Comey & Mueller partners in crime

En Garde in the bunker…

As if we haven’t had enough of James Comey and his subversive antics over the past couple of years, we must assume that the way everything going forward is shaping up, the odor of corruption will continue to fester for at least the foreseeable future. What would help immensely, of course, is if Mueller had any sense of propriety he would recuse himself. The fact his bias toward Mr. Comey may only be “perceived”, his friendship and associations with him over the past couple of decades are not.

To any sane way of thinking, there is absolutely no way (nor any reason for that matter) that the Republican side of the aisle should allow the Special Counsel to move forward. Didn’t We the People witness Comey confirming ad infinitum last week, that Trump was clearly innocent, and that the President cannot be found guilty of Obstruction for exercising his presidential authority? When George Bush pardoned Casper Weinberger, that wasn’t obstruction. Time to end the charade.

Comey has created a conflict of interest for Mueller. However, the real issue is Comey’s relationship to the President of the United States. 28 US Code Chapter 33 establishes the DOJ and FBI (FBI in Part II) as part of the Executive Branch. As we all (should) know, Article II of the Constitution gives ALL executive power to the President of the United States. Consequently, President Trump had every right to tell Comey to go light with General Flynn and he had every right to fire him for incompetence. The FBI is NOT independent! Comey worked for Trump.

Mueller’s law firm also represents Jared Kushner. Who do you think he’ll be biased for … the guy paying the bills, or the old work buddy from years ago? This is the real world, not a kiddy tv show. So I say this one is not even close. It is a definite conflict. Mueller should recuse himself or be recalled. With no crime now to investigate on the original appointment, a recall is the right answer. Then again, I’m no legal beaver, just an observing observer.

Byron York in the Washington Examiner…

Fired FBI Director James Comey has emerged as the main figure in what some Democrats believe will be an obstruction of justice case against President Trump in the Trump-Russia matter. Comey’s stories of conversations with the president, plus the fact that he was fired, ostensibly as a result of the Russia probe, make him potentially the star witness in the case.

Which brings up an intriguing legal question. Comey is a good friend of special counsel Robert Mueller — such a good friend, for about 15 years now, that the two men have been described as “brothers in arms.” Their work together during the controversies over Bush-era terrorist surveillance has been characterized as “deepening a friendship forged in the crucible of the highest levels of the national security apparatus after the 9/11 attacks,” after which the men became “close partners and close allies throughout the years ahead.”

Now Mueller is investigating the Trump-Russia affair, in which, if the increasing buzz in the case is correct, allegations of obstruction against the president will be central. And central to those allegations — the key witness — will be the prosecutor’s good friend, the now-aggrieved former FBI director.

Is that a conflict? Should a prosecutor pursue a case in which the star witness is a close friend? And when the friend is not only a witness but also arguably a victim — of firing — by the target of the investigation? And when the prosecutor might also be called on to investigate some of his friend’s actions? The case would be difficult enough even without the complicating friendship.

Robert Mueller, James Comey, and Obama, not a good combination…

Comey (“Jimmy the Weasel”) appears to be a toxic mix of poor judgment and self-righteousness, and by all accounts, he deserved to be fired. He definitely has conflicts of interest of his own, and it wouldn’t be surprising had Trump asked him for loyalty to see if he’d say he was loyal to the Constitution, or he’d give his loyalty to whoever is President (smart dealing). Let’s remember he was loyal to Obama and Hillary, rather than to the Constitution to which he took an oath, so he laid himself open to suspicion from the get-go.

He obviously let Clinton off when he had a strong case to prosecute her and all her staff, but instead he, Obama, Lynch and the Clintons all worked together to ensure it didn’t happen. Consider the immunity deals; normally such deals require testimony against higher ups, but in this case the recipients were allowed to destroy evidence. That’s corruption at the highest levels, and Comey went right along with it. The Clinton investigation was a major farce.

Mollie Hemingway in the Federalist…

Following countdown clocks on cable outlets and dramatic claims in the media about what devastating testimony to expect, James Comey sat down before the Senate Intelligence Committee last week. The hearing ended up being a bit of a let-down for critics of President Trump who hoped to get him impeached (or removed via the 25th amendment!) as soon as possible. Comey admitted that Donald Trump had told the truth when he wrote that the former FBI director had thrice told him he was not under investigation in the Russia meddling probe. Comey admitted that Trump had twice encouraged him to get to the bottom of the Russian meddling issue.

But the media chose to run with a dramatically different narrative. That narrative was if James Comey had not proven obstruction, he came pretty darn close.

“Is Trump Guilty Of Obstruction Of Justice? Comey Laid Out The Case,” was the big takeaway from NPR’s Domenico Montanaro.

“Comey Bluntly Raises Possibility of Trump Obstruction and Condemns His ‘Lies’,” exulted the New York Times, describing his testimony as “a blunt, plain-spoken assessment” by a man who was “humble, folksy and matter-of-fact.”

The New Yorker was even more breathless. “Comey’s Revenge: Measuring Obstruction,” wrote Evan Osnos. “[T]his was not a political partisan tossing off a criticism of a rival; this was a career prosecutor, who served Republican and Democratic Presidents, presenting a time line of specific statements from the President that he described as either untrue or potentially criminal.”