James Comey’s Media Leak Conduit, Daniel Richman, Goes into Hiding…

Oh, this is transparently suspicious.  But don’t anticipate the media to point out that transparently innocent people do not need to duck for cover.

The Columbia University professor, Daniel Richman, that fired FBI Director James Comey utilized as the go-between to provide leaks to the media, has gone into hiding.

According to the New York Post Mr. Richman headed out of town mid-day on Thursday just as FBI Director James Comey told congress than his friend was utilized to feed leaks to the New York Times.

New York –  A Columbia University professor from Brooklyn went into hiding Thursday after pal James Comey revealed during his Senate testimony that the man leaked memos detailing the former FBI chief’s conversations with President Trump to the press.

Daniel Richman confirmed by e-mail to several reporters that he was the “good friend” and law-school prof who Comey slipped the documents — then hightailed it out of his tony Brooklyn Heights home and refused to answer any more questions. (more)

It is absolutely certain that James Comey and Daniel Richman will quickly need to coordinate their stories because the information that Comey gave to congress just doesn’t match with the timeline of events he described.  This is a classic set-up.

How many stories did Daniel Richman leak?

How many times did James Comey use Daniel Richman to leak?

How was Richman the source for the May 11th New York Times “loyalty” story, if Richman didn’t have the Comey memos until May 16th?

So many questions….

Now he hides.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Conspiracy ?, Donald Trump, FBI, media bias, President Trump, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

535 Responses to James Comey’s Media Leak Conduit, Daniel Richman, Goes into Hiding…

  1. Joan says:

    As some sage recently said, “Easy Comey, Easy Goey.”

    Liked by 8 people

  2. cheekymeeky says:

    Wow! Read the whole thread.

    Like

    • MaineCoon says:

      We have Leaker Daniel Richman critiquing BHO for a position as a law prof. Considering Richman is a leaker-in-hiding, this gives a new perspective as it was written in Jan. 2017.

      “Daniel C. Richman, a professor at Columbia Law School, said Mr. Obama’s light publication record might cause a hiring committee to balk at welcoming him as a peer.

      “Were we to consider him as [a candidate making a lateral move] for a regular academic position, his candidacy would rise or fall on his written work alone,” wrote Mr. Richman. “And some would worry that the work, ranging across diverse fields like clean energy, health care, and criminal justice, lacks a clear scholarly agenda.”

      Mr. Richman also wondered if Mr. Obama’s inclination to reach out to the broader public might also work against him.

      “Some would worry that the work, ranging across diverse fields like clean energy, health care, and criminal justice, lacks a clear scholarly agenda.” “Because some of my colleagues think that public intellectuals are ‘high variance,’” he said, “I would also expect arguments that someone awarded both a Grammy and a Nobel Peace Prize might be too externally focused.”
      Good news, though! Columbia does appoint “professors from practice,” whose legal expertise is based primarily on field experience. Mr. Richman said Mr. Obama would make a terrific candidate for such a post.”

      Disgusting.

      Liked by 2 people

  3. jfhdsiu says:

    ONE known, proven liar throws ANOTHER known, proven liar under the proverbial bus. Anybody have any potato chips?

    Liked by 3 people

  4. El Torito says:

    it’s possible that Richman started cooperating with DoJ months ago. May be in protective custody now. Comey seemed to be signaling willingness to cooperate against Lynch. Possible the gold was tapes in Comey’s office.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. LULU says:

    Probably the best legal opinion on what Comey has done:

    The damaging case against James Comey
    The Hill [Washington, DC], by Jonathan Turley

    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/337160-opinion-the-damaging-case-against-james-comey

    Liked by 2 people

    • mccall1981 says:

      This is excellent, thanks for posting.

      Like

    • Sherlock says:

      Excellent article, makes absolute logical and legal sense. And believe me, Turley isn’t any friend of Trump, but he tells the truth here.

      Liked by 1 person

      • LULU says:

        I agree. Some will fault Turley for including some Trump criticism. But I like the idea that someone who is not a fan of President Trump’s is able to write a very clear, informative piece on someone who is obviously trying to torpedo him and his presidency.

        Liked by 3 people

        • Sherlock says:

          You’re right. One good legal analysis from left-leaning guy like Turley that is honest as to the legal issues is worth gold. He’s hard to write off, since the left often relies on him.
          This time, he’s just right. Contrast this with Jeffrey Toobin, lefty lawyer, whose legal analysis was just absolutely specious–an anti-Trump hit piece in legalese, and badly reasoned legalese at that.

          There is no adequate rebuttal to Turley’s legal analysis of the case against Comey. Comey crossed the line, ethically and very possibly legally. It was scummy conduct at a minimum, and possibly actionable. There was no excuse whatsoever for what he did, and his supposed rationale makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. He was pissed, panicky, and petulant, and he was lashing out like a spurned mean-girl. Ruined himself in the process, trashed any credibility vis a vis his usefulness to the swamp creatures in the ongoing witchhunt in the process.

          Liked by 1 person

        • paulyho39 says:

          Yes, indeed! I am duly impressed that someone who is not a Trump fan can actually see..and express..the truth as relates to Comey!

          Like

        • NC PATRIOT says:

          Turley had some scathing comments about O’s illegal immigration orders as well. He is a leftist, but more into the LAW than into the politics. (So In matters relating to law I think he is a honest broker, and I always enjoy what he has to say.)

          Liked by 1 person

    • El Torito says:

      Thanks – good read 🙂

      Like

  6. StormyeyesC says:

    This shows Comey lied………… Either then or now…………..

    If Trump told Comey to “stop investigating” as Comey memo alleges then why did Comey state this on May 3 under oath?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/03/read-the-full-testimony-of-fbi-director-james-comey-in-which-he-discusses-clinton-email-investigation/?utm_term=.a4f57c61b54d

    Like

    • Sherlock says:

      It would be helpful if you could isolate the part you’re talking about. The link is his entire testimony. I’m familiar with the part you mention, and it’s great stuff. but people might not want to wade through the whole thing, which runs many pages and several thousand words. Just a suggestion.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. mccall1981 says:

    Why in the world would Comey leak the memos if he knew he would be testifying about them a couple of weeks later? It puts him in legal jeopardy but the same info would have come out soon any way, and it also wastes the possibility if trying to trap Trump into a lie. Doesn’t make any sense for him to leak.

    Like

    • Sherlock says:

      He was angry, lashing out, and at the same time rushing to add fuel to the fire vis a vis getting a special prosecutor. That’s my take. In that context, his conduct is explainable.
      And BTW, your statement that “he knew he would be testifying about them in a few weeks” isn’t really accurate–he only testified and was only ASKED to testify BECAUSE he had leaked the memos. I’m not sure his mere firing would have triggered the hearing. He wanted to gin up the heat, get press, hearings, special counsel, hurt the President, etc.

      Liked by 1 person

      • mccall1981 says:

        True that he didn’t exactly know about the testimony until after the leak. But he must have known that his leak would almost certainly cause him to be called to testify.
        Weird situation all around.

        Like

        • StormyeyesC says:

          Lets see……..Comey at FBI Lynch at DOJ Does this sound honest?
          May 3

          HIRONO: So if the Attorney General or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?
          COMEY: In theory yes.
          HIRONO: Has it happened?
          COMEY: Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that — without an appropriate purpose. I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that we don’t see a case there and so you ought to stop investing resources in it. But I’m talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal. It’s not happened in my experience.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Sherlock says:

            Yep, and would be an even bigger deal if the person trying to stop it was a President, so even though Comey wasn’t asked about that (only asked about DOJ people), it is clear he would have included it in his answer had it happened.

            Like

    • Bubba says:

      Comey wanted to testify in public so he could send signals (different signals to different audiences). He’s playing both sides and he’s up for sale so to speak. Remember the Godfather movie when they brought a whistle blower’s brother over from Italy or Sicily into the courtroom while he was testifying? The whistle blower suddenly turned and denied/forgot everything because he didn’t want his family hurt. Same type of strategy here. Comey know’s that he’s under surveillance (by both sides) and in jeopardy (legal & otherwise) and doesn’t have the protection of his FBI Director’s position anymore. Why would he want the public attention at this time? Simple. He’s fighting for his life and he has knows where all of the bodies are buried (literally & figuratively). He needs to communicate with people that he can’t privately contact due to the surveillance.
      He sent some very subtle messages in his testimony (throwing Lynch under the bus, wanting to create the need for a Special Counsel, duty to correct, and more). Think about why he would say such things (and even contradict himself) in context of the position he is in right now. In addition, it’s harder to kill someone that’s in the public eye.

      Liked by 2 people

      • snarkybeach says:

        Also, Comey met privately with Mueller last week. I wonder if it was to nail down his story/stories? I firmly believe his memos are a work of fiction and were created shortly before his testimony.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Bubba says:

          It’s been my theory that Mueller is the negotiator for the Deep State actors (Bush I through Obama). SC is his title for cover & public consumption. Why isn’t anyone on the Trump team screaming from the rooftops about the Comey/Mueller meeting that you reference? Isn’t that blatant collusion and inappropriate contact prior to a sworn testimony? The reason that the Trump team isn’t screaming about this is that Mueller is, in effect, the Deep State’s counsel…

          Liked by 1 person

          • Bubba says:

            Trump is allowing this setup to negotiate a settlement with the DS. He’s trying to avoid an all out war and bloodshed in the streets of our country. The DS actors are very powerful, ruthless, psychopathic, and are like dangerous/desperate cornered rats. In return, he’ll be allowed to install new laws to preclude this type of corruption in the future. He’ll be allowed to serve out his term without the constant manufactured crisis & turmoil & threats to him and his family. He’ll be allowed to MAGA.

            Liked by 1 person

    • Fred Ward says:

      Because Trump had not yet implied he had recordings. You know Trump completely gutted the Green Room and re-did it at personal expense? It was completed a few days before the meeting.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. Phil aka Felipe says:

    Folks, this ain’t really complicated or hard to figure out.

    The Democrats/MSM (synonyms) and the GOPe RINOS have conspired with each other, the Deep State forces within the Intelligence community and other Federal Agencies (DOJ etc), Globalist Corporations, and Elites.

    They are attempting a coup to take down President Trump and overturn the results of the 2016 Election and remove the person WE, The People Elected President.

    It is as simple as that.

    WE, The People in God’s Providence put Donald J. Trump into Office.

    The question is, “Are WE going to let this coup be successful?”

    Liked by 1 person

  9. LULU says:

    We could put it simply: Egocentric, hubris-filled Comey tried to outplay a chess master. Bad idea, especially when the chess master has truth on his side.

    Like

  10. Poupon Marx says:

    I simply cannot believe that a Jew was involved in this lawless treachery.

    Like

    • H.R. says:

      No worries, Poupon Marx. The people going after President Trump only worship the gods named Money and Power.

      Any claims they make that they hold to any other religion are spurious.

      Liked by 1 person

  11. Sherlock says:

    I’m thinking that “uniparty” isn’t the perfect phrase to use. As I sit here, I imagine two competing crime organizations fighting for a slice of a pie worth trillions. They both need that pie to exist–they need the government to control this money pie. They need the government to regulate it, pick winners and losers, and dole out the money, but they fight–they are aligned in that they both share the goal of keeping the pie there, in keeping the pie fat, and in keeping criminal control of the pie vs. citizen control. But they fight one another for the ultimate division of the pie, and fight so that their cronies and henchman are fed pie, to the exclusion of the other crime family.
    They come together when the pie is threatened, or when something threatens to take down both crime families, or lessen their collective control of the pie. Just a thought.

    Liked by 4 people

    • HolyLoly says:

      I think that’s a great description of what we are witnessing and it explains why there has been such a tepid Republican response to all of Obama’s crimes the whole time he was in office.

      Comey’s bizarre behavior — from claiming Hillary’s crimes were not intentional therefore not worthy of prosecution, to ignoring how Lynch’s meeting with Bill on the tarmac permanently tainted the entire investigation, to Comey’s confession that he leaked info to the press to damage Trump, is all an outworking of just how corrupt the swamp really is.

      Congress is so culpable themselves that they have been rendered incapable of proper response.

      Drain the whole dang mess, and thank God every day for Donald Trump.

      Like

  12. The Senate “Intelligence” Committee is an oxymoron. I Can’t believe that no one asked Comey what he meant by ” for various reasons” when admitting why he leaked his memos to the media via his good friend…..though he mentioned he wanted a “special counsel” outcome. Trump was right…Comey was a “nut job”.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Sherlock says:

      I think he said “various reasons” because he wants to be able to think up some more and plug them in later as they come to mind, frankly. Lawyerly “including, but not limited to” stuff, so you can add your later though as they are convenient, and claim they were there after all.

      Liked by 2 people

      • LULU says:

        I think he said “for a variety of reasons” and, yes, that was odd. Unusual for a lawyer to open the door to a new line of questioning. “What were those reasons?”

        Liked by 1 person

    • MaineCoon says:

      They don’t want that much transparency for the public hearing and many won’t even catch the nuances like you pointed out.

      Plus, many citizens don’t catch the daytime-soap-opera drama as they work.

      Possibly such a question would be discussed in the closed-door session, but I’m not holding my breath.

      It’s disgusting. USA’s interest is not served.

      Liked by 1 person

  13. Bob Thoms says:

    Let’s not forget “Filegate”. Robert Mueller was director of the FBI at this time. Mueller/Comey have strong ties to the Clinton machine. Especially Hillary.

    “…improper access in 1993 and 1994 to Federal Bureau of Investigation security-clearance documents. Craig Livingstone, director of the White House’s Office of Personnel Security, improperly requested, and received from the FBI, background reports concerning several hundred individuals without asking permission. The revelations provoked a strong political and press reaction because many of the files covered White House employees from previous Republican administrations, including top presidential advisors. Under criticism, Livingstone resigned from his position. Allegations were made that senior White House figures, including First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, may have requested and read the files for political purposes, and that the First Lady had authorized the hiring of the under-qualified Livingstone.”

    Like

  14. Rick Arllen says:

    Looks like he’s made himself a prime candidate to be the next creatively expired stiff in the long, long, long string of unsolvable, unexplainable Arkancides. No wonder he’s gone to ground!

    Like

  15. KBR says:

    I knew a 13 year old girl once who bragged about her diary. I was the same age. She showed it to me, and I flipped through it, not really interested, but I noticed every other page was blank. I asked why?

    She said whenever she got in trouble, and got caught for it later, she just went back to one of her blank pages and wrote in an alibi as if it had been written on the day in question. Then she would show her mom to “prove” she was not involved. She said it worked every time.

    She must have had a Comey kind of mind.

    Liked by 3 people

    • nimrodman says:

      Yeah, I wanna see Comey’s laptop examined forensically to validate (or not) that he began electronic notes the night of his meeting with Trump, ostensibly immediately after, in the car outside (as he’s claimed).

      Short of that, any “memos” he turns over to committees or investigators just don’t cut it.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Sherlock says:

      She probably works somewhere in government now.

      Liked by 2 people

  16. mccall1981 says:

    Cernovich is reporting that FBI sources say they can’t find Coney’s memos on their servers.

    Like

    • Sherlock says:

      I’m not surprised. I’m not sure his laptop is always connected to their server–I doubt it it.
      Probably only made it to the laptop, then printed and distributed to his buddies only.

      Like

      • Sherlock says:

        It he was an honest guy, and had followed protocol, it would have been filed, catalogued, and passed along to the team dealing with the Flynn matter, such as it is. If Comey was true, it would have potentially been evidence that matter, no doubt whatsoever. So, I am forced to conclude that whatever statements were made in that conversation were so benign as to not be even potentially useful as evidence, but was embellished and dramatized for Comey’s personal use. The man has no credibility left as far as my belief goes.

        Liked by 2 people

  17. MaineCoon says:

    Linked is an excellent op-ed discussing all aspects of Comey’s actions, legal and professional, which imo relate to some degree to Richman as Comey’s advisor and advsor to DoJ (if true, as posted/referenced or linked here (can’t remember which). Excepts below:

    “Besides being subject to nondisclosure agreements, Comey falls under federal laws governing the disclosure of classified and unclassified information. Assuming that the memos were not classified (though it seems odd that it would not be classified even on the confidential level), there is 18 U.S.C. § 641, which makes it a crime to steal, sell, or convey “any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof.”

    “Comey is also subject to bar rules on releasing information inimical to the interests of his former employer. For example, under professional rule 1.6, lawyers need to secure authority to release information that “(1) reveal a confidence or secret of the lawyer’s client; (2) use a confidence or secret of the lawyer’s client to the disadvantage of the client; [or] (3) use a confidence or secret of the lawyer’s client for the advantage of the lawyer or of a third person.”

    Comey has a self-inflicted wound which SHOULD be fatal. Only a baby associate could miss obtaining a guilty verdict on at LEAST one of the counts detailed in the entire article.

    I will lose a lot of faith in this system it does not only convict Comey, but send him to jail with any applicable associated fines by law.

    We Deplorables cannot afford to see yet another guilty Elite set free.

    This country can’t afford to see it either.

    Are we a society of laws or not?

    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/337160-opinion-the-damaging-case-against-james-comey

    Liked by 1 person

  18. Swohawk says:

    Comey didn’t want to “feed the seagulls.” So he let his “friend” feed the seagulls. Whadda pal.

    Like

  19. SSI01 says:

    Not a “go-between.” Rather a “co-conspirator.”

    Like

  20. recoverydotgod says:

    Wonder when it happened that Richman was no longer a policy advisor to director Comey and became just a close friend?

    October 31, 2016
    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/whats-behind-comeys-unprecedented-reveal-congress-clinton-probe/

    @6:30 Richman is introduced among other things as “current policy advisor to director Comey”

    Like

    • recoverydotgod says:

      What I find fascinating about this video is that Daniel Richman is making the defense in relation to the HRC email investigation, both the original and the reopening, (incl. the if you make a statement you have a duty to correct the record talking point) both the initial and he is also asked by Judy Woodruff to respond to the reporting of the Clinton campaign claiming a double standard that Director Comey did not want it to be known that the administration had confirmed Russian hacking so close to the election.

      Daniel Richman as a “current policy advisor to director Comey” seems to be more of the media relations person for director Comey, and Richman’s role in being the intermediary for the “memo” or “memos” to the media IMO only reinforces that impression.

      It is natural to question if Daniel Richman was on the government payroll as a consultant to the FBI director. I know I do.

      Like

  21. Barnestormer says:

    Comey’s claim that it was Trump’s tape tweet that prompted his decision to leak his memo of the conversation to the NYT through “good friend” Richman has already been tripped up by the timeline: NYT article appeared before the Trump tape tweet. But that explanation fails for another reason: if the tape would in fact corroborate Comey’s version of the conversation, as Comey claimed was memorialized in his memo, why leak the memo? Why not simply badger Trump to release the purported tape and prove Comey’s version with the best evidence? But what if Comey knew a tape would contradict his memo? In a he said–he said credibility contest, how could Comey reasonably expect his memo to prevail over a recording of the actual conversation? Comey’s slimy but he’s not stupid. Not THAT stupid anyway. No, Comey’s leaked memo was in process before Trump’s tape tweet, and should be clearly seen as an offensive stratagy to nail Trump, not as the defensive step he made it out to be in response to Sen. Collins’ line of questioning. No doubt Comey’s abrupt awakening to the thought of a tape interfered with Comey’s good night’s sleep–not for the reason (corroboration) that he gave–but for its opposite.

    Like

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s