Rep. Elise Stefanik asks questions at Comey hearing

[j-mac]

This freshmen congressperson hit it OUT OF THE PARK yesterday for those paying attention....Let's go over the points now known, and the troubling thread pulled by this excellent rep from NY....

1. Comey said that he briefs the leaders of the intel committees quarterly.

2. He also stated that he briefs "some portion of the NSC at the WH" whatever that means, what portion? Who? and he briefs them BEFORE congress....

3. He also briefs the DNI, so "some people" in the NSC at the WH, Congress, and the DNI.

4. He then said that he didn't brief Congress until 'recently', then he downright lied, and said he didn't brief the DNI because "We didn't have a DNI".... Really? What the hell was Clapper?

5.So, the investigation began last July, and no one briefed for 8 months? Why? He said he has 'quarterly meetings to brief on sensitive investigations?

6.So, it was too sensitive to let the Republican led congress know so he didn't include it in the quarterly briefings....BS!

7. This was the decision of the "head of counterintelligence division".... So there is a counter intelligence investigation going on, and we are supposed to believe there was NO surveillance of Trump campaign?

8. "Is there any evidence that Russia tried to hack others in the campaign beyond members of the Clinton campaign, or the DNC?" Answer, "Yes, many others".... So much for the collusion angle.

9. And the conclusion that they "want to keep in tight withing the Executive branch" to me sure sounds like they were informing at the very least Lynch, who was reporting back to the President what was happening...

So, what are your conclusions? This was a home run IMHO, for exposing Comey, and his boss Loretta Lynch for actually surveiling the Trump campaign, and as in artful as Trump's tweet about it was, there WAS something going on there....

Thoughts?

 

[j-mac]

Further, Mark Levin last night on his show picked apart this line of questioning as well....

 

[Mycroft]

This freshmen congressperson hit it OUT OF THE PARK yesterday for those paying attention....Let's go over the points now known, and the troubling thread pulled by this excellent rep from NY....

1. Comey said that he briefs the leaders of the intel committees quarterly.

2. He also stated that he briefs "some portion of the NSC at the WH" whatever that means, what portion? Who? and he briefs them BEFORE congress....

3. He also briefs the DNI, so "some people" in the NSC at the WH, Congress, and the DNI.

4. He then said that he didn't brief Congress until 'recently', then he downright lied, and said he didn't brief the DNI because "We didn't have a DNI".... Really? What the hell was Clapper?

5.So, the investigation began last July, and no one briefed for 8 months? Why? He said he has 'quarterly meetings to brief on sensitive investigations?

6.So, it was too sensitive to let the Republican led congress know so he didn't include it in the quarterly briefings....BS!

7. This was the decision of the "head of counterintelligence division".... So there is a counter intelligence investigation going on, and we are supposed to believe there was NO surveillance of Trump campaign?

8. "Is there any evidence that Russia tried to hack others in the campaign beyond members of the Clinton campaign, or the DNC?" Answer, "Yes, many others".... So much for the collusion angle.

9. And the conclusion that they "want to keep in tight withing the Executive branch" to me sure sounds like they were informing at the very least Lynch, who was reporting back to the President what was happening...

So, what are your conclusions? This was a home run IMHO, for exposing Comey, and his boss Loretta Lynch for actually surveiling the Trump campaign, and as in artful as Trump's tweet about it was, there WAS something going on there....

Thoughts?

I have a few...

1. Yes, she did very well with her questions but she didn't go far enough. She should have called him out more forcefully about his "no DNI" statement. She should have pressed him on his "sensitive" remarks.

2. It is telling that the Mainstream Media isn't giving her questioning very much airplay. It doesn't fit their spinning narrative.

3. And for the hearings in general, why didn't ANYBODY ask Comey and Rogers point blank if THEY unmasked Flynn?

 

[ludin]

I have a few...

1. Yes, she did very well with her questions but she didn't go far enough. She should have called him out more forcefully about his "no DNI" statement. She should have pressed him on his "sensitive" remarks.

2. It is telling that the Mainstream Media isn't giving her questioning very much airplay. It doesn't fit their spinning narrative.

3. And for the hearings in general, why didn't ANYBODY ask Comey and Rogers point blank if THEY unmasked Flynn?

Comey is a hack at this point and a disgrace to the entire FBI. Trump should have fired him first thing.

 

[Beaudreaux]

This freshmen congressperson hit it OUT OF THE PARK yesterday for those paying attention....Let's go over the points now known, and the troubling thread pulled by this excellent rep from NY....

1. Comey said that he briefs the leaders of the intel committees quarterly.

2. He also stated that he briefs "some portion of the NSC at the WH" whatever that means, what portion? Who? and he briefs them BEFORE congress....

3. He also briefs the DNI, so "some people" in the NSC at the WH, Congress, and the DNI.

4. He then said that he didn't brief Congress until 'recently', then he downright lied, and said he didn't brief the DNI because "We didn't have a DNI".... Really? What the hell was Clapper?

5.So, the investigation began last July, and no one briefed for 8 months? Why? He said he has 'quarterly meetings to brief on sensitive investigations?

6.So, it was too sensitive to let the Republican led congress know so he didn't include it in the quarterly briefings....BS!

7. This was the decision of the "head of counterintelligence division".... So there is a counter intelligence investigation going on, and we are supposed to believe there was NO surveillance of Trump campaign?

8. "Is there any evidence that Russia tried to hack others in the campaign beyond members of the Clinton campaign, or the DNC?" Answer, "Yes, many others".... So much for the collusion angle.

9. And the conclusion that they "want to keep in tight withing the Executive branch" to me sure sounds like they were informing at the very least Lynch, who was reporting back to the President what was happening...

So, what are your conclusions? This was a home run IMHO, for exposing Comey, and his boss Loretta Lynch for actually surveiling the Trump campaign, and as in artful as Trump's tweet about it was, there WAS something going on there....

Thoughts?

I listened to the video before I read your list, and Number 4 on your list jumped out at me like strobe light when I heard him say it.

I also spit my coffee out when he basically said "we decided to not tell Congress because Congress can't keep a secret, or tell the truth about the secret when they leak it" but of course he said it more politically correct. I loved the look she made at that answer.

 

[Mycroft]

Comey is a hack at this point and a disgrace to the entire FBI. Trump should have fired him first thing.

I think Comey does what his boss tells him to do...no matter who his boss is at the moment.

When he worked for Obama...he did what Obama wanted. Now that he's working for Trump...he's doing what Trump wants.

Comey really didn't say anything damaging about Trump in the hearing. But what he said was spun to high heaven by the Mainstream Media to make it seem worse than it is.

 

[j-mac]

I have a few...

1. Yes, she did very well with her questions but she didn't go far enough. She should have called him out more forcefully about his "no DNI" statement. She should have pressed him on his "sensitive" remarks.

2. It is telling that the Mainstream Media isn't giving her questioning very much airplay. It doesn't fit their spinning narrative.

3. And for the hearings in general, why didn't ANYBODY ask Comey and Rogers point blank if THEY unmasked Flynn?

1. Absolutely, and Levin has a good one at about 11:00 of that clip, where he asks, "Did you brief anyone in the WH, or on the NSC about your investigation into the Trump campaign, including the DoJ"?

2. The MSM is never going to pull these threads when their mission is to "bring down" Donald Trump.

3. That would have been a good one, but they wouldn't have answered that one either....Isn't it funny how he could make a point of confirming that the Trump administraion is under investigation for ties to Russia concerning the election, but he wouldn't confirm anything that got close to exposing the ruse that is the claim in the first place?

 

[Erod]

It is quite clear now that the DoJ and FBI were surveilling the Trump campaign. Is it really hard to imagine that didn't involve wiretapping? Is it really a stretch to say Obama wasn't strongly pushing this action from a layer away?

 

[ludin]

I think Comey does what his boss tells him to do...no matter who his boss is at the moment.

When he worked for Obama...he did what Obama wanted. Now that he's working for Trump...he's doing what Trump wants.

Comey really didn't say anything damaging about Trump in the hearing. But what he said was spun to high heaven by the Mainstream Media to make it seem worse than it is.

The fact is that is not the point of the director of the FBI. he is not supposed to do what he is told. His job is to enforce federal law.
not pick and choose what laws he enforces.

 

[j-mac]

I listened to the video before I read your list, and Number 4 on your list jumped out at me like strobe light when I heard him say it.

I also spit my coffee out when he basically said "we decided to not tell Congress because Congress can't keep a secret, or tell the truth about the secret when they leak it" but of course he said it more politically correct. I loved the look she made at that answer.

I really don't think that anyone can listen to that questioning, and truthfully NOT think that there is something fishy going on here.

 

[j-mac]

It is quite clear now that the DoJ and FBI were surveilling the Trump campaign. Is it really hard to imagine that didn't involve wiretapping? Is it really a stretch to say Obama wasn't strongly pushing this action from a layer away?

I think that as this comes out, the game of semantics will be stretched to a credibility issue with those denying that a "wiretap" was initiated on the Trump campaign.

 

[ludin]

It is quite clear now that the DoJ and FBI were surveilling the Trump campaign. Is it really hard to imagine that didn't involve wiretapping? Is it really a stretch to say Obama wasn't strongly pushing this action from a layer away?

Yes it is. they at least had FISA warrants for several of trumps campaign people at this point. the details of which lines they had tapped are still not known.
more than likely they had some office space at trump tower. which would mean they probably had those lines tapped which would mean trump is right.

 

[JANFU]

I really don't think that anyone can listen to that questioning, and truthfully NOT think that there is something fishy going on here.

Would it be a good idea to brief them on such n event? Could they be trusted to keep their mouths shut?
And if leaks occurred, and that is highly probable, then what? Tear the country apart during an election. If found to be lacking in evidence, tear the country apart again??

 

[j-mac]

Would it be a good idea to brief them on such n event? Could they be trusted to keep their mouths shut?
And if leaks occurred, and that is highly probable, then what? Tear the country apart during an election. If found to be lacking in evidence, tear the country apart again??

Are you kidding me? During that time there WERE leaks coming out....To the WaPo, the NYTimes, etc....So, it is clear that someone inside the FBI or DoJ was leaking selected information about this investigation to damage the Trump campaign....But that's ok?

 

[JANFU]

Are you kidding me? During that time there WERE leaks coming out....To the WaPo, the NYTimes, etc....So, it is clear that someone inside the FBI or DoJ was leaking selected information about this investigation to damage the Trump campaign....But that's ok?

If the FBI were confirmed as investigation the Trump campaign, what would the repercussions be?

 

[Mycroft]

The fact is that is not the point of the director of the FBI. he is not supposed to do what he is told. His job is to enforce federal law.
not pick and choose what laws he enforces.

I agree.

I apologize if it seems I was disputing your contention that he should be fired. I think he should, as well.

 

[Mycroft]

Would it be a good idea to brief them on such n event? Could they be trusted to keep their mouths shut?

It's not the FBI's call to decide if Congress can "be trusted to keep their mouths shut".

And if leaks occurred, and that is highly probable, then what? Tear the country apart during an election. If found to be lacking in evidence, tear the country apart again??

"during an election"?? Too freaking bad. If the current administration is engaged in "suspicious" behavior...and that describes the Obama administration during the campaign perfectly...then it would have been a SERVICE to our citizens to tear his administration apart to expose his actions.

 

[j-mac]

If the FBI were confirmed as investigation the Trump campaign, what would the repercussions be?

You don't have to wonder "If" he confirmed it right there in the video....So, it is a fact that the FBI instituted an investigation on the Trump campaign in July of 2016, three plus months before the election....And we have leaks from either the FBI, or DoJ hitting the press around the same time period....Repercussions, are many....Are we now in a time where the sitting administration can just investigate the opposition in an election to dig their dirt? That isn't what this country is about....

Who did Comey brief?
When did Comey brief them?
Who leaked to the press details of investigation?
What investigative tools were used in this investigation beginning in July of 2016?
Who ordered the investigation into the Trump campaign?

These are all questions that still need to be answered?

 

[JANFU]

You don't have to wonder "If" he confirmed it right there in the video....So, it is a fact that the FBI instituted an investigation on the Trump campaign in July of 2016, three plus months before the election....And we have leaks from either the FBI, or DoJ hitting the press around the same time period....Repercussions, are many....Are we now in a time where the sitting administration can just investigate the opposition in an election to dig their dirt? That isn't what this country is about....

Who did Comey brief?
When did Comey brief them?
Who leaked to the press details of investigation?
What investigative tools were used in this investigation beginning in July of 2016?
Who ordered the investigation into the Trump campaign?

These are all questions that still need to be answered?

Yes they do, and the answers will come out. I also watched that portion of the testimony. And noted the points made, but went with what I have posted.

 

[JANFU]

It's not the FBI's call to decide if Congress can "be trusted to keep their mouths shut".



"during an election"?? Too freaking bad. If the current administration is engaged in "suspicious" behavior...and that describes the Obama administration during the campaign perfectly...then it would have been a SERVICE to our citizens to tear his administration apart to expose his actions.

What actions were illegal?

 

[j-mac]

Yes they do, and the answers will come out. I also watched that portion of the testimony. And noted the points made, but went with what I have posted.

So, it's right there in his own words, and you still won't accept it....ok....Got it.

 

[j-mac]

What actions were illegal?

Are you really asking him to break out the crystal ball? Where did he say that any actions were illegal? He didn't.

 

[Mycroft]

What actions were illegal?

I didn't say anything about "illegal".

Try to focus on the point that I made, eh?

 

[JANFU]

So, it's right there in his own words, and you still won't accept it....ok....Got it.

Leaks did happen. Did the AG confirm it? No. With good reason

 

[Beaudreaux]

I really don't think that anyone can listen to that questioning, and truthfully NOT think that there is something fishy going on here.

Agreed.