James Comey Timeline on “Not Informing Jeff Sessions” Doesn’t Add Up…
James Comey Timeline on “Not Informing Jeff Sessions” Doesn’t Add Up…
Another interesting contradiction from the pre-released James Comey congressional opening testimony statement surrounds a part of his explanation for not informing Attorney General Jeff Sessions, about the content of a February 14th oval office discussion with President Trump about Mike Flynn, against the backdrop of the timing.
Consider the Timeline:
- February 8th – AG Jeff Sessions confirmed
- February 14th – Comey meets with President Trump (oval office above)
- March 1st – AG Sessions and Ambassador Kislyak controversy begins. (link)
- March 2nd – Sessions recuses himself from the Russian Investigation. (link)
See the problem? At the time outlined by FBI Director James Comey, February 14th, there was nothing to indicate Attorney General Jeff Sessions would recuse himself.
Why, on February 14th, would the FBI leadership team and James Comey be saying:
“we concluded it made little sense to report it to AG sessions, who we expected would likely recuse himself from involvement in the Russia-related investigations”
…when it wasn’t until more than two weeks later that the entire reason, the origin for the recusal consideration itself, became known – March 1st.
Obviously this current statement was written by James Comey post-facto with a paramount need to justify the action taken by himself the team that was conducting the counterintelligence investigation.
However, that said, unless the FBI leadership team also carried some psychic skill at looking into the future there’s no way they could have known on February 14th that Jeff Sessions would recuse himself on March 2nd.
Unless, the counterintelligence surveillance was targeting Russian Ambassador Kislyak (not unexpected given the nature of their wide-net surveillance construct), and the unmasking they were currently utilizing gave them some insight or information on the September ’16 meeting that ultimately led to AG Sessions decision to recuse himself.
That possibility, albeit a stretch trying to reconcile the irreconcilable, leads to a need for a review of the original WaPo article that kicked off the entire Sessions/ Kislyak controversy:
Then-Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) spoke twice last year with Russia’s ambassador to the United States, Justice Department officials said, encounters he did not disclose when asked about possible contacts between members of President Trump’s campaign and representatives of Moscow during Sessions’s confirmation hearing to become attorney general.
One of the meetings was a private conversation between Sessions and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak that took place in September in the senator’s office, at the height of what U.S. intelligence officials say was a Russian cyber campaign to upend the U.S. presidential race.
The previously undisclosed discussions could fuel new congressional calls for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate Russia’s alleged role in the 2016 presidential election. As attorney general, Sessions oversees the Justice Department and the FBI, which have been leading investigations into Russian meddling and any links to Trump’s associates. He has so far resisted calls to recuse himself. (link)
Unless the vaguely outlined “FBI leadership team“, as described by Comey, had some knowledge of the Kislyak controversy in advance of the actual controversy surfacing there’s no reasonable way they could have known on February 14th that Jeff Sessions would be in a position to recuse himself on March 2nd.
And if they did have foreknowledge on February 14th of the need for recusal, then the strongest likelihood exists that existing or recently dispatched political agents within the counterintelligence investigation [DOJ (Yates) or FBI (McCabe/Comey)] were the source for the WaPo leak based on their exclusive surveillance knowledge.
Sketchy, all the way around.
The most likely scenario, the Occam’s Razor per se’, is that James Comey never told Jeff Sessions on February 14th about his concerns that stemmed from the meeting because:
A.) He didn’t have any concerns because there was nothing to be concerned about.
B.) Because Comey believed Sessions would most likely tell the President.
Those more simple explanations highlight how political James Comey was. Given how this statement was written well after the fact, option “A” is more likely than “B”.
Bottom line, there’s no way Comey could have known on February 14th that Sessions would recuse himself unless Comey’s team were constructing the narrative that would lead to the recusal.
JAMES COMEY DOCUMENTED ALL HIS CONVERSATIONS WITH TRUMP, BUT NEVER WITH OBAMA
James Comey documented all his conversations with Donald Trump but never with Obama. Why? Hoping to find some Russian gems to use against Trump?
James Comey on President Trump: “I felt compelled to document my first conversation with the President-Elect in a memo.Creating written records immediately after one-on-one conversations with Mr. Trump was my practice from that point forward. ”
Comey on Obama: “I spoke alone with President Obama twice in person (and never on the phone) … In neither of those circumstances did I memorialize the discussions.”
Via The Daily Caller:
Comey said he only spoke with Obama twice during his presidency, but talked to Trump nine times within four months of his.
He explained why he documented the conversations he had with Trump.
“I felt compelled to document my first conversation with the President-Elect in a memo,” Comey writes. “To ensure accuracy, I began to type it on a laptop in an FBI vehicle outside Trump Tower the moment I walked out of the meeting. Creating written records immediately after one-on-one conversations with Mr. Trump was my practice from that point forward.”
“This had not been my practice in the past,” he continued. “I spoke alone with President Obama twice in person (and never on the phone) — once in 2015 to discuss law enforcement policy issues and a second time, briefly, for him to say goodbye in late 2016. In neither of those circumstances did I memorialize the discussions. I can recall nine one-on-one conversations with President Trump in four months — three in person and six on the phone.”
“I immediately prepared an unclassified memo of the conversation about Flynn and discussed the matter with FBI senior leadership,” Comey said in his prepared remarks.
Resist 45 and the Government in Exile
June 7, 2017 Posted by Dr. Robert Owens
Just when you thought it was safe to come out of the packed gun shows his extreme disjointed attacks on the Second Amendment inspired we’re confronted with the sorry spectacle of a former American President speaking against us on foreign soil. I knew this guy reminded me of Jimmy Carter. When you hate America it doesn’t matter what your job is or isn’t you’ll always find a venue that rejoices as you attack Old Glory.
After an all too brief (for us) vacation orchestrating the Resist 45 Movement from his lair in DC the Instigator-in-Chief couldn’t resist a chance to visit the scene of one of his most famous speeches, Berlin. The fact that Europe’s leading exponent of unlimited immigration German Chancellor Merkel agreed to receive him as a fellow head of state must have made his narcissistic head swim.
Here he is trying to upstage President Trump’s well received visit to Saudi Arabia by attempting to push his shopworn platitudes down people’s throats instead of playing golf with Tiger Woods. It seems no one told him Americans are tired of hearing the same old song no matter how loudly the supine Germans cheer as they’re overwhelmed by the migration flood.
“We can’t isolate ourselves,” the former president said from a platform at the Brandenburg Gate. “We can’t hide behind a wall.” Of course everything should be taken in context. What was the Ex-President (oh how I love the ‘Ex’ part of that) saying: “One way we can do a better job is to create more opportunities for people in their home countries,” Mr. Obama said. “If there are disruptions in these countries, if there is bad governance, if there is war, or if there is poverty in this new world we live in, we can’t isolate ourselves — we can’t hide behind a wall.”
And do you think that applies to everyone equally? According to the Washington Times, “Like so many liberals and ‘progressives,’ the former president does not mean that what he says should be taken literally, or even seriously. Walls, after all, are relative. America can’t have one, but he can. The president lives in an enormous rented mansion behind a brick and stone wall built just for him, and which he has fitted out as the White House in exile, with a staff and lots of electronic communications gear, requiring the seizure of a quarter of a mile of a quiet residential street to be guarded by a Secret Service detail not much smaller than the platoon of heavily armed agents who kept him safe, sound and ready for action at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.”
He even had some advice on child care, “A child on the other side of the border is no less worthy of love and compassion than my own child. We can’t distinguish between in terms of their worth and inherent dignity, and that they’re deserving of shelter and love and education and opportunity.”
This from a man who Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, just revealed directed Customs and Border Protection to release 16 members of the remarkably brutal MS-13 gang, freed to look at will for opportunities to kill and plunder. “[The federal authorities] apprehended them, knew they were MS-13 gang members, and they processed them into our communities,” the senator told his committee. How does this help provide safety for American children when these gang members terrorize our schools and communities?
These globalists are more interested in advancing their agenda than in protecting America and its citizens.
According to one of their minions, a senior judge on the far-left Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, “Judges are humiliated and dehumanized whenever they must enforce the nation’s immigration laws.” Judges are humiliated when they have to enforce laws? What kind of tin hat wearing alternate reality is this puffed-up self-anointed Carter appointed king in a black robe coming from? What set this ruler of men in a rage against the machine?
He was unable to block the orderly repatriation of an illegal immigrant who has two drunk driving convictions, plus a U.S. wife and three children. The outraged jurist complained, “We are unable to prevent [Andres] Magana Ortiz’s removal, yet it is contrary to the values of this nation and its legal system.” In his blast from on high he continued, “We are compelled to deny Mr. Magana Ortiz’s request for a stay of removal because we do not have the authority to grant it. We are not, however, compelled to find the government’s action in this case fair or just. … The government’s decision to remove Magana Ortiz diminishes not only our country but our courts, which are supposedly dedicated to the pursuit of justice. Magana Ortiz and his family are in truth not the only victims. Among the others are judges who, forced to participate in such inhumane acts, suffer a loss of dignity and humanity as well. I concur as a judge, but as a citizen I do not.”
This judge is a perfect representative of the Deep State, the permanent government. They don’t care who is elected or what the people may want. They have their agenda and they’re going to continue to try and shove it down our throat until we either accept it or choke.
A president in exile leading a resistance movement against the man elected to succeed him, a Deep State of bureaucrats dedicated to the disruption of the government they are sworn to serve. What are we to do?
Why worry when we can pray?
Keep the faith. Keep the peace. We shall overcome.
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2017 Contact Dr. Owens email@example.com Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens