Skip to comments.Judicial Watch Sues For FBI Docs on Comey Book Deal, Coordination on Comey Testimony before Senate
Posted on 02/08/2018 8:03:22 PM PST by bitt
Judicial Watch announced today it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Justice Department for FBI records about former Director James Comeys book, which he signed to write in August 2017 and is set for publication in April 2018 (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice, (No. 1:18-cv-00220)). The suit also seeks records of communications between Comey and the FBI prior to and regarding Comeys controversial June 2017 testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Judicial Watch filed suit on January 31 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the Justice Department failed to respond to an August 14, 2017 FOIA request for:
All records of communications between the FBI and Comey prior to and regarding Comeys testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on June 8, 2017. All records of communications between the FBI and Comey relating to an upcoming book to be authored by Comey and published. All records, including but not limited to forms completed by Comey, relating to the requirement for prepublication review by the FBI of any book to be authored by Comey with the intent to be published or otherwise publicly available. Comey reportedly received an advance in excess of $2 million for his book, Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership, reportedly set for publication on April 17th. Former FBI agents and officials intending to write books concerning their tenure are customarily required to submit the entire transcript for pre-publication review.
A month after President Trump fired Comey on May 9, 2017, the former FBI director provided highly controversial testimony before the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence about the circumstances that led to his dismissal, the ongoing investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and his handling of the investigation into Hillary Clintons illicit email server. During that testimony, Comey admitted he leaked information about his conversations with President Donald Trump in order to get a special prosecutor appointed. In November, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA lawsuit against the Justice Department for its records about Comeys testimony (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:17-cv-02316)).
Mr. Comey seems to have protected status for any misconduct and we want to know if he had a special deal for his book from his friends in the FBI, said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. The Deep State is in cover-up mode. The FBI, DOJ, and the Special Counsel are stonewalling our requests for Comey documents.
Judicial Watch has several other lawsuits pending for Comey-related records:
Two lawsuits (here and here) seek specifically the Comey memos ((Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice(No. 1:17-cv-01189)) and (Daily Caller News Foundation v. U.S. Department Justice (No. 1:17-cv-01830)); One lawsuit seeks metadata of the Comey memos and related records-management information ((Judicial Watch, Inc., v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 17-cv-01520)); One lawsuit seeks non-disclosure agreements pertaining to the handling, storage, protection, dissemination, and/or return of classified information signed by Comey ((Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:17-cv-01624)). On January 11, U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg ordered the FBI to turn over the Comey memos for in camera review by the court. In doing so, the court rejected arguments by the Sessions Justice Department to dismiss the lawsuits seeking the Comey information.
On February 2, Boasberg ruled that the Comey memos would not be made public. Judicial Watch and the Daily Caller News Foundation are appealing the ruling.
Judicial Watch Sues For FBI Docs on Comey Book Deal, Coordination on Comey Testimony before Senate Intelligence Committee
...Mr. Comey seems to have protected status for any misconduct....
It looks like that is just a “benefit” of being a Democrat. Plain and simple.
So JW had to sue our “white hats”, Wray and Sessions........again?
All around the Mulberry Bush,
the Monkey chased the Weasel.
The Monkey thought
‘Twas all in fun,
Pop goes the Comey....
These publishing houses are just money laundering and political bribery companies.
Is it fair to assume JW already knows most of the details, they just want the documentation?
You see, in Obama’s Administration, he was smart enough to realize the DOJ is the nervous system of our political system and government. So he appointed loyal, fellow travelers who would carry out his wishes without having to be told, negotiated with, threatened, cajoled or subpoenaed.
Trump somehow got stuck with Sessions, probably because some RINO deep staters understand how important control of the DOJ is.
Sessions should be saying to Judicial Watch: Oh, you want info on Comey? Well, sue us, and I’ll immediately tell you everything you want to know. Want more info? OK, sue us again, but be sure to mention, this, this and that. Here you go!
Did the judge explain why he would not release the documents on Feb. 2nd? What would the possible reasons be?
Only thing I can think of is that the info is relevant to another investigation that is on-going..
Yep..Judicial Watch doing yet another of its standard HEROIC and well thought out jobs of relentlessly pursuing the truth on Deep State corruption, shenanigans and criminality.
Yes, JW has to sue President Trump's DOJ to get the facts to the American people.
FOIA will be toast soon. National Security and all that.
That is what they are doing, rather than leaking.
Our rulers in the Imperial City don’t appreciate the erosion of trust the people once had in free government institutions.
At a jury cattle-call in 199, I watched a potential juror say he lost all respect for the rule of law when Bill Clinton got off scott-free for his crimes. The judge dismissed him.
The general disgust today is far worse and damaging.
>>>I watched a potential juror say he lost all respect for the rule of law when Bill Clinton got off scott-free for his crimes.>>>
Let us recount the Clinton crimes.
THE DEMOCRATS CREEDwhat they truly believe
I Believe by Michael Kelly
I believe President Bill Clinton. I have always believed him. I believed him when he said he had never been drafted in the Vietnam War and I believed him when he said he had forgotten to mention that he had been drafted in the Vietnam War. I believed him when he said he hadnt had sex with Gennifer Flowers and I believe him now, when he reportedly says he did.
I believe the president did not rent out the Lincoln Bedroom, did not sell access to himself and the vice president to hundreds of well-heeled special pleaders and did not supervise the largest, most systematic money-laundering operation in campaign finance history, collecting more than $ 3 million in illegal and improper donations. I believe that Charlie Trie and James Riady were motivated by nothing but patriotism for their adopted country.
I believe President Clinton when he conceded that his administration mistakenly obtained the FBI files of more than 300 people, including many top Republicans. I believe it was the result of a completely honest bureaucratic snafu involving security clearances.
I believe Clintons chief of staff, Leon Panetta, when he told reporters that obviously a mistake was made and apologized to the people whose FBI files wound up at the White House. I believe Clinton when he said I completely support what my COS Panetta said about the affair.
I believed Vice President Gore when he said that he had made dunning calls to political contributors on a few occasions from his White House office, and I believed him when he said that, actually, a few meant 46. I believe in no controlling legal authority.
I believe Bruce Babbitt when he says that the $ 286,000 contributed to the DNC by Indian tribes opposed to granting a casino license to rival tribes had nothing to do with his denial of the license. I believed the secretary when he said that he had not been instructed in this matter by then-White House deputy chief of staff Harold Ickes. I believed him when he said later that he had told lobbyist and friend Paul Eckstein that Ickes had told him to move on the casino decision, but that he had been lying to Eckstein. I agree with the secretary that it is an outrage that anyone would question his integrity.
I believe in the Clinton Standard of adherence to the nations campaign finance and bribery laws, enunciated by the president on March 7, 1997: I dont believe you can find any evidence of the fact that I had changed government policy solely because of a contribution. I note with approval the use of the word evidence and also the use of the word solely. I believe that it is proper to change government policy to address the concerns of people who have given the president money, as long as nobody can find evidence of this being the sole reason.
I believe the president has lived up to his promise to preside over the most ethical administration in American history. I believe that indicted former agriculture secretary Mike Espy did not accept $ 35,000 in illegal favors from Tyson Foods and other regulated businesses. I believe that indicted former housing secretary Henry Cisneros did not lie to the FBI and tell others to lie to cover up $ 250,000 in blackmail payments to his former mistress. I believe that convicted former associate attorney general Webster Hubbell was not involved in the obstruction of justice when the presidents minions arranged for Hubbell to receive $ 400,000 in sweetheart consulting deals at a time when he was reneging on his promise to cooperate with Kenneth Starrs Whitewater investigation.
I believe Paula Jones is a cheap tramp who was asking for it. I believe Kathleen Willey is a cheap tramp who was asking for it. I believe Monica Lewinsky is a cheap tramp who was asking for it.
I believe Lewinsky was fantasizing in her 20 hours of taped conversation in which she reportedly detailed her sexual relationship with the president and begged Linda Tripp to join her in lying about the relationship. I believe that any gifts, correspondence, telephone calls and the 37 post-employment White House visits that may have passed between Lewinsky and the president are evidence only of a platonic relationship; such innocent intimate friendships are quite common between middle-aged married men and young single women, and also between presidents of the United States and White House interns.
I see nothing suspicious in the report that the presidents intimate, Vernon Jordan, arranged a $ 40,000-per-year job for Lewinsky shortly after she signed but before she filed an affidavit saying she had not had sex with the president. Nor do I read anything into the fact that the ambassador to the United Nations, Bill Richardson, visited Lewinsky at the Watergate to offer her a job. I believe the instructions Lewinsky gave Tripp informing her on how to properly perjure herself in the Willey matter simply wrote themselves.
I believe that The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, Newsweek, Time, U.S. News & World Report, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS and NPR are all part of a vast right-wing conspiracy. Especially NPR.
Glad someone’s taking a look at the book deal Comey has with that Euroweenie-owned imprint...
These publishing houses are just money laundering and political bribery companies.
yup, JW could turn up a 7 figure “book order” for the Clinton Presidential LIBRARY.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
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.