New Comey Email Raises Additional Questions About His Use and Defense of The Steele Dossier

There is a new and intriguing document related to the Russian investigation out this week. Justthenews has released a previously undisclosed email from former FBI Director James Comey that raises additional questions about his role in using the now discredited Steele dossier as part of the FBI Russian investigation. The email on Jan. 12, 2017 email to then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper falsely claims that Christopher Steele was found to be “reliable” but then states that the FBI could not “sufficiently corroborate the reporting.” The email went out the same day that Comey signed a FISA surveillance warrant application declaring that content from Christopher Steele’s dossier had been “verified.” We are still waiting for the results of the John Durham investigation but this email raised additional questions about Comey’s role. Comey has testified that he would not have approved such surveillance if he knew then what he knew now about the Steele dossier.

Comey signed a statement to the secret court that the information was “verified” on the same day that he admitted to Clapper that “We are not able to sufficiently corroborate the reporting.” Yet, he also did not tell Clapper what the FBI had already knew about Steele and Carter Page. While Comey later insisted that he was unaware of basic information, he was signing applications for secret surveillance and advising Clapper without either confirming or disclosing information.

The CIA had already told the FBI that Page was a U.S. intelligence asset, not a Russian spy.  It had also been warned that Hillary Clinton’s campaign was trying to plant a false Russian collusion story in the media.(The Clinton campaign and its attorney Marc Elias had reportedly denied that the campaign funded the dossier until after the election) It was also told that Steele’s primary source was a suspected Russian agent and that is network was compromised by Russian intelligence. Steele had also been reportedly terminated by the FBI as a source because of his efforts to plant stories in the media.

Comey mentioned none of this and instead cautioned Clapper against a statement saying that there was no judgment on the reliability of the Steele dossier. He was opposed to a public statement declaring that the Steele dossier was only mentioned in an appendix to the intel community’s report because the “IC has not made any judgment that the information in the document is reliable.” Comey insisted her was reliable:

“I just had a chance to review the proposed talking points on this for today. Perhaps it is a nit, but I worry that it may not be best to say ‘the IC has not made any judgment that the information in the document is reliable.’ I say that because we HAVE concluded that the source is reliable and has a track record with us of reporting reliable information; we have some visibility into his source network, some of which we have determined to be sub-sources in a position to report on such things; and much of what he reports in the current document is consistent with and corroborative of other reporting included in the body of the main IC report.”

So Comey worked to preserve the public narrative in support of the Steele dossier, which was being widely disseminated and fueled what was later found to be an unsupported conspiracy theory.  He did so while admitting later “That said, we are not able to sufficiently corroborate the reporting to include it in the body of the report.”

204 thoughts on “New Comey Email Raises Additional Questions About His Use and Defense of The Steele Dossier”

  1. Speechless . . . . . I’m rendered speechless . . . . The day is fast approaching when any further investigation will be declared irrelevant. ” Let’s all just move on . . . “

  2. There are reports Kamala is now taking calls from foreign leaders for Joe now. I imagine she is doing much more than that.

    1. And so the Obama-Harris administration officially begins.

      I figured they’d wait three months to send “Caligula’s horse” to the glue factory. Either the “horse” is lame beyond masking, or they’re feeling particularly emboldened.

      1. I think the horse is lame beyond masking. Biden can’t be trusted to speak in public for very long.

        Creepy how Kamala is almost always looming nearby like a vampire eyeing her next snack.

        1. Creepy how Kamala is almost always looming nearby like a vampire eyeing her next snack.

          If Biden was my client this tax season and he was accompanied by Harris to my office, I would have an ethical duty to verify he wasn’t a victim of elder abuse.

        2. The people who put stuff in front of him to sigh will start fighting among themselves.

          1. Yes. I think they probably are already scheming. He’s out of it and there is a power vacuum each of them believes he can fill. I hope they start leaking damaging information on each other to The Daily Mail or the NY Post.

            1. Love how Biden’s popularity and solid decision making sparks up you guys’ b holes.


              1. His solid decision making consists of deciding whether to put another log on the fire, play MarioKart, or watch Matlock on tape.

                1. Don’t leave out the report that Unlike his predecessors, he’s more of an early-to-bed type; as tweeted by that hard-hitting news agency CNN.

                  1. He is early to bed. The question is when and for what does he get out of bed. Not often and not much, I suspect.

  3. This is simple. Democrats and allies lied, Obama spied and Trump got impeached got impeached twice.

  4. We should follow the wisdom of likely America’s greatest lawman, Robert Jackson (Nuremberg prosecutor, Attorney General and Supreme Court Justice). Jackson, with his decades of experience fighting unconstitutional-authoritarianism and Nazi-authoritarianism, strongly believed the greatest threat to any civilized and free nation were “arbitrary warrantless searches” – not free speech, not gun rights and not bigotry.

    “Arbitrary warrantless searches” was the foundation for more dangerous abuses. Once you allow officials to illegally snoop in the first place was the greatest threat to a free nation (not based on probable cause evidence and not under risk of perjury/contempt by officials applying for search warrants).

    The FISA Act and FISA Court were originally created to deter arbitrary searches, it created an exclusive legal path (one & only path) for presidents to follow. In the 21st Century, these unconstitutional institutions, used against American citizens on US soil, has produced the opposite result.

    There are few American lawmen in power today that subscribe to Robert Jackson’s wisdom. Few American officials, with Jackson’s wisdom, can even be appointed into positions of power today at the U.S. Department of Justice and other national security agencies.

    Beyond the illegality of “arbitrary warrantless searches” and betraying the American Oath of Office, these unconstitutional searches are simply dumb policy that produces inaccurate results and inaccurate assumptions. These searches also make us all less safe, using a “Needle in the Haystack” metaphor, it adds more unnecessary “hay” (persons of interest) to the hay-stack making far harder to find the real bad guys and wasting taxpayer resources.

    1. Jackson did not do particularly well at the Nuremburg Trials. Goring made him look inept and unfamiliar with the facts. He was not a good choice for prosecutor.

      1. Come to think of it, I recall seeing clips of Jackson’s questioning of Goering used in a course teaching what not to do in trial. A second clip showing bumbling questioning was of Marcia Clark during the Simpson trial.
        Neither was very good at their job. The difference was that with the politics involved Jackson was guaranteed to win and Marcia was guaranteed to lose.

        1. At the risk of being called bad names– ooops, too late for that– I recommend David Irving’s book on the Nuremberg trials. You read that and you will have a better opinion of Jackson. Why? He had a very very difficult task.

          After all, they sent him to conduct a difficult task for an American lawyer– trying America’s vanquished rivals for what mostly would have been unconstitutional here, violation of ex post facto laws– with all the trappings of justice so as not to let it seem like a drumhead tribunal and victor’s justice. in other words, conduct a political show trial, without letting it seem like one. (that is not to say that the nazis were not horrible, bad, etc. i am just making a point about ex post facto laws. there was no such thing as a “war of aggression” at the outset of the war. wars of aggression were essentially lawful all the way from Westphalia until even now. We can see the US has carried out more than one “war of aggression” in recent memory, again, not that Hussein was not a baddie, etc etc etc)

          Stalin was in this instance, more honest. He simply recommended firing squads and no trials.

          Here is an interesting article

          Observe a few things. Firstly, the French and even the Soviets were amazed at how plastic and “useful” to the prosecution was the American concept of “conspiracy–” something they considered almost barbarous in its wide grasp

          Secondly, Jackson wanted to rely on documents rather than witnesses.

          What did Turley say last week about putting on circumstantial evidence rather than witnesses? hmmm

          Oh yes he said it betrays a weak case to avoid witnesses.

          Which is precisely what Jackson tried to do.

          Sal Sar

          1. Sal Sar — Thanks for the reference to Irving’s book. I may get it. My recollection [and it may be faulty] was that not only were ex post facto laws used but also parts of the German Criminal Code under which the Germans lived. It would be sort of like trying the coup plotters in the Deep State for violation of existing laws that they are now free to ignore. Someday I would like to see that.

            Churchill was more inclined to Stalin’s view. Just shoot them. In fact, Churchill sent out special squads who grabbed Germans who were not taken up in the formal criminal trials, took them to the woods, read German law to them and asked if they agreed that that was the law and that they violated their own laws during the war. Then they shot them.

            The clip I saw was used in a course on cross examination and dealt only with Jackson’s cross examination of Goring. The wily Nazi tripped Jackson up more than once and you, as a lawyer, would have seen the flaws in Jackson’s questioning at once. Some were almost ‘slap your forehead’ blunders. I think a regular county prosecutor, or better a defense lawyer because they have to be smarter if they are any good, could have done a better job than Jackson did.

            But, Elmer Fudd could have prosecuted Goring and won. Goring knew the verdict was foregone and somehow managed to keep cyanide close to avoid the rope.

            1. I think Goering did what most prisoners do when they want something. He bribed a guard. He bribed a guard to get it out of his personal things which were kept elsewhere in prison. This is the hypothesis of Mark Felton. His videos on youtube are the best. Sal

      2. Young,
        What is the source material(s) for basis of your opinion?
        I have viewed more than a few audio, video tapes of Chief Prosecutor Robert H. Jackson, and other prosecutors and witnesses, and have never heard or seen any reason, logic or common sense grounds for your opinion(s).
        Before I retired from civil trail practice, I tried over 25 civil trails. I also attended and taught trail and evidence classes at seminars and at a law school.
        Please provide the source material(s) for your opinion(s).
        I honestly and sincerely want to understand and learn.
        dennis hanna

        1. Dennis Hanna– It was years ago, long before I retired, that I attended a CLE on cross examination so I can’t claim to have discovered it myself. But the lecturer used parts of a clip of Jackson’s cross examination of Goring so that should narrow it down. I haven’t watched Jackson’s presentation of evidence but I imagine he had such a wealth of proof of criminal conduct that it should have been fairly easy at that stage. Goring was very smart. He led the Flying Circus in WWI after Richthofen was killed and had daring. The circle around Hitler were clever and often plotting against each other and Goring managed to keep his head above water and muddy the record on his participation in some of the worst crimes. He was smart and he was evil and Jackson was no match for him even in a trial in which Jackson was preordained to win. What Jackson did was set good examples for a class interested in seeing what not to do on cross examination.

          The clip of Marcia Clark during the Simpson trial was so damning that most of us were laughing. It seems I recall her going on and on and on asking questions about a dog that would have bored even a kennel owner, never mind a jury predisposed to jury nullification.

          I hope you can find the Jackson cross examination. With your experience you will see the problems at once. I think civil law is intellectually more challenging than criminal law but it doesn’t capture the imagination of screen writers unfortunately.

          1. Steven Brill on Marcia Clark: “terrible…she spent days questioning witnesses on which she should have spent an hour”.

            1. I watched most of the trial and thought the same. I kept wondering ‘Why is she doing this? It’s terrible.”

              By contrast, the defense lawyers in the George Zimmerman job did an exemplary job. They seemed to ask the right hard questions and had the delicate touch not to hammer when it would not gain much but could cost plenty, as with the little fat girl who was a prosecution witness and appeared to be lying. Hers wasn’t a pelt worth hunting and nailing to the door. More than once they made prosecution witnesses seem like defense witnesses. That too was a political show trial with the state, the judge, the DOJ and the President all against an innocent defendant. Thank God for capable defense lawyers and honest juries!

          2. Young,
            Thank you.
            I found numerous audio-videos of the “cross-examination” (declarations, statements) by Robert H. Jackson of Goering.
            I watch 3 or 4 minute videos and and an almost 2 hour video by the Robert H. Jackson Center.
            I understand and accept your comments, if not criticisms, of Robert H. Jackson. He did ask leading questions from time to time. Jackson’s initial presentation, at least, was directed to the structure and procedure of the Tribunal and the role of the Judges to control and limit the response(s) of Goering. Such an endeavor is misguided, at best.
            Although I accept the criticisms and comments in the manner and purpose of Jackson’s “questions,” I suspect his error in judgment and tactics stems from his failure to accept, if not understand, the nature and structure of the proceedings, the Tribunal.
            Alternatively, perhaps, his was demonstrating, or attempting to show the lack or limited ability of the proceedings to only get Goering, or any witness, to answer or admit the wrongfulness of their conduct.
            Although I have never been the same or anything similar as a plaintiff’s or defendant’s lawyer in a civil trial, I have certainly numerous times had to deal with non-responsive and disruptive witnesses and more than two judges with their thumbs on the “scales of justice.”
            I found the only effective and efficacious manner to adopt is to ask clear, simple and direct questions and, basically, ignore the witness’ response or the judge’s comments or criticisms. Then, in closing statement (and rebuttal, when plaintiff’s counsel) argue the facts, writings and non-responsive, disruptive and disparaging testimony of the witness, and, yes!, even the judge. [When a San Francisco trial lawyer tries (tried) a case in the Central Valley and even in Los Angeles, it would not be uncommon to confront a Judge who because of where the attorney was from or the legal issue or even who the plaintiff or defendant was to face bias in favor of or prejudice against a party or lawyer.]
            Here, prosecutor Jackson seems to want to make political and “moral” points rather than do his duty as a dispassionate advocate for his client, the facts and the law. Simply, justice.
            Perhaps, that gets to the proceedings, the Tribunal, itself. Which, I submit, was not a criminal, civil, military or, even, a show trial. It was, and is, a political trial.
            I find the value and benefit then and now is to understand, accept and agree with the Nuremberg Principles, which was the stated grounds on which the Tribunal was to be conducted.
            In that regard, I cannot recommend too strongly the opening and, especially, the closing statement of lawyer Jackson. Which stated simply says, “… that unless we hold not only the defendants to the principles and values embodied this Tribunal, but also ourselves and others to the same standards and definitions of a “War Crime” and “War of Aggression” than this trial and Tribunal will have been a foolish exercise and a joke.”
            The only enduring question: Has the United States (and its so-called allies) acted in and conducted itself (themselves) consistent with the Nuremberg principles and values?
            dennis hanna

      1. Don’t care. Don’t want to know.

        They won. Long ago. Only fools believe otherwise.

        Ignorant and apathetic is no way to go through life.

  5. “The CIA had already told the FBI that Page was a U.S. intelligence asset, not a Russian spy. ”

    What the CIA actually told them was that Page had supplied them with information. It made no other judgement about Page.

    1. You are not credible. Provide proof of the distinction. The files released seem to demonstrate something different.

    2. Rod, so somehow Carter Paige worked with the CIA and gave them intelligence but he wasn’t a CIA asset. Don’t worry. We all are going to stand on our heads so as to understand your reasoning.

    3. What the CIA actually told them was that Page had supplied them with information. It made no other judgement about Page.

      Is that you Clinesmith? The CIA told them in an email that Page was a source for the CIA. You want to characterize that as he was the go to guy on where to get a good pizza. Pathetic.


    By inciting the Capitol Riots, Trump confirmed he’s a stooge for Putin. Steele was right all along. Durham is no longer needed.

    1. Aninny:

      By inciting the Capitol Riots, Trump confirmed he’s a stooge for Putin. Steele was right all along. Durham is no longer needed.”
      Time warp? You’ve got a brain warp. “Acquitted” means Trump didn’t incite anything and no prosecutor will indict him for it.

      1. Mespo, Trump’s ‘aquittal’ don’t mean sh!t! We all know what we saw that day. We don’t have to pretend Trump is innocent because 43 Republican senators are afraid of Trump’s base.

        1. Estovar, there’s a new report out that quotes Kamala and Nancy Pelosi telling the summer rioters to patriotically and peacefully continue their mostly peaceful protests. I’ve been searching for a confirmation for days to no avail. The only peacefully and patriotically quote that I can find is from Trump. Perhaps you can help me with some research to confirm the new report. I’m sure it’s out there somewhere.

    2. You often lie so big and bold ?. Or just drink the koolaide by the left a gallon at a time. Methinks both.

        1. And you analnomonys are drinking koolides laced with mint green ethanol if you think this last Impeachment was not a left wing circus of mistruths , hyperbole and yahoo stupid media time.

        2. Have you noticed that instead of thinning hair, Joe Biden seems to have more hair on top? He’s spending a lot on hair plugs these days, eh?

          He’s also had not one, but two brain aneurisms in his past. So, let’s see….who would most people want in the White House getting things done? ‘Grandpa earpiece pudding brain’ or Trump? It’s kinda obvi.

          1. And by “people” I am excluding the Establishment media, political class, donor class “people.” I’m talking about We The People.

          2. I know. Biden, without question. A shartmeister skank in the oval for the 4 previous years was a travesty.

            1. Grandpa ‘pudding brain’ is not even making his own calls to world leaders and he is only three weeks in. “Some have also noted how Harris may be setting up to lead the U.S. delegation at the G8 in June, especially if Biden is still busy playing Mario Kart.”

              1. Wow, that would be just awful since trump was successful at the G8j during his time in office. Bahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!


        3. Oh, he is guilty alright. He incited an insurrection by coming down an escalator to announce he’s running for President.

    3. The people who actually engaged in criminal behavior on January 6th may be “stooges.” Nothing President Trump comes close to incitement. Like it or not, what he said is protected political speech as much as what Representative Waters says.

    4. Anon, let’s follow your assertion about rioters being an instrument of Putin. It must then necessarily follow that the BLM and Antifa rioters must also be Putin stooges. If there was proof that the Steele Dossier was true do you think that CNN and MSNBC would still be presenting it as evidence to paint Republicans as traitors. Now what we hear from these networks on the dossier is absolutely zero. You continue to claim that the dossier is true but CNN and MSNBC long ago dropped it like a hot rock. Why not throw in your belief in Big Foot while your at it. Yours is a voice of desperation.

  7. Christopher Steele was a reliable source for the FBI…designating him as such was not a false claim…saying that it was a false claim IS a false claim…

    1. Oh dear lord… Steele was a “reliable source”….. jeez louise do you even know what you are typing. After Mr steal was placated with loads of clintoon & DNC cash to come up with this novella of deep state conspiracy vomit he didn’t get the political support and desired effect he had in mind.So he went around peddling disinformation to his media whore friends. It’s so obvious a farce…yet deluded social fascists like you believe whatever fits your bent.

    2. There seems to be quite a few people who don’t understand what is meant by “reliable source.” The latter is a person whose information can be corroborated in some fashion. So, it’s entirely possible that some information provided by Mr. Steele was useful, in some context. Everything any source says is subject to verification.

      1. Mistress, Comey himself said that the FBI was not “sufficiently able to confirm the report”. His memo was discussing a particular subject. Is it possible that at one time or another Steele had provided credible information to the FBI? Sure it’s possible. However, one would hope that before signing a warrant to spy on an American citizen and the Trump campaign being “sufficiently able to confirm the report” might be a required criteria. This particular incident has no relationship to other incidences in the past. Comey’s obvious motivation was against the Trump campaign. How difficult would it have been for the FBI with all their assets to follow the money to Clinton. Don’t you understand that Comey was trying to save the world. In such a holy pursuit one must not let the facts get in the way. Comey’s acceptance to the Sainthood is soon forthcoming. When your a Saint you never expect to get caught. I apologize. I could have said all of this in one short description. Crooked Cop.

  8. Almost all those supporting Biden that are were on this blog during the events detailed by Turley were wrong on almost a daily basis about the most important details Turley provides. Those bloggers provided news stories, frequently anonymous ones, from the NYT and WaPo that were wrong or lies. This pattern has continued through today yet none of them have admitted that they were wrong. Instead they persist in arguing similar issues where they are wrong as well.

    Where are the retractions from the NYT and WaPo? The funny thing is that Just the News, John Solomon, Breitbart, Fox and all the rest of the news media that told the truth were called liars by most of the Biden people on this blog. That tells us who and what these people are.

    1. The distance between your *delusions* and *reality* are quantified by *infinity*…

      1. Should we be attributing this to a new poster or one that cannot keep one name and icon?

        Let’s hear how you prove your contentions or do you fit side by side with Anonymous the Stupid.

      2. Rod, all you have to do is point out where S. Meyer is wrong. Perhaps you could enlighten us of where he is delusional by pointing out exactly what he said that is a deviance from reality. A declaration without example is just a cheap playground tactic that requires no mental exercise.

  9. No media will “cover” this story. There is no honest media today. These so-called journalists go on CNN and MSNBC and simply regurgitate debunked Biden talking points and call it reporting. They don’t fact check Kamala Harris’s lies, or Biden’s lies. It’s not journalism they are doing; it’s propaganda. The Big Lie is that we have an honest media.

    1. Dude, quit going to cable news shows for news. They are opinion networks.

      Don’t read FB and watch YouTube for news. That’s somebody’s crazy uncle.

      Read the AP, Reuters, WSJ, NYTs, WaPO, Miami Herald, LA Times,. etc

      1. NYT’s reporting is a disgrace now and so is WaPo. Yamiche Alcindor of PBS is one of the worst. I’m talking about the reporters who go on the cable shows and flatout lie.

        1. The National Pulse is another source —–>

          Vice President Kamala Harris has begun to take calls on behalf of President Joe Biden, raising questions about his ability to do the job of President.

          “The White House published a readout yesterday entitled “Readout of Vice President Kamala Harris Call with President Emmanuel Macron of France.”

          It states:

          Vice President Kamala Harris spoke today with President Emmanuel Macron of France, and expressed her commitment to strengthening bilateral ties between the United States and France and to revitalizing the transatlantic alliance. Vice President Harris and President Macron agreed on the need for close bilateral and multilateral cooperation to address COVID-19, climate change, and support democracy at home and around the world. They also discussed numerous regional challenges, including those in the Middle East and Africa, and the need to confront them together. The Vice President thanked President Macron for his leadership on the issue of gender equality and for France’s contribution to NASA’s Mars 2020 Perseverance rover.

          It is bizarre for a Vice President to be making contact with key world leaders just weeks into a new administration.

          Harris also recently spoke with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

          The President has also still refused to call the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu.

          In 2020, Biden called himself a “transition candidate,” raising eyebrows about his commitment to the job and his ability to serve his full first term, let alone a potential two.

          Some have also noted how Harris may be setting up to lead the U.S. delegation at the G8 in June, especially if Biden is still busy playing Mario Kart.

      2. Only WSJ has anything like a right leaning editorial board. Their reportage is basically left of center.
        All the others are dedicated to left wing propaganda.

        Sadly, fact based journalism is a thing of the past.

        1. Yep, they don’t even hide it any longer. You’d think they could add an occasional “claimed without evidence” sneer to their reporting on Harris/Biden. Funny how not a single story about Trump went without it. Fact-checking seems to have disappeared too.

        2. ti37, the issue is where to go for news, not editorials. The ones I listed above are the best in the world at that.

      3. Anon JoeFriday. The N.Y. Times has retracted their reporting that officer Sicknick was killed with a fire extinguisher. Excuse me if I don’t open their pages for the news. This is not an isolated incident. Off the top of my head comes their Covington kids story. Thanks for the advice but I’ll have to pass.

        1. Yeah, thinkit, you stick with the sources that don’t do retractions. Makes a lot of sense.

      1. Get over it ?. I relished her losing…she was expected to be anointed queen…but she and her deep staters took their eye off the people and we the people put her on the street. This last election your deep staters in collusion with big tech oligarchs and chicom cash had to rig…because they could not beat the people fair and square. So if you still have to say “get over cankles McFraud’s loss” you are most certainly down with lord darth biden of china’s fraud. Truth , fairness and reality are not in your creed.

        1. The EC put trump in, the ‘people’ didn’t. Trump has yet to win a popular vote, and he’s trending in a bad direction in that respect.

          Elvis Bug

  10. Law Enforcement does this all the time, and they all do it, state, local, and federal. Innocent people get raided, searched, and sometimes killed for it. They use shitty info that they know is suspect to get warrants. It is how they roll. So unless JT and the commentators support a full change of behavior then your outrage rings hollow. You don’t care that the FBI did this, you care that the FBI did this against Trump.

    1. MollyG, what are you ranting about? Provide some context, because based on your comment, you are unfamiliar with the process of getting warrants, in general, never mind FISA warrants.

      1. Examples are numerous beyond count and anyone following criminal justice issues knows them all too well. Breonna Taylor is a recent and public example of questionable warrant practices including false information in the warrant application..Also well documented cases where police claim that used tea leafs are pot.

        1. first thing Molly has said i agree with in recent memory. yes the police regularly lie in probable cause affidavits all over the country. local, state, feds, all of them. it’s pathetic. very little respect for swearing on one’s oath

          about how it relates to Trump and the false FISA warrant, there is no inconsistency in condemning it. Consider however how widely it is accepted if they are doing this not only to every tom dick and harry who can’t hire a lawyer to defend him, but how much more accepted it is now, to abuse the rights of citizens, if they can do it to a major presidential candidate. it pretty much says that this element of due process protection is all shot to hell for sure.

          it would help if the mass media would stop taking police at their word on a regular basis. they say “alleged” and roll their eyes. it’s disgusting. this is the green light given to people to simply believe every allegation that rolls off some cop’s tongue. again I would ask, who really wants it this way?

          why, perhaps it is those financial powers who control the media through their ownership of it, who want it this way.,

          For example. A famous man was pinched in Florida for soliciting improper massage. Of course the massage workers were too. the persecutor called it a “clear cut case of human trafficking” and the NYT dutifully and earnestly repeated the lie.

          Well time went by and it turns out that there was no such “human trafficking” ie slavery whatsoever going on at that little shop. There was a lot of massage and some of it may have crossed the line of the various regulations. But the lying persecutor did not even try to bring a “human trafficking” charge and instead opted for an assortment of misdemeanors. I am not sure even if any of those stuck at all. bottom line, the workers were well paid, safe, and voluntary. If not always scrupulous of their observance of the draping and touching rules.

          Imagine calling a hard working, peaceful, productive middle aged woman a slave-master. Reprehensible defamation. Yet that’s a regular occurrence. Happens in nearly every “massage parlor” raid around this country and at least before the COVID mess they were happening continuously. Human trafficking! because nobody wants the cops to bother with busts for handjobs– the cops know that, so, to justify their budgets, they play up this human trafficking stuff instead. And yet they rarely prove it– and the papers never post any updates or retractions.

          Other typical abuses law enforcement commits in these specifics. The police go to the massage parlor and ask again and again for a handjob. No, no no, but persistence often is rewarded, and then they finally get one. Then they keep on coming and getting them. This goes on for years– until for whatever reason, the higher ups decide to call in the chips and make a raid. Then there is a seizure of money under racketeering rules– that’s usually the true motivation– and a call to the press who dutifully repeats lies that a bunch of middle aged women were slaves simply because they were saving money on rent by sleeping in the shop. Well, this pious LE fraud was a well worn path that had been going on for a long time. it seems to have died off in the COVID since many of these businesses have been shuttered for half the past year anyways.

          one imagines that the police play the same game with dope dealers too. they buy buy buy and only once in a while do they actually bother to mount a prosecution. meanwhile they’re out there buying buying buying again and again, and one supposes, mostly with the taxpayer’s money. I often wonder do they book all that “evidence” or does most of it “go up in smoke?”

          Here’s another thing that police may sometimes do in vice raids of both types. They skim the seizure. They steal from the dope dealer or massage facility. that’s right, they steal. They seize $4,000, pocket half, book $2,000. Nobody complains and even if the charges are dropped the department usually keeps the $2k. And of course nobody already under charges dares to accuse a bunch of cops of stealing even though that is precisely what often occurs.

          And again, since there is no true investigative reporting anymore, such things rarely are revealed outside those who are in the guts of the system. ie the cops, the lawyers, and the “alleged perpetrators.”

          Sal Sar

          1. Here is an interesting little article about the dubious ethics of police being allowed to go out there and hire sex acts (and go through with them, yes, all the way to a “happy ending” ) and make it a very unhappy ending for the deceived sex worker. This is legal in most states and happens often and sometimes for years in advance of a “bust” as the police are out there getting HJ after HJ on the public dime. yes, this is a disgusting abuse of police power but of course our incompetent fake news never reports about it.


            Sal Sar

    2. Molly Gee. You assume that Professor Turley has overlooked other abuses by law enforcement. You provide no examples to support your premise. Through your inference you somehow think that this is a defense of the actions of James Comey. You can’t say that Pretty Boy Floyd was a real bad guy because you didn’t mention that Al Capone was also a nefarious criminal. Just trying to understand how you put this all together in your brain.

  11. Durham.

    Never has so much been promised and so little delivered.

    What a waste of time that man is.

    Typical government bureaucrat.

    1. monument! Don’t give up the faith man! Olly has been promising the Kracken coming with this guy for 2 years and after McCabe being indicted – wait, did that happen? – was along the path to Obama and Biden being convicted. Hang in there man!

    2. That is a big question. Can we trust anyone who has been in government for any length of time?

  12. A Turley specialty! Use a bit of something that’s been ‘discredited’ to squash a whole document. Truth is, some parts of the Steele dossier are completely valid while some are questionable. Not an all or nothing proposition.

    FWIW I don’t have much of a problem believing trumpy bear would pay hookers to piss in a bed he knew Obama has previously slept in. May or may not be true…, it’s totally in the realm of the possible though.

    Next column is about Hunter, right???

    Elvis Bug

    1. Use a bit of something”

      This demonstrates the inability of the left to understand the problems created when the head of the FBI permits lies without penalty to go forward and FISA warrants to be obtained. Pure foolishness. Demonstrates a lack of understanding of how fragile a Constitutional Republic is.

      1. Actually fanning the flames of division as a primary policy and inciting riots at the Capitol highlight how fragile a constitutional republic do that. How could you possibly not understand this???


        1. Elvis, to understand, first you have to become a rational thinker that bases ones thoughts on the known facts. The riot was not under Trump’s control and was planned by some long before. Add to that, Trump called for peaceful behavior, not riotous behavior and the gathering occurred before Trump even finished his speech.

          I know rational and factual thought are difficult for you. I hope thoughts of this nature will awaken some intellectual capacity we have not seen from you. You have left your ability to think dormant too long.

          1. Let me know when you get released from moron prison and get within 10 area codes of rational thought, Allan. I’ll send up the party balloons.


    2. Ha , EB …. You typically justify the witch hunt because there in your mind might be validity in some of the fecal smear comey & the deep state applied to their narrative. Nice try there , but no dice. Meanwhile your appointed senile lord darth biden of china sleeps in early by a fireplace while his green weenie energy gods fail to keep Americans warm. Oh and now he’s pushing gun control when he can’t even figure out what he’s already done …imagine that. More symbolism over substance. Jeez it feels like clintoon all over again…but instead of hearing “it’s the economy stupid”…now we are hearing racist,more illegals, and trust big brother from the senile white man’s handlers.

      1. Wow, deflection salad!! Nice in the realm of crazed reaction. Someone cares about what you just went all ADD with. Not me, of course. But someone.


  13. Another issue that is absurd about this is the comparison between the way the so-called “Intelligence Community” reacted here and when the story about Hunter Biden’s laptop was released.

    In the first situation, there was no reaction from anyone, either current or former, in a position to know anything. In the second situation, there was the almost-immediate release of a letter signed by fifty former(?) members of the so-called “Intelligence Community” that declared without a shadow of a doubt, that the story was “Russian disinformation.”

    James Comey is one of the major reasons I refuse to use the term, “law enforcement,” when speaking of the police departments and sheriff departments of the nation.

  14. Another stupidly dishonest column from our Republican propagandist Turley. He writee

    ” It had also been warned that Hillary Clinton’s campaign was trying to plant a false Russian collusion story in the media.

    then links to one of his own columns where we learn this is an unproven allegation.

    Given that Hillary never brought it up in her hundreds of appearances of the campaign – including in debates with Trump where the drama would have been through the roof,, nor did any of her lieutenants, it is obviously BS. In fact, even when Comey knee capped her 2 weeks before the election with his announcement of the renewed investigation into her emails, neither she or her campaign or Obama or Biden or Comey mentioned that “Hey voters, by the way, Trump’s campaign is also under FBI investigation now.”

    The undeniable fact is:


    Carry on with your daily propaganda Jonathan. Your audience is shrinking to the true believers looking for MAGA porn.

    1. AnonJF

      Another post where you insult the moderator (and our host).

      From now on, I will know to pass over your posts.

        1. Anon, that’s Monumentcolorado you blew off. He’s one of the most prominent conservatives on this blog. ..Not..!

    2. Joe. yes. there is a deep state. essentially it is a concept that embraces the notion that there are deeply entrenched bureaucracies with their own agendas that may be divergent from the explicit laws of the state and generally accepted notions held about their roles by the public.

      but the deep state is not unified in its actions, as the notion embraces a wide swath of bureaucracies

      here we see that the FBI and CIA were at loggerheads ,to some extent, in how they were trying to use the various “investigations” and “operations” such as they were

      it is entirely possible, moreover, that the “deep state” seeks in every election cycle, to ‘COMPROMISE” ie WEAKEN …. BOTH CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT

      the “Deep State” if it has any brains at all– and I think it does– if it seeks its own interests– as they clearly do– will attempt to get “kompromat” on BOTH candidates, so as to control EITHER ONE

      this is simple game theory and strategy.

      if you can rise above your partisan preferences for a moment, you may understand how the apparent conflict you allude to is resolved

      Sal Sar

  15. I hope the good professor will be just as inquisitive in covering the Congressional investigation into Trump’s role in the 1/6 insurrection and your employer’s immoral championing of the Big Lie of massive fraud. As well, I hope we can count on your analyzing the criminal investigation of Trump’s attempting to fraudulently corrupt the Georgia election results. Please don’t just do Fox’s bidding. Show a little independence and impartiality. You owe that to your readers.

    1. Is that you nancy peeloosi ?…… please just go on vacation…America works just fine without you !.

  16. Face it. They got away with it all, and nothing is going to stop them from trying this again. Welcome to Venezuela North.

Comments are closed.