Above the Law: What Did James Comey’s House Intelligence Committee Hearing Really Tell Us?

by Scott Creighton


This morning all the corporatist talking heads in the MSM are screeching about how FBI Director James Comey said there was no evidence anyone in the Obama administration “wiretapped” the Trump campaign before the election and that the big news from yesterday’s House Intelligence Committee hearing was that there is in fact an ongoing investigation into the possible collusion between the Russians and Trump’s campaign during the election.

The complicit media therefore demands an apology from “lying” Donald Trump about the Obama accusation while coming to an even more breathless and premature conclusion from them that our new president is actually a Manchurian puppet of Vlad the Impaler himself.

Of course, all of the media outlets jumping to these false conclusions were heavily embedded with the Clinton campaign back then, heavily invested in her victory and duly devastated when she lost the election.

The level of avarice unleashed at Trump by these same institutions during the election was so spectacular and unprecedented in modern U.S. history it left much of the country with a profound distrust of the corporate media in general. This is a trend that we have been seeing develop for nearly a year. So much so they had to start the “fake news” campaign to try to discredit the other news sources viewers are investigating and gravitating to as they flock out of the MSM propaganda bubble en mass.

It never occurs to anyone that the real attempt to influence our elections are homegrown projects cooked up in the various instruments of power on behalf of the real leaders of our country and then sold as “news” via dissemination agents like the Washington Post, New York Times, MSNBC, Fox, CNN and others. These are the folks who hated the results of the election and thus, hate our form of “democracy” because the people of this country, the deplorables, “voted the wrong way”

As much as some would have you believe Vladamir Putin hates Hillary Clinton and wanted to see her lose, can any of them say the complicit MSM didn’t hate Donald Trump and want to see him lose? It was NBC after all who held the “grab her by the p–y” video and held it til right before the election in order to maximize it’s destabilizing October Surprise effect.

And ultimately, what is the charge here? That real information about the corruption of Hillary Clinton and the COLLUSION between her campaign and the DNC against a populist candidate, Bernie Sanders, was “hacked” and leaked to various sources where it was released to the public so they could make a more informed decision about their choice on election day?

If you take a breath, step back and look at it with nonpartisan eyes, what you see is that this is what they call “undermining our democracy” these days. How is exposing the real nature of a candidate, taking off her mask and showing her for what she really is, how is that possibly considered “undermining democracy” in a constitutional republic?

Yet that is ultimately what is at the core of this topic. The establishment’s deeply flawed candidate of choice failed to be allowed to attend her scheduled coronation so they must fabricate an after action report that white washes the history of that historic failure (and Clinton’s criminality and corruption that were exposed)

So we have that going on coupled with a destabilization campaign being run by the media targeting the new administration just like all the destabilization campaigns run by media in countries the CIA and State Department selected for regime change over the past couple of decades.

In spite of the breathless and baseless conclusions being parroted by the complicit talking heads this morning, let’s keep five things in mind as we talk about the Comey/Rogers hearing yesterday:

  1. The war-mongering republicans promote disinformation/propaganda about Russia just like the New McCarthyite Dems do these days
  2. Just because Clinton DID try to influence Russia’s election, that does not mean Russia tried to influence ours
  3. James Comey did not say there was no evidence that someone in the Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign
  4. An investigation is not proof of guilt
  5. James Comey refused to promise an investigation into who those “high ranking” intelligence agency professionals were who committed felonies by leaking anti-Trump intel to the complicit media.

1. The war-mongering republicans promote disinformation/propaganda about Russia just like the New McCarthyite Dems do these days

The hearing started off yesterday with House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (republican neoliberal) spouting numberous lies about recent Russian “aggression” throughout the world.

“The Putin regime has a long history of aggressive actions against other countries, including the outright invasion of two of its neighbors in recent years, as well as its brutal military action in Syria to defend the Assad regime. But it’s hostile acts take many forms, aside from direct military assaults” Nunes

Putin did not “invade” Georgia or Crimea. These are flat out lies and distortions of historical fact.

Russia responded when our puppet in Georgia tried to invade and take over South Ossetia since they kicked off their aggression by attacking UN Peace Keepers who were stationed there and who just happened to be Russian.

“Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili had long planned a military strike to seize back the breakaway region of South Ossetia but executed it poorly, making it easy for Russia to retaliate, Saakashvili’s former defense minister said” Reuters

The resulting reaction by the Russians was to retake and hold South Ossetia. Many of the so-called “Russian war-crimes” that were reported at the time had been staged by institutions dedicated to helping the military win the hearts and minds of U.S. citizens regarding the conflict.

Similarly, the prevailing propaganda surrounding the “Russia invaded Crimea” disinformation follows yet another U.S.-backed act of aggression and that was our color revolution we stated and ran in Ukraine.

The people of Crimea voted in a referendum to return to the Russian state in the wake of the brutal neo-Nazi color revolution in Ukraine. It’s understandable considering how many Crimeans are of Russian decent. There was no “invasion”. The Russian base on the island had been there for many decades and the photographs shown to the American public were misleading… much like the “Russian war-crimes” images we saw from South Ossetia.

Throughout the entire hearing yesterday, there was one outright lie about Russia told after another. Most came from Democratic Party members trying their best to convict Trump in absentia via circumstantial evidence but the Republicans did inject some McCarthyism of their own. This kind of barrage of disinformation continued all day long. It was one lie after another inference after another absurd 6-degrees-of-seperation conclusion.

Honestly speaking, to watch the whole thing takes one back to the fall of 2002 and early spring of 2003 when the congress was doing much the same thing with regard to Iraq, WMDs and their supposed collusion with al-Qaeda. When that realization hits you, it’s a chilling moment to be sure especially when Nunes said this: “In recent years, committee members have issued repeated and forceful pleas for stronger action against Russian belligerents.”

Let’s be clear, the claim that Russia “hacked” our election is entirely baseless. All of it. On several occasions during the hearing, they referred back to the DNI/FBI report they released in early January of this year, the one that they claim 17 intelligence agencies agree with regarding their conclusions about Russian hacking in order to influence our election process. What no one mentioned about that declassified report was this little disclaimer:

this report is provided “as is” for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within.”

No warranties of ANY kind regarding ANY information contained in the report. Is that unclear to ANYone?

Also, they mention the specifics on HOW many of the conclusions were agreed upon:

“When Intelligence Community analysts use words such as “we assess” or “we judge,” they are conveying an analytic assessment or judgment. Some analytic judgments are based directly on collected information; others rest on previous judgments, which serve as building blocks in rigorous analysis

What they are saying, they take previous baseless conclusions and start from there with those in order to “assess” or “judge” the relative validity of their new conclusions. Not on evidence sometimes, but on previous building blocks of propaganda.

New lies based on old lies. That’s what they call “rigorous analysis” in the intel communities that produced this report and this report is part of the basis of yesterday’s testimony which is being used this morning as the foundation for baseless claims being made by the complicit media.

Lies upon lies upon lies upon lies. Not just from the Dems though. Our Republican war-mongers are just as complicit in the current transition to the New McCarthyism in America.

2. Just because Clinton DID try to influence Russia’s election, that does not mean Russia tried to influence ours

James Comey said yesterday that Russia wanted to influence our election because Putin hated Hillary because she tried to influence theirs years ago and though this might seem like some nice water cooler “deep state” talking point you could parrot today and feel like your co-workers will be impressed by your knowledge of such things, you need to be careful.

James Comey also did not offer one shred of evidence to support that claim. Not one. Nor has a single official briefed on the classified version of any of these reports. Sans evidence, what Comey is suggesting is a POTENTIAL MOTIVE… not a proven one.

Though it makes sense that Putin would not be particularly happy with Clinton after she attempted to incite violence and revolution in Russia, the fact is, the Clintons were very good for Russia and that ladies and gentlemen is not just a “conspiracy theory” but rather, it’s a fact.

“As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.” New York Times

Putin is smart and the Clintons are pragmatic, greedy and their slush fund, the Clinton Foundation, was always open for business even if that meant selling a strategic nuclear asset to “our greatest enemy” the Russians.

And let’s be honest… even though he promised to “lock her up”, President Trump just sent a lawyer last week to keep some of those missing emails from Hillary’s illegal server from falling into the hands of Judicial Watch, a group who would definitely publish them in an effort to see Trump’s promise fulfilled.

The mistake Comey makes is one of convenience. He needed a plausible motive for this baseless accusation to remain a destabilizing story in the media and he landed on the only thing they have, OUR REAL ATTEMPT TO DESTABILIZE RUSSIAN DEMOCRACY

But history does not lie and the history of the Clintons speaks for itself. They are corrupt, they are vulnerable and they are soulless. So for Comey to conclude Vladamir Putin is motivated by something as petty and selfish as revenge is a nearly cartoonish oversimplification of the real deep state of Geo-politics which, upon further review, doesn’t hold up to the smell test.

3. James Comey did not say there was no evidence that someone in the Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign

This is a big one and probably the easiest of the MSM propaganda to debunk.

What Comey said was:

“With respect to the president’s tweets about alleged wiretapping directed at him by the prior administration, I have no information that supports those tweets and we have looked carefully inside the FBI. The Department of Justice has asked me to share with you that the answer is the same for the Department of Justice and all its components. The department has no information that supports those tweets.” James Comey

This is legalese. It is not a definitive statement that absolves the previous president by any stretch of the imagination.

First of all he says “he” has no information that ‘supports the tweets”. He doesn’t say it doesn’t exist. He doesn’t say the CIA didn’t do it or anyone else didn’t do it for that matter (Verizon? Google? AT&T perhaps?). What he says is “he” doesn’t have any information and that is a far cry from saying nothing happened.

For instance, I don’t have any information that there aren’t other life forms on other planets in the universe. But for anyone to conclude that means we are God’s chosen species and the universe revolves around us based on my statement is not only foolish, it’s ridiculous.

Just because Comey doesn’t have information about wiretapping doesn’t mean someone else didn’t do it. Did Comey have information when the CIA wiretapped congress a couple years ago when they were investigating the CIA? No, he did not. But that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. We all know for a fact it did. We also know the head of the CIA lied to congress about it just as James Clapper lied about them spying on millions of American citizens.

The other legalese aspect of his answer lies in his statement as it is entirely based on “those tweets”

The Trump tweets refer to Obama “wiretapping” his phones. It could have been done by an Obama administration official, it could have been done by someone on behalf of the Obama administration or it could have been done by an agency acting on behalf of an off-the-record request by Obama… none of that would have produced information that supported those tweets.

Specifically, the need for plausible deniability would mandate anyone thinking of tapping Trump Tower prior to the election would do so while putting as much distance as they could between the act and the office of the president. There is the whole Watergate thing to consider.

Under those circumstances, would they follow the prescribed FISA court request process leaving a paper trail in their wake? Of course not.

So of course, if you don’t dig too deeply you aren’t going to find what was intentionally hidden to start with. And since we all know Comey did everything he could to shield a former Obama administration official from prosecution and exposure for her criminal activity while serving him, my guess is, Comey could simply also be up to his old tricks, so to speak.

So no. James Comey coming out yesterday with that carefully worded statement DOES NOT MEAN Trump’s campaign wasn’t spied on during the election when it was getting way to close for comfort and Hillary was being exposed everyday for being a corrupt, criminal candidate who should be in jail, not running for office.

Plus lets keep in mind, Obama himself said “if you value my legacy, vote for Hillary” so we know he had motive… Putin didn’t. But Obama sure did.

To sum this up, the talking heads saying the FBI and the NSA just said the president is a “liar” are lying to you. Either that or they’re just plain stupid.

4. An investigation is not proof of guilt

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

The talking heads in the other room are currently screeching about the “revelation” that Comey is conducting an investigation about possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians who had nothing to do with the leaks that were sent to various online sources prior to the election.

They say this is proof that Trump is guilty and that kind of false narrative will hold up for a day or so before more rational thinkers have time to write in major publications that this kind of breathless conclusion is irresponsible and counter-productive to everything we say we stand for in this country. Once that happens, the narrative will change slightly, but the damage will be done. The damage to Trump’s credibility and to theirs as well.

But the truth is, an investigation into a candidate does not imply guilt. Not at all. Many times investigations are used to a political purpose and again, we all know Comey did his best to protect an Obama administration secretary, so we already know he politicized the process long before any investigation was supposed to have started.

What’s more… the investigation has been ongoing since July 2016 according to Comey. Don’t you think if there were anything concrete to merit concern, Mr. Comey would have let us know like he did with the Clinton investigation?

Or do you think he would have kept his mouth shut and let a Russian puppet assume the office of the president?

Here’s a quick thought… let’s marry the last two points… did Comey say he saw no evidence of ANYONE spying on Trump Tower or did he say he saw nothing to confirm the tweets about Obama doing it illegally?

And he was running an investigation on Trump and his administration since July?

Did Comey say whether or not the FBI wiretapped the Trump campaign as part of their investigation? Was he even asked?

Either way, an investigation does not imply guilt. In spite of the efforts by those who hate our president, our democracy and our “voting the wrong way”… we are still presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty in this country. At least for now we are.

5. James Comey refused to promise an investigation into who those “high ranking” intelligence agency professionals were who committed felonies by leaking anti-Trump intel to the complicit media.

Both James Comey and NSA Director Rogers spent a lot of time explaining just how criminal all of these leaks that exposed Flynn and all these others actually are.

They both said the act of leaking classified information about the identity of Flynn was a major felony and it undermined our nation security in a major way.

But when asked about an investigation into this crime, Comey said there was none. And then he went even further which speaks VOLUMES about all of this:

GOWDY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Comey, you and I were discussing the felonious dissemination of classified material during the last round. Is there an exception in the law for current or former U.S. officials who request anonymity?

COMEY: To release classified information?

GOWDY: Yes sir.


GOWDY: How would a reporter know about the existence of intercepted phone calls?

COMEY: Same thing. In a — in a legitimate way, through a appropriate proceeding where there’s been declassification. In any other way, in an illegitimate way.

GOWDY: How would reporters know if a transcript existed of an intercepted communication?

COMEY: Same answer. It — it — the only legitimate way would be through a proceeding — appropriate proceeding, the illegitimate way would be somebody told him who shouldn’t have told them…

GOWDY: Did you brief President Obama on — well, I’ll just ask you. Did you brief President Obama on any calls involving Michael Flynn?

COMEY: I’m not gonna get into either that particular case that matter, or any conversations I had with the president. So I can’t answer that…

GOWDY: … Is the investigation into the leak of classified information — has it begun yet?

COMEY: I can’t say because I don’t want to confirm that that was classified information…

GOWDY: … So I’m just simply asking you to assure the American people, you’ve already assured them you take it really seriously. Can you assure them that it is going to be investigated?

COMEY: I can’t..

(full transcript of hearing can be found here)

In one simple exchange we have a perfect understanding of this entire situation.

A major crime has been committed against the people of this country. A violation perpetrated on behalf of those who seek to undermine our democracy. Sound familiar? And the Director of the FBI REFUSES to promise there will be an investigation into it.


The reason is simple: because the perpetrators are seen by James Comey as being above the law. Just like he thought Hillary Clinton was.

This is a remarkable exchange between Gowdy and Comey. By all rights it should be on the front page of every paper and webzine out there. But it isn’t. Lies are.

Back when Hillary Clinton was under fire for using an illegal email server so she could keep records of her corruption from the State Department and the American people and she was lying about it and deleting emails and busting up cell phones and laptops outside on the sidewalk, James Comey came out and said anyone else doing something like this would be prosecuted by Hillary wouldn’t. She was in effect… above the law. And many journalists out there, even some on the left, thought his submission to the Clinton machine was deplorable.

Yesterday James Comey and Mike Rogers went on and on about how dangerous it was for someone to leak that classified information for political purposes and how it was a major felony punishable by up to ten years in prison… and yet Comey eventually refuses to promise the American people these perps will be punished or even investigated for doing what they did to destabilize our country.

That’s because who ever did it is well above the law like Hillary Clinton. They had to have been to have had access to the information in the first place.

Some might say that these hacks/leaks had little to do with our election. I beg to differ.

In spite of the fact that part of this Russian hacking narrative is to detour the election post mortem for the unDemocratic Party, many people still do remember what happened. They remember her criminality. They remember her Goldman Sachs speaking fees. They remember her refusal to release the transcripts of the speeches.

They remember how the MSM lied endlessly and breathlessly exaggerated anything Trump said that they could twist into a misogynistic or racist slur on her behalf.

They remember how they were ceaselessly demoralized by stories of there being no path to 271 every day all day.

And they remember James Comey bending the rules to give Hillary Clinton a pass so she could steal the nomination from Bernie Sanders and assume the throne as the masters of the universe intended for to do.

Hillary Clinton was above the law. The media said so. The DNC said so. And James Comey said so.

And yesterday James Comey said the very same thing about the people doing their weasel work from within the establishment’s broken system trying to undermine the credibility and the administration of the seated president of the United States of America.

Russia didn’t do that. Roger Stone didn’t do that. Gen. Flynn didn’t do that. But someone did and James Comey has every intention of letting them get away with it which only ENSURES that it will continue to happen, probably with greater regularity, as the Trump administration moves forward.

My disclaimer is as it always has been. I do not, did not, support Trump. Nor Hillary. Nor Obama. Nor Bush. I support the rule of law and the constitution and I am dead set against anyone who says someone is above it. And that is exactly what James Comey said yesterday which says a lot about this ‘democracy” we pretend to be defending.

That should be your water-cooler talking points today. I hope you use them.

addendum: On a personal note, their histories aside, both Comey and Adm. Rogers seem to me to be honorable men trying their best to do their best in a difficult situation. James Comey as always to me to be a giant of a man diminished by the weight of the corruption he finds himself surrounded by. Yesterday he seemed shriveled. Not at every moment.. but rather, when it counted.  I imagine on a personal basis, one on one, he could be a good man. Someone interesting to speak with, with insight and dedication to something he used to believe in whole-heartedly. Both of these men seemed to me to be caught up in something much larger and something they probably justify as “the greater good”. How much damage has been done to the world by those justified by that I wonder. Regardless, I almost sympathize with him which explains the sympathetic photo I chose to accompany this article. Unlike Brennan or Clapper or Rumsfeld and the whole host of other leaders who have lied or misled us over the years I’ve been writing this blog, Comey seems like the odd man out. He seems like Jimmy Carter in that picture of living presidents taken at the White House all those years ago. Standing there, part of it, yet cast aside either by their choice… or his. I don’t think James Comey wants too see this country fail as so many of his colleagues do. Sitting there answering questions spouting half-truths and insinuations about Russians, he shrank a little. Became the reluctant debutante at his own coming out party all smiles on the outside and prematurely hollow within.

I almost sympathize with him because as he goes, so go we all.

11 Responses

  1. fine article.

  2. BERNIE SANDERS: We have overwhelming evidence that the Russians colluded with Trump to rig the election.

    WOLF BLITZER: What overwhelming evidence?

    BERNIE SANDERS: I don’t know. We need to investigate it.

    WOLF BLITZER: Investigate what?

    BERNIE SANDERS: The evidence. It’s overwhelming.

    WOLF BLITZER: Can you give us an example? Does anyone have any proof or evidence whatsoever that Trump conspired with the Russians?

    BERNIE SANDERS: No. That’s why we need to investigate it.

  3. I voted for Trump, first time I’ve voted in many years. Didn’t know anything about him but that he wasn’t DC.

    Still don’t know much more about him than that, but sometimes it seems like they’re chipping their way through. Other times, not so much.

    If he weathers it out and runs for another term without falling under, I’d vote for him again

  4. I agree Comey looked drained and frequently looked to Rogers for support of statements he was making. Rogers on the other hand looks like a man at death’s door. I remember he went to the WH to speak with Trump a few days after the inauguration and I think it was Brennan who was screaming for his resignation/firing. I wish these two would join forces and out the “Black Hats” who are running this country into the ground.

  5. They count on less educated people taking statements at face value, or one way, instead of reading between the lines. And those less willing or able to investigate and reflect will insist on calling you “a conspiracy theorist”, no matter how logically solid your conclusions are, based on your own effort to find out the truth.

  6. After reading this I almost pity Comey as well. Until I remembered the nature of the agency he runs…then I don’t feel so sorry for him. Comey should have been a peanut farmer instead.

    • Once I understood what happened with 9/11, I came to feel a little sorry for “W” because you know damn well he didn’t have the slightest clue what his neocon cabinet was cooking up for him. By the same token, I don’t think Comey really understood the nature of the FBI prior to taking that job. at least I don’t think he did. I could be wrong. He could just be the best actor these globalist assholes have on the payroll.

      • Yeah. I suspect W wasn’t supposed to survive 9/11. A sacrificial lamb that survived by dumb luck.

        Assuming Comey has an IQ above W’s ( 68), I’d bet he knew enough about the FBI’s history to know better. Plenty of skeletons and fancy ladies underwear in them closets…yikes.

        Anyway, excellent summary and analysis. In my book you’re the only journalist worth reading.

        • Yeah, according to what’s his name, a film crew showed up at his hotel in Sarasota that morning unannounced and one (just one) of his SS guys sent them away. could easily have been a hit attempt but honestly, do you think his daddy would have allowed that? After all, all the neocons who met with Condi during her Vulcans meetings prior to the election planning Bush’s “foreign policy” (read as “9/11”) were H.W.’s former folks. I don’t know they planned to off him. Could have been. Cheney is a ruthless fuck. But Cheney, I think, was able to achieve more from the shadows than he could if he wore the crown and “W” was just affable enough and goofy enough to keep most Americans from thinking what should have been obvious… obvious enough for that TV guy to say “gee that looks like a controlled demolition”… and remember, the ONLY way you could hope to kill a president is to get his SS on board. So why wasn’t that done? so yeah, it is possible they tried to take him out. But I doubt it. when they try shit like that, typically their asset doesn’t get turned away at the front entrance. they have better planners than that. i think at least.

          • I wouldn’t put it past Poppy to give up his first born son as tribute (Jeb! was the smart one, right?). W was a liability to boot.

            Regarding the SS, if Dallas is any guide, it only takes a handful of complicit SS guys to let the bad guys in, and one honest SS dude to stop it. I’m no expert, but I think Poppy and Dick’s plan shit the bed when W survived the morning. Without clear command authority Dick wasn’t able to ensure 93 got to WT7.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: