Comey Gives the New York Times a Black Eye While Selective Leakers Leave the People in the Dark

The (abridged) exchange with Senator Risch (R-Idaho) proceeded as follows:

RISCH: You talked with us shortly after February 14th, when the New York Times wrote an article that suggested that the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians. Do you remember reading that article when it first came out?

COMEY: I do.

RISCH:  After that, you sought out both Republican and Democrat senators to tell them that, hey, I don't know where this is coming from, but this is not the case. This is not factual (my italics). Do you recall that?

COMEY: Yes.

RISCH: So, the American people can understand this, that report by the New York Times was not true. Is that a fair statement?

COMEY: In the main, it was not true. And again, all of you know this (my italics). Maybe the American people don't.

Most damning in this exchange is Comey’s cynical “you know but the American people don’t.” Where is the outrage that the media collusion narrative was based on a falsehood of which U.S. senators were aware? The Times has issued no retraction and lamely states that “the immediate sources could not be reached” but “they have indicated that they believed the account was solid.” The anonymous sources can believe what they want, but the FBI head thinks otherwise.

go to Forbes.com

Comey Elevates The Fake Orbis Dossier By Asserting He Can Only Discuss It In Closed Session

In his ongoing public testimony, former FBI Director, James Comey dodged many of the questions to which the American public most wants answers with the excuse: “I can’t talk about that in open session.” Among the things the American people wanted to hear from Comey himself was his take on the sensational Orbis “Golden Shower” Dossier’s charges against Donald Trump. They learned nothing.

go to Forbes.com

The Swamp’s Leak and Propaganda Barrage Bring Forth No Evidence of Trump-Russia Collusion

The Wall Street Journal – no particular fan of Trump – characterizes the DOJ charge to Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, as fatally open-ended, vague, and flawed. His instruction lists no federal statutes and invites a fishing expedition into trivial matters. Even the know-it-all media does not agree what Mueller is supposed to do: Is he to “oversee the investigation into ties between President Trump’s campaign and Russian officials” or “investigate possible coordination between President Trump’s associates and Russian officials?” 

The political feeding frenzy has, to date, brought forth the following “facts” of Russia Gate: Persons associated with the Trump campaign had contacts with Russians, some unsavory.  Trump businesses, like other luxury property developers, had dealings with wealthy Russian buyers. Trump did not condemn Putin during the campaign and expressed a hope (shared by many across the political spectrum) of improved relations. 

These facts shed little light, if any, on collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian state to throw the election to Trump, as is evidenced by the deafening silence of anti-Trumpists. 

go to Forbes.com