Comey’s Double Jeapordy

Hillary Clinton, thanks to James Comey, escaped criminal prosecution for violating the Espionage Act.

Now it is Comey who may have violated that same law. If he did, will Comey escape prosecution, courtesy of his good friend, Robert Mueller?

The fired FBI Director’s legal predicament comes as The Hill reports that Comey authored seven memorandums reflecting the contents of his conversations with President Trump and that four of the memos “have been determined to contain classified information.”

If this is true and Comey kept these documents in his personal possession upon leaving government service and conveyed some of them to another individual without authorization, then it would appear that he committed multiple felonies under the Espionage Act.

It is a crime to mishandle classified information: 18 USC 798 and 1924 prohibit a government official from removing a classified document from its proper place of custody to a location which is unsecure and disclosing it to an unauthorized person. Is this what Comey did? It sure looks like it……..

(FOX NEWS)

“Muslim Ban” – Give Me Some Numbers Please

Liberal hypocrisy comes to light as Kellyanne Conway rightfully cites Barack Obama’s history of banning Muslim refugees (which was worse than Donald Trump’s), yet the press and the liberal protestors get angry at Trump for “banning” Muslim refugees? Whether you agree with this banning or not (I disagree with the banning, by the way), you have to put things in perspective when it comes to left-wing hypocrisy and these protestors.

I grabbed a short bit from Larry Elder and added the video to his audio… as well as ending this upload with another clip where a specific question about numbers of those stuck at the airports is, as well as a clarification of the State Dept. numbers.

Trump’s Media Inspired Green-Card Mayhem

Larry Elder pours over the Sunday shows and by doing so shows the green-Card issue is at worst a misunderstanding [purposefully or innocent] on the Press’ part – at best poorly communicated through proper channels via the Trump administration. What is clear however is that nothing in the bill itself requires the conclusions by the Left and the media. Here David French makes the point:

✦ The plain language of the order doesn’t apply to legal permanent residents of the U.S., and green-card holders have been through round after round of vetting and security checks. The administration should intervene, immediately, to stop misapplication. (National Review)

I include in this long audio/video Mark Levin’s impersonation of John McCain.

“Crowd Size Controversy Starts With Me” ~ Tom Barrack

Here is my description of the audio:

Hugh Hewitt sets up Tom Barrack’s Sunday “Meet the Press” interview with Chuck Todd and himself. Mr. Barrack is the Chairman of the Inaugural Committee and says that his team was responsible for providing the White House with the crowd numbers.

Not included was Chris Matthews noting how reasonable and intelligent Barrack is and follows that up with saying Trump is the same way in person. Adding that Trump is a great listener as well. Matthews continues to say that the public gets a Trump that everyone who personally has met and knows him does not recognize.

You can watch the fuller interview on MEET THE PRESS.

I wanted to pass on a note I left my friends and readers on my Facebook in regards to Chuck Todd’s interview of Kellyanne Conway, and her statement about facts:

Just to be clear… There are no alternative facts. Facts are just that, facts. They may be warped with presuppositions. A good example would be uranium dating. While we know the general half-life [decay rates] of radioactive material to lead, what is presupposed is that this rate has stayed the same over millions/billions of years and that nothing can change or affect the decay rate. Or, that it started out as pure “radioactive” material with zero led. So this dating method is not a “fact,” like many assume.

Crowd sizes can be closer to an estimated fact. And while I have noted fudged numbers in the past due to political influence… this is not the case if one goes to the best resources.

In other words, the Trump admin SHOULD be hyper sensitive to attaining the BEST possible information before stating it as a factoid.

NOT doing so is feeding red-meat to the wolves. The mainstream press leans a certain way, and in knowing this, the Trump admin. needs to be diligent in their enterprise.

If Trump is going to keep his Twitter (in my estimation a mistake) account, he should try to keep responses on social media to social media attacks while having a more official response to MSM.

Just my two-cents.

CIA vs FBI – Russia and the U.S. Election

Here are some related articles… the first one in the list below is the one Dennis Prager is reading from:

YOUNG CONSERVATIVES have this clip from TOWNHALL:

…Contrary to claims made by Democrats about Russian interference helping President-elect Donald J. Trump, there is no definitive proof that the Kremlin ordered such cyber attacks. It’s all based on circumstantial evidence, innuendo, and anonymous sources that are bound by an apparent inter-agency feud between the CIA and the FBI. On December 10, The Washington Post reported that both agencies were not on the same page, which seemed to have angered Democrats:

Sitting before the House Intelligence Committee was a senior FBI counterintelligence official. The question the Republicans and Democrats in attendance wanted answered was whether the bureau concurred with the conclusions the CIA had just shared with senators that Russia “quite” clearly intended to help Republican Donald Trump defeat Democrat Hillary Clinton and clinch the White House.For the Democrats in the room, the FBI’s response was frustrating — even shocking.

During a similar Senate Intelligence Committee briefing held the previous week, the CIA’s statements, as reflected in the letter the lawmakers now held in their hands, were “direct and bald and unqualified” about Russia’s intentions to help Trump, according to one of the officials who attended the House briefing.

[…]

The competing messages, according to officials in attendance, also reflect cultural differences between the FBI and the CIA. The bureau, true to its law enforcement roots, wants facts and tangible evidence to prove something beyond all reasonable doubt. The CIA is more comfortable drawing inferences from behavior.

Our intelligence agencies don’t all agree that the Kremlin is responsible.

The talking point that 17 intelligence agencies agree that Russia was behind the hacks is not accurate….

More YOUNG CONS… “Here are the top 5 reasons why it isn’t accurate to definitively say Russia interfered in our election process. From Breitbart

  • There is actually no new information leading the CIA to its conclusion. The New York Timesreports: “The C.I.A.’s conclusion does not appear to be the product of specific new intelligence obtained since the election, several American officials, including some who had read the agency’s briefing, said on Sunday. Rather, it was an analysis of what many believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence — evidence that others feel does not support firm judgments — that the Russians put a thumb on the scale for Mr. Trump, and got their desired outcome.” In other words, someone only decided after Trump won that the accusation was worth making.
  • The “evidence” that the CIA has gathered is inconclusive. The FBI also disagrees with some of the CIA’s conclusions about Russia’s motives. “While lawmakers were seemingly united on the need to present a strong bipartisan response, the FBI and CIA gave lawmakers differing accounts on Russia’s motives, according to The Post,” The Hillreported on Sunday.
  • Despite left-wing “fake news,” there is no evidence Russian hackers actually distorted the voting process.The most that the CIA is alleging is that the Russians may have helped hack of the Democratic National Committee emails, as well as (possibly) the emails of Hillary Clinton campaign chaiman John Podesta. There is zero evidence Russian hackers messed with voting. Ironically, Green Party candidate Jill Stein’s recount has eliminated any doubt about the integrity of the results.
  • Julian Assange and Wikileaks have vigorously denied that the Russians were involved in Wikileaks’ disclosures. Of the Democratic National Committee emails, Assange said: “That is the circumstantial evidence that some Russian, or someone who wanted to make them look like a Russian, was involved, with these other media organisations. That is not the case for the material that we released.” Assange made similar denials about the Podesta email leaks later in the election.
  • What would the consequences of allowing undue Russian influence in our elections be, exactly? Would we yield primacy in Eastern Europe to Vladimir Putin? Would we give up our plans for missile defense? Would we make deep unilateral cuts in our nuclear arsenal in exchange for flimsy concessions ? Would we tolerate a Russian land invasion of a friendly, pro-Western country? Would we cede the Middle East to Russian hegemony? Because Hillary Clinton and Obama already did that.