Comey Explains His Investigative Basis For Saying Trump Is “Possibly” Being Blackmailed By The Russians

440px-Comey-FBI-PortraitI previously criticized former FBI Director James Comey for his declaration that President Donald Trump is “possibly” under the influence of compromising information held by the Russians.  There has of course been considerable speculation about “Golden Showers” and Russian prostitutes. However, when the person who once headed the investigation pointedly discussed the possibility, it suggests something more than speculation.   It turns out that it was based precisely on that . . . speculation.

Comey said that the first and foremost reason to believe that the allegation is that “the President is constantly bringing it up with me to deny it.”  He explained  to Jake Tapper that “In my experience as an investigator, it’s not an ironclad rule, but it’s a striking thing when someone constantly brings up something to deny that you didn’t ask about.” He then added “I think it’s unlikely, but I think it’s possible.”
What exactly does that mean?  It is unlikely but you decided to emphasize it on a book tour.  It is also possible that Trump is the last of the Romanov line.  Is that worth mentioning?
Comey’s second reason that he was “struck” by how Trump “wouldn’t criticize Vladimir Putin even in private, which struck me as odd.”
So that is it.  Comey, who portrays himself as the consummate professional, is selling books by enticing readers about the possibility that Trump held “Golden Shower” moments with prostitutions and is under the thumb of Moscow.  Is that what Comey means by his giving America’s back “ethical leadership”?

299 thoughts on “Comey Explains His Investigative Basis For Saying Trump Is “Possibly” Being Blackmailed By The Russians”

    1. @Ralph Adamo April 21, 2018 at 11:50 PM
      “Laura Loomer takes on James ‘Ethical’ Comey!”

      Judging from the look on Comey’s face after Loomer was escorted out, I’d say she got to him.

  1. DINOWAG. The DNC Wild Ass Guess System. now we have them supporting legalized marijuana to replace thereligious and catholic non aboritonests (tough luck DACA they stabbed you again.), as they support aborition along with higher taxes and higher spending openly as the main planks in their platformopenly admitting their goal is to install a socialist democracy which means one party system. .

    But the left forgot one item that is still at the top of their agenda. More wars. Add it up yourself the info is in any World Al,almanac. So I’m wondering what happened to indpendent citizenship, free speech, and the rest of it? Got replaced by open borders payed for by more taxes on the working class.

  2. L4D,…
    I did quick read of Snell’s article, and will re-read it more closely when I have more time.
    Mueller’s team met with Steele about 6 months ago.
    Senate committee(s) have tried to meet with Steele, even offering to travel to England or elsewhere to meet him.
    Unless something has change recently, Steele has refused to meet with them.
    Steele was also a no-show for a scheduled deposition in one of the civil suits against him. ( I’ve lost track of the number of lawsuits, but they involve Steele, Fusion GPS, the DNC, Buzzfeed, Russians identified in the dossier, etc.)
    It seems to me that to evaluate the material in the dossier, there would need to be verification by questioning the contacts and the sources.
    Not only are those sources unavailable and unidentified, but “author/the collector” of the sources’ material( Steele), has made himself scarce for questioning.
    With the exception of meeting with Mueller’s team.
    At this point, it seems comparable to having a witness testify for the prosecution without allowing the defense to question him.
    The civil suits may force Steele and others to either submit to questioning, or get hit with a default judgement if he continues to make himself scarce.
    That’s one way of determining how strongly Steele defends his dossier, and the dossier’s contacts and sources.
    Absent external confirmation of the allegations in the dossier, it seems that we’ll be stuck with competing claims of “it’s unverified” or “parts of it have been verified”, without any real way of judging whether the core accusations the dossier are valid.
    E.G., if emails surfaced from within the Trump camp that support allegations made in the dossier, then there’d be something solid to go on.
    Otherwise, I don’t think the dossier “can stand on its own” as reliable evidence.

    1. Your last statement seems to sujpport Meuller’s conclusion on the subject given a motnh ago.

    2. I don’t know if you’ve ever read the 99-page FISC (FISA Court) Memorandum that was declassified almost a year ago —

      — or some of the reporting on it, such as in an article at Circa titled “Declassified memos show FBI illegally shared spy data on Americans with private parties” —

      — but it’s was verified and reported to the FISC in October, 2016, that the FBI had been engaged in massive misconduct, not limited to providing private contractors unlawful access to raw NSA intelligence.

      The identities of the private contractors are redacted from the FISC Memorandum, but one of them is believed to be Fusion GPS. It’s also believed that the Steele “dossier” information about Michael Cohen having been in Prague was unlawfully obtained by one of those private contractors (Fusion GPS) from raw NSA intelligence, because an unlawful search query was done concerning Michael Steele and that’s where the information about the visit to Prague came from. A Michael Cohen had, in fact, visited Prague, but it was the wrong Michael Cohen — some other guy entirely. That’s been some of the reporting/analysis anyway.

      Things such as that are likely to be revealed concerning much of the Steele “dossier” — that the claim that certain information came from Russians was a lie which can be proven to be a lie from inspection of the NSA files. And when NSA Director Rogers discovered the misconduct and put an end to it was when Fusion GPS hired DOJ official Bruce Ohr’s wife, Nellie — a former CIA Russian expert — who played a part in generating and/or transmitting information that was also included in Steele’s “dossier.” Through Nellie, through Bruce, Fusion GPS could continue to get access to NSA intelligence despite Admiral Rogers having put an end to unlawful private-contractor access that the FBI had been providing.

      My point is that proof or disproof of information in Steele’s “dossier” probably won’t be coming from Steele or unavailable Russians. A great deal of disproof of the “dossier” information will likely come from interrogation of Bruce and Nellie Ohr and inspection of NSA computer or data-storage records.

      And that would explain why Christopher Steele doesn’t really want to talk to anyone about anything. The “dossier” submitted to the FBI under the pretext of Steele having aggregated information supplied by his Russian contacts was really information that had been sent overseas to Steele so that he could send it back. It was a form of information laundering.

      So, since Russian contacts of Steele didn’t really play the part that the dossier claims they played, Their being unavailability won’t matter regarding proving or disproving whether the “dossier” is a fraud.

      Of course, even if the entire “dossier” is proven to be a sham, democrat trolls will still claim that that doesn’t mean that the information in the “dossier” is false. That’s how their minds are trained to argue.

  3. I agree with Comey, I think the Russians have something on Trump. Putin is already the good guy for swinging the election to Trump and continues to be his buddy because it is their spies (the bad guys) who have the dirt and Putin (the good guy) is making sure that it isn’t released. Just my speculation.

    1. Yours or the The programming instructions from The Party to The Collective? Back to square one and repeat all the PCRap. having absolutely nothing else to offer or say…. except. HOW do we save Hillary from being listed in history as a victimizer of women?

  4. @realDonaldTrump tweeted

    Just heard the Campaign was sued by the Obstructionist Democrats. This can be good news in that we will now counter for the DNC Server that they refused to give to the FBI, the Debbie Wasserman Schultz Servers and Documents held by the Pakistani mystery man and Clinton Emails.

    Brings up Awan – maybe there will finally be an investigation into their cyber crimes. DWS and Bacerra were his biggest supporters.

    “Imran Awan, his wife Hina Alvi and several other associates ran IT operations for at least 60 Congressional Democrats over the past decade, along with the House Democratic Caucus – giving them access to emails and computer data from around 800 lawmakers and staffers – including the highly classified materials reviewed by the House Intelligence Committee.”

    “Trump To “Counter” DNC Lawsuit; Seeks Servers, Clinton Emails And “Pakistani Mystery Man”

    1. The demented porn star lover called her Wendy. Laughing out loud. Wasserman Schulz and T rump both make me barf. No more Hannity blog today.

      1. Can’t erase the Awan traitors and other dirty Dims by bringing up Stormy.

        His name was Seth Rich.

        1. Dirty Hannity is being sued by his family. Hope they get some money from da scum and his Stormy gets a boatload from the dirtbag, Have a goody day hangin in da basement here with Sean. I won’t

            1. @Autumn
              Styxx (Spelling?) gives President Trump much more credit here than is warranted by the evidence I’ve seen.Trump does not, to put it charitably, have a scholarly eye and focused concern for factual detail, and if he were playing “4-dimensional chess” with the gaffe, why would he correct himself after only twenty minutes?

              “On Friday evening, President Donald J. Trump inadvertently referred to the disgraced Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz as ‘Wendy.’ In hysteria, the media and blue-check marked liberals on Twitter erupted with laughter as the tweet sat there for twenty minutes. President Trump finally deleted that mistake and replaced it with a tweet featuring her proper name.”

              This in no way, of course, devalues in the slightest the reporting by Luke Rosiak on the bizarre behavior of Wasserman Schultz and other Democrats in their employment of one Imran Awan:

              “For the better half of the last year, Rosiak has exposed more than 50 stories of security risk and data breaches made by one man and his family. Imran Awan, along side four other Pakistani nationals, have been accused of stealing equipment and data from House members offices as Democrat IT workers.

              “Awan has been working for Wasserman Schultz in some capacity since 2005. He and his family were also hired by other Democrats. But more troubling is the fact that more than 40 of these House Democrats did not even give these workers the required background check. As Roziak told Fox News, parents give their baby sitters more of a vetting process than [these] Democrats gave their IT personnel.

              “The IT folks handle their computers, passwords, servers replete with government information ranging from public to classified, and much more. Bad people can do a lot of damage with this information. And it looks like that is what happened here. All of this has a lot of suspicious [sic] twists and turns, but the evidence is pretty damming [sic] against the Awan clan.

              “Awan’s wife abruptly left the country in the middle of the investigation. Awan himself was arrested in the airport trying to flee the country. But, the case is truly bizarre all over.”

          1. What’s their cause of action? That their son’s name was mentioned in a news broadcast? I cannot believe a lawyer took this case without money up front from Democratic donors.

          2. “Dirty Hannity is being sued by his family. ” (the Seth Rich family)

            Firstly, not unusual but you have your facts wrong. It is my understanding they are suing Fox News. I hope the family does sue and in the depositions to follow we find out if the family was paid by the DNC and other intricacies of how the DNC operates.

      2. As usual nothing changes with the left they just repeat the same PCRap over and over and boringly over again. Still no facts.

    2. “Just heard the Campaign was sued by the Obstructionist Democrats.”

      Nii responded “What’s their cause of action? ” (the DNC cause of action). In essence, that means the Trump campaign has nothing to lose. I love being in that type of position because then I can call for depositions under oath where the plaintiff can run into a lot of trouble not telling the truth.

      I have a never-ending set of questions that the DNC will never want to be known. How long does anyone think it will take for the DNC to drop its suit.


    Sessions threatens to resign if President Trump fires Rosenstein.

    That’s a no-brainer.

    Take the twofer!

  6. All Roads Lead To Obama

    Comey’s Quandary

    “Hillary couldn’t be proven guilty without proving the president guilty as well.”

    – National Review

    1. Not True. All the violations of the Nnational Security Regulations were on her although Obama may have been connected. Victimization of Women on her. Obama not needed. Operation of Payu for Play/Clinton Foundatioin onllyinvolved antohere former President. Obama may have been involved but Clintons roile is sufficient unto itself.

      In one respect buit couched differently you are correct. The left is deathly afraid others such as ‘Obama could be implicated in one way or another along with seeking higher office… My best guess is Warren going after the banks for more campaign money.

  7. “Comey Explains His Investigative Basis For Saying Trump Is “Possibly” Being Blackmailed By The Russians”

    “Comey Explains His Investigative Basis For Not Recommending Hillary For Prosecution”

    – All Roads Lead To Obama –

    Comey would have been compelled to recommend Obama for prosecution if he had recommended Hillary for prosecution because Obama used used Hillary’s illegal e-mail address and server.

    Clinton–Obama Emails: The Key to Understanding Why Hillary Wasn’t Indicted
    By Andrew C. McCarthy
    January 23, 2018 9:25 PM

    “From the first, these columns have argued that the whitewash of the Hillary Clinton–emails caper was President Barack Obama’s call — not the FBI’s, and not the Justice Department’s. (See, e.g., here, here, and here.) The decision was inevitable. Obama, using a pseudonymous email account, had repeatedly communicated with Secretary Clinton over her private, non-secure email account.

    These emails must have involved some classified information, given the nature of consultations between presidents and secretaries of state, the broad outlines of Obama’s own executive order defining classified intelligence (see EO 13526, section 1.4), and the fact that the Obama administration adamantly refused to disclose the Clinton–Obama emails. If classified information was mishandled, it was necessarily mishandled on both ends of these email exchanges.

    If Clinton had been charged, Obama’s culpable involvement would have been patent. In any prosecution of Clinton, the Clinton–Obama emails would have been in the spotlight. For the prosecution, they would be more proof of willful (or, if you prefer, grossly negligent) mishandling of intelligence. More significantly, for Clinton’s defense, they would show that Obama was complicit in Clinton’s conduct yet faced no criminal charges.

    That is why such an indictment of Hillary Clinton was never going to happen.”

    1. George, rumor has it that The POTUS can unilaterally declassify any classified information at any time for any reason or for no reason at all. Of course, some observers claim that the rumor got started when H. R. McMaster was at pains to defend Trump’s unilateral declassification of Israeli intelligence to Lavrov and Kislyak in The Oval Office. IOW, Comey didn’t have to cover up Obama’s alleged mishandling of classified information any more so than H. R. McMaster had to cover up Trump’s unilateral decision to share classified foreign intelligence information with the Russian Ambassador and the Russian Foreign Minister.

      1. What rumour? The PResident doies have that power although in some cases there is clearly defineed steps to take such as releasing the House and Senate intelligence coimmitee memos. Maybe you were out of the country at the tijme?

  8. Comey, Comey, bo boni..

    banannafanna fo fommi…


    If the first tlwo letters are ever the same… you drop them both and say the name…

    Like: George Bush fukin f so useh and Mary Mary is contrary.. that the only rule that made one Sarry….


  9. Linda/Sophia – you do not need my permission. 😉 However, Sophia would make it easier for me personally. 🙂

  10. Anything is possible. Is that the new legal standard though? It’s possible Hillary Clinton illegally maintained classified material on her server and when caught obstructed justice. By the Comey standard there ought to be a special counsel investigating everything attached to the Clintons.

    1. “Anything is possible.” — well, almost anything.

      It’s possible that Hillary Clinton was lying when she repeatedly claimed that she dodged Bosnian sniper fire.

      It’s also possible that Hillary wasn’t lying and actually believes that she dodged Bosnian sniper fire.

      But thanks to the magic of video tape we know that one thing is impossible — that Hillary actually dodged Bosnian sniper fire.

      So that leaves lying or delusional. Hmmm. I wouldn’t give odds — there’s too much evidence of both possibilities.

      1. Sure, and it’s also possible NASA turned down Hillary because she was a woman and that the Marine Corps did the same when she tried to enlist a month before marrying Bill. As with the sniper fire claim in Bosnia the thing is, all are inconsequential in a legal context.

        Maintaining an illegal server on one’s toilet with which to store tens if not hundreds of thousands of classified emails is consequential in legal terms. Just as Reality Leigh Winner who is bedding down tonight in a federal prison because she mishandled just one such document.

        1. Yep. And it’s perhaps a bit more possible that Hillary will get prosecuted proportional to Winner in terms of number of documents mishandled than it’s possible that Hillary was named after Sir Edmund Hillary.

          1. We are in agreement so much that we are missing each other’s point. What I’m saying is, the Mueller probe as per Comey is predicated not on a preonderance of evidence as required by the law but notions of “it’s possible”. By the “it’s possible” standard, we are all doomed.

            1. Yep again — although not to nitpick, but “preponderance of evidence” is the civil standard, meaning 51% percent or more probability of being true. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is the criminal standard — essentially 100% probability. That’s the standard should apply to Comey’s goofy statements — a much higher standard.
              Comey is reducing the standard of probability from 100% down to less than .00000000001%

              1. Absolutely. Beyond a reasonable doubt Comey leaked information to the NYT via a Columbia professor he was chummy with. I’m hopeful a leftists will latch on to this comment and call me a liar just for the sport of it.

                1. Yep again — but (I bet we could do this all night) — but not “chummy with.” NOW they claim the guy’s Comey’s personal attorney. LOL
                  I don’t think that’s gonna help. One thing I know is that a person can’t use an attorney to engage in unlawful conduct. The expression for that isn’t “personal attorney” — it’s “coconspirator.”

            2. So you mean testimony of others and her own public confession doesn’t count?

    1. By the way has anyone at any level ever charged the loser in the Alabama race with anything …. yet and had it accepted by any Judge, AG, Prosecutor, District Attorney? At any level?

  11. The best analysis so far, connecting the dots concerning Comey’s memos and what happened surround those memos — leak to CNN and publications of the dossier — can be found at an article titled “Anatomy of a Political Smear Confirmed – James Comey January Briefing Was Scripted by Clapper and Brennan To Create Media Narrative…”

      1. Right — this coming from a guy who posted these statements earlier:

        “And then there’s the Rudy v Mueller ‘negotiation.’ Did Rudy ever prosecute the mob? Dunno, but Mueller did.”

        That you don’t know that Rudy Giuliani is easily the most famous living prosecutor of mob bosses speaks volumes for your ability to shoot your mouth off without knowing anything concerning the subject you’re talking about.

        Comparing Mueller to Giuliani is like comparing The Monkeys to The Beatles.

        1. I doubt amyd can read well. We already know he can’t think well. But here goes anyway . . .

          Here’s a story about Rudy Guiliani, the Mob buster:

          Now, here’s a story about Bob Mueller and mobster/FBI buddy Whitey Bulger:

          Get it, amyd? Two complete opposites!

            1. amyd – he should be as scared as the anthrax guy or the Atlanta bomber (the guy who found the bomb) or the guys he kept in prison which cost the government 100 million in damages. The problem with Mueller is that he has tunnel vision.

                  1. That Mueller knew who Bulger was and expressed satisfaction when he was arrested and convicted means that he had some personal connection to the case of the four men who were wrongfully convicted? In spite of the Judge who ruled in the case saying he had no connection to it?

                    That’s preposterous. Your clip is a nothingburger.

                    William F. Buckley Jr. — ‘I won’t insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said.’

          1. Repeat the Mueller/Bulger canard as much as you want, it will still be a canard.

            1. See the video of Mueller above. The only canard here is the Leftist media’s whitewash of the entire FBI vast corruption, which Mueller was in charge of. But, like The Godfather, he had his “buffers” to attempt to distance himself from the FBI’s criminal activities.

              1. Nonsense. Like the Judge in the case said, it’s “The smearing of Robert Mueller”.

        2. William, I’m gonna have to disagree with your analogy, Mueller:Guiliani::Monkees:Beatles. The Monkees had talent and were capable of creating their own hits, even though they mostly had top professional songwriters and the great Wrecking Crew doing the music in the beginning. And besides, the Beatles liked the Monkees and enjoyed watching their show, and even had a party for them when they came to London, so they could meet them.

          Maybe a better analogy is, Mueller:Guiliani::Spinal Tap:Beatles.

          Mueller, like Spinal Tap, isn’t real but is a pretend thing.

          And just for the heck of it, here’s The Monkees doing their catchy pop song Mary Mary, written by Mike Nesmith of the band:

          1. I appreciate the link, but I can’t stand The Monkeys. Admittedly, the did one interesting movie (maybe their only movie), which I believe was called Head.

            Maybe I should have tried a different analogy, like Barry Manilow vs. Ludwig von Beethoven.

    1. Thanks for that story, William.

      The tangled web Clapper/Brennan weave, when at first they practice to deceive.

      1. Or — when first they thought they were smarter than everyone else. Clapper forgot that he isn’t smarter than anyone — he just didn’t get prosecuted when he got caught. Hopefully that’s the only favor anyone owed him. To not get prosecuted after getting caught a second time would be the definition of a corrupt and broken DOJ.

Comments are closed.