Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) questioned FBI Director James Comey on Thursday, May 4th, 2017, almost three years after he similarly asked the obstructionist running interference at the FBI some of the same questions and was likewise stonewalled, particularly on the matter of the IRS targeting conservatives. The telling of a new lie regarding that cover up he directed closed out Comey’s Thursday farce, but there’s much more deception to be had along the way.
One of those inconsistent statements made by Comey is the subject of the first question Senator Cruz puts to the FBI Director, telling him it’s puzzling “in that you described the reason why the case was closed against Ms Abedin as that you could not determine she was aware her conduct was unlawful. And the reason that answer is puzzling is, you’re a very accomplished lawyer, and, as you’re well aware, every first year law student learns in criminal law that ignorance of the law is no excuse and that mens rea does not require knowledge that conduct is unlawful.” He goes on to point out that there is no such requirement in the statutes.
Senator Cruz says, “If I understand you correctly you said Ms Abedin forwarded hundreds or thousands of classified emails to her husband on a non-government, non-classified computer. How does that conduct not directly violate that statute?”
Comey goes on to say that “for generations” the DOJ has applied the statute as if there is a requirement of intent, even though one is not specifically required in the language of the statute. They make up their own law, in essence. Cruz asks what Comey would do if one of his agents did what Huma Abedin did. He replies that there would be significant discipline but that he was highly confident there would be no criminal prosecution. Particularly if it was a Democrat and it was a minor offense like espionage, eh Comey? Based upon the way this government lets their own criminals off the hook, everyone should be highly confident such a perpetrator would skate.
After first laying a foundation of the conduct under the Obama administration, and the ordering of a purge of over 800 records at DHS to remove references to radical Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood, Cruz notes there is a new administration now and asks, “Has the approach of the FBI to radical Islamic terrorism changed in any respect with a new administration?”
Comey replies, “Not that I’m aware of, no,” a response which should be a red flag for any American patriot, given the pro-terrorist stance of the previous administration supported by the foundation laid in his question. Cruz cites a particular incident in Garland, Texas, laying out a lengthy explanation of a series of events which Comey handles in typical fashion, declaring them to be inaccurate, that he can’t say in what way they’re inaccurate, but he’ll provide the information at a later date.
Cruz next asks him about the supposed investigation into IRS targeting of conservatives, an issue he’s been pursuing with Comey for years. He says, “This committee has had substantial focus also on the practice of the previous IRS of targeting citizens and citizen groups based on their political speech, political views and perceived political opposition to ‘president’ Obama. And the previous Department of Justice, both Attorneys General Holder and Lynch, in my view stonewalled that investigation. Is the FBI currently investigating the IRS’ unlawful targeting of citizens for exercising political speech?”
Comey revealed more of the FBI’s contribution to that stonewalling process, stating, “We completed that investigation and the Department declined prosecution, we worked very hard on it, put a lot of people on it, couldn’t make what we thought was a case and to my knowledge it has not been reopened.” Senator Cruz asks for clarification, saying, “So did the FBI recommend prosecution, you said you couldn’t make the case?”
Director Comey fell back on the same argument he used for letting Huma Abedin and Hillary Clinton skip out on their crimes, that he couldn’t prove intent. Despite the overwhelming evidence and the vast number of delayed applications being those of conservatives as well as the conspiracy revealed in the emails, Comey claims he couldn’t prove intent.
It appears that Director Comey doesn’t really want to prove anything; that his job is to obstruct, insulate and protect crooked politicians and their operatives. He doesn’t have to be believable, just slippery. Obviously nobody’s going to fire him.
Thank you for reading and sharing my work – Please look for me, Rick Wells, https://www.facebook.com/RickRWells/ , http://www.gab.ai/RickRWells , https://plus.google.com/u/0/+RickwellsUs and on my website http://RickWells.US – Please SUBSCRIBE in the right sidebar at RickWells.US – not dot com, and also follow me on Twitter @RickRWells.