Posted on 04/15/2018 10:28:11 AM PDT by Starman417
As part of his upcoming book tour, James Comey is scheduled to appear on some tough, hard hitting news shows in April. He will share his experiences on such impressive venues as Stephen Colbert, George Snuffleupagus, and The View. He seems to me to be an especially fine fit on The View– Whoopi Goldberg, Joy Behar- what more could a former FBI Director want? It’s hard to imagine the former Number One G-man in the country demeaning the FBI any worse than that.
This book tour is fraught with risks:
But far more significant could be the implications of Comey’s written words and upcoming media interviews for special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe.Comey is setting the stage for what could be a very interesting time. I just watched an interview Maria Bartiromo held with former Attorney General Michael Mukasy during which a couple of interesting points were raised. Mukasy said that there are FBI publication guidelines- an FBI agent or a former FBI agent cannot write about substantive issues in pending investigations, especially without approval from the Bureau. Mukasy also noted that Comey dropped charges against hillary before it was public knowledge that obama communicated with hillary on her server with a code name.His book, “A Higher Loyalty,” represents an official statement on key parts of the federal Russia probe—including the question of whether Trump may have sought to obstruct justice, a question Mueller is investigating. Legal experts warn that Comey’s own words could complicate court proceedings or a Congressional impeachment debate triggered by Mueller’s findings.
Prosecutors like Mueller generally cringe when a witness speaks at length in public before a case has wrapped up. Comey’s blockbuster book and accompanying media tour, which kicks off in primetime on Sunday, will also expose him to the watchful eye of Trump allies and defense lawyers ready to exploit any inconsistencies in his accounts to their clients’ benefit.
“I’d have a conniption if I knew one of my witnesses was going to be writing a book,” said Nick Akerman, a former assistant U.S. attorney and Watergate prosecutor.
“From a prosecutor standpoint, you want a witness who hasn’t gone out and made lots of statements that can be used to cross examine him,” Akerman added. “What he puts in there, he’s got to realize that’s his story and that’s what he’s sticking by.”
One bombshell out of the book was Comey's admission that the investigation into Hillary Clinton was politically biased:
Chris Wallace has called the book "bitchy."
And it could hardly be more bitchy.
The 6-foot-8 Comey describes Trump as shorter than he expected with a "too long" tie and "bright white half-moons" under his eyes that he suggests came from tanning goggles. He also says he made a conscious effort to check the president's hand size, saying it was "smaller than mine, but did not seem unusually so."Trey Gowdy calls the book "beneath the dignity" of the FBI:
"I can't think of anyone who's done a better job of politicizing the FBI than he has in the last 36 to 48 hours, by talking about tanning bed goggles and the length of a tie," Gowdy said on Fox News. "That is beneath the dignity of the offices that he held."It only gets worse. Comey said that it was possible Trump was with the peeing hookers:Among other things, Comey's book mocks Trump's physical appearance by saying he had "bright white half-moons" that he thought came from tanning goggles.
"I'm really disappointed, whether or not the intelligence community vetted this book," Gowdy said. "I hope he let them do it so he's not disseminating classified information. My guess is he did."
"But the writing of the book in general and then some of the things that he's talking about are just frankly beneath the dignity of some really important offices he once held," he said.
Ex-FBI Director James Comey said “it’s possible” President Trump was with hookers “peeing on each other” in Moscow, according to excerpts of a new interview released Friday.He doesn't know, but he repeats the inflammatory salacious accusation. He continues to spread unverified information. Hold that thought. Then he insulted Trump for wanting it disproved.“I honestly never thought these words would come out of my mouth, but I don’t know whether the current president of the United States was with prostitutes peeing on each other in Moscow in 2013,” Comey said in a “20/20” episode set to air Sunday. “It’s possible, but I don’t know.”
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
Gosh, you’re so judgmental.
You seem angry.
What happened?
A globalist, one-size-fits-all Democrat/Republican coalition gradually imposed itself--a coalition which would erase and obliterate the underlying principles and ideas which made America a place of individual freedom and opportunity and, over time, the Framers' ideas were replaced by another idea, which embraced socialistic economic mediocrity by calling it "equality," and groupthink by calling it "diversity."
That Progressive ideology was, itself, the "god" to be worshipped--a demanding and all-encompassing god which, while claiming "diversity," meant that interpretation of "diversity" to exclude any public square acknowledgement of religious foundations or traditional morality standards embraced and incorporated into the American documents of liberty.
Dr. Russell Kirk's writings on "The Conservative Mind," are familiar to most who call themselves "conservative." The following, however, comes from another of his writings, and it seems to be worth reviewing here:
"Before I began to think much on the spiritual diseases of our century, I revolted against the disgusting smugness of modern America—particularly the complacency of professors and clergymen, the flabby clerisy of a sensate time. Once I found myself in a circle of scholars who were discussing solemnly the conditions necessary for arriving at scientific truth. Chiefly from a perverse impulse to shock the Academy of Lagado, perhaps, I muttered, “We have to begin with the dogma that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.” I succeeded in scandalizing. Some gentlemen and scholars took this for indecent levity; others, unable to convince themselves that anyone could mean this literally, groped for the presumptive allegorical or symbolical meaning behind my words. But two or three churchgoers in the gathering were not displeased. These were given to passing the collection plate and to looking upon the church as a means to social reform; incense, vestments, and the liturgy have their aesthetic charms, even among doctors of philosophy. Faintly pleased, yes, these latter professors, to hear the echo of fife and drum ecclesiastic; but also embarrassed at such radicalism. “Oh no, “ they murmured, “not the fear of God. You mean the love of God, don’t you?” For them the word of Scriptures was no warrant, their Anglo-Catholicism notwithstanding. With Henry Ward Beecher, they were eager to declare that God is Love—though hardly a love which passes all understanding. Theirs was a thoroughly permissive God the Father, properly instructed by Freud. Looking upon their mild and diffident faces, I wondered how much trust I might put in such love as they knew. Their meekness was not that of Moses. Meek before Jehovah, Moses had no fear of Pharaoh; but these doctors of the schools, much at ease in Zion, were timid in the presence of a traffic policeman. Although convinced that God is too indulgent to punish much of anything, they were given to trembling before Caesar. Christian love is the willingness to sacrifice oneself; yet I would not have counted upon these gentlemen to adventure anything of consequence for my sake, nor even for those with greater claims upon them. I doubted whether the Lord would adventure much on their behalf. . . . The great grim Love which makes Hell a part of the nature of things, my colleagues could not apprehend. And, lacking knowledge of that Love, at once compassionate and retributive, their sort may bring us presently to a terrestrial hell, which is the absence of God from the affairs of men. . . . Every age portrays God in the image of its poetry and politics. In one century, God is an absolute monarch, exacting his due; in another century still an absolute sovereign, but a benevolent despot; again, perhaps a grand gentleman among aristocrats; at a different time, a democratic president, with an eye to the ballot box. It has been said that to many of our generation, God is a Republican and works in a bank; but this image is giving way, I think, to God as Chum—at worst, God as a playground supervisor. So much for the images. But in reality God does not alter. . . . What raises up heroes and martyrs is the fear of God. Beside the terror of God’s judgment, the atrocities of the totalist tyrant are pinpricks. A God-intoxicated man, knowing that divine love and divine wrath are but different aspects of a unity, is sustained against the worst this world can do to him; while the goodnatured unambitious man, lacking religion, fearing no ultimate judgment, denying that he is made for eternity, has in him no iron to maintain order and justice and freedom. Mere enlightened self-interest will submit to any strong evil. In one aspect or another, fear insists upon forcing itself into our lives. If the fear of God is obscured, then obsessive fear of suffering, poverty, and sickness will come to the front; or if a well-cushioned state keeps most of these worries at bay, then the tormenting neuroses of modern man, under the labels of “insecurity” and “anxiety” and “constitutional inferiority,” will be the dominant mode of fear. And these latter forms of fear are the more dismaying, for there are disciplines by which one may diminish one’s fear of God. But to remedy the causes of fear from the troubles of our time is beyond the power of the ordinary individual; and to put the neuroses to sleep, supposing any belief in a transcendent order to be absent, there is only the chilly comfort of the analyst’s couch or the tranquilizing drug. By fashionable philodoxies (opinions) of our modern era, by our dominant system of education, by the tone of the serious and the popular press, by the assumptions of the politicians, by most of the sermons to the churchgoers, post-Christian man has been persuaded to do what man always has longed to do—that is, to forget the fear of the Lord. And with that fear have also departed his wisdom and his courage. Only a ferocious drunken farmer is unenlightened enough to affirm a primary tenet of religion in great red letters, and he does not know its meaning. Freedom from fear, if I read St. John aright, is one of the planks in the platform of the Antichrist. But that freedom is delusory and evanescent, and is purchased only at the cost of spiritual and political enslavement. In ends at Armageddon. So in our time, as Yeats saw, Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity. Lacking conviction that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, the captains and the kings yield to the fierce ideologues, the merciless adventurers, the charlatans and the metaphysically mad. And then, truly, when the stern and righteous God of fear and love has been denied, the Savage God lays down his new commandments. Sincere God-fearing men, I believe, are now a scattered remnant. Yet as it was with Isaiah, so it may yet be with us, that disaster brings consciousness of that stubborn remnant and brings, too, a renewed knowledge of the source of wisdom. Truth and hardihood may find a lodging in some modern hearts when the new schoolmen and the parsons, or some of them, are brought to confess that it is a terrible thing to be delivered into the hands of the living God. . . ." - "The Rarity of the God-Fearing Man" - Russell Kirk.
Speaking of one dimensional, what do you make of this butthole’s posting history?
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:starman417/index?tab=comments;brevity=full;options=no-change
Sure looks like he just pimps his blog and never makes a comment.
Got anything cute to say about that?
Rep Radcliffe had best quote on Maria Bartiromo program :
” Jim Comey seems to think he lives in some tortured matrix where only he can save us all”
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a55156/james-comey-hid-behind-curtain-from-trump/
Here’s the problem with what he’s saying. The early part of “the investigation” was not to be called an investigation....and the only reason would be to refrain from saying she was actually “under investigation”.
Humblegunner got zotted for some reason.
No he didn’t, he just put that on his homepage to trick people.
“Chris Wallace has called the book ‘bitchy.’”
So did Rep. Peter King. “Bitchy” is the perfect description, I think. Not that I’ll ever read it.
The veniality and "bitchiness" revealed in Comey's self-aggrandizing memoir should not distract us from the fact that he committed serious crimes against the people of the United States, which need to lead to his prosecution and imprisonment for the rest of his life.
It’s “possible” that James Comey fornicates with sheep, but I just don’t know. I’m only saying it’s possible.... but I don’t know. It is possible, though.
It wasn’t restarted....it was by his latest find....continuing. And to say without hesitation that the new find was no big deal...Well, how the hell did he come up with that in 10 minutes??
His 60 minutes is going to become the laughing stock. And that was the Top Dog at the FBI??
From: Retain Mike Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 10:40 AM To: BostonGlobe Letters (letter@globe.com) Subject: Comey Is First A Dirty Cop
When reading Comey’s book, people should first consider the source. He committed an egregious violation of FBI Director authority by stating Hilary Clinton should not be prosecuted. An attorney general or district attorney possesses the authority to decide what if any crime should be pursued. Whether federal, state, or local, police powers are limit to actions for investigation and arrest. That is why we have grand juries and judges deciding upon charges.
Comey lied by saying the lack of intent to reveal national secrets through Clinton’s feeble and prohibited computer system absolved her from prosecution. The applicable statute, which is Section 793(f) of the Federal Penal Code (Title 18), criminalizes gross negligence thereby rendering intention irrelevant. As such the law shares common ancestry with those from traffic violations to negligent homicide.
Therefore, consider this manifest lack of integrity before giving credence or value to Comey’s written or verbal statements.
Text of FBI Director Comey’s statement on Clinton emails https://www.marketwatch.com/story/text-of-fbi-director-comeys-statement-on-clinton-emails-2016-07-05
Andrew McCarthy: ‘FBI Rewrote the Statute’ to Give Hillary Clinton a Pass http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/06/andrew-mccarthy-fbi-rewrote-the-statute-to-give-hillary-clinton-a-pass/ FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook
Negligent Homicide Law and Legal Definition https://definitions.uslegal.com/n/negligent-homicide/
Mission Statement FBI https://www.fbi.gov/about/mission Mission Oregon State Police http://www.oregon.gov/osp/Pages/about_us.aspx Mission Lane County Sheriff https://www.lanecounty.org/government/county_departments/sheriff_s_office Mission City of Eugene Police https://www.eugene-or.gov/658/Mission-Vision-Values
Got anything cute to say about that?
*************************************
I find your mild booze-soaked retardation amusing. The whimsical child-like cluelessness surplus you offer a dividend.
Brilliant, as usual.
I note you have nothing to say about some promoter using Free Republic as a free advertising tool.
Nope, not you.
Brilliant, as usual.
I note you have nothing to say about some promoter using Free Republic as a free advertising tool.
Nope, not you.
********************************************
Boy, nothing gets by you, does it, dullard. No, I didn’t say anything because I don’t give a damn. I figure that’s Jim’s business. Now you might consider this, you bumbling rube ... Jim might some merit in some bloggers for their content. FR is built on the insight and worthiness of a cause. A very important cause. He might not like the vehicle it arrived but understands the big picture. The intent of the message, finds himself of a like mind. If he didn’t he’d stop it, but he lets it slide for the good of intention despite origin. Now who do you think he finds more value in, their input or your rampant idiocy?
If there were less of them and everybody here like you, donations would drop off faster than a dress on prom night.
Got it.
Opportunists may abuse Free Republic any way they see fit and it's fine with you.
Anyone objecting, though.. is a dullard and a bumbling rube.
Yeah, thanks.
That's about what I expected.
Well, well, aren’t you the noble one. Let’s add delusion to your attributes. So you think FR needs you to stand guard, your incessant babbling on the same subject. Let me enlighten you, cretin. The only reason you get away with it is Jim and the admins have a soft spot showing mercy for your glaring pitifulness.
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.