FBI Agent: Comey and Other Leadership Were “Fired Up” to Pursue the False Alfa Bank Claims

FBI leadership, including then-Director James Comey, was “fired up” about the alleged secret communications channel between the Trump Organization and Russia’s Alfa Bank. The question is why Comey and others were so reportedly eager given the lack of foundation for the false claim — a record that even the researchers told the Clinton campaign could be mocked as utterly unsupported. Yet, as with the Steele dossier claims (funded and spread by the Clinton campaign) there was a strikingly receptive audience for such claims at the top of the FBI.

The new disclosure came with the testimony of the supervisory agent for the FBI’s Trump-Russia probe (“Crossfire Hurricane”) Joe Pientka. He sent a note to FBI Special Agent Curtis Heide that stated “People on the 7th floor to include Director are fired up about this server,” Pientka messaged Heide. “Did you guys open a case? Reach out and put tools on?”

The description of the eagerness of Comey and others only magnified concerns over the alleged bias or the predisposition of the agency on the investigation of Trump and his campaign. It is particularly striking in an allegation that was viewed as unsupported even by the researchers and quickly dismissed by the government as baseless.

According to Durham, the Alfa Bank allegation fell apart even before Sussmann delivered it to the FBI. The indictment details how an unnamed “tech executive” allegedly used his authority at multiple internet companies to help develop the ridiculous claim. (The executive reportedly later claimed that he was promised a top cyber security job in the Clinton administration). Notably, there were many who expressed misgivings not only within the companies working on the secret project but also among unnamed “university researchers” who repeatedly said the argument was bogus.

The researchers were told they should not be looking for proof but just enough to “give the base of a very useful narrative.” The researchers argued, according to the indictment, that anyone familiar with analyzing internet traffic “would poke several holes” in that narrative, noting that what they saw likely “was not a secret communications channel with Russian Bank-1, but ‘a red herring,’” according to the indictment.

“Researcher-1” repeated these doubts, the indictment says, and asked, “How do we plan to defend against the criticism that this is not spoofed traffic we are observing? There is no answer to that. Let’s assume again that they are not smart enough to refute our ‘best case scenario.’ You do realize that we will have to expose every trick we have in our bag to even make a very weak association.”

The alleged response from Comey and the FBI leadership would seem to confirm the view of campaign associates that they only needed a “useful narrative” to achieve their purposes. It only took an unsupported, implausible theory to get Comey and his top aides “fired up.”

200 thoughts on “FBI Agent: Comey and Other Leadership Were “Fired Up” to Pursue the False Alfa Bank Claims”

  1. How many of you who comment at this site have done any digging into exactly who are the principals behind the Crowdstrike organization?
    That our own Federal Bureau of Investigation did NOT take possession of the ‘hacked’ DNC computer system/servers, etc., but relied 100% on the report provided to them by this Crowdstrike company spoke volumes to me when I first read it in the Mueller report — that our FBI, considering the extreme severity of the hacking event, relied on an organization of potentially compromised ownership and pedigree, is unthinkable— and yet it happened. That our FBI does not have the competence to do its own investigation is breathtaking.
    And so those who question the conclusion of this Crowdstrike company that ‘Russia’ hacked the DNC needed to be questioned and wasn’t questioned — There are many more odd events surrounding the 2016 campaign, not to mention this Sussman and Elias fraud.

    1. Richard Lowe, the FBI HAS 35,000 employees and somehow they couldn’t analyze the computer for themselves. A “C” should be added to they’re acronym. Clinton Federal Bureau of Investigation. Kinda catchy dontcha think.

    2. “our own Federal Bureau of Investigation did NOT take possession of the ‘hacked’ DNC computer system/servers, etc., but relied 100% on the report provided to them by this Crowdstrike company”

      You’re correct that the FBI didn’t take possession of the servers.

      You’re wrong that the FBI “relied 100% on the report provided to them by” Crowdstrike. Crowdstrike gave the FBI “images” (byte-for-byte copies) of the servers. Shawn Henry testified about that under oath, and Comey confirmed it, saying that Crowdstrike had given the FBI the “forensics,” which includes the data.

      1. “Forensics” is the results of data distillation
        Muller used nothing but the redacted draft copy of the ‘forensics report”
        There has never been an FBI report.

        In congressional testimony that same year, former FBI Director James Comey acknowledged that the FBI “never got direct access to the machines themselves,” and instead relied on CrowdStrike, which “shared with us their forensics from their review of the system.”

        “Henry’s testimony seems at variance with Comey’s suggestion of complete information sharing. He told Congress that CrowdStrike provided “a couple of actual digital images” of DNC hard drives, out of a total number of “in excess of 10, I think.” In other cases, Henry said, CrowdStrike provided its own assessment of them. The firm, he said, provided “the results of our analysis based on what our technology went out and collected.”


        1. Henry reiterated his claim on multiple occasions:

          “There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left.”

          “There’s not evidence that they were actually exfiltrated. There’s circumstantial evidence but no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated.”

          “There is circumstantial evidence that that data was exfiltrated off the network. … We didn’t have a sensor in place that saw data leave. We said that the data left based on the circumstantial evidence. That was the conclusion that we made.”

          “Sir, I was just trying to be factually accurate, that we didn’t see the data leave, but we believe it left, based on what we saw.”
          Asked directly if he could “unequivocally say” whether “it was or was not exfiltrated out of DNC,” Henry told the committee: “I can’t say based on that.”

        2. Iowan, you say that ““Forensics” is the results of data distillation” while ignoring that for the FBI, forensics is ALSO the collection of the data itself.

          And I pointed that out to you by quoting the FBI about it in our previous discussion, which notes that the FBI’s meaning for “forensics” is “the collection and analysis of digital evidence, also known as computer forensics”: https://jonathanturley.org/2022/05/11/the-mob-is-right-georgetown-law-professor-calls-supports-aggressive-protests-at-the-homes-of-justices/comment-page-3/#comment-2183519

          See where it says “collection … of digital evidence”?

          You ignore that, because it undermines your delusion.

          I don’t know whether you’re purposefully lying or if you’re just choosing to delude yourself, but either way, you’re repeatedly wrong about this, and your eyes/ears are closed to the evidence that shows you to be wrong.

          1. More than 10 images, FBI got two

            The FBI NEVER produced a finding/report. ,,,because they never got anything of significance to base a conclusion.

            Even Crowd strikes admits they never had evidence the data left. There is not a single bit of evidence the FBI created a report.

  2. I was taught to respect officers of the law no matter their position or designation. I suppose Jack Webb also had some influence there. FBI were top shelf in respectability and reputation.

    What has happened is that a number of top echelon FBI leaders come straight from school into administration without having to do the hard yards and years in the field before going into leadership. Something is lost in translation.

    There seems to be confusion of what is legal and what is ethical and going the extra mile to maintain the pristine image that so many good FBI officers have painstakingly built, day in and day out, over the decades. Perhaps something is barely legal but if it is unethical or has any appearance of conflicts of interest or does not pass a gut check it should be immediately tabled.

    These few bad apples and their actions have flushed that pristine image down the drain. This is the tragedy.

    It is time that our “leaders” are held accountable with punishment that goes far beyond a slap on the hand.

    I won’t hold my breath.

    1. E.M., i too grew up with a respect for the FBI. You say that it’s just a few bad apples at the top but sadly my response must be, where are the whistleblowers? It is a heavy hearted question.

      1. ThinkitThrough,
        It is a heavy hearted question. Those who hold such positions of responsibility and training must be held to an even higher standard than a rank and file citizen. Trust is fundamental; easily shattered and difficult to earn.

  3. The FBI senior leadership was complicit in this fraud:

    1. They were “fired up” and insisted a full investigation be opened in Chicago. According to Pientka there was no option.

    2. Someone told Chicago that the information had come through the DOJ — in fact it came through Sussman.

    3. Chicago wanted to know, and to interview, the sources of the information; HQ refused.

    4. When the information was shown to be baseless, they never investigated why it was provided, and by whom, despite the CIA communication to Comey that Clinton had hatched a plot to link Trump to Russia to distract from her email scandal, and despite knowledge that Sussman was working at least for the DNC on cybersecurity matters.

    Sadly, none at the FBI will be held accountable.

    1. HQ didn’t know the source of the information. Joffe hired Sussmann to keep Joffe protected by attorney-client privilege.

      The information was provided because there was anomalous data and it was already known that Russia was interfering in the election. The FBI asks people to report things like this so that they can investigate. Sometimes it turns out to be something serious and other times it doesn’t.

      A reminder that you claimed — based on the allegations in the indictment — that Durham would present clear evidence at trial that Sussmann billed HFA for the meeting with Baker. Durham has now rested his case without doing so.

      1. The billing records charging 3.3 hours to the campaign on Sept 19 were introduced as evidence this morning, as were receipts for two thumb drives charged to the campaign. Whether it’s enough to persuade the jury remains to be seen.

        They knew who Sussman was, and a real investigation would have gone back to him to say the information he provided was bogus and ask him where he got it. They did not do that.

        1. Daniel,

          “An entry on Sussmann’s expense reports reflects $58.56 billed to the Clinton campaign for thumb drives on Sept. 13, 2016, six days before his meeting with Baker. However, a receipt from a Staples store near Sussmann’s office in downtown Washington, D.C., showed he bought multiple thumb drives that day, raising the possibility that some were billed to the campaign and others were not.
          “Sussmann’s defense further muddied the waters by pointing to another expense submission explicitly linked to his Sept. 19 meeting at the FBI: $28.00 for taxi fares that day. Sussmann charged those fares to a generic business development account at his then-law firm, Perkins Coie. “It’s not billed to Hillary for America,” defense attorney Michael Bosworth pointed out.
          “Sussmann’s billing records from Perkins Coie produced similar ambiguity. Assistant special counsel Michael Keilty showed jurors an email Sussmann sent to an assistant on Sept. 20, instructing her to record four-and-a-half hours of work for the Clinton campaign the previous day for ‘work on written materials; other work and multiple telephone conferences regarding confidential project.’
          “Keilty also displayed an email Sussmann sent two days before the November election, asking that 3.3 hours of work be recorded for the Clinton campaign on Sept. 19 for “work and comms regarding confidential project.” It was unclear whether the latter entry was supposed to replace the former or supplement it. Bosworth suggested that the firm billing entries are no smoking gun because neither says anything about the FBI. He also noted that other entries in Sussmann’s billing records do explicitly identify meetings at the FBI for the Clinton campaign.”

          In an 8 hour (or more) work day, there is zero reason to assume that the 3.3 (or 4.5) hours billed to HFA overlaps with the Baker meeting, unless the meeting itself is billed to HFA.

      2. Joffe hired Sussmann to keep Joffe protected by attorney-client privilege.
        But you yourself has said Sussmann was NOT representing Joffee or Clinton during the meeting with FBI Baker.

        1. There is another weakness to Sussman’s defense, pointed out by Andrew C McCarthy.

          Sussman is claiming that he could not have been representing the campaign when he met Baker because the campaign did not trust the FBI and because that would have hurt the campaign’s efforts to get the story out to the media, since they knew the FBI would have requested a pause of media outlets once they began investigating.

          So he met Baker as a Good Samaritan acting on his own.

          But given that this was against the interests of his client, the meeting would have violated Sussman’s ethical duty of loyalty as a lawyer to his client.

          The effort to get this to the FBI is parallel as well to the similar efforts made with the Steele dossier.

          1. “So he met Baker as a Good Samaritan acting on his own.”

            No, his lawyers have said that he met Baker as a Good Samaritan representing Joffe but not seeking a benefit for Joffe.

            “the meeting would have violated Sussman’s ethical duty of loyalty as a lawyer to his client.”

            He has more than one client. I doubt that he has any professional duty to be “loyal” to one client (HFA) when doing something related to a different client (Joffe).

        2. “you yourself has said Sussmann was NOT representing Joffee [sic] …”

          No, I said that Sussmann admitted to being there on behalf of Joffe in the sense that Sussmann was representing Joffe, but not there on behalf of Joffe in the sense of seeking a benefit for Joffe.

          “or Clinton”

          I’ve said that Joffe denies representing Clinton at the meeting with Baker.

          Don’t lie about what I’ve said.

  4. I don’t know what t say. Even our host expressed doubt back then. Minus the trolls, those of us that frequent this site are more or less on the same page, at least in terms of law. I sure hope it all amounts to something. If Hills has the audacity to run again, I hope very much that her humiliation is at least thrice as great. Enough, already.

  5. To all the naysayers on the left!

    The Mule and all his Jack—‘s (donkey’s) couldn’t find any evidence of Collusion, the lying Swifty couldn’t prove anything, yet you’ll still look straight ahead into the blissful believe that there must be something there. Remove your blinders and look to the left and then the right and you might find that you’ve been lied to by your illustrious leaders. Zealots abound in the DC swamp professing salvation, yet only represent fraud and malice. The actions of those responsible for this fraud on the United States of America have cast us into a sea Perdition, ruination in the belief of a representative Government by and for the people.

  6. 🤔 So the political rookie and foreign asset of Russia, Donald Trump, is an evil genius. He ran such a sophisticated campaign that not only outsmarted our elite IC/FBI/DOJ, but their foreign counterparts throughout the world as well. And in doing so, he managed to leave a trail of evidence that made it appear Clinton, the DNC, the IC/FBI/DOJ etc. had engineered the entire thing. Oh, and to make matters worse. President Trump stole the Democratic party’s platform as he Made America Great Again, forcing the Democratic party to adopt socialism as their party’s platform.

    OR, Trump wasn’t an asset of Russian after all. That trail of evidence wasn’t left by Trump but by Clinton, the DNC, the IC/FBI/DOJ etc. And the Democrats were forced towards a socialist platform because Trump stole every plank that appealed to roughly 2/3’s of the country.

    Alrighty then.

  7. John Durham has succeeded. Mueller was a failure. Durham has a rock solid case, given the silence of the wolves in legacy media.

    Biden is a dead log floating on the scum of the DNC, DOJ and FBI. Dems are hoping no one notices the downward trajectory of our country. Alas, Americans know all too well the disastrous effects of the Dems terrorizing them, their children, their cities, their health….everything.


    President Joe Biden’s approval rating has plummeted to nearly its lowest point since he took office amid multiple crises, a Reuters/Ipsos poll revealed Wednesday.

    Only 36 percent of Americans approve of Biden’s job performance, while 59 percent disapprove. The approval number is a downward shift from last week when 42 percent approved of Biden.

    Since August, Biden’s leadership has manufactured and permitted several crises.

    America continues to suffer under 40-year-high inflation. The southern border remains unsecured, fentanyl has become the greatest killer among 18- to 45-year-olds, gas prices have increased to all-time highs, weekly wages have shrunk, and supply chain woes have persisted.

    The Reuters poll sampled 1,005 Americans with a margin of error of four percentage points. The poll sampled 456 Democrats and 358 Republicans.

    1. “Durham has a rock solid case”

      No he doesn’t. For example, his evidence that Sussmann represented the Clinton campaign at this meeting is really weak, as was demonstrated by his billing witness today.

      Durham has rested his case and now we hear from the defense.

        1. I’m not sure this jury is a problem. My guess is the prosecution is using this trial to prepare for the next. Sussman was indicted on one count of lying to the FBI General Counsel. Did Sussman tell the FBI he was not working on the aforementioned allegations “for any client?Yes. Does Sussman’s billing records prove he was actually working for a client when he met with the FBI? Well, he had 3.3 hours billed to the Clinton campaign for the same day. Is that proof? It’s kind of thin, but why did we need several days of testimony to get there? Well, new details have emerged from witnesses testifying on the record. Maybe it will be enough for a conviction in this case, but I suspect Durham has his eyes on bigger fish.

  8. If I were an FBI agent, I think I would be embarrassed by all my senior leadership. This is like, Keystone Kopps level of incompetence.

  9. “FBI opened no fewer than 10 Trump investigations…
    1 Crossfire Hurricane
    2 Crossfire Fury
    3 Crossfire Dragon (+FISAs)
    4 Crossfire Razor
    5 Crossfire Typhoon
    6 Cross Wind
    7 Alfa Bank (NYFO)
    8 Alfa Bank (CHI FO)
    9 Trump C.I.
    10 Trump Obstruction

    … and all but 2 had a Hillary source.”

    ~Paul Sperry

  10. Professor Turley writes that the FBI was foaming at the mouth to help Hillary find some dirt on Trump. You will read other posters here who say that the Professor’s accusation of the FBI is unfounded. As a counter argument I offer for your discernment one Peter Strzok who said that they can’t let Trump be President and the as a representatives of the FBI will stop it. In addition I offer for your evaluation the fact that an FBI agent named Kevin Clinesmith who was found guilty of altering a document that was submitted to a FISA court that resulted in a warrant authorization the spying on a member of the Trump campaign. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/29/fbi-lawyer-trump-russia-probe-email-463750. Need I also list the enthusiasm of James Comey? Enthusiasm is an understatement. The proper description should be obsession.

  11. The last two special councils, Starr and Mueller, were formed based on zero evidence of Presidential wrongdoing. And the utterly predictable happened as a result. The Presidents in both instances had their approval go up. The American people in general, and independents in particular, don’t buy this kind of stuff.
    Should Trump run again, he has pretty much made the Russia hoax a wash by perpetrating an evidence free election fraud hoax of his own. He handed back his political gain from the Mueller farce.

  12. These disclosures weigh heavily in favor of creating an Election Integrity Rapid Response Office EIRRO within DOJ and including expertise from the foreign service. EIRRO will be the neutral, fast-responding referee conspicuously absent from our most contentious and high-stakes competitions: Presidential Elections and their Campaigns.

    All EIRRO staff would be vetted and sworn to political neutrality in their investigatory work. They would be “hands-off” from administrative interference, the same way the Special Counsel. They would bring together the best campaign investigators.

    A key feature of EIRRO would be that all campaigns would have to spot their chief counsel as official liaison to EIRRO, with responsibilities to cooperate and provide requested information within 24-hours. Having a direct line to each campaign would help EIRRO move rapidly to sort out accusations of misconduct. EIRRO would be available as a referee that campaigns could discreetly pose questions to about the legality of borderline tactics.

    EIRRO would deter a campaign from going public with unverified accusations of wrongdoing before contacting EIRRO — and EIRRO would be obliged to report probable-cause evidence of wrongdoing to the public without delay. However, accusations that turn out to be groundless would not be publicized, unless a campaign chose to go with the court of public opinion instead of using EIRRO for an objective , fact-based investigation.

    At the very least, setting up an EIRRO would prevent DOJ/FBI/CIA brass from taking up politically-charged investigations themselves.
    Do I trust the culture within DOJ to create and defend the professional standards needed?….absolutely. We need a referee role to keep Presidential Elections clean, and it must possess the elements of neutrality, speed, authority and instant connection to campaign lawyers.

    Or, we could take sides, and fight for incremental advantage of our side in winning elections. Am I the only one who thinks that will not end well?

    1. Sounds like a good plan. However un fortunately I do not share faith in DOJ,FBI or more importantly the CIA

  13. the upper level of leadership in the FBI and the DOJ had a political agenda and were determined to destroy the campaign and presidency of Donald Trump. This is rogue government at its worst and those involved MUST be held accountable. And there is no doubt at all, Obama and Biden were involved

  14. All the evidence in the world can’t never overcome hatred. Hatred makes us irrational.

  15. Turley sure loves to feed the rage by making claims thru hearsay. He sure has a lot of “alleged” sayings and rumors that are only used to feed the rage of his readers. This is why Turley is a massive hypocrite.

    Enigma is right. The alpha bank connection to Trump is still true and according to a few individuals here that is absolute proof that Trump was colluding with Russia. The proof? The lack of proof is the biggest clue. We already know Trump is a liar and a thief so it’s natural that he colluded with Russian. Everyone knows he did. Even the FBI.

    1. Svelaz:

      “The proof? The lack of proof is the biggest clue.”

      Do you even listen to yourself?

      You have become a tinfoil guy.

      Get help.

      1. Monumentcolorado, I’m just using the same rationale John B say uses. Even S. Meyer uses the lack of proof as proof that something criminal occurred.

        It’s a good sign that at least you recognize the insanity of that rationale.

        1. Svelaz, don’t make yourself into more of an idiot than you actually are. John and I provided proof that is used by law enforcement to help convict criminals.

          Get yourself a dictionary so you know what the words in a sentence mean. Remaining dumb all your life is not a good option.

          Start with the words excellent (textbook) and accurate (textbook) and see what you can figure out.

          1. S. Meyer says, “ John and I provided proof that is used by law enforcement to help convict criminals.”

            No you didn’t. Law enforcement still needs evidence and so far none has been brought forth. But John’s claims are based on the lack of evidence as the reason to believe massive voter fraud occurred. The rest of his “evidence” is speculation and conjecture because there IS a lack of evidence.

            “ Start with the words excellent (textbook) and accurate (textbook) and see what you can figure out.”

            LOL!!!!!HEEE HEEE!! HA HAHAH!!!!

            You sure love hanging on to your failed arguments. I’ll give you that.

            1. “No you didn’t. Law enforcement still needs evidence and so far none has been brought forth.”

              Dummy if you prefer the word evidence to proof you can replace it.

              You were stupid in believing an excellent textbook could be inaccurate. Do you want to mention what you thought the discussion was about? If you tell us what you thought, I will provide you with the initial response. Then you can again look like the fool you are.

              1. S. Meyer says, “ Dummy if you prefer the word evidence to proof you can replace it.

                You were stupid in believing an excellent textbook could be inaccurate. ”
                Wow, you don’t disappoint. You keep changing the argument. What’s this? The 46th or 47th time you’ve changed it?

                “ You were stupid in believing an excellent textbook could be inaccurate. Do you want to mention what you thought the discussion was about? If you tell us what you thought, I will provide you with the initial response.”

                BWAHAHAH!!!!!! S. Meyer, you’re a dumba$$.

                1. “Wow, you don’t disappoint. You keep changing the argument.”

                  Since you remember the argument, tell us what it was and I will find the first email. That has been an outstanding offer for a long time. Unfortunately, you can’t do any better than prove yourself a fool repeatedly.

            2. “No you didn’t.”
              Actually yes, we did.

              “Law enforcement still needs evidence and so far none has been brought forth.”
              There has been copious evidence brought forth.
              There are some law enforcement investigations throughout the country,

              The core problem today is that the Bar associations are threatening lawyers – including prosecutors that even think about anything election related with disbarment. It is therefore very difficult to get a prosecutor to move forward. There are plenty of even republican prosecutors who will openly admit this.

              This is compounded by the fact that most of the fraud was committed in democratic districts.
              Immediately after the election, the US Attorney handling PA started an investigation into large scale fraud in Philadelphia.
              He was ORDERED By AG Barr to stop and turn that investigation over the PA’s Democratic AG who dropped it.

              In GA as other places private election integrity groups have compiled massive evidence of election fraud. Large scale frauds independent of the ballot harvesting that TTV has documented. Discovery in one case provided the plantifs with 5% of the ballot images from Fulton county – hundreds of duplicate scans were found – where the same batch of ballots had been scanned over and over – and that is in only 5% of scans – before they were shut down by left wing nut lawfare artists.

              “But John’s claims are based on the lack of evidence as the reason to believe massive voter fraud occurred. The rest of his “evidence” is speculation and conjecture because there IS a lack of evidence.”

              Nope Svelaz, First I have not claimed massive fraud until the evidence to support massive fraud was available.
              Whether you like it or not TTV uncovered large scale coordinated election fraud.
              The “2000” ballot harvestors that are the public face of TTV’s claims are just the tip of the iceberg.

              Those 2000 were selected – because the statistical odds that a person who was within 1M of 5 501C3’s and 20 Ballot Drop Boxes in one night without engaging in ballot harvesting is nil, and it becomes even lower when that person is caught on one or more surveilance videos putting 5 or more ballots into a dropbox.

              There are some weaknesses in the evidence – but those weaknesses are themselves indicators of organized election fraud.
              While TTV has 4m minutes of ballot dropbox video – that is a small fraction of what they should have. Most states REQUIRED public security cameras on all ballot dropbox’s BY LAW. Yet only a small portion of that video required by law exists. In PA 100% of the legally required survealance video was DESTORYED – there is none, zip nada, This is a violation of both federal and state law requiring that all election records are preserved for 22months. It is also a violation of court orders immediately after the election as challenges were ongoing requiring preservation of evidence.

              You may not like this – but the destruction of evidence – is actually evidence too. When a defendent has destroyed evidence – the jury will be instructed that they can treat the destruction of evidence as an admission of guilt.

              I would note there is a pattern here.

              We saw this tooth and nail effort by the DOJ and FBI to hide bury, even destroy evidence related to the whole Trump Russia collusion nonsense. It is pretty trivial to argue that the actual purpose of the Mueller investigations was not to find evidence to use against Trump but to aide the DOJ and FBI in hiding their malfeasance in XFH and XFR from congress and the public.

              We saw this again with the Faux Impeachments. Schiff conducted hearings in the basement, issued gag orders barring congressmen from disussing what was exposed, did everything in his power to thwart the affirmative defense that investigating the Biden’s was fully justified – which should be obvious to the world right now. With J6 – democrats have faught tooth and nail to prevent public exposure of the actual evidence – no one can get ahold of the 14000 hours of surveailance video.

              Everywhere we turn the left is HIDING what they are doing.

              I noted that the ballot dropbox surveailance video is mostly missing. The amount of video taken is so massive that even the small portion that TTV was able to acquire is still enough to provide lots of evidence of large scale organized ballot harvesting – but there was video fo more than drop boxes. We have all seen SOME of the video aquired from the Fulton County Convention center that appears to show scanning the same ballots over and over, and shows pulling cases of ballots out from under desks AFTER sending observers home.
              But we do not have all the election night video – accross the country – but especially in the key cities, observers were denied meaningful access to counting, then they were sent home, and counting continued without observation – all of which si illegal.

              From end to end laws were OBVIOUSLY broken.

              The AZ audit as an example found over 100,000 ballots that were photocopies. Had the law been followed these could just be discarded.
              Ballots are required by law to be State printed – they have numerous anti-fraud features – much like money. However precints in AZ that were running low on Ballots – instead of asking the state for more photocopied existing blank ballots and handed them out.
              That violates election law. And worse that eliminates an effective means of selecting and removing clearly fraudulent ballots.

              We know large numbers of AZ ballots are photocopies. We have no idea which are fraudulent and which are just the produce of govenrment lawless incompetence.

              I could continue this for pages and pages – there is massive evidence of lawlessness, and yes Large Scale organized Fraud.

              Millions of people are aware of this. Our institutions – who were to a large extent complicit int he lawlessness and fraud that was the 2020 election are deliberately trying to bury this.
              You will not see this on MSNBC or Twitter, or YouTube – because the institutions complicit with the fraud are covering it up.

              But it is still getting out – as I noted Millions of people are aware of this fraud – even if you choose to have blinders on.

        2. “I’m just using the same rationale John B say uses.”
          But you are not.
          “Even S. Meyer uses the lack of proof as proof that something criminal occurred.”
          You have been provided lots of evidence.

    2. So Slavez says that the truth is true because there is a lack of proof that the his truth is true. Because there is no proof that the Alfa Bank hoax was true it must therefore be true because Trump lies. The lack of a clue is indescribably amazing.

      1. Yes the left, comically locked into the inanity of demanding proof of the negative.

        1. No, just the right’s reasoning that the absence of proof IS proof.

        2. One can prove some positives and some negatives.
          One can disprove some positives and some negatives.
          One cannot prove or disprove some positives and some negatives.

          Yo seem comically locked into the inanity of insisting that one cannot prove any negatives. I’ve previously shown you that that’s false: https://jonathanturley.org/2022/05/11/the-mob-is-right-georgetown-law-professor-calls-supports-aggressive-protests-at-the-homes-of-justices/comment-page-2/#comment-2183311

      2. Well TiT, the lack of evidence is the foundation of the evidence of the majority of Trump supporters and conservatives claims. Especially in this blog.

        John B. Say often argues that the proof of massive voter fraud is the lack proof which should be the biggest clue that massive voter fraud occurred.

        Don’t take my word for it. Just pointing out the rationale that is used by conservatives when trying to justify their conspiracy theories as the truth.

        1. Svelaz, so you say that its ok that you use the same tactic as John B Say to justify your use of his tactic because he did it first. You tell us that Trump was colluding with Russia through the Alfa Bank connection but the FBI found that there was no proof of any such collusion. Are you now telling us that the FBI is wrong in it’s assessment of the facts. Sometimes rattling on is just rattling on.

          1. “ Svelaz, so you say that its ok that you use the same tactic as John B Say to justify your use of his tactic because he did it first.”

            Nope. Didn’t say it was ok. Just pointing out the absurdity of the rationale.

            “ You tell us that Trump was colluding with Russia through the Alfa Bank connection but the FBI found that there was no proof of any such collusion.”

            In case you didn’t get it. I was just using that example of using the rationale. I didn’t say it is true. But using that absurd rationale sure makes it perfectly sound doesn’t it?

            1. If you are going to claim to be copying me – then actually do so.

              Contra your libel, I do not make evidence free assertions.
              Quite the opposite.
              I back up all my assertions with evidence – lots of it.
              I would welcome shifts from those here on the left to do the same if the can.

              How much progress would be made if all of you would do as I do and relay of facts, and evidence and logic and reason,
              instead of appeals to authority, ad hominem, and relentlessly pummeling straw men.

        2. Svelaz, you have been provided with massive amounts of evidence.
          You have argued about some of that evidence – badly.
          Regardless, by arguing you have accepted that evidence does exist.
          No one can force you to accept the obvious.

          Next, I do not understand why you would lie about my posts.
          They are here for everyone to see.

          When you say that I have argued something I have quite obviously not – you just make yourself look like a fool.

          If you do not wish to be thought a fool – do not say foolish things
          Do not make claims that are trivially demonstrable as wrong.

      1. Iowan2, Turley is insinuating that the leadership of the FBI was “eager” to investigate on the claims of an agent. That’s what hearsay is.

    3. And as Marcy Wheeler pointed out, the investigation was opened as an investigation into Alfa Bank, not as an investigation into Trump personally:

      “When the FBI opened an investigation into this anomaly, they considered it an investigation into Alfa Bank.
      [copy of excerpt from investigation opening communication: https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Screen-Shot-2022-05-22-at-10.28.25-AM.png ]
      “This was an investigation into Alfa Bank. Not an investigation into Donald Trump. In the part of the EC that explains why they opened it, they repeat, again, that it’s an investigation into Alfa Bank. But they also opened it because the FBI was still trying to figure out what Trump associate got an advance heads up that the Russians were going to intervene to hurt Hillary. But even in the context of the fact that one of the agents investigating Crossfire Hurricane had been pulled back to Chicago to work on this investigation, the investigation was not into biological human Donald Trump, it was into corporate human Trump Organization.”

          1. The Cllnton campaign and the DNC hired Jofee.

            Strange you have no idea about the facts, yet have such strident, and LOUD opinions.

            1. Strange that you assume I don’t know something based solely on my refusal to tutor you.

              1. That leaves us with the facts, according to you, Clinton Hired Joffee to target Alpha Bank.
                That sounds exactly collusion between Clinton and Russia. Unless there is some campaign reason Clintion was spying on ALPHA Bank.

                Your lies are starting to unravel other lies.

                1. “according to you, Clinton Hired Joffee to target Alpha Bank.”

                  BS. I dare you to link to a comment where you think I said that.

          2. ATS doesn’t know the answer. Why do we hear him day and night?

      1. Anonymous, the investigation considered the use of the Russian Yoda cellphones that Trump supposedly had in his possession and used to communicate with the Russians through the Alfa Bank servers. Let’s see, Trump supposedly had the Yoda phone but the investigation was only concerning Alfa Bank. So Hillary just wanted an investigation of Alfa Bank and wasn’t concerned at all about smearing Trump as a Russian asset. Another wish on your list of wishes fulfilled Anonymous. Keep up the the good illogic.

        1. “Russian Yoda cellphones that Trump supposedly had in his possession”


          Are you saying that out of ignorance? Or are you lying again?

            1. TIT, you have difficulty with details.

              Your article points out “Their other set of concerns centered on data suggesting that a YotaPhone — a Russian-made smartphone rarely seen in the United States — had been used from networks serving the White House, Trump Tower, and Spectrum Health, a Michigan hospital company whose server had also interacted with the Trump server.”

              Do you often confuse objects (e.g., Trump Tower) and people (Trump himself)?

              ” Another dandy article on Sussmanns claim that Trump used a Yotaphone”

              It didn’t say that.

              For example, “The CIA said Sussmann told them his contacts had gathered information “indicating that a Russian-made Yota phone had been seen by them connecting to WiFi from the Trump Tower in New York, as well as from a location in Michigan, at the same time that then-candidate Trump was believed to be at these locations” and that “the Yota phone was seen connecting to WiFi from the Executive Office of the President (the White House)” in December 2016.” does not substantiate YOUR claim about “Russian Yoda cellphones that Trump [the person] supposedly had in his possession.”

              “Indeed some one is lying about this matter”

              That would be you. Either that, or you’re simply too stupid to understand that a YotaPhone being in the vicinity of Trump Tower does not imply that it was in Trump’s (the person) possession.

      2. Anonymous, I read your link. You and your source continue to tell us that Sussmann was just some choir boy with no lack of motive in sharing his little story with the FBI. he was just a trustworthy little Boy Scout wearing his sash of merit badges when he went to the FBI. Mr. FBI man I need to tell you the truth. His favorite merit badge is the good citizenship award. What’s that I see. My oh my, is that some Clinton cash that I see falling from his overstuffed pocket! I do declare! Give me a break.

        1. You lie a great deal TIT. For example, you’re lying when you claim “You and your source continue to tell us that Sussmann was just some choir boy with no lack of motive in sharing his little story with the FBI.”

          This is the biggest reason that I consider you a troll. Because you get off on lying about other people’s claims/beliefs.

      3. “And as Marcy Wheeler pointed out, the investigation was opened as an investigation into Alfa Bank, not as an investigation into Trump personally:”

        Can we believe Marcy Wheeler? No. She is as politicized as the persons she tries to show as not political.

        Then again, we can look at who made this comment. Anonymous, and we know who he is.

    4. “The lack of proof is the biggest clue.”

      So proof is proof? And “lack of proof” is proof?

      And if she sinks and drowns, she’s not a witch. If she floats, she is a witch. And we burn her.

  16. This is such a clear indication that the FBI and most probably most other unionized agencies within ALL levels of Federal and State governments are politicized to a very great extent and need to be divested of all individuals who subscribe to agendas that require any means to achieve their ends. I truly believe that we worry far too much about politicians (where we have been provided means of limiting their treachery via the ballot box) and forget about the vast amount of subversion and coercion that resides in the hands of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats.

  17. “The question is why Comey and others were so reportedly eager”

    Yeah, it couldn’t have anything to do with the fact that Russia had hacked the DNC servers and was actively trying to influence the 2016 election, including by release of stolen data. It would be inappropriate for the FBI to be concerned about whether Russia was also acting illegally via Alfa Bank.

    1. No evidence Russia hacked DNC. Mullers report relied on the Crowd strike redacted draft report.

      1. iowan,

        We’ve been through this before. Comey testified under oath that the FBI “got the forensics from [Crowdstrike].” We also know that by “forensics,” the FBI means “the collection and analysis of digital evidence,” confirming Shawn Henry’s testimony that the FBI was given forensic images (aka byte-for-byte copies) of the drives, and Comey also testified that “my folks tell me was an appropriate substitute” for the machines themselves:

        The DNI concluded that Russia hacked the DNC. You are in denial.

        1. NO. the DNI and Mueller relied on a redacted draft copy of a report written by Crowd Strike.

    2. If what you say is true then the FBI would have taken over the investigation and looked even deeper. I think Crowdstrike managed a lot of DNC affairs.

  18. Pretty ugly thing when our our government creates a fake scandal to take down a presidential candidate.

    1. Not our government, but a cabal of agenda-driven unelected and unaccountable unionized bureaucrats who believe that they know what is best for us – the true Nanny State.

  19. When will something we don’t already know come out? It is comforting to see there is a difference between the professionals and the Political group internally at the FBI

  20. To be clear, the Alfa Bank connection to Trump has never been proven to be nefarious. Neither has it been clearly explained despite the public relations campaign of Trump, Alfa Bank, and Jonathan Turley to tell us there was nothing to see.
    The researchers that discovered the transmissions have been slandered and abused yet the transmissions did take place. Trump at one time changed e-mail domains and set up a new one. The first communication to the new domain was from Alfa Bank. All this raises questions but proves nothing. There could be innocent explanations, but there are possibilities that something was going on.


    1. You haven’t thought much about internet traffic. You’re assuming it’s 100% generated by human actors. No, the bulk of traffic is bot-generated, to support unsolicited ads. Let’s say something you click on ends up sending you junk email originating from St. Petersburg, Russia. Now some sleuth like Joffe who wants to discredit you as a Russian stooge finds out you received that email. There’s the connection — you’re now accused of conspiring with Russian Intelligence.

        1. “Your first move is to discredit me as opposed to considering the possibility that we don’t know everything that happened.”

          Your first move is to discredit Trump as opposed to considering the possibility that we don’t know everything that happened.

          1. “Your first move is to discredit Trump as opposed to considering the possibility that we don’t know everything that happened.”

            You didn’t do well in “reading with comprehension did you?” They must not teach that in troll school. I’m the one saying we don’t know everything that happened and didn’t claim Trump was guilty of anything specific to Alfa Bank, other than his misleading campaign to discredit those who want the facts to come out. Trump may be paranoid but there are people actually out to get him. The question he doesn’t want answered is, “are they right?”

      1. Alma, we have all been asked by that Nigerian Prince to send money to expedite his ability to access his accounts and pay us for our time. We are therefore, all complicit in a deal, or should be investigated and tied to a deal, that had to do with Nigeria and bank fraud. That is how some people on this blog think.

        Sometimes they even blame people for things that may not have happened 20 years before they were born.

    2. Sussmann hired Joffee, Joffee is going to plead the 5th. If the data supported the conclusions of Joffee, there would be no trial.

      1. “Joffee is going to plead the 5th.” Is that an assumption or has he or his lawyer indicated that’s the plan? I am trying not to take sides here except to say there is still some questionable communications yet to be explained. The trial isn’t about the accuracy of the information or any conclusions, it’s about someone lying about who’s behind disclosing the information.

        1. Enigma, there is an amazing wealth of information on the internet if you make an attempt to find it. I offer a couple of tidbits of information that you are not aware of. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/tech-exec-1-says-he-will-plead-the-fifth-in-durham-case. https://thefederalist.com/2022/02/28/4-new-things-we-just-learned-about-the-special-counsel-investigation/. The old inter web is an amazing place for those who want to sincerely know the truth of a matter.

          1. I looked at much of what was available and found a great range of opinion based on the source. What you read in the Washington Examiner, New York Post, and Fox News is drastically different than found in other sources. What is consistently true, it that for all the attacks on the messengers and their alleged political motives. The facts haven’t been sorted out.

      2. NO, Sussmann did not hire Joffe. Joffe hired Sussmann.

        And you do not know whether Joffe will even be called to testify. Durham has already rested his case. Joffe’s lawyer said “My client will invoke his rights under the Fifth Amendment IF called to testify at trial, even though he very much wants to set the record straight about the allegations against him and believes he can provide exculpatory information concerning the allegations against your client.” Sussmann’s lawyers asked Durham to immunize Joffe so that he could testify, but AFAIK, Durham refused:

        1. If Joffe did nothing wrong and wants to set the record straight – he should testify.

          Defense witnesses are pretty much never immunized. There is no logical reason to.

          Prosecutors sometimes provide limited immunity to co-conspirators, to get testimony against more important criminals.
          Juries are informed of the immunity deal and can weigh testimony accordingly.

          1. “If Joffe did nothing wrong and wants to set the record straight – he should testify.”

            So should Trump.

            1. Pelosi had ultimate control over the Capitol complex. The failure is hers. She needs to testify and release all her communications in that time period. That is how investigations get to the root of the problem.

              Is she testifying and releasing all the information? No. That means the investigation is a sham.

            2. If he wants to – certainly.
              If he does not – that is fine too.

              Joeffe is not on trial. Sussman is.

              If Durham wishes to call Trump as a witness he is free to do so.
              If Sussman wishes to call Joeffe as a Witness he may do the same.

              Neither are entitled to immunity for testifying.

        1. No doubt you’re as concerned about the 140+ times that John Eastman pled the 5th when answering questions about his conspiracy with Trump to obstruct the EC vote count.

          1. Private individuals should not cooperate in any way with the J6th committee.

            There is no constitutional power of congress to enforce laws or to investigate private individuals.

            If Eastman found a way to obstruct the unconstitutional actions of the J6th more power to him.

            Frankly Democrats should consider this a good thing – the shoe will be on the other foot soon enough and there are lots of republicans chomping at the bit to impeach Biden and to make life miserable for lots of democrats.

            I do not support turn about is fair play.

            But I will not pretend that I do not get some pleasure from it anyway.

            Regardless, we MUST return to the rule of law.

            Law should be few, limited, understood narrowly with respect to government powers and broadly with respect to individual liberty.
            Laws MUST be enforced.
            If we do not like a law – we must follow the constitutional steps to change it.
            We can not just ignore laws we do not like.
            Right or left we should not be trying to convert political differences into crimes.

            I have no sympathy for the left – should Republicans behave as badly as democrats have when acheiving power – Democrats will be getting their just deserts. But that is not a good way to run the country.

          2. It is YOUR nonsense that is thwarting meaningful inquiry into Election Fraud.

            Eastman did not violate the law or constitution and there is no basis for him to appear before congress.

            The objective is not just to intimidate him, but also others – right down to DA who might be considering prosecuting or investigating election fraud.

            If Eastman can be made to suffer for advice that was within the constitution – then why can’t a local DA who dares to investigate Election Fraud ?

Comments are closed.

Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks