JAMES COMEY'S CREDIBILITY QUESTIONED


The James Comey-FBI-Trump story makes no sense. It seems the political left, "Progressives," are willing to manufacture any case to try to bring Trump down. It is difficult to divorce from the notion that this is simply more of the effort of the cultural revolutionaries to maintain control of their goal to "change America and then change the world" as Obama spoke about. Donald Trump's election was totally surprising to them and it potentially stops their "march to perdition" that we've written about in this blog. Is Comey a pawn in this movement? I wrote the piece below with this in mind.

HELP me get the James Comey story straight and correct. Comey was billed as utterly credible when investigating Hillary Clinton's violations of law and protocol in her email communications. Clinton was treated as if she did nothing wrong, even though Comey enumerated many violations. Now, her aide's husband,  Anthony Wiener, aka "Carlos Danger" when sexting, is now facing other criminal charges,  is going to jail, and he got Clinton's emails from his wife, the aide.

FBI Director (at the time) Comey identified, and reported, many unlawful actions by Clinton. Then he exonerated her thereby violating both law and protocol by making the decision that should have been made by AG Lynch who, coincidentally, had a private meeting with Bill Clinton prior to the Comey exoneration. No problem. Right? Wrong, I believe. Now it's said that Mr. Comey has memos of his meetings with people, notably President Trump, that may indict the president for malfeasance when speaking with Comey. Maybe. But nobody has seen the memos. A NYT reporter heard one read over the telephone. Memos were to "SELF." Hm! What were the dates of these memos to SELF?? Who can verify the dates and the authenticity of these memos? Oh, Comey. Is that acceptable because his credibility is unimpeachable. Did I get it right. I would like to think so, but no! I doubt truth will prevail. We can hope.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

AMERICAN AIRLINES -- MORE ABOUT UNIONS AND CH 11

I apologize for the structure of the post below, with no segmentation, but the system refuses to do it my way. To my post yesterday re AMR's chapter 11 filing relating my experiences over many years flying with AA, an AA pilot wrote a thoughtful comment that caused me to think a bit more about the precursors to conditions of their bankruptcy. Frankly, I have what is perhaps too much experience with trade unions and their excesses, but know less about others such as the airlines. After learning more about the negotiations of AA with their unions, I now think it's justifiable to post the comments below. I've seen too many industries destroyed by union excesses coupled with management incompetence in caving to excess demands. Start with coal (dead for many years), steel, textiles, shoes, electronics manufacturing, and more.  The Detroit 3 (once the big 3) deserves special mention. As their costs rose to $72/hour (fully loaded) and costs in the southern industry w
Read more

LEFTIST MIND-SET OF TODAY -- REFLEXIVE, THOUGHTLESS SUPPORT FOR THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

"Trying to persuade a prejudiced mind is as Sisyphean as trying to open a closed mind is Quixotic." Mann, May 2012 In a blog post herein below on May 1, 2013, I outlined what we who manage people and enterprises know as absolutes about performances of people who are put into management and supervisory positions for which they haven't requisite qualifications. For those who have progressed through several jobs to their level of incompetence, this is known as the Peter Principle as defined by Laurence J. Peter. In all likelihood, all who have managed people for any length of time have seen this principle played out. While Peter's observation applies to progression through multiple job levels, if a person is put into any job for which he is unqualified, the concept is also valid. Elective political positions is where I see this most often played out. The election of Barack Obama as President of the United States is the most significant example of this in my lif
Read more

ETHANOL -- The worst mandate ever gets even worse

When politicians get control of science and the inept or dishonest scientists, nothing good comes of it. There are many examples -- global warming (aka climate change) is the most prominent. The ethanol mandate, although a part of the climate change mania, stands on its own as arguably the most ridiculous mandate of all time. President Jimmy Carter, who was influenced by a misguided college professor, can be charged with the mistake of promulgating the ethanol mandate.  Of course, Al Gore is the politician who played the global warming issue like a drum and has benefited financially from it. Use of ethanol in motor fuel is not a net positive either in costs or in impact on the environment.... enormous hype to the contrary notwithstanding. Ethanol does not have the positive effect on the environment as touted. It has only about 60% of the specific energy of petroleum fuel, which begs use of more fuel to achieve the same energy as petroleum fuel. And, so it does. I have my own experie
Read more