Skip to comments.James Comey refuses to tell Senate if FBI is investigating Trump-Russia links
Posted on 01/11/2017 10:35:06 PM PST by amorphous
The director of the FBI whose high-profile interventions in the 2016 election are widely seen to have helped tip the balance of against Hillary Clinton has refused to say if the bureau is investigating possible connections between associates of President-elect Donald Trump and Russia.
Testifying before the Senate intelligence committee on Tuesday, James Comey said he could not comment in public on a possible investigation into allegations of links between Russia and the Trump campaign.
I would never comment on investigations whether we have one or not in an open forum like this, so I really cant answer one way or another, said Comey, at a hearing into the US intelligence agencies conclusion that Russia intervened in the election to benefit Trump.
Comeys reticence stunned several senators who pointed to his repeated public discussions of FBI inquiries into Clinton during the campaign.
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
We now know that the FBI considered the evidence of ties between Russia and the Trump team to be credible enough to investigate. Julian Borger reports on where this led:
"The Guardian has learned that the FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials. The Fisa court turned down the application asking FBI counter-intelligence investigators to narrow its focus. According to one report, the FBI was finally granted a warrant in October, but that has not been confirmed, and it is not clear whether any warrant led to a full investigation."
The Twitter reaction to this has mostly been: Oh, so now the FISA court finally turns down a warrant request. Yeesh.
And sure, this is sort of ironic considering the FISA court's 99 percent rate of approving warrants. But there's also a serious point to be made here. This was a warrant targeting four specific people, so the court treated it like a normal warrant. That meant rejecting it if it didn't provide enough evidence to form probable cause. However, when a warrant is broad-based and applies to thousands or millions of people, the FISA court seems to adopt an entirely different standard. Just demonstrate a vague national security need and you're good to go.
These self-serving a$$holes had better start to realize who they work for. The pitch forks and torches are just getting warmed up. The tar is hot and the feathers are ready. The rails are out in the shed.
I'll take that as a "no."
It seems as if attempts are being made by TPTB to keep Obama in power.
Be prepared.. this started as 4chan internet hoax... well the left might try to run with it anyway
I find the 4chan guy “tsprudence” that claimed responsibility and was talking about it...his Twitter account has been shut down
time for President Trump to ask for Comey’s resignation. If it’s not given, publicly fire him.
Sounds like the Intel community hasn’t got anybody who has some. Like Wendy’s not having any burgers.
Time to clamp some vice grips on a few hundred nads, to get things in order.
Agree. And countless Americans will believe whatever the MSM tells them. Half because they’re for keeping Obama in power anyway, the rest (the snowflakes) because they’re too lazy to research if it’s true or not.
The FBI Director serves for a 10-year term, after being appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
Director Comey was appointed and confirmed in 2013 by President Stompy Feet.
He can be dismissed for cause, as President Clinton did when he gave William Sessions the boot back in 1993. Clinton accused Sessions of "misusing resources."
Trump needs to appoint David A. Clarke as Director - FBI
dump Comey ASAP - get back to REAL COPS - enough of these namby-pamby Leftist , Ivy League lawyer types in law enforcement leadership roles .
Real cops and REAL soldiers
Yup, Comey begone...
Comey, Clapper, Brennen and many more...
Time to fire him
If he’s smart, he’ll submit his letter of resignation, if not, there are plenty of reasons for canning him. For one, he has lost the respect of many inside the FBI, and also the respect of many law enforcement officials all across America.
With Sessions as AG, that would be perfect.
At least according to Julian Borger, who I wouldn't trust as far as I can throw.
Jimmy the Weasel Comey got punked by the 4chan hoax and is now trying to get a lot of toothpaste back into the tube.
The news is that an alleged journalist asked a question, knowing that the FBI would never answer that question, so he could report that the FBI didn’t answer.
Liberals would support firing him, if you believe what I read at DU. Of course, as much as they hate and blame Comey for Hillary’s loss, if Trump fired him, the house of mirrors logic they use in would probably make them oppose his firing, just because Trump did it.
Amen. Comey dropped the ball on Clinton case. David Clarke is a true patriot.
Had no choice after folks in Congress leaked what he had reported to them....
Maybe someday CONGRESS will grow a Set, and use the Authority Granted to them in the US Constitution.
LOCK HIM UP IF HE REFUSES ANYTHING!!!
Congress has ALL the power in washington, the executive and judicial branch operate according to the whims of CONGRESS!
TITLE 2—THE CONGRESS
CHAPTER 6—CONGRESSIONAL AND COMMITTEE PROCEDURE; INVESTIGATIONS
Sec. 193. Privilege of witnesses
No witness is privileged to refuse to testify to any fact, or to produce any paper, respecting which he shall be examined by either House of Congress, or by any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or by any committee of either House, upon the ground that his testimony to such fact or his production of such paper may tend to disgrace him or otherwise render him infamous.”
Simply look up Hinds Precedents, especially chapters 53 and 51, and Cannon’s Precedents, especially chapters 184-185. You’ll find numerous detailed cases of Congress asserting its power, arresting people, holding them until they agreed to answer questions, and then releasing them. Some of these people did not refuse to appear, but simply failed to satisfactorily answer questions. One has to wonder how a previous Congress might have responded to Alberto Gonzales’s endless recitations of “I do not recall.”
Congress can Remove the President
Congress can remove the head of every executive agency Congress can remove ALL of their employees
Congress can Abolish every agency they so choose
Congress can remove EVERY JUDGE IN AMERICA, including every supreme court justice.
Congress can abolish every federal court except the supreme Court
Congress can decide which cases the Judicial Branch can hear and decide
CONGRESS can Imprison ANYONE they want for any reason they so desire for as long as they wish.
Congress can declare WAR
No other governing body has even 10% of the power CONGRESS has!!
CONGRESS IS ALLOWING ALL OF IT!!!
Congress has the authority to arrest and imprison those found in Contempt. The power extends throughout the United States and is an inherent power (does not depend upon legislated act)
If found in Contempt the person can be arrested under a warrant of the Speaker of the House of Representatives or President of the Senate, by the respective Sergeant at Arms.
Statutory criminal contempt is an alternative to inherent contempt.
Under the inherent contempt power Congress may imprison a person for a specific period of time or an indefinite period of time, except a person imprisoned by the House of Representatives may not be imprisoned beyond adjournment of a session of Congress.
Imprisonment may be coercive or punitive.
 Joseph Storys Commentaries on the Constitution, Volume 2, § 842 http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/print_documents/a1_5s21.html
 Anderson v. Dunn - 19 U.S. 204 - And, as to the distance to which the process might reach, it is very clear that there exists no reason for confining its operation to the limits of the District of Columbia; after passing those limits, we know no bounds that can be prescribed to its range but those of the United States. http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/19/204/case.html
 Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/294/125/case.html 73rd Cong., 78 Cong. Rec. 2410 (1934) https://archive.org/details/congressionalrec78aunit
 McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 - Under a warrant issued by the President of the Senate the Deputy to the Senate Sergeant at Arms arrested at Cincinnati, Ohio, Mally S. Daugherty, who had been twice subpoenaed by the Senate and twice failed to appear. http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/273/135/case.html
 Rules of the House of Representatives, Rule IV Duties of the Sergeant at Arms -  execute the commands of the House, and all processes issued by authority thereof, directed to him by the Speaker. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/HMAN-105/pdf/HMAN-105-pg348.pdf
 An analysis of Congressional inquiry, subpoena, and enforcement http://www.constitutionproject.org/documents/when-congress-comes-calling-a-primer-on-the-principles-practices-and-pragmatics-of-legislative-inquiry/
In 1857, a New York Times reporter refused to say which members of Congress had asked him to get them bribes (protecting his “sources” just as various Judith Millers today protect the people who feed them proven lies that costs thousands of lives), so Congress locked him up until he answered and then banned him from Congress.
In 1924 an oil executive appeared but refused to answer certain questions, so the Senate held — literally held — him in contempt. Senator Thomas Walsh of Montana argued that this question of contempt was of the gravest importance, and that it involved “the very life of the effective existence of the House of Representatives of the United States and of the Senate of the United States.” The matter was taken to court, and the witness fined and imprisoned.
Thanks for your post/comment James Commie ALERT!
No mention of the 4chan guy on mainstream media that I have seen.
But that makes it even more interesting... you know the main stream follow Rush if just to attack him on things he says
So the 4chan is out there the MSM must know about it.. yet nothing not a peep telling the public anything about it.
. not even to mock it.. if they think 4chan story is false and Rush Limbaugh is telling “false news” they talk about that
The MSM is not reporting all parts of this story..that 4chan is the core or big part of this.. the MSM are looking to spin this some how... and they are hiding parts that do not work with that spin
Thank you for educating us on this. I wish Congress would allow you to read it before a joint session!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.