Mounting Evidence Swirls And An Investigation Of F.B.I. Director James B. Comey, Jr. Indicate He May Have Committed A Crime In An Attempt To Turn The Election In Trump’s Favor.
Needless to say, his actions were unusual and unprecedented. Even at the urging of Loretta Lynch and the Attorney General’s office this summer to cease and desist, F.B.I. Director James B. Comey, Jr. blindsided his bosses and the public with a damning press conference absolving Secretary Clinton of criminal wrongdoing, but calling her use of a private email server “reckless” and “wildly negligent.” Had she not been the Democratic nominee for President, this may not have merited more than a footnote in history after a day or two of headlines. It certainly would not merit talk of treason if taken as a singular, isolated event, even if it did break longstanding protocols against making inflammatory comments about a candidate in an election season as a non-partisan intelligence official.
Now that an investigation is being called for regarding Comey’s bizarre handling of the Clinton email scandal, it’s important to take a step back and consider the totality of the F.B.I. Director’s actions long before, during and after the stunning defeat of Hillary Clinton in her quest for the Presidency.
Though unseemly, the pro-Trump sign in Comey’s yard doesn’t constitute treason or collusion with our enemies. As a private citizen, he has every right to support the candidate of his choice. But in connecting the dots from the past and his string of missteps throughout the current election cycle, any “reasonable person” to use the Director’s own words, would want to ask the question: Is James B. Comey, Jr. guilty of treason? Did he aid and abet our enemy, Russia, and did he attempt to cause harm to a potential sovereign, Mrs. Clinton?
To understand these questions, Comey’s past is important. His dramatic rise to fame came in 2004 when he raced through the streets of Washington D.C. to block Alberto Gonzales, George Bush’s White House Counsel from the hospital bedside of the gravely ill Attorney General, John Ashcroft. The struggle was over a warrantless wiretapping program by the NSA the Bush administration had authorized in response to 9-11 and the collapse of the twin towers. The media hailed Comey as a hero for thwarting the secret program to spy on average Americans. But few actually understood why Comey was there and what he was really trying to prevent.
The collection of “meta-data” sounds harmless enough. It’s only the ping between one computer or electronic device when another device attempts to communicate. The content of any communications are not gathered and stored, only the record of who contacted whom and when. This was Comey’s intent, to prevent the NSA from mining this data and storing it. Why was that, and what was his objection to this specific program as acting Attorney General while Ashcroft lay gravely ill in I.C.U.?
Flipping forward to this last summer, Slate broke a detailed story of a secret server which seemingly had no other purpose than for Trump and Russia’s largest bank to communicate. The owners of that bank are some of Putin’s closest allies and very involved in American conservative think-tank circles. Once some of the nation’s leading cyber-security specialists determined the server contained no other meta-data than between Trump’s organization and the Russian bank, the F.B.I. issued a warrant for the server. No additional information has been released since.
After the Russian hacking and meddling in the election was established by our own security services, and the damning report was delivered to President Obama, Trump’s ties to Putin were already well-established. But Comey was strangely silent. He’d managed to get in one final dig against Secretary Clinton in the final days before the election, but not a word about Trump, the secret server or the report prepared by James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence. That report included the now infamous appendix detailing Trump’s depraved sexual abuse of young Russian girls which the Kremlin vehemently denies and dismisses as “pulp fiction.” Dmitry Peskov, who offered the denial, is the spokesman for Putin, and is directly named in the report as the architect of the hacking scheme.
Carl Bernstein reported that after a month’s long investigation of the “compromising” evidence against Trump, the former British MI-6 intelligence agent who compiled the dossier on the President-elect’s allegedly tainted trysts handed the file over to an F.B.I. agent in Rome last August. Now, six months later, Comey has been sitting on this information and cannot seem to confirm its veracity. Really? Given the gravity of the depravity, the possibility of blackmail by Putin, the concurrence of our own security agencies that the hacking allegations were both verified and true, it strains the reasonable mind to conclude that Director Comey has acted honorably, timely, or in the best interests of the United States.
If his acts do not meet the definition of treason, it could meet the standard of gross dereliction of duty, overt partisanship, and more importantly, have cast a dark pallor over the office of President with his reckless disregard for our nation’s institutions. In no small way, James Comey has helped usher in an American age without reason, and maybe it’s time we all begin to reconsider exactly what constitutes treason.