James Comey Indicited

[Thoughtful3]

I'm sure Hillary still has him on her list.
If Epstein is any indicator, Comey may or may not be safer in prison.

As Flyer Fan points out he is not liked by either side. First impressions from the title of his book "A Higher Loyalty" he infers that his only loyalty is to the FBI. He refused to agree to Trump's request for loyalty.
Not an unreasonable request but I imagine Trump must have been very wary of his intentions after that.
I mean that's a pretty gutsy thing to do.

However really examining the numbers around this book and comparing them to events - his real loyalty must have been bought and paid for by Billy the Gates. Just like everyone else.

Bill's birthday is October 28.
Comey reopened Hillary's classified email nightmare on October 28. I have been watching for these coincidences.

Considering the damage inflicted to Hillary I find it most unusual that he hasn't suffered some, cough, "accident". After all she takes no hostages.

Billy is a long term planner and a numbers guy. He had met up with Ugur Sahin, CEO of BioNTech in October 2018 and met privately with him to learn about the mRNA tech. He then invested lots of $ and of course sold near the high. He also introduced BioNTech to Pfizer and they were working on developing a universal flu vaccine in 2019.

Parsing through this book I found an interesting link to the CDC. Comey's [Patrice] wife had close contacts within the CDC which developed after their baby - a son died. Page 46. Her cause was noble but that connection exists.

Just a thought that I'm toying with, The Gates Foundation and the Clinton Global Health Initiative have some deep relationships. Surfing through the Gates Foundation grants there are many given to them.

Now Billy looks at everything through the lens of profits and numbers are the key. The Spanish flu of 1918-1919 is 100 years prior to Covid. Whoever is president at the time will have a really slim chance of being re-elected after Covid was unleashed. If Hillary had been in Trump's place then Trump would have been president when the 2021 jab roll out took place. Trump would never have mandated it and Billy's plan would have collapsed.

Obviously Biden was a puppet, and Billy needed the government to follow the script. He knew the deep state actors like Comey and Fauci would be there regardless of who was president.

Maybe Billy, looking at the odds, had a quiet conversation with her. She didn't have to like the message.

[Thoughtful3]

Wayback machine .... his own people testifying against him in the leaks.
Too long of an article to quote.   If interested ... click and read.

Independent Sentinel

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DPEIUV1Aeqz/

He outright lies. 
Page 268-

"On Friday, May 12 President Trump tweeted a warning to me and his 39 million followers: James Comey better hope there are no tapes of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press."

Trump had fired Comey. Comey had been taking notes of their private conversations which he reviewed with senior FBI staff and made copies that he kept in a safe at his residence. At this point it's his word vs President Trump.

 "I decided I would prompt a media story by revealing the President's February 14 direction that I drop the Flynn investigation. That might force the DOJ to appoint a special prosecutor, who could get the tapes that Trump had tweeted about."

He then contacted a friend, Dan Richman, a professor at Columbia Law School. He was going to send one memo and wanted him to share the contents with the media.

Why didn't he do this himself?

He hides under the cloak that they were not classified and he is the one that determines what's classified and what isn't.

"Central to the question of obstruction, for example, is a showing of President Trump's intent?" Or rather what was he thinking?

[WallFlowerActive]

Wayback machine .... his own people testifying against him in the leaks.
Too long of an article to quote.   If interested ... click and read.

Independent Sentinel

Thanks for being one of the people bringing the thread back to its topic.

[Thoughtful3]

Now I've pointed out that Comey managed to wrangle his way into getting a special prosecutor appointed to examine Trump and all things Russia.

Page 207 as he plays loose and free.
"A different FBI director might have called for the appointment of a special prosecutor in late June, after Bill Clinton's visit to the attorney general's plane. I still think it would have been unfair to Hillary Clinton, but I can imagine another director doing it that way rather than trying to protect the institutions in the way that I did."

Wut?

#3/344 [March 11]   May 23 < Rory Gates birthday, 2019 [10:1] [1:35]  No. 65729  [54]< Bill Gates and Hillary Clinton chapters in their books. Least we forget March 11 was when the plandemic was announced.

What about the Comey report?

Moves & countermoves.
Misdirection sometimes creates one person to turn on another. (
publicly)
[C]oming soon.


Incoming.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DPEIUV1Aeqz/

[DBCowboy]

As much as I'd like to see Comey get jail time, the trial will be in DC.

They don't eat their own, especially if they are commie evil leftist douche-twinkies.

[Ignorant]

Comey a commie? Wtf are you talking about? Pretty sure he was a registered republican for most of his life. He's anti-Trump, sure, but that's just because he's not an idiot.

[Ignorant]

First impressions from the title of his book "A Higher Loyalty" he infers that his only loyalty is to the FBI. He refused to agree to Trump's request for loyalty.
Not an unreasonable request but I imagine Trump must have been very wary of his intentions after that.
I mean that's a pretty gutsy thing to do.

If you're going to refer to the book a lot, knowing it's likely nobody else here has it on hand, you should probably give actual quotes. But I'll make it easier for you and link the whole book.

Anyway, that is an unreasonable and unusual request. It didn't used to be the case that the FBI, DOJ and other law enforcement agencies were expected to be loyal to the current president's politics. Their loyalty is supposed to be to the law, only. If you're reading Comey's book, you know he explains the striking difference between Obama and Trump in how they handled this.

About Obama (page 110):

What surprised me most [...] was the president’s view of the FBI job. It turns out he had a different conception of the FBI director than either I or most partisans assumed. He said, “I don’t want help from the FBI on policy. I need competence and independence. I need to sleep at night knowing the place is well run and the American people protected.” Contrary to my assumption, the fact that I was politically independent from him might actually have worked in my favor. I replied that I saw it the same way. The FBI should be independent and totally divorced from politics, which was what the ten-year term for a director was designed to ensure.

About Trump (page 206):

[President Trump] came on the line to ask if I “wanted to come over for dinner” that night. This was not normal, but I felt like I had no choice. I replied, “Of course, sir.”
[...]
Someone at the White House had to have told him that it just wasn’t done, at least not since the days of Nixon and Hoover. I recalled when President Obama invited me to the White House for a wide-ranging conversation before I was nominated because, as he explained, “Once you are director, we won’t be able to talk like this,” meaning he would not be able to debate wide-ranging philosophical issues with me. The head of the FBI could not be put into the position of meeting and chatting privately with the president of the United States—especially after an election like 2016. The very notion would compromise the Bureau’s hard-won integrity and independence. My fear was that Trump expected exactly that.
[...]
The president arrived at the appointed time of 6:30 P.M. The compliments soon followed. Seeing me already standing in the doorway, he said, “I like that. I like people who are on time. I think a leader should always be on time.”
[...]
At some point early on, maybe by the time the navy stewards brought us the shrimp scampi, Trump asked bluntly, “So what do you want to do?” It was an odd question that I didn’t entirely understand at first, but without waiting for an answer, he launched into a monologue that made it crystal clear what he was referring to: whether I wanted to keep my job. He said lots of people wanted to be director of the FBI, but that he thought very highly of me. He said he had heard great things about me and knew the people of the FBI thought very highly of me as well. He said despite that, he would understand if I wanted to “walk away” given all I had been through, although then he noted that that would be bad for me personally because it would look like I had done something wrong. He finished by saying that he knew he could “make a change at FBI” if he wanted to, but that he wanted to know what I thought. Now it was pretty clear to me what was happening. The setup of the dinner, both the physical layout of a private meal and Trump’s pretense that he had not already asked me to stay on multiple occasions, convinced me this was an effort to establish a patronage relationship. Somebody probably had told him, or maybe it just occurred to him at random, that he’d “given” me the job for “free” and that he needed to get something in return. This only added to the strangeness of the experience. The president of the United States had invited me to dinner and decided my job security was on the menu. I responded that I agreed he can fire the FBI director any time he wishes, but that I wanted to stay and do a job I loved and thought I was doing well. I said I hadn’t expected to return to government but found the job hugely rewarding and wanted to serve out my term. Sensing that he needed more from me, I added that he could count on me as being “reliable” in one way. Not in the way political people sometimes use the term—like a “reliable” vote for one team. I said he could count on me to always tell him the truth. I didn’t do sneaky things, I told him, and I don’t leak. But, I said, I am not on anybody’s side politically and could not be counted on in the traditional political sense, explaining that that was in the president’s best interest. The FBI and the Department of Justice are drawn into the most controversial investigations in the country, investigations that frequently involve prominent members of a presidential administration, as we had been with the investigation of Karl Rove and Scooter Libby during the Bush administration. The FBI is able to do that work credibly because it is not—and is not seen as —a tool of the president. Without that reputation and reality at both Justice and the FBI, a president is left with no way to resolve investigations of his administration, short of appointment of some kind of special prosecutor. This discourse obviously did not appease him. A short time later, with a serious look on his face, he said, “I need loyalty. I expect loyalty.” During the silence that followed, I didn’t move, speak, or change my facial expression in any way. The president of the United States just demanded the FBI director’s loyalty. This was surreal. To those inclined to defend Trump, they might consider how it would have looked if President Obama had called the FBI director to a one-on-one dinner during an investigation of senior officials in his administration, then discussed his job security, and then said he expected loyalty. There would undoubtedly be people appearing on Fox News calling for Obama’s impeachment in an instant. This, of course, was not something I could ever conceive of Obama doing, or George W. Bush, for that matter. To my mind, the demand was like Sammy the Bull’s Cosa Nostra induction ceremony—with Trump, in the role of the family boss, asking me if I have what it takes to be a “made man.” I did not, and would never. I was determined not to give the president any hint of assent to this demand, so I gave silence instead. We looked at each other for what seemed an eternity, but was maybe two seconds or so. I stared again at the soft white pouches under his expressionless blue eyes. I remember thinking in that moment that the president doesn’t understand the FBI’s role in American life or care about what the people there spent forty years building. Not at all.

I wonder if post-Trump we will go back to a (relatively) independent DOJ and FBI, or if the federal law enforcement agencies are forever tainted now. Trust in them has evaporated already, to be sure, and restoring it will take time. As Comey wrote:

The head of the FBI could not be put into the position of meeting and chatting privately with the president of the United States—especially after an election like 2016. The very notion would compromise the Bureau’s hard-won integrity and independence. My fear was that Trump expected exactly that.

He would have expected it, and it suited him fine. Trump is not concerned with trust in institutions. He wants less of it, in fact. He wants his supporters to trust him and only him. And that seems to be working.

[ElitePlebeian]

If you're going to refer to the book a lot, knowing it's likely nobody else here has it on hand, you should probably give actual quotes. But I'll make it easier for you and link the whole book.

Anyway, that is an unreasonable and unusual request. It didn't used to be the case that the FBI, DOJ and other law enforcement agencies were expected to be loyal to the current president's politics. Their loyalty is supposed to be to the law, only. If you're reading Comey's book, you know he explains the striking difference between Obama and Trump in how they handled this.

About Obama (page 110):

About Trump (page 206):

I wonder if post-Trump we will go back to a (relatively) independent DOJ and FBI, or if the federal law enforcement agencies are forever tainted now. Trust in them has evaporated already, to be sure, and restoring it will take time. As Comey wrote:

He would have expected it, and it suited him fine. Trump is not concerned with trust in institutions. He wants less of it, in fact. He wants his supporters to trust him and only him. And that seems to be working.

Sure NOW theyre tainted. Lets ignore the trust in the agencies dropped to an all time low before Trump got back in office. Now why would that be hmmmmmmm.

[quintessentone]

If you're going to refer to the book a lot, knowing it's likely nobody else here has it on hand, you should probably give actual quotes. But I'll make it easier for you and link the whole book.

Anyway, that is an unreasonable and unusual request. It didn't used to be the case that the FBI, DOJ and other law enforcement agencies were expected to be loyal to the current president's politics. Their loyalty is supposed to be to the law, only. If you're reading Comey's book, you know he explains the striking difference between Obama and Trump in how they handled this.

About Obama (page 110):

About Trump (page 206):

I wonder if post-Trump we will go back to a (relatively) independent DOJ and FBI, or if the federal law enforcement agencies are forever tainted now. Trust in them has evaporated already, to be sure, and restoring it will take time. As Comey wrote:

He would have expected it, and it suited him fine. Trump is not concerned with trust in institutions. He wants less of it, in fact. He wants his supporters to trust him and only him. And that seems to be working.

Thank you for your 'voice of reason' in this thread, it is much needed for those MAGA that are waking up, but the cult MAGA will never be enlightened. MAGA have their own civil war to fight, but here on DI, I for one appreciate you putting facts and reason first.

-----

"Former federal terrorism prosecutor Andy McCarthy called the charges “poorly done” and predicted they will be thrown out by a judge well before any trial.“The whole thing is just bizarro,” McCarthy said. “This is the kind of thing that should never ever happen. … This case should never go to trial because it’s obvious from the four corners of the indictment that there’s no case.”"

Why the case against James Comey may end in humiliation for Trump’s DOJ - POLITICO

Hmm, there's a new descriptive word for Trump's actions - "bizarro". Well said, McCarthy.

[FlyersFan]

 He's anti-Trump, sure, but that's just because he's not an idiot.

You haven't been paying attention.
The guy is an idiot.
Just because you are anti-Trump and so is he .. doesn't make him smart.
Both the left and the right hate him for good reason.
And the guy is a freak'n wimp ... blamed his wife for the 86/47 
crap that he pulled.   WEAK.