Search Posts

Again with John Solomon, editor-in-chief, founder, chief investigator of ReporterJustTheNews.com, revealing tonight that an FBI investigation uncovered the fact that Mr. Higher honor himself. James Comey routinely leaked classified information to The New York Times through an intermediary, a friend on the faculty of Columbia Law School. The sheer amount of leaking appears to be political, deep, dark, purposefully deceptive, in a myriad of ways, here with details, is investigative reporter, founder of JustTheNews.com, editor-in-chief. All right. Mr. Higher honor, years ago on this program I said you have the right to remain silent and you might want to use it. This is a very long piece that you have here. It is a worthwhile read. I'll let you sum it up, and then I want your conclusion on what you're finding here, because to me it's very damning. Well, what you find out is that James Comey decided not to work through the FBI press office when he wanted to change the narrative in Washington, burnish his reputation against attacks from Democrats, and try to sully Donald Trump's reputation. If you remember, Democrats were mad that James Comey let out of the bag just before the election that there might be some new evidence in the Hillary Clinton email scandal. Hillary blamed Comey for throwing the election. She blamed the Russians for throwing the election. She blamed everybody but herself for throwing the election for her. But Comey was trying to rehabilitate that. And so he had an intermediary, a Columbia law professor by the name of Daniel Richmond, who the FBI confirmed and interviewed. And Richmond said, yes, I used my relationship with a New York Times reporter named Michael Schmidt. He's one of the authors of the Pulitzer Prize-winning package that President Trump is now suing over. And my goal was to improve negative stories about James Comey and to set a narrative, i.e., set the Russia collusion narrative. This guy worked around the official channels of the FBI press office. And at one point, the FBI noted, you met with James Comey. He gave you access to classified information. A short while later, you had a conversation with that New York Times reporter, and he ends up reporting something that appears to be classified. Did you do it? He gives, I think, perhaps the most famous denial people will remember, since Bill Clinton says it depends what the meaning of the word is, is when he tried to obfuscate whether he had an affair with Monica Lewinsky, he says, I can say, I don't think I confirmed the information. I can say, with a discount, that I didn't give him the classified information. With a discount means you got to give me some room. It's an extraordinary moment. The FBI clearly had strong suspicions that this was a potential backdoor for information, maybe classified information, to get out to the media with James Comey's fingerprints on it. And they didn't go much further. They didn't put Comey before the grand jury. That we can tell. They didn't appear to put this gentleman, Daniel Richmond, before the grand jury. And like Adam Schiff, as we told you last night, here they have an eyewitness whistleblower who said, I was in the room, when he authorized leaks of intel, these end up being a dead end again. And it's another reminder of a dual system of justice that the Justice Department had the last six years. These are documents that were never given to Jim Jordan. Jim Jordan confirmed that to me today. And we're just learning, eight years later, because of what Cash Patel turned over, that the FBI had all the evidence of how the false narrative of Russia collusion was spread across this country, to the detriment of voters, to the detriment of President Trump's first campaign. And they did nothing about it. It's a credit to the FBI. It's a credit to Cash Patel. It's a credit to the people that are involved in sharing this information now with the public. Do you see legal jeopardy here? I think if Pam Bondi goes the grand jury route, that these are people that are going to be hauled before the grand jury. I want to remind people, most classified information statutes have a five-year statute of limitations. But there is a provision that extends it to 10 years if it's willing and knowing. And there is some pretty clear evidence of a strong apparatus put in place to make these leaks occur, according to the FBI documents. I think a grand jury could go back and try to compel testimony and find out if it rises to the level of criminality. Tomorrow, though, I think we're going to take people on a new destination, which is, how often did the FBI get blocked in trying to investigate Hillary Clinton corruption at the Clinton Foundation? You're going to be shocked by the answer. We'll have you back tomorrow. I'm John Solomon. This is unraveling very quickly. Thank you.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

There's new evidence that Barack Obama ask intelligence and investigatory heads like John Brennan, the former CIA director, James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence, and James Comey, the former FBI director, to find me evidence that you haven't found yet so that we can continue the Russian collusion hoax after it was ineffective in the campaign. You go back, we only have a few weeks left, I'm a lame duck president, and bring me the right assessments. And that's exactly what they did, and that's why they're terrified that new information is coming forth. It suggests to the American people what they did and how they were culpable. Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. I'd like to talk about the ongoing melodrama of what Barack Obama knew or did not know in his involvement with Russian collusion. The hoax that plagued the Donald Trump 2016 campaign tried to undermine his transition in 2016 and '17 and ate up the first 22 months of his presidency in 2017 and '18 and was found to be completely bogus. There are three blind mice involved in this tale, John Brennan, the former CIA director, James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence, and James Comey, the former FBI director. And they all have new manifestations of their untruthfulness. Let's start with John Brennan. He's very angry right now because the trove that was released by Tulsi Gabbard of new documents and investigations may or may not have criminal referrals come out of them, and Pam Bondi may file new charges. The problem that Brennan has is that he went to a meeting and he presented a false picture of CIA assessments. The so-called CIA heads of various divisions found no Russian collusion. They said to John Brennan, "There's nothing there that we can see that Donald Trump colluded with the Russians." He rejected that, cherry-picked four or five other analysts, and then presented a false picture to Barack Obama. Or did he? Or did Barack Obama request that he do that? It'll be he said, he said, but it's more likely that Barack Obama asked John Brennan to come up with the correct CIA assessments, sort of like Mr. Berea, the head of Soviet secret police during the Cold War and at the end of World War II. He said, "I have the criminal. You find me the crime. So I have the criminal, Donald Trump. All I need is Russian collusion." And that was the methodology that they proceeded by. The problem with Brennan, though, is he, in the process of preparing this false assessment, he said again and again, both publicly but also under testimony, he didn't know anything about the Steele dossier. Didn't know anything about it. He didn't read it. It didn't compute into CIA assessments. That was a lie. That was a lie. We know now from other testimonies, especially from the trope, that he did draw on the fake Steele dossier. He referenced it to other people. And the problem with John Brennan is this isn't the first time he's misled us. He lied about the Senate staff computers. That was under oath. He lied, remember, about predator drones when he said there was no collateral damage. And remember, he lied also as one of the 51 intelligence authorities who tried to float that bogus idea that Hunter's laptop was cooked up in Russia. Then we come to James Clapper. He was sitting at this meeting in December of 2016 where he gave a false assessment, and he misrepresented what the 18 intelligence agencies under his direction had found. They had not found Russian collusion. And yet he participated in this. He went so far as later to thanking and giving credit to Barack Obama for demanding that they find Russian collusion. He said if he hadn't have ordered us to do this, we wouldn't have found it. i.e. the subtext says there was no evidence in our intelligence agency for it, so we concocted it on the directive of Barack Obama. But remember, he lied too. He swore under oath to the U.S. Congress that the National Security Agency had never spied on Americans. That was an abject lie, and he was part of the 51 intelligence authorities who also lied to the American people in 2020 on the eve of the second debate when Joe Biden denied that Hunter Biden's laptop was authentic. He quoted the 51 authorities. The FBI, remember, at that time had it in his possession and had already authenticated it as genuine. Then we come to James Comey. He also says that he had really nothing to do with the Steele dossier. The fact is, he was completely acquainted with it. His FBI offered a million dollars. They were so desperate to validate it. They said to Christopher Steele, "Just give us some proof. We can use this. We'll give you a million dollars." He couldn't even come up with the substantive arguments to corroborate his own dossier, so he didn't get the million dollars. More importantly, James Comey has a problem. He leaked on an FBI device a conversation he had memorialized to the New York Times via a third party. James Comey, remember, went before the House Oversight Committee, as I said earlier, and lied 245 times. If you say, "I don't remember, I don't recall, I don't know," can you imagine an FBI director with all that knowledge at his fingertips saying, "I don't remember, I don't know," about the most important investigation in recent history? Let's sum up these three blind mice. There's new evidence that Barack Obama asked intelligence and investigatory heads like John Brennan, like James Clapper and James Comey to find me evidence that you haven't found yet so that we can continue the Russian collusion hoax after it was ineffective in the campaign. Hillary lost the election. Now we want to sabotage. This is the subtext of the transition and his presidency. You go back. We only have a few weeks left. I'm a lame duck president and bring me the right assessments, and that's exactly what they did, and that's why they're terrified that new information is coming forth that suggests to the American people what they did and how they were culpable. Thank you very much. This is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. Thank you for tuning in to The Daily Signal. Please like, share, and subscribe to be notified for more content like this. You can also check out my own website at victorhanson.com and subscribe for exclusive features in addition.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

And now, thanks to Miranda Devine and Senator Grassley, we have some proof. There was a prosecutor who really had a passion for going after J-6ers and all things Trump. There he is, and we have an email from him to his DOJ and FBI colleagues. Take a look at this. This is how they talk to each other. Can we do some work to nail down Trump's role in this? According to this Forbes article, Trump recorded the Pledge of Allegiance at MAL, Mar-a-Lago, and Cash Patel is involved. I'll talk to Maria and Aaron and Julia about doing some follow-up here to nail down Trump's role. In other words, to nail Trump. Can we get something on Trump? This is not the way the justice system is supposed to work. No, it's the next the FBI gets in on the action. I think we have another one from a guy who was really anxious to get J-6ers as well. The FBI agent replies, "Ester and I are working on this today. "We're going to put together our findings at two "and get something to you shortly after that." This isn't justice. This isn't policing. This isn't law enforcement. This is dark political operations. And it's, they just had no problem lying about it. This is Merrick Garland. The guy should have been busted for perjury or I don't know, disbarred for something 'cause this is not true. - This appointment underscores for the public the department's commitment to both independence and accountability in particularly sensitive matters and to making decisions indisputably guided only by the facts and the law. - I have a chance to lead a justice department in pursuit of the rule of law. - We have only one rule. And that one rule, so we follow the facts and the law and we reach the decisions required by the Constitution and we protect civil liberties. - Mr. Smith. - No, they don't. No, they didn't. And they said it so much, it was like muscle memory. It was like automatic, right? It was, it became boilerplate language. We only pursue, we don't look at politics. It's only the facts. I mean, look at Jack Smith. Does anybody believe all of these indictments, all of these arrests, right? They were not looking at politics. Jack Smith, the weirdo's special counsel, go. - Adherence to the rule of law is a bedrock principle of the Department of Justice. And our nation's commitment to the rule of law sets an example for the world. We have one set of laws in this country and they apply to everyone. Applying those laws, collecting facts, that's what determines the outcome of an investigation. Nothing more and nothing less. - Oh yeah, no, what about poll numbers? What about a President Trump who's wildly popular in the Republican Party and just kind of running for the nomination and has a lock on it and you guys arrest him within a four month period, right? As the election year is really kicking into the high gear, is that the facts? Is that just following the law? Where it is, one of the reasons why Joe Biden did so poorly in that debate, he didn't think he'd even have to debate Trump, he was confident that he wasn't gonna be the nominee, that he might be in jail, did not work out that way, did it? Anyway, just remember, this is a doozy. They try to criminalize the singing of the national anthem and the pledge of allegiance, raising all kinds of questions about well, where did the money go and how did this happen and how did that happen? They, this is a classic example, show me the man, we'll find the crime.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.