Another Leaked Transcript: Bill Priestap “Closed” Testimony Conflicts With James Comey “Open” Testimony….

Another unsourced leak of a congressional hearing transcript to The Epoch Times highlights the testimony of former FBI Director of Counterintelligence, Bill Priestap.

Unfortunately, the transcript is not provided, and there is no explanation as to why the transcript is not provided; however, one quote seems interesting.

The question surrounds why congressional leadership, including the Gang-of-Eight, were not briefed about the opening of a counterintelligence operation into a presidential campaign.  The investigation began on July 31st, 2016. Congress was not notified until early March 2017.

Rep. Jordan: I guess what I’m asking, Mr. Priestap, is who made the decision not to brief Congress in this particular instance?

Mr. Priestap: Mr. Comey.

This answer seems to be directly contradicting the March 20, 2017, testimony of FBI Director James Comey. Watch that first 3:00 minutes, ending with: ”because of the sensitivity of the matter.”

.

So in open testimony Comey said congress was not notified upon the advice of the Director of Counterintelligence, Bill Priestap.  However, in closed testimony Bill Priestap says congress was not notified because of a decision by FBI Director James Comey.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Conspiracy ?, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Donald Trump, Donald Trump Transition, Election 2016, FBI, IG Report Clinton Investigation, IG Report FISA Abuse, media bias, Notorious Liars, President Trump, Spygate, Spying, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

290 Responses to Another Leaked Transcript: Bill Priestap “Closed” Testimony Conflicts With James Comey “Open” Testimony….

  1. titan28 says:

    But still, nothing happens! Mueller is running up the phony dog and pony show score. Nothing! They’re all out there, Brennan, Clapper, Comey. Nothing! Maybe it’s time to appoint a Republican special prosecutor to look into the actions on the other side of the aisle.

    It’s nice to see these little lies get exposed. But what changes?

    I may be at the end of my rope.

    Liked by 7 people

    • Frank Marty Martin says:

      Nothing is happening because ex-AG Sessions refused to name a Special Counsel and to take the heat off asked US Attorney Huber of Utah to look into the matter of DOJ/FBI actions. So far Mr. Huber has been in hiding, The few reports available about him has said he hasn’t interviewed anyone and he can’t find the evidence sent to him. So it appears all of Obama’s minions are going to escape any kind of criminal probe. Thank you Jeffy!

      Like

      • jebg46 says:

        Huber has been blocked by Mueller to any access to what Mueller deems out of bounds for his SC investigation.

        It would be interesting to have 2 opposing Special Councils because they would bar each other from any evidence due to ongoing investigations getting us absolutely nowhere which is where we are anyway.

        Like

        • mark says:

          No. Huber refused to testify to congress on the status of his investigation. He was assigned to waste time and make it appear something was done. He is a fraud.

          Like

      • George1 says:

        Probably what Jeff was sent to do.

        Like

  2. Hello says:

    Unsourced link with no evidence of the documentation. Is epoch the new buzzfeed?

    Like

  3. Doug Amos says:

    Ever since Sun Dance described Upchuck as “ashen” after his consultation with Barr, does a lot of wind not seem to have gone out of the sewer rat balloon?

    Liked by 7 people

    • ibid says:

      not nearly enough.

      Liked by 5 people

    • thedoc00 says:

      The wind is still there until Barr is approved and he acts. We have been down too many promising trails before, not be skeptical until we SEE proof.

      Liked by 5 people

      • Zorro says:

        The more the delay, the more the Deep State and their Lawfare plots.

        Like

      • George1 says:

        From watching everything these past two years, I would bet that Barr is there as a fixer. He is being tasked with making everything go away in as favorable a way for the deep state as possible.

        The RR, Mueller, FBI and Russia gate operators have accomplished their primary mission by making sure no Obama or Clinton people are in any legal jeopardy. They have also successfully supplied the deep state talking heads with stories that they can bend to smear the President. I am betting they think that their efforts will pay off in defeating Trump at the ballot box in 2020.

        All of those operations necessitated committing numerous crimes and more come to light all of the time. So the last part of their plan is the exit strategy for all of the RR and Mueller teams. Here comes Barr to clear the field so that all of those conspirators can melt away and never face justice or even scrutiny like Obama’s people did.

        Just My opinion. I will admit that Sundance is much smarter than I am. I pray to the Lord that I am wrong.

        Like

    • Yes, it has. I think Barr, maybe, just maybe, may put the lie to this farce, and DO what should have been done but wasn’t. One thing is for sure, the cabal DO NOT like Barr. They sure are afraid of him. If he were one of them, I do not think they would have either the skill, whereforeall, or compunction to ACT this afraid as the prelude to the “set up”.

      I also find it very CURIOUS that they keep trying to change the timeline (forward) on when this all began. There must be something in the earlier timeline that is out there that we have all missed. When the Dems and the MSM are ALL on the same narrative, using the EXACT same wording, they are scared and MUST have something to hide. We will all need to look a little closer at the beginning. It is probably staring us all in the face, and it IS a big sudden vulnerability for the Cabal.

      Liked by 6 people

    • redline says:

      Shackles speak louder than words. So far, all the wrong people have been “apprehended.”

      Liked by 1 person

  4. JonS says:

    Priestap gave Comey advise. Comey made the decision. It’s that simple. Comey is the worm here because he didn’t take ownership.

    Liked by 13 people

    • Koot Katmando says:

      Yep my first thought too. Nothing here.

      Liked by 1 person

    • rayvandune says:

      Yep, Comey is a dirty dog, and lied to Congress!

      Can’t wait for the 5 am raid on HIS house! Somebody call CNN! No, on second thought, the way these experienced journalists can anticipate who’s getting arrested, they are probably waiting across the street with cameras ready right now!!

      Liked by 9 people

    • RobInPA says:

      The POS comey IS, to quote himself of that which he accuses other’s, a “weasel and a liar”!

      Liked by 5 people

    • livefreeordieguy says:

      Comey first says “our decision”…. Congresswoman Stefanik specifically calls him on it and asks Comey if it was HIS decision. And he says: “no, it is usually the decision of the head of our Counterintelligence Division”… That is not Priestap giving Comey advice. That is Comey saying that it is Priestap’s call to make and Priestap made it — not Comey. Comey says Priestap made the decision. Priestap says Comey made the decision. I guess we will know which one of them lied to Congress when CNN shows us who answers the door in their shorts at 5:00AM after 29 armed agents with assault rifles surround their home and wake them up — indictment in hand.

      Liked by 5 people

      • Dayvz says:

        Finally! A reason to actually watch CNN.

        Liked by 2 people

      • arkancided says:

        Except is not Priestap’s call to refuse to inform Congress. For any reason! Sensitivity of a matter be damned. Totally irrelevant. That answer is wholly insulting to Congress.

        And BTW, Comey is in charge. Any decision made on such a “matter” would be his as he is in leadership. He can’t even delegate such a decision. Not speaking to Congress is not allowable. He reports to Congress by mandate. This is a non-starter. He should be in handcuffs now. Oh well, when the time is right. And it will happen. Trust me.

        Liked by 3 people

        • livefreeordieguy says:

          I agree with you to a point, arkancided. You’ll notice that Comey was careful to point out (at 1:03) that the quarterly briefings are by “practice not by rule or by written policy.” And he goes on to say that “thanks to the Chair and Ranking giving us feedback we’re trying to tweak it in certain ways.” I think he is trying to make it sound like the briefings are an unofficial practice or even an informal courtesy that is flexible and malleable. So if it’s not an official policy mandate, then an ad hoc decision to leave something out because of high sensitivity is really no big deal — but, rest assured, they’ll ‘tweak’ it to do that less often in the future. Or some such nonsense.

          I agree that Comey SHOULD NOT delegate such a decision but I seems to me that Comey is saying that he effectively DID delegate it. He didn’t say “I made the decision on the advice of the head of our Counterintelligence Division”. He said Priestap made the decision. Comey might argue that he is not precluded from delegating a decision that relates to an informal “practice” — one not required by any policy.

          I agree that this is all wholly insulting to Congress. But that ship sailed long, long ago. Congress has allowed their oversight authority to atrophy to the point where it’s like a parent trying to direct their fifty year-old son or daughter to eat their vegetables. We’ve seen the countless ways the DoJ and FBI have given Congress the finger on a million issues. No consequences. None. Former AG Holder is still laughing at being held in contempt of Congress in 2012. It’s one of his favorite stories at cocktail parties with the beautiful people. He wears it as a badge of honor. All that aside, I would love to trust you on your vision of Comey in handcuffs. From your keyboard to God’s eyes.

          Liked by 2 people

        • Kris Langley says:

          “And BTW, Comey is in charge”

          The Captain of a ship is the one in charge, even if in their cabin asleep at the time.

          Case in point, the CO and XO of the USS Anchorage were relieved after an inspection found that substandard maintenance had occurred in the engines. It didn’t matter that they didn’t have direct supervision of the gang in the engine room and weren’t aware of the shoddy maintenance. The buck stops at the top of the org chart.

          Like

          • jebg46 says:

            Considering that both Hillary’s and Trump’s investigations were set up prior to Priestep coming in and were deliberately setup to bypass normal channels within these departments, McCabe bypassed Priestep deliberately so the buck really did stop at Comey.

            Like

      • Donald says:

        Livefreeordieguy: I have thought much about this exchange. Observant people will notice that Stefanik, a bit too timidly, did not want to nail Comey to the cross, possibly sensing as well that Comey would give his usual, ‘can’t say in this setting.’ The key is that she DID NOT ask, ‘Who made that decision?,’ but rather, her question was, (paraphrasing) ‘Who USUALLY makes this decision!’ Comey’s simple response was (paraphrasing), ‘The Director of Counter-intelligence!,’ and he winces as he says it, like something trying to make a ‘tight turn’ and coming close to hitting another car or object. His was but a simple answer to a simple question, and not a lie, and certainly not perjury, although it was some clever, agile parsing. Note that Comey never said who actually made the ‘decision.’ In effect, Stephanik never asked it. When Comey was confronted by the question re the identity of said Director of Counter-intelligence, his answer was only to the identity of that official, AND NOT the decision-maker.

        Liked by 2 people

        • livefreeordieguy says:

          All good points, Donald. Thanks for that. I don’t know about Congresswoman Sefanik’s motive for why she asked the question the way she did, but I wish she hadn’t stopped herself to insert the word “usually” into it. You have better detective skills than I do, as I don’t detect a wince (beyond Comey’s usual fake-sincerity facial expressions). But you are absolutely right that Stefanik gave Comey wiggle room and he took advantage of it. No doubt.

          However, I think the “reasonable (wo)man” test would say that Comey purposely left a clear impression with the committee that the “head of our Counterintelligence Division (CD)” made THAT decision. If not, a person wanting to be unmistakably clear (like you’d expect one of the top law enforcement officials in the country who was so deeply wounded at the insinuation that the FBI were “weasels” in prior testimony to be) would be obliged to say: “usually it is the head of CD, but in this case I made the call” or some such thing.

          The misleading is furthered by Comey saying “I THINK our decision was it was a matter of such sensitivity…” If he was saying he made the decision, he wouldn’t have to “think”, he would “know”… If it was someone else’s decision, he might have to “think” or “suppose” and give his take on what he “thought” the other person’s decision was based on. But you are 100% right, he would likely worm his way out of a perjury charge based on what you are pointing out.

          So as a layman, I would say he “misled” but didn’t “lie” to Congress. Is there a difference legally? Maybe only ten jack-booted, flack-jacket-wearing, assault rifle-toting agents will come to Comey’s house and they’ll let him sleep until 9:00AM before banging on the door.

          Like

        • LCSmom says:

          And don’t forget that Rooster pretty much shut her down after she accidentally asked the right question, and no other Congress person followed up on this important line of questioning. Rooster knew it was skating close to the truth coming out, and he couldn’t have that.

          Under Republican leadership, all of these investigations were for show only.

          Liked by 2 people

      • Comey uses “Our Decision” and “we” to conflate and diminish his role to the Committee. Comey then answers:

        “No, it’s “usually” the decision of the head of our counterintelligence division.”

        ‘Usually” is the modifying word which allows the snake to wiggle out of the deceptive “our decision” back to yes it was “he Comey” that made the final decision, but ‘usually’ it’s the decision of the head of counterintelligence. The snake didn’t lie, he just wiggled-hsssss.

        Liked by 1 person

    • redzone says:

      Agreed. P gave boss C advice. C made the decision. Not sure how those statements are contradictory unless there’s more to the story.

      Like

  5. Alap says:

    In the exchange with Comey, just past the 5 minute mark, he states the job of the FBI is “factual input”. Really? You would think that if this is infact the role of the FBI it would then be their duty to verify any information before it is deemed factual. Unbelievable.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. magatrump says:

    Comey is a rat POS. He needs to be indicted and jailed. He is an arrogant SOB.

    Like

  7. Dav says:

    it feels like the weight of SOO much corruption is becoming large enough break the dam, so to speak. as more and more comes to light, eventually some heads will have to be taken. wonder who will be sacrificed…

    Liked by 3 people

  8. AccountabilityPlease says:

    “Our decision?” It was always Comey’s decision, but the weasel refused to own it. Some ethical leader he is!

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Judiciary says:

    I tend to believe Priestap since he has to stay in DC while Comey is out popping up around the country now and then.

    Like

    • Bluto says:

      Comey usually spouts off when he feels like things might be getting too close to him. Brennan is the same way. You can tell when the heat gets turned up because all of a sudden these two traitors will be adding their two cents: Comey in a cryptic way and Brennan in a bombastic authoritarian way.

      Liked by 3 people

  10. Johnny Dollar says:

    After skimming through the Epoch Times article, Mr. Priestap, IMO, is not a trustworthy FBI public servant, an incompetent executive and, simply, a dishonorable person..

    Just about all the corruption that happened in the 2016 election cycle happened right in front of his nose. A nose that had the authority to put an end to the charade, but didn’t. In his testimony the best defense he could come up with for his executive malpractice is that he was too busy to with other things to understand the seriousness of what was taking place. And, despite everything that’s been revealed to him, he leaves no doubt that he continues to believe he did everything right.

    Sounds a lot like the Rosenstein defense. When Rosenstein was asked by a Congressman why he never questioned the basis for the FISA warrants that he signed Rosenstein responded by saying he was unable to thoroughly read everything going by his desk.

    Unfortunately, there is no law which punishes this stuff.
    My take.

    Liked by 3 people

    • livefreeordieguy says:

      You’re right, Johnny… It all happened right in front of Priestap’s nose… He knows everything. And, unlike others, he has been very quiet. If he is as corrupt and dishonorable as you suggest, could he be feeling threatened to the point where his silence is an indication that he has flipped on everybody to save himself?

      Like

    • Firefly says:

      Priestap knows more than he’s letting on. He also went on several trips to London and won’t talk. Priestap is in the inner circle- else he would have never traveled with them all to London. The tantalizing stuff coming out are just tidbits- tip of the preverbial iceberg.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Vs says:

      Actually there is law. No matter what Rosenstein said – he signed that Fisa, and he is responsible for every word there. So he is guilty of lying to FISA court.

      Liked by 2 people

    • LCSmom says:

      They are all willfully ignorant of the corruption, or they are actively participating in the cover-up.

      Like

  11. smiley says:

    I initially thought there might be perjury here. Problem is that she gave him an out accidentally.

    So when you state our decision IS THAT YOUR DECISION? IS THAT USUALLY YOUR DECISION WHAT GETS BRIEFED IN THOSE QUARTERLY UPDATES?

    COMEY: No, IT’S USUALLY the decision of THE HEAD OF OUR COUNTER-INTELLIGENCE DIVISION.

    He can argue that she did not ask him if he made the decision not to brief Congress. She asked him, “is it usually YOUR decision…”

    Meaning that Rep. Jordan’s question:

    Mr. Priestap, is who made the decision not to brief Congress IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE?

    Is not the same question asked by Rep. Stefanik.

    Liked by 3 people

    • dawg says:

      Yep, you nailed it, I was just about to type the same thing.

      Like

      • dawg says:

        Although, this could certainly be described as Comey having a “lack of candor”. Everyone knows what she was asking. But he was implying that Priestap made the decision, and that directly contradicts Priestap.

        Liked by 2 people

        • smiley says:

          “…he was implying that Priestap made the decision and that directly contradicts Priestap.”

          I wish that could be the case. But, she framed the question and he answered her specific question. To prosecute him for perjury would be no different that VEISmann and MÜEller liberally applying various code violations to construct a crime (See License to Lie by Sidney Powell.

          Here is what he would need to be in violation of

          18 U.S. Code § 1001:

          “…knowingly and willfully—
          (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
          (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
          (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;”

          And GOOOOOOoooo DAWGS! Sic’ em.

          Like

          • arkancided says:

            @smiley, you’re nitpicking something fairly irrelevant IMO.

            The bigger takeaway was his not making Congress aware of the investigation for many months. Comey’s decision alone. Because of the sensitivity of the “matter”. (2:26-2:48).

            That statement was unacceptable. It shows intent to deceive by not being forthcoming with a major investigation. It didn’t just slip his mind. THIS will get him prison time. THIS shows his complicity in it all.

            Liked by 2 people

            • Phil aka Felipe says:

              Yep. In effect he, Comey, is saying, “We didn’t want Congress or the American people to know we were in the process of attempting to take out a Presidential candidate we didn’t like.”

              Like

            • smiley says:

              “The bigger takeaway was his not making Congress aware of the investigation for many months.”

              I agree that is a big issue. However, the post by Sundance is regarding “Bill Priestap “Closed” Testimony Conflicts With James Comey “Open” Testimony….”

              I am viewing this from the perspective is the conflict in their testimony rises to the level of a criminal referral for lying to Congress.

              I wish she would have left her question out regarding, “is that usually your decision.” IMO, the representative gave him a legal lifeline that Rep. Jordan could have tightened when he questioned Priestap.

              I am not defending the guy. Just pointing out that this is not something that could led him in the clink.

              Liked by 1 person

              • livefreeordieguy says:

                Smiley, is there a difference between “misleading” Congress and “lying to” Congress legally. Because if Comey made THAT decision, it seems to me Comey purposefully left the impression that his testimony was that Priestap made THAT decision. Not that Priestap “usually” would make that decision by “I did” in this instance.

                Like

          • dawg says:

            Actually, you gotta listen to the whole thing again.

            She FIRST asks, “why was there no notification……”

            Comeys first answer: “I think it was OUR decision, that because bsbsbsbsbsb…….”

            Stefanik: “When you say ‘our’, who usually makes that decision, is that you…..”

            Comey: “No thats usually the head of counter-intel…..”

            But he already said “our” decision. So ACTUALLY, what he testified is that its usually the head of counter-intel that makes the decision, but in this case it was OUR decision.

            So he admitted he had a role in making the decision, but then when pressed, he realized he didnt want to be the sole person responsible for making that decision.

            So actually NOT perjury, but a lack of candor for sure. A “lack of candor” which we would add to the laundry list of grounds for dismissal, which would be a defense against any “obstruction of justice” charge against PT, if needed.

            Liked by 1 person

            • smiley says:

              “So he admitted he had a role in making the decision,”

              Then that means there is not actually a conflict between Comey and Priestap as suggested by the post headline. Comey can argue that he sees himself as part of a decision team and Priestap believes that Comey was the sole decision maker.

              Like

              • livefreeordieguy says:

                Comey can claim that, like the “Royal We” — pluralis majestatis — he used the “Royal Our”… Practicing nosism to avoid accountability… Sounds about right for Comey… But don’t call him a weasel… “We are NOT weasels”….

                Like

            • Kris Langley says:

              He was referring, by using ‘our’, only to the weasel he keeps in his suit jacket.

              Liked by 1 person

    • Firefly says:

      Good catch. Comey is slick. His doofus demeanor infers honesty and hides the deception well. The IC are masters at word games- leaving you a certain impression but not explicitly answering if it was the particular case. Congress sometimes plays along with the deception rather than clearing up any ambiguity.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Susan Harms says:

      and she intentionally asked it that way — with wiggle room

      Like

  12. jnr2d2 says:

    I call BS. I understand that maybe your “normal” FISA request would not raise a red flag, but the opposition party’s Presidential candidate? I’d read it in great detail!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Liked by 1 person

  13. dawg says:

    The phrase “lack of candor” comes to mind.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. stringplayer55 says:

    Actually, Comey doesn’t directly state that the determination not to tell brief congress about their open investigation was made by Priestap. He was asked “Was that your decision? Is that usually your decision what gets briefed in those quarterly updates?”. Comey replied “No, it’s usually the decision of the head of our counterintelligence division.”

    Comey was left with a little wiggle room and he took full advantage of that. Even if it is correct that he made the decision on this occasion not to brief congress, he could not be charged with lying to Congress on this occasion if it is indeed true that Priestap is the person who usually make the decision regarding congressional briefings. But you might just think that due to “the sensitive nature of the issue,” Comey’s responsibility as FBI Director would override “usual” considerations.

    The upshot is that Comey is that Comey is a weasel and students at William and Mary who enrolled in his class on ethics should get a full refund of their tuition for that course!

    Like

  15. ScienceABC123 says:

    This is like having two young children in the house and hearing a glass vase break in the next room. Upon entering the room you see both children standing with the broken vase between them, each claiming the other did it. You’re never going to know for sure…

    Like

  16. Rose says:

    So the corrupt FBI was investigating a sitting President for the non-crime of Russian Collusion based on evidence the FBI planted against said President. Comey should be in Gitmo for what he’s done.

    Liked by 3 people

  17. Zorro says:

    “Bill Priestap, the high-ranking FBI official responsible for overseeing both the Clinton email investigation and the agency’s counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign appeared to not have been in real control of his own investigations.

    In closed-door testimony before congressional lawmakers in June last year, Priestap, who served as the head of the FBI’s counterintelligence division, acknowledged it was mostly FBI agent Peter Strzok and FBI analyst Jonathan Moffa who were “driving the train.””

    https://www.theepochtimes.com/testimony-reveals-fbi-official-in-charge-of-clinton-trump-probes-was-excluded-from-key-meetings-decisions_2786159.html

    Like

    • mark says:

      I don’t know about the rest of you but my blood is boiling. We continue to get massive evidence of crimes and nothing is done except to people associated to Trump. I’m honestly starting to think we the people may have to take action. I don’t see Barr doing anything to these people.

      Liked by 1 person

  18. Can you imagine what would happen if Joe DiGenova was made a Special Counsel?

    Liked by 2 people

  19. Chilidog says:

    Wow! What are the odds Colonel Klink was running these investigations. And he’s still in charge over there. Shouldn’t he be reprimanded, demoted, or fired for a lack of institutional control over his own investigations. The plausible deniability seems awfully convenient.

    Like

  20. Gavin G. Kirk says:

    So tired of this crap. Mr.President declassify all of this now. The swamp won’t clean up after its own and this will be like Lois Lerner and the IRS screwing over tea party groups and finally coming clean 6 years later after everyone’s forgotten. Sunshine makes the best disinfectant.

    Like

  21. thegoosefish says:

    Same old problem i have mentioned before. Need a Rat. A Rat that will spill it all- the scheme, the plan, the purposes of the fraud, the overt acts. Till then it is just minor things that can be explained away. The only thing that gets a Rat is the threat of an espionage trial in a jurisdiction besides D.C. and a realistic threat of a 20-30 year sentence

    Liked by 1 person

    • dawg says:

      I made the same observation recently. I made a football analogy, and we need someone to step up and make a play. Maybe someone who isnt necessarily a black hat, but who the other black hats think is one of them, so he knows all the dirt and has the evidence. We need him to step up now.

      Like

  22. Justin Green says:

    So one of the two should be expecting a SWAT team invitation to the nearest federal detention center.

    Like

  23. tav144 says:

    “The * * * [prosecuting] Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.”
    Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935).

    Had this framed on my wall when I worked at DOJ. It’s a shame there seems to be no honor left at a place I once loved.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. Convert says:

    What a cesspool DC is. And how amazing and appalling that Republicans aren’t shouting to the rooftop about only Republicans being charged with anything while Democrats are either caught red-handed or admit on TV !! That they committed more serious offenses and absolutely nothing happens!

    Like

  25. OldParatrooper says:

    I’m sorry, but the two bits of testimony aren’t necessarily at odds. Comey says they didn’t brief Congress on the advice of Priestap. Priestap says Comey made the decision. If Priestap advised Comey not to notify Congress and Comey then decided not to brief Congress, then both are correct.

    Having said that, the questioners needed to go a bit further down this pig path to see who actually decided not to notify Congress.

    Like

    • livefreeordieguy says:

      I must have missed the part where Comey said they didn’t brief Congress on the advice of Priestap. I need to watch it again.

      Like

  26. JL says:

    I think the entire transcripts are not being published, just in case they contain canary traps. Probably a condition set by the source of the leak.

    Like

  27. nuke9101 says:

    A few good men analogy: to borrow a analogy from the movie ‘a few good men’….who ordered the code red on Trump ?
    In the movie, Santiago had supposed orders to go home but he had not packed yet, had not phoned anyone he was coming home, which Tom Cruise made the logic that the xfer orders were done after the fact (after Santiago was killed during the code red)…Santiago had been wanting to leave, but when it finally came time, he ‘had not told a soul’

    Trump is a possible Russian spy who as become President, the ultimate Manchurian Candidate and the FBI/DOJ/CIA didn’t want to tell anybody…they had not told a soul. This is just too much to fathom.

    Either trump is spy, and the FBI, DOJ, CIA didn’t tell the elected leaders…if they didn’t, they should all be fired

    Or trump isn’t a Russian spy, and FBI/CIA/DOJ ordered a ‘code red’ on the elected president and they should all be fired, prosecuted and some of them hung……its one or the other (fired, or fired/prosecuted or hung)

    Liked by 1 person

  28. dawg says:

    LACK OF CANDOR by an FBI agent. There is precedent for this.

    https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-federal-circuit/1233340.html

    Summary: FBI agent used a company vehicle to pick up his daughter from daycare. He initially said he had done it only a few times, 3-4. Later he admitted it was like 10-12 times.

    The agent was FIRED. The agent appealed and was ultimately reinstated with a 4 month suspension.

    Yet here we have the Director of the FBI being deceptive to Congress about who made the decision NOT to tell Congress that there was an active investigation into the sitting President of the United States.

    Everybody knows that the decision not to inform Congress ultimately rests with the Director, and I dont think it can be reasonably disputed that Comey was attempting to imply that he did NOT make this decision, and went so far as to specify exactly who DID make the decision.

    Now we have that person saying he did NOT make the decision, and that Comey did.

    This obviously warrants further investigation. Its as simple as that.

    Liked by 1 person

    • dawg says:

      Hells bells, “lack of candor” was EXACTLY what McCabe was fired for!

      https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/candor/556262/

      Liked by 1 person

    • Lost says:

      Incidentally, it’s easy to argue that it’s by design that the “lack of candor” is with the fired FBI Director, and not the current FBI employee — “candor” being an internal discipline thing and not a legal standard where Comey would face any issues. Worth noting that there’s absolutely zero chance Priestap wasn’t familiar with Comey’s testimony. He probably had it (or relevant excerpts, at least) in front of him as a reference while talking to Congress, in addition to studying it beforehand.

      Note further that Comey never said that Priestap made the decision. He said that based on a recommendation from Priestap, he didn’t tell Congress. The decision was still Comey’s to make.

      Like

      • dawg says:

        Thats true, he may not be subject to any legal action now, since hes no longer with the FIB. But, the fact remains that he lacked candor, as Director, in a congressional inquiry.

        From that article linked to above, which has a lot of interesting info in it:

        “According to former FBI officials, the obligation of bureau employees—agents or otherwise—to have candor in performance of their duties comes from the need for FBI officials to represent the federal government in legal proceedings, act as witnesses in trials, and manage informants. Under the FBI’s standard, candor is not simply telling the truth—it confers an obligation to disclose relevant information even if an investigator has not directly asked about it. The standards are strict—one former FBI official estimated 20 to 30 bureau employees were dismissed annually for matters of candor. In one case described in a 2012 FBI report, an employee was dismissed after she lied to investigators about her husband’s drug use; in another, an employee was fired after they misled investigators about properly disposing of evidence. Another agent lost his job after using his bureau car to transport his daughter to daycare, and then lied about it.”

        AND….

        “The key element of candor cases is that the standard is higher for FBI employees than for the typical government official. The bar for perjury for example, is extremely high and requires prosecutors to prove a defendant’s state of mind. That’s very difficult, which is why few public officials are ever prosecuted for it—even in criminal investigations, it’s typical to charge obstruction rather than perjury. But FBI officials can’t simply avoid lying under oath—even omitting the truth could get them fired.”

        Yes its true that he didnt specifically say that Priestap made the decision. And perjury would obviously depend on who, between the two, was telling the truth on that matter. But its not enough to simply avoid perjury for an FBI official. You have to be “candid”. And seeing as how everyone in the room knew what Stefanik wanted the answer to, you cant say that Comey didnt lack candor.

        What Im getting at is that, while nothing may come of this specifically, if they were to try to charge PT with obstruction of justice for firing Comey, we now have Comey committing a
        FIREABLE OFFENSE.

        Liked by 1 person

  29. “Lack of candor” is terminology that should not be allowed in TCTH. Its a damn lie – call it what it is. When talking to or about Dems, Rinos, Never Trumpers, Republican Senators and the media do not embrace political correctness (PC). PC is a liberal belief it is possible to pick up a turd by its clean end…………………..

    Like

    • dawg says:

      The fact remains that lack of candor is a fireable offense in the FIB, and assuming Priestap is telling the truth, Comey is now guilty of it.

      Like

    • dawg says:

      Actually, you are mistaken. Lack of candor is “a thing”, and it is not simply PC. At least for an FBI agent, its not sufficient to simply avoid perjury, its the duty to be fully forthcoming with all pertinent information when being questioned. See my other comments.

      Like

  30. Tina says:

    The narrative was set some time ago if I’m not mistaken “ we were trying to protect the President “ the media and Dems spun it to fit a narrative of “collusion and obstruction “ it’s all a big disgrace and I think those of us who have invested countless hours into this HOAX are hoping and wishing for some justice for the criminal acts these agencies committed onto our President and countless others caught in the “ crossfire hurricane “ they chose that name for a reason , listen to the words of that song it’s quite telling .

    Like

  31. Chieftain says:

    Two different things – advice versus decision.
    Priestap is referenced as saying that Comey made the DECISION.
    Comey is referenced as saying that Priestap ADVISED Comey.

    Like

    • jebg46 says:

      During Priestep’s testimony, he setup how he was brought in AFTER both investigations and their unique chain of command, by-passed the Usual Procedures. This meant that Priestep was leftout of many of McCabe/Strzok/Page’s decisions because Priestep was off-site a great deal. Comey testified that the decision would have USUALLY gone through Priestep. What Comey didn’t say was that they deliberately left Priestep out of the bulk of their sedition.

      Like

  32. Rod says:

    It’s all a Show… Have you ever noticed none of these Gov Officials ever gets indicted on either side.

    I think its a Good Ole Boys Club…!!

    But Mueller can get Old Forgetful Men to unintentionally Lie to the FBI.

    He knows how to Indict a Ham Sandwich…

    Like

  33. Tparty says:

    Hate to say it but none of this lying to Congress talk will ever amount to any charges. WHY? In 1996 the laws regarding this subject were amended likely due to the 5Eyes secret agreement and to set the stage for passing the Patriot Act. The Clinton administration and almost every member of Congress voted to amend the law. Ask yourself why it happens so often and nobody is prosecuted. They created a loophole so large that anyone in the legislative, executive or judicial branch can use it to get off. Again ask yourself why they cou,d only get Mcabe for lack of candor, why Clapper got away with lying, or Comey or Brennan … the entire testimony of HRC during the Benghazi hearing was a lie. They made it legal to to knowingly and willfully lie.

    On the positive side Roger Stone can use it dismiss charges against him.

    Tparty
    #Constitution2020

    Like

  34. MaineCoon says:

    According to Muller’s SOP, anyone caught lying will be arrested and indicted for obstruction of justice. With the “he said/she said” scenario, Mueller has determined both with be arrested/indicted until one liar can prove the truth. CNN will announce the time, date & location of each arrest. Stay tuned and tune in. /s

    Like

  35. railer says:

    Deep State continues to make these selective leaks. I bet they were expecting Trump would be declassifying by now. He hasn’t, and now they feel the need to start covering their tracks, and create a narrative. It won’t work.

    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 )

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