on the Trump campaign. Much of the latter has fairly hard documentation.
    _____

    I was amazed by the Comey manipulation cited in the article. What was the Steele dossier? It was the Hillary campaign’s attempt to smear Trump prior to the election. Right? No, says Comey. It was the Russian’s attempt to blackmail Trump into letting the Russians “hack” the election for Trump’s benefit. (What??) Wouldn’t that make Hillary a co-conspirator since she paid roughly $1M for the dossier? And she paid that to guarantee her election loss?

    How exactly did the Russian’s “hack” the election. We know they bought about $50K worth of deceptive Facebook ads. And nothing else that I know of.

    I’m hoping that Barry M. is wrong about Horowitz being conflicted.

  15. ” . . . overall motive was to damage or oust Trump after his inauguration.”

    One must quite naturally wonder as to the motivations behind such a vastly wrong (and wronging) use of Federal government powers. So wide a skein of corruption as to be next to impossible to wrap one’s arms around the whole of it.

    Perhaps — and here I speculate entire — perhaps many of these deeds are done only once the originating corrupt practices (spying on Trump’s campaign, among other innocent Americans) are placed in jeopardy of discovery and eventual punishment by the fact of Trump’s victory: None of the bad actors, not Obama, not Clinton, not Rice, not Powers, not Comey, not Brennan, not Clapper, nor McCabe or Strzok or Page, nor any of the myriad lawyer types in FBI or DoJ, none of them, not one thought Clinton would lose. She was their guarantee.

    Now they had to get something on Trump to make him bend to their will, to their benefit, to their protection: a blackmail.

    Something like that kicked in, I think, where formerly they were merely pursuing political gain for her Majesty and the Party.

  16. I am not, nor have I ever been working inside the DOJ or FBI, so I have no inside information.

    Thus, my view is necessarily one of a person on the outside looking in, and trying to divine what the cultures of those two organizations are like, when the question is, were the Lynch et al and Comey et al crews just Obama era aberrations–imposed on top of basically honest organizations that are true to their Constitutional roles, legal standards, the Rule of law and equal protection under it–or were they symptomatic, merely the latest and most exposed to sunlight examples of deep-seated and long-standing corruption in one or both of these organizations?

    The mantra that is sometime repeated is that the honest and blameless ”rank and file” employees of these organizations are appalled at the conduct of those at the highest levels of leadership of these two organizations.

    But absent any eruptions from the”ranks,” absent any signs of public protest, how is one to know if those in the”ranks” fundamentally disagree with, repudiate, and find appalling the actions of Lynch, Comey and others of their ilk at the highest levels of those two law enforcement agencies, or quite heartily agree with them?

  17. The possibilities are endless; the permutations infinite. (That’s the beauty of conspiracy theories—and especially plots that are so intricately conceived and choreographed with such international complexity so as to make them APPEAR to be conspiracy theories.

    I DO very much like the strand that insinuates that Hillary paid millions to ensure that she would lose the election; and then following that, spent even more more money, moral capital and the gods know how much in voice production and acting lessons—yea even unto destroying the country she so loves—to cover up the fact (i.e., that she paid millions to ensure her own loss).

    I mean that is so absolutely, brilliantly, creatively, insanely counter-intuitive that it simply—well, probably—HAS to be true.

    I mean what better way to destroy the GOP? (And if your own party as well as the entire country ends up as collateral, well so be it. A small price to pay…. Though perhaps they didn’t think that part of it through….)

    At the very least, it places the word “insurance” on an even higher, ethereal plane….

    (But why speculate? Why not just ask Peter Strzok?: “Um, Mr. Strzok, what exactly did you mean when you whispered “Insurance policy” to your lovely paramour? Ah, a sweet nothing was it? Ah, well OK then. Never mind….”

  18. “but don’t think the average Jane is going to wade through it all.” — TommyJay

    How sexist of you! I’m sure the average Dick would have just as much trouble. 😉

    Dick and Jane can read.
    See Dick read. See Jane read.
    Oh, oh! Dick is not reading now. Jane is not reading.
    Dick can read good, but Dick can’t read the Mueller report.
    Oh, Jane, oh! This makes my head hurt!
    Poor Dick. Poor Jane.
    Reading major reports on the most existental political crisis of our time is too hard.
    But, Dick and Jane can listen to CNN.
    See Dick smile. See Jane smile.
    Dick and Jane are voters.
    That makes my head hurt.

  19. Ray on July 22, 2019 at 11:12 pm said:
    This isn’t the first time the FBI has been involved in a coup. Here is an interesting book on Watergate.
    https://geoffshepard.com/about-the-book/
    * * *
    Great find, especially the links there to these American Thinker posts, which were elicited by the use of John Dean as a “witness” (to what, really?) in a recent congressional hearing.

    https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/06/the_emrealem_lesson_of_watergate_ignored_in_john_deans_testimony_and_media_commentary.html

    June 11, 2019
    The Real Lesson of Watergate Ignored in John Dean’s Testimony and Media Commentary
    By John Dale Dunn
    With the return of John Dean to the witness’s chair in a congressional hearing room yesterday, false analogies between that incident and the current day Russia Hoax are everywhere in the mainstream media. But the one real lesson of that era is still valid today: Don’t trust the government’s Administrative State bureaucracy — and in particular prosecutors, who are, too often, henchmen using their power and resources unethically, carelessly and ruthlessly. Too often they do not deliver justice; they hunt and destroy and cheat when necessary.

    https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/06/geoff_shepard_buttoned_down_watergate_demolition_.html

    June 26, 2019
    Geoff Shepard, Buttoned Down Watergate Demolition
    By John Dale Dunn
    Don’t trust the Government Administrative State bureaucracy — and particularly the prosecutors, who too often are governed by ambition, and not careful with their often abusive and aggressive use of their tremendous power and resources. They are scofflaws pretending to be law enforcement officers and officers of the court, no better than the henchmen of Stalin and other totalitarian regimes.

    Mild-mannered Geoff Shepard, a Harvard Law graduate, Nixon administration functionary in the Council on Domestic Affairs, and then defense team member during the Watergate Prosecution and Congressional Watergate Hearing events, will chill your bones with his research on the misconduct of Federal Prosecutors, Federal Judges and the Watergate Congressional Investigation Committee.
    …
    Reading Mr. Shepard’s books made me think automatically of the current coup by the Deep State Intell and Law Enforcement apparatus, backed by the Democrats in Congress and the Mainstream Media. The parallels are obvious: aggressive prosecutors, law enforcement agency partisanship, coordination between the executive branch law enforcement entities and the legislative investigative committees — all the players intent on reversing an election of a president. Mr. Shepard tells the story of Nixon, who won the biggest blowout in electoral history, winning every electoral entity but Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia — 2 years later driven out of office by partisans from Massachusetts and DC. Now the same drama is being played out in the case of Trump, who wins an election then is hounded by the losers who hope to destroy him and his family and run him out of office.
    …
    Mr. Shepard has recently discovered files of import that didn’t make it into his second book in 2015, papers removed to the Harvard Law School Library by members of the Watergate Prosecution Force, papers that were records of work by Archibald Cox, the first Watergate Special Prosecutor, and his number one man, James Vorenberg, who was eventually Dean of the Harvard Law School and First Chair of the Massachusetts State Ethics Commission. The documents demonstrate systematic misconduct and prosecutorial ethical misconduct by the Cox/Vorenberg team. The Jaworski papers, among other things, show the harshly partisan nature of the prosecution team put together that Jaworski had to deal with — as Jaworski said in a memo to his top aide — to summarize — you people have your minds made up and it is difficult to work with biased prosecutors who don’t properly assess the evidence and the law.

    I have to tell you a few examples of the magnitude of the misconduct of the Watergate Prosecutor force and the judges involved.
    …
    Geoff Shepard was there as an eyewitness during Watergate events and has spent 20 years and more researching and gathering evidence on the matter, so can I just suggest to American Thinker readers — take a look and you will see that Geoff Shepard has the goods on the deep state/bureaucracy. Mr. Shepard and I talked Watergate details, the players, and the misconduct he has found after he graciously agreed to a telephone interview (he won’t comment on those matters that involve other events because he is committed to doing in depth investigations before offering opinions). However, he agrees that the “bureaucracy” can be an abusive thing. Mr. Shepard is disinclined to use the words “deep state,” since he points out, correctly I think, that the deep state of today is just the embedded government bureaucracy of the recent past.

    https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/22/cnn-shows-zero-interest-questioning-conventional-wisdom-watergate/

    By Geoff Shepard
    APRIL 22, 2019
    CNN completed its four-part series on President Nixon last Sunday evening with a panel discussion between John Dean, Richard Ben-Veniste, Carl Bernstein, and Tim Naftali, led by Anderson Cooper. Last month, one of their producers had reached out to me, seeking someone to participate who would represent Nixon’s point of view.

    The producer and I discussed the 39 documentaries, co-sponsored by the National Archives, that I’d helped to produce since 2010 on President Nixon’s various public policy initiatives, as well as my extensive research, writing, books, and lectures on the inside story of the Watergate scandal, where I served as deputy counsel during the last 10 months of the Nixon administration.

    The producer assured me that CNN was committed to presenting a balanced view, but she never even called back, and I think I know why: I would have presented a dramatically different and disruptive point of view from the other pre-packaged panelists.

    RTWT

    Nixon had his own problems that exacerbated the crisis, but he might have prevailed if there had been an internet and ability to reveal the malfeasance of the prosecutors and judges at the time.

    Note to anti-Trumpers or reluctant supporters who keep clutching their pearls about the President’s “unhelpful” rhetoric or tweets: he is smarter than you are.

    Democracy really does die in darkness, and the Deep State is committed to keeping the lights off. Trump’s “inflammatory” words turn the lights back on.

  20. Comey doesn’t have moles: he has stage 4 metastatic melanomas.

    https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/07/mueller_and_comey_a_cozy_relationship.html

    During testimony last year before Congress changed hands, Comey insisted he barely knew Mueller. Perhaps the most interesting dip into disingenuousness was Comey’s insistence that the man who made him a multimillionaire, Robert Mueller, was merely a passing acquaintance:
    …
    Comey was lying. Their “long-standing relationship” was confirmed by that Trump-loving vast right-conspiracy rag called the Washington Post:
    …
    Robert Mueller owes his job as special counsel to long-time friend Comey, who famously leaked government documents written on government computers on government time to the New York Times via a professor friend regarding conversations with President Trump. Comey owes a great deal of his financial wealth to Robert Mueller.

    Seamus Bruner, Government Accountability Institute Researcher and author of Compromised: How Money and Politics Drive FBI Corruption, recently explained how former FBI Directors James Comey and Robert Mueller leveraged their government contacts to enrich themselves when Comey briefly left government service to work for major government contractor Lockheed Martin:
    …
    Why did Comey lie about that the nature and depth of his relationship with Robert Mueller, which resulted down the road in Mueller’s appointment as special counsel and the fraudulent surveillance and investigation of candidate, president, and common enemy Donald Trump? Maybe we can ask Robert Mueller about that and whether he thinks his financial dealings might warrant a special counsel or an FBI raid at the crack of dawn.

    The above post quotes liberally from this one:

    https://www.breitbart.com/radio/2018/08/21/robert-mueller-seamus-bruner-contracts-flowed-fbi-james-comey-lockheed-martin/

    Bruner and Schweizer examined what they described as a “revolving door” of “cronyism” within the federal government’s national security and intelligence apparatuses, focusing on the monetization of security clearances held by former administration officials, such as John Brennan and James Clapper.

    Bruner noted the growth of Comey’s net worth between 2003 and 2009, after Comey left the Department of Justice to join Lockheed Martin as senior vice president and lead counsel.

    “It doesn’t really make much sense why [Lockheed Martin] would pay [James Comey] upwards of six million dollars in a single year,” assessed Bruner. “But one reason — aside from his security clearance — is that his buddy Robert Mueller is running the FBI. They begin passing 100-million-dollar-plus contracts to Lockheed Martin.”
    …
    “We followed the money and realized that James Comey made well over ten million dollars from when he left the public sector in 2005 and by the time he returned to serve as FBI director [in 2009],” said Bruner. “He even made over six million dollars in a single year at the top government contracting corporation, Lockheed Martin; they get over $50 billion a year in government contracts.”

    Bruner affirmed CNN’s Paris Dennard’s analysis of security clearance commodification among ex-government officials.

    Bruner said, “[Paris Dennard] was absolutely right, and everybody knows that top-level intelligence folks leave the public sector and go cash in on their knowledge, experience, [and] security clearances. That’s one of the main reasons Brennan is crying so loudly–because he can’t work at a lot of these contractors without a security clearance.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑