On March 20th, 2017 a young freshman representative from New York named Elise M. Stefanik used a probative timeline to question FBI Director James Comey. Using simple common sense Ms. Stefanik single-handily exposed a significant level of intentional intelligence community deception yet no-one seemed to notice.
In the segment of the questioning (video below) Rep. Stefanik begins by asking director Comey what are the typical protocols, broad standards and procedures for notifying the Director of National Intelligence, the White House and senior congressional leadership (aka the intelligence Gang of Eight), when the FBI has opened a counter-intelligence investigation.
The response from Comey is a generalized reply (with uncomfortable body language) that notification of counter-intel investigations are discussed with the White House, and other pertinent oversight officials, on a calendar basis, ie. “quarterly”.
With the statement that such counterintelligence notifications happen “generally quarterly”, and against the backdrop that Comey stated in July of 2016 a counter-intel investigation began, Stefanik asks:
…”when did you notify the White House, the DNI and congressional leadership”?
BOOM! Watch an extremely uncomfortable Director James Comey outright LIE… by claiming there was no active DNI to notify -which is entirely false- James Clapper was Obama’s DNI.
Watch it again.
Watch that first 3:00 minutes again. Ending with:
…”Because of the sensitivity of the matter” ~ James Comey
FBI Director Comey intentionally obfuscates knowledge of the question from Rep Stefanik; using parseltongue verbiage to get himself away from the sunlit timeline.
The counter-intel investigation, by his own admission, began in July 2016. Congress was not notified until March 2017. That’s an eight month period – Obviously obfuscating the quarterly claim moments earlier.
The first and second questions from Stefanik were clear. Comey’s understanding of the questions was clear. However, Comey directly evaded truthful response to the second question. When you watch the video, you can see Comey quickly connecting the dots on where this inquiry was going.
There is only one reasonable explanation for FBI Director James Comey to be launching a counter-intel investigation in July 2016, notifying the White House and James Clapper (ODNI), and then keeping it under wraps from congress: James Comey was a participant in the intelligence gathering for political purposes – wittingly, or unwittingly.
It became clear during that testimony that Director Comey was using his office as a facilitating conduit for political purposes; presumably in favor of the 2016 White House.
Unfortunately, a slightly nervous Stefanik, never forced Comey to go back to the non-answered question and respond by saying:
No, Mr. Comey, there WAS a DNI in place in 2016, please answer the question of when did you notify him (James Clapper) and the White House?
….. then it would get a little ugly:
Why did you notify Clapper and the White House but delay congressional notification?
With all the banter about these hearings, and against this slight moment of clarity of purpose, it bears repeating:
There is only ONE KNOWN Factual and CRIMINAL activity currently identified: the unmasking and leaking of Mike Flynn’s name to the media.
FBI Director Comey stated his organization is “investigating”, fair enough. Director Comey stated the investigation was a counterintelligence operation; again, fair enough. However, not a single congress person followed-up to his admission and questioned why only he decided to act without oversight, and only this aspect of the investigation was kept secret from congress and the gang-of-eight.
Additionally, during this same March 20th testimony Director Comey stated there was an ongoing leak investigation. However, almost two months later, on May 8th 2017, both James Clapper and former acting Attorney General Sally Yates stated they were unaware of any leak investigation and neither of them had been contacted or questioned as part of the supposed leak investigation.
How can there be a leak investigation if the key stake-holders who possessed the intelligence that was leaked have never been questioned?