James Comey Asked the American People To Trust the FBI. Why Should They?

In an interview with Fox News, the former FBI director admitted mistakes with the FISA process but defended his team.


In an interview with Fox News Sunday's Chris Wallace, former FBI Director James Comey admitted that his agency made "significant mistakes" during the course of its investigation into alleged collusion between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign. But he defiantly insisted that his critics—including and especially Fox viewers—were wrong to have ever doubted the FBI's motives.

"The American people, especially your viewers, need to realize they were given false information about the FBI," said Comey, referencing an idea promoted by President Donald Trump and his most ardent supporters that the investigation was part of a politically motivated effort to take down the administration.

In response, Wallace asked pointedly, "Would you agree the FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] court was also given false information by the FBI?"

Comey conceded that this was the case.

It was a methodical evisceration of the fired FBI chief, who attempted to downplay his own mistakes and contextualize previous statements he made that no longer hold up in the wake of Inspector General Michael Horowitz's report. Horowitz chronicled the FBI's appalling failures during its handling of the Russia probe, including 17 incidents of "serious performance failures." Wallace raised three key issues with Comey, who tried and failed to explain them away.

First, Wallace pointed out that Comey had previously described the Steele dossier—a key piece of evidence used by the FBI to secure a FISA warrant for Trump campaign advisor Carter Page—as "part of a broader mosaic of facts" against Page. According to the Horowitz report, this was spin on the part of Comey: In fact, the Steele dossier was the fundamental component of the warrant. Comey haggled with Wallace about the definition of "broad mosaic of facts" but was essentially unable to rebut the charge that he had underplayed the dossier's importance after its accuracy came under scrutiny.

Second, Comey expressed ignorance regarding the specific actions of his underlings, in an attempt to claim that he may not have known exactly at what point FBI agents came to doubt the dossier's conclusions. This should be a black mark for him even if it is accurate.

Third, he had no explanation for why or how new information about Page—including that he had reported his contacts with Russians to the CIA—was misrepresented in the warrant.

Comey said these mistakes were unacceptable, and that his previous assertions that the FBI did everything correctly were "overconfident."

"I was wrong," said Comey. However, he maintained that ultimately the report had vindicated the FBI because the more outlandish conspiracy theories of a deep-state-orchestrated coup were not deemed credible.

Hanlon's razor—Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity—certainly applies here, and that's a lesson Team MAGA should take to heart. But that's not a vindication of the FBI. If Comey's broader plea to the American public to continue placing trust in the nation's top law enforcement agency falls on deaf ears, he will have no one to blame but himself.

NEXT: It's Bill of Rights Day. Do Americans Still Care?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Comey can go fuck himself. He’s as corrupt as Hoover was.


    1. Nah. If he were as corrupt as Hoover, he’d still be FBI director,and for years to come.

      1. Hoover was corrupt, but he generally erred on the side of anti-communism and didn’t try to overturn an election through illegal actions.

        Comey belongs up against a wall with a blindfold and a cigarette.

        1. Comey threw his pearls before the swine when he fucked over Hillary and the majority of voters by interfering in the election by publicizing the discovery of those emails. He expected of course to be praised by the pigs on the right for doing that but of course the pigs instead used it against him to get him fired after he wouldn’t play ball with Trump. If Comey is indicted by those same pigs it wouldn’t surprise me.

          1. Yes, One of my more progressive friends thinks that Trump should be impeached just for firing Comey. Why? Well, because obviously, HILLARY should have fired Comey, for different reasons, because she should have been president.

            It makes sense if you don’t think about it.

          2. Pod
            December.16.2019 at 10:57 am
            “Comey threw his pearls before the swine when he fucked over Hillary and the majority of voters by interfering in the election by publicizing the discovery of those emails…”

            Fucking lefty ignoramuses are STILL trying to blame everyone other than that miserable hag and themselves for Trump’s victory.
            Here, you pathetic piece of shit:
            “ANDREW PIERCE: Oh, Jeremy! Corbyn has flunked his history by blaming Margaret Thatcher for actions that happened before she took power”

            You and the other adolescents can go shed salty tears!
            Fuck off and die.

  2. Comey made multiple public statements to the effect that there were no substantive problems with the FISA warrants. Now that he has been caught in another lie he wants to play the “I didn’t know” game.

    Stupidity does not adequately explain how Comey’s FBI went out of their way to extend every benefit to Hillary while simultaneously inflicting multiple abuses on Trump. Stupidity is simply not that odds defying.

    1. Stupidity explains mistakes that fall in random directions. The mistakes made here were all in one direction, implying they weren’t mistakes. I dont know why reasons editors are too stupid to see this.


    2. Sometimes malice really is just malice.

      1. +1000

  3. Significant mistakes. Really? That is what he calls it? The man is plainly lying. Well, I won’t be satisfied until Comey is prosecuted and imprisoned.

    1. “Significant mistakes. Really? That is what he calls it?”

      Were procedures followed?

    2. There is no amount of protection for this guy if this goes in prosecution direction. If he was allowed to sing, he’d take down the DNC and Obama.

  4. Hanlon’s razor—Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity—certainly applies here

    Malice applies here.

    Stupidity is when you don’t know any better.

    These people knew better but they did it anyway…that’s malice.

    1. We are left with two possible conclusions from this: either that those in the FBI were so repulsed by the country’s selection as a presidential candidate that they removed constitutional and ethical safeguards and went full tilt in this very high profile (and certain to be scrutinized) investigation, or that the FBI regularly disregards professionalism and propriety in its FISA dealings and gets away with it so completely that an ill-conceived attempt to take down a president involved no risk.

      My personal guess is that both columns were checked here.

      1. Neither of which is in the “Incompetence” column.

    2. Hanlon’s razor—Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity—certainly applies here

      All 17 errors working against Trump cannot be adequately explained by stupidity. While this is not proof of malice it certainly justifies very strong suspicion.

    3. Yeah, just the odds of ALL of these mistakes going one way only makes incompetence a tough bridge to sell there.

  5. “and that’s a lesson Team MAGA should take to heart. But that’s not a vindication of the FBI. ”

    Reason really cant help themselves. They refuse to chalk up delays to Ukrainian aid to stupidity (even though countries such as lebanon had the same delays and OMB has now released 2 memos saying the delays were normal) instead attributing it all to Trumps malice.


    1. Needs moar fruit sushi.

  6. The Schiff interview was even worse. He claimed he simply didnt know the mistakes of FISA despite lying and hammering Nunes who put out a very accurate memo on what occurred over a year ago.

    1. Horowitz confirmed basically everything in the Nunes memo and a whole lot more that the media has been calling a conspiracy theory for 3 years.

      1. More than that, they say that the inspector General’s report blows all of the Republican talking points out of the water and completely debunks all of those crazy conspiracy theories.

    2. Again with these horrible, credulous interviews.

      You have the principles in the biggest scandal of your lifetime… probably in US history, and you don’t ask any of the tough questions? In addition to the bit about his claims vs those of Nunes, you would be remiss if you didn’t ask him about the prank call.

      He has been running around claiming that asking a foreign government for help with dirt on an opponent is a direct threat to the constitution and democracy itself. So why they hell wouldn’t you ask him about a call in which he personally asked someone that he believed to be an FSB agent from the Russian government for dirt on the President of the United States.

      You have the proof on tape, for crying out loud. And you don’t even pose the question? I mean, this guy bloviates right in your face about how unspeakably horrible it is to ask for dirt on a potential political rival from a foreign government, and you don’t point out the actual audio evidence of him doing the exact thing he’s railing against?

      You don’t ask any of the members of the Democrat caucus about their own involvement in obtaining dirt on Trump from British and Russian spies during the 2016 campaign? They are all members of the DNC, after all. They all work to support the DNC financially. It was their money that went to fund that bit of opposition research. Yet nobody in the press seems capable of connecting those very large dots that are located very close to each other and are all in a very straight line?

      1. Why would the press ask their fellow party members about their corruption? These people all belong to the same political and social circles; you really think Wallace, Todd, Stephanopoulos, O’Donnell, or any of the MSM Blue Checkmarks Brigade have ANY interest at all in calling out malfeasance within their own ranks?

        No way in hell. This is basically how you get a Caesar–when it becomes obvious that the establishment politicians have no interest other than protecting their own sinecures, with a great deal of help from their pro bono Squealers in the mass media complex.

      2. Chris Wallace is what you get when a progressive media member tries to keep up appearances.

  7. Comey knows whats coming after Trumps wins reelection. He spied on Trump for years.

    Comey knows that any indictment will not lead to a pardon.

    1. Wishful thinking. These guys are as slippery as eels. Comey’s criminal behavior will be overlooked and put down as sloppiness, unfortunately.

      Help us, Bill Barr. You’re our only hope.

  8. Top agents were put on it, ( later to be found as high suspect and fired, for a number of untruths, and questionable actions) but Comey says that it’s 7 levels down and would not know any of the things. He was so concerned to brief the President on a small matter he does not know is true. He had not taken the time to verify it but decides the most rag paper rumor had to be told to the President. A season person in National and public life that these things occur. He, per earlier explanation, briefed the salacious lie to the President of the United States to enlighten him on why he needs to be briefed every day by the FBI and CIA. This sentence in itself is indicative of the self-importance he placed on himself. Given the added fact that the last IG report showed he concealed and not just failed to inform the IG or the D/IG under Obama that he was usurping their power to prosecute and concealed his Press Conference from them and took center stage on the Hillary Email scandal. If that was the only reason Altered self-importance, it should give anyone pause, however, if anyone ever met another and has some idea of human behavior, it lauds as questionable to devilish.
    Take this another way in the aftermath of that one action.
    The one fact of him briefing the FBI started the whole train rolling, as the report considered dung by ever news agency and too unsupported to report even in this ragtag bottom feeding media, elevated the report to official status. It was then released and started a media frenzy. It was not officially released, but was leaked immediately with-in hours. So, no privacy of content or context and then leaked out like a volcano gushing. Somehow we are to assume that a well educated lawyer and executive claimed by some to be the finest person, who runs 3,400 people and decades in the FBI, would not be aware of what his action would cause or enough decency to take care it remained confidential. He would not ensure that it was private and not leaked. `

    Hold on a second. Hanion’s razor? There is a few more facts we know than that. The first being that none of the FBI personnel involved every admitted they over reacted, made errors, operated outside the box, and the Ex-FBI director and the new FBI Director only had absolute confidence in the matter. It took Barr to say it sounds odd and needs to be looked at. America got nothing like that. In fact this same FBI Director found it so necessary to assert his rightness he absconded with notes to have leaked by another. Does any form of decency exist in any of the FBI’s notebook?
    The Investigation was pulled to senior executives from the field unit that would normally have handled the case. The sheer grime of listening to him would send a shill into any decent person, but somehow this is how our Federal Government operates. I wouldn’t buy a hotdog from him. If I knew him as an acquaintance I would not trust him to drive my car, let alone any official action.

    Somehow after everything I know and just wrote, I am to be awakened to the fact we, most of the nation overreacted in believing something was seriously wrong. It was never a conspiracy just normal life’t errors. Hogwash, I got no tinfoil hat.

    1. Not only that, he apparently didn’t think it was important to tell Trump that they were looking at possible Russian involvement in his campaign to begin with.

  9. I actually think I would trust the NYT before Comey.
    And I don’t trust the date on the top of the NYT pages until I have done due diligence with a calendar.

  10. No, these were not mistakes. And no, hanlon’s razor does not apply here.

    You do not accidentally change an email to read exactly the opposite of what it said. It is impossible to frame that as an accident or as incompetence.

    You do not accidentally tell the judge that you met with the primary source for the Steele dossier and found them to be credible, implying that you found the Steele dossier to be credible, when they actually contradicted what Steele wrote in his dossier during your interview. There is no way to rationally frame that as an accident or as incompetence.

    Carter page says that he was working with the FBI and the CIA for years on a case against Russian agents. In an interview last week he claimed that the FBI was pressuring him to testify in a case against the two Russians. He says that during that meeting with the FBI he told them he was not sure he wanted to testify in their case because he was about to go and volunteer for the Trump campaign.

    According to Carter page and his lawyer, the very next day the agents went to their bosses and asked what kind of Investigation they should open into Carter page. They say they have emails showing this.

    So, we have claims from the FBI that they got information that Carter page was working with the Russians, but apparently they had been working with him for years and we’re actually meeting with him about those Russians the day before they opened their surveillance of him as some sort of counterterrorism Investigation.

    If any of that is true, your theory that this is in confidence is not only wrong, their entire defense of their actions as errors and omissions is obliterated. We shall see what materializes of that claim, but it certainly does not look like the basis for the entire investigation was, as Barr said, even flimsy. It looks like it was a setup from the beginning.

  11. And just so we can be clear, you do not accidentally open a spying operation on a political campaign for president in the United States.

    This was signed off on by every top-level official at the FBI. And we know Comey. There is zero chance that that political animal undertook such an operation on his own nickel. There is zero chance that this was not cleared by the White House.

    So no, I do not think that you can pretend that this is a “mistakes were made” scenario. Or that these people are just incompetent. This had the direct attention and involvement of the very top officials at the FBI, the CIA, and I am quite certain the justice department and in the White House. None of these guys were neophytes or Rubes.

  12. I still cannot understand why our press is so incompetent. Comey sitting in an interview and that’s the best questions you can come up with?

    How about, if you were really concerned about a threat from Russia to infiltrate the Trump campaign, why did you not work with the Trump campaign to prevent this infiltration? I would follow that up nine ways from Sunday to. If he put up resistance, I would ask him if the Chinese were trying to steal nuclear secrets from Los Alamos, would you simply try to arrest employees of Los Alamos? Or would you maybe work with officials at the National Laboratory to ensure that their procedures are tight and they are vigilant about intrusion attempts?

    Or how about, who in the White House signed off on spying on the Trump campaign?

    Or perhaps, did you participate in distributing classified information around the federal government in order for it to be leaked following the inauguration, precipitating and independent counsel? We know that there was an initiative among high-ranking officials in the White House to do this, it is well documented in a New York Times article sourced from the principles themselves. So this is not an unreasonable question. Comey was the point man with all of the information that needed to be leaked.

    Or how about, when you learned of this, charitably offering up that this was at the moment that it was published in the New York freaking times, did you open an investigation into this obvious attack on the peaceful transfer of power and admitted violations of federal secrecy laws?

    I could probably go on for 20 or 30 pages of salient questions that need to be asked and have never been asked and certainly never answered.

    1. They’re not incompetent. They’re competently doing a different job than you think they should be doing.

      You think they should be informing the public. THEY think they should be manipulating the public to advance left wing causes.

    2. They are not incompetent. They are lying propagandists.

      Next question please…

  13. “You fucked up. You trusted us!”


  14. I’ve been assured by the most honest of journalists that none of this was politically motivated.

    1. Well, a personal dislike of Trump wouldn’t be a political motive….

      1. A personal dislike of Trump makes it easy to form a reasonable suspicion but probable cause requires an independent third party to verify the reasonable suspicion and Comey knew damn well he didn’t have probable cause. Comey abused the system to spy on Trump by claiming the FBI weren’t spying on Trump, they were just spying on the people he was talking to. They didn’t bother warning Trump that he was dealing with some shady characters because they assumed Trump himself was a shady character. And remember that the FBI has a pretty good track record of only being able to bust up plots they themselves have funded and fomented and masterminded.

        Can you imagine Obama setting up a meeting with somebody the FBI suspects might be a Russian agent without them warning him that this person is suspected of being a Russian agent? No way in hell. Of course if Hillary set up such a meeting they wouldn’t warn her, they’d just look the other way and consider it none of their business who Hillary talks to.

        1. “Mr President, sir, may I remind you that you will be meeting with Mr. Medvedev, who is President of Russia. He may be acting on behalf of Russia”

          “Who? He’s Russian? He’s OK if he’s a friend of my buddy Vlad’s!”

        2. Of course if Hillary set up such a meeting they wouldn’t warn her, they’d just look the other way and consider it none of their business who Hillary talks to.

          And our illustrious press corps would have zero curiosity about investigating it themselves, because they almost all supported her candidacy. Keep in mind that it was a Vice reporter, not anyone at the Alphabet networks or even the gossip-mongers at Gawker, making multiple FOIA requests on Hillary’s communications during her time as Secretary that ultimately resulted in the story breaking that she had a private, unauthorized email server to begin with.

  15. “Hanlon’s razor—Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity—certainly applies here”

    Hanlon’s razor is BS. It assumes falsely that malice and stupidity are mutually exclusive. They aren’t.

    1. Hanlon’s razor explicitly requires that stupidity be an adequate explanation. Stupidity clearly falls short of being able to explain everything that happened here.

      1. Even if stupidity is an adequate explanation, that doesn’t preclude malice.

  16. “We weren’t out to get Trump, it just seemed that way because we were all so horrible at our jobs.”

    Top. Men.

    1. Someone needs to tell Comey that “we’re not corrupt, we’re just incompetent” is not really a ringing endorsement of the FBI.

      Unless of course he is trying to avoid future prosecution, which case it makes perfect sense why he would say that.

      1. why not he used the incompetent excuse for Hillary hiding emails on a private server in the bathroom

      2. Of course Comey is trying to avoid future prosecution….I mean, if you coordinated with the CIA director to undermine the candidate who would later be elected POTUS, and then undermined him some more while he is in office, would you not do the same? Of course you would.

        Comey should sit in a prison cell for his actions.

  17. If I can’t trust the FBI as an institution, then I have no reason to believe that they’re “corrupt but not deep state.”

    If a cop was busted or planting evidence on a minority target and texts from him disparaging the victim in racist language was found, then it’s reasonable to argue that the cop was racist. It wouldn’t be just another instance of excessive force or poor judgment.

    This is essentially what happened with the Russian probe. The FBI had an agenda, that’s beyond dispute. If you knowingly altered email and submitted evidence you know to be bunk, you have an agenda. Whether that was motivated specifically by “political bias” is yet to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, but it’s highly likely. FBI rank and file was reportedly dismayed by Comey’s dismissal.

    Reason can’t quite admit that this might have been a soft coup attempt. Fighting corruption and restraining the head of the state should not give the government carte blanche to do whatever they want. Otherwise the French revolution would have been a wild success.

    1. If you knowingly altered email and submitted evidence you know to be bunk, you have an agenda. Whether that was motivated specifically by “political bias” is yet to be proven”

      What else could it be other than political? is there any other reason to falsify information to take down a duly elected president other than because they thought they could and gave it the old college try as a dry run to control all future presidents.

      1. There probably was political pressure. But only an in depth investigation can officially determine that.

  18. I have conspired, rigged, and lied. Please trust me. Sure LOL

    1. If you didnt do it for political reasons, no worries.

      1. again what other reasons are there?

  19. At this point, the only real defense against charges of political bias the FBI has, is, “But we ALWAYS lie to judges when obtaining warrants, rig the process, and falsify evidence if it seems necessary. Trump wasn’t a victim of political bias, we railroad everybody we’re told to, without regard to their politics.”

    1. But then you have the conveniently adjacent in time and place example of the opposing party candidate – who was caught red-handed by the exact same group of people committing actual crimes.

      And what do you know! They didn’t wiretap anyone. And they didn’t dig into the past of everyone associated with this other candidate, hoping to find anything they could prosecute so that they could hold their privates in a vice to encourage “cooperation”. They also didn’t set up anyone around that other candidate for petty process crimes. And they managed to get the other candidate in an interview room…. and did not pull their number one maneuver of laying a trap for lying to the FBI.

      So that kinda blows that one out of the water.

      So they are left with the defense that the media and the DNC have latched on to – that their own inspector general investigated and did not find any evidence of political bias.

      Now, this was a bit strangely worded… because in normal parlance you say “didn’t find any evidence” when you mean “I really didn’t find any evidence”. But what he later clarified that this meant was “I was unable to prove that they took the steps that they took because they told me that they did it because of the reasons stated on the warrants. I did not find written evidence to the contrary, and nobody confessed otherwise. I did not push them on this point, and I cannot read minds. Therefore, I wrote that I did not find any evidence of political bias”.

      In normal parlance you would say that the texts were certainly evidence of political bias – I mean, they as much as said so in plain English. And you would also say that whitewashing the Clinton investigation when there was clear evidence of both crime and intent, when juxtaposed with the over-the-top spying and attempts to prosecute associates as an “incentive” to provide damning evidence in a case where, despite spending tens of millions of dollars on the investigation they were unable to find any wrongdoing by the candidate… well, I am hard pressed to come up with another explanation for that contrast.

      So, in any ordinary world, you would call those things “evidence”. You would probably not call them “proof”. But it is pretty strong evidence, nonetheless.

      1. BTW, they are running a similar gambit with the Biden/Burisma situation.

        They claim that the allegation that Biden Junior committed a crime has been debunked.

        Which is interesting and despositive of their intent and logic. Because nobody accused Junior of committing a crime. Joe Biden stands accused of using his office for financial gain – in the form of payouts to his relatives. That is the accusation.

        The media has been repeating the mantra “Republicans accuse him, without evidence….” Which is an abject lie. There is plenty of evidence.

        First, Joe was in a position to do something for these companies.

        Second, Junior got a job that paid him millions of dollars …. a job that he was utterly unqualified for. In fact, it is clear that his only qualification was his connection to a high ranked US official with power over policy in that country.

        Third, Joe bragged loudly about how he threatened the Ukraine with the loss of a billion dollars in financial aid if they did not fire someone who was investigating that company.

        That is not “without evidence”. That is “With a lot of evidence”. What they lack is a memo from Junior to dad saying “Please get this guy fired”. Now, you would not expect to ever find such a document in any such case. But there ya go.

        They also hang their hat on “he wasn’t even investigating that company”. This has been roundly disproved 11 ways from Sunday. If you don’t want to take the old prosecutor’s word for it.. or others in the government at the time…. you can take the new prosecutor’s word for it. He promptly closed the investigations with the issuance of a small fine as soon as he took the office. You cannot close the investigations with a small fine if there were not investigations. It takes a particularly motivated mind to pull off the level of doublethink required to call that “no evidence” and “no investigation”.

        Now, there is a world in which some of the assertions by Biden’s defenders are true. The fired prosecutor claims that the attacks on him from the EU were fomented by the CIA. This is interesting, given Brennan’s involvement with the Trump affair. But let’s assume he’s full of crap on that. There is still a way that Burisma wanted him out – it is possible that he was a corrupt prosecutor on the take who was using his position (and those investigations) to shake down Burisma. In that case it would be reasonable to conclude that they used all of those well-connected board members to push foreign countries to get rid of him.

        Either way, it is really hard to argue that Biden randomly insisted that some government official in a foreign country get fired – all on his own initiative simply because he suddenly felt like doing it and with absolutely no connection to the millions his family was getting. (remember, Biden bragged that this was his own personal initiative, not on orders from the president.. he personally decided at the last minute to do this.)

        All of this is completely public and widely reported. So the repeated labeling of this as “asserted without evidence” and ” debunked claims” is not “good journalism” or even “honest disagreement”. It is completely unsupportable, and therefore quite obvious evidence of intent on their part.

        1. By the way, this is the exact same m.o. for how they dealt with pizza/pedo gate (which is why it’s known as pizzagate rather than pedogate) – that it has all been “debunked” and the theory is sold as entirely “Hillary Clinton running a child sex slave operation out of a pizza parlor”.
          Thus all suspicious elements are swept under the rug, and even libertarians fall for it.

      2. I think you misunderstood me: “we railroad everybody we’re told to

        They were told to railroad Trump, they were told to whitewash Hillary. They just did their job in both cases.

        1. “He asserted without evidence…”

          Hey, that magic phrase works for just about anything!

          1. “Hey, that magic phrase works for just about anything!”

            Cyto asserted without evidence!

  20. I quit working my desk job and now,,,I ‘m making $97/Hr working from home by doing this simple online home jobz.i earn $15 thousands a month by working online 3 Hour par day.i recommended you try it.you will lose nothing.just try it out on the following website and earn daily…go to this site home media tech tab for more detail thank you.GOOD LUCK◐◐

    ……….   Read More

  21. I still haven’t seen a valid explanation for the fbi’s behavior if it wasn’t based on any political bias. It’s true you shouldn’t attribute malice to stupidity, but it’s not like the falsifying of a record was done by accident. You could say it’s a stupid thing to do, but the question is why do it?

    One answer I got on another site was “laziness” which might explain some mistakes, but not the falsifying the record bit.

    1. Also, everyone keeps avoiding asking just the basic question of why….. why did you decide to run a counterintelligence investigation against the Trump campaign.

      If they are to be believed as to their predicate – they had “evidence” that the Russians were trying to infiltrate the Trump campaign.

      So… .that raises the obvious “why” question. Why did you not make any attempt to protect the Trump campaign? They claim repeatedly that this was their intent … protecting the US from foreign attacks on our election. Yet when faced with such an attack (so they say), they made no attempts whatsoever to protect the Trump campaign and then the transition from foreign infiltration. In fact, they attempted to create foreign entanglements via their CIA connections and by setting up low level associates for process crimes in foreign countries. They did pretty much exactly the opposite of protecting the US election from foreign attack in this case. Heck, they even promoted the Russia sourced and British created dossier, giving it legitimacy in the media.

      So, if you are a reporter and you have a chance to ask…. ask them why they reacted to an attempted attack by Russian spies by seeking to spy on and attack the Trump campaign instead of attempting to protect the Trump campaign from foreign spies.

    2. There’ve been plenty of examples in these pages of cops and prosecutors who fixated on their first suspect and kept doing everything they could to put them in jail even when their investigations couldn’t legitimately justify it, even in cases where they had no preexisting personal animus against the person.

      When Kamala Harris challenged the release of an exonerated man do you think she had any personal animus against him? Probably not even the original prosecutors prior to starting prosecution.

      Of course personal animus is ALSO a reason corrupt cops go after people, I’m just answering what could be another explanation. Once that started they couldn’t/wouldn’t stop till they found something.

      And of course it could be a combination, some acted out of malice, some were too lazy or incompetent to catch them, some just wanted to keep their head down and follow orders.

      1. Richard Jewell?

        1. Yes. And many others.

          And even if you wish to argue that it’s only a minority of bad cops that do that and most wouldn’t (not a popular opinion around here but still an objection to address), that’s not relevant, because we already know they were bad cops/agents and we’re just debating what kind they were.

      2. Professional animus? Is that a thing?

    3. I suppose they could do it as a bragging point. I took down a president is always good for the history books and book selling tours. that of course is just pure malice and still a deep state crime that should be punished as much as any other reason

  22. The IG report does not state that the FBI investigation was not politically motivated. It states that the investigation uncovered no testamentary nor documentary evidence of political bias motivating the FBI’s actions.

    Please. Are they going to come out and testify that, or preserve memoranda which say, “Oh, we’re soooo against having Donald Trump in the White House. Let’s find something, anything, against him, even if we have to lie and cheat.”

    I don’t think so.

    1. Actually, I think Page and Strozk did manage to clear that particular hurdle.

      1. Yeah, but their texts did not say that they were taking any one particular action because of political bias.

        This is the specific hurdle that the IG placed for himself. Not “evidence” of bias… but specific evidence that political bias motivated a specific action. For anything beyond that, he said “I cannot read minds”. Which is an odd bar to set for the FBI, where they have exactly the opposite bar in most investigations.

  23. It’s not that hard to understand – Comey asks the public to trust the Intelligence Community because they’ve got a file on you and they’ve got six ways from Sunday of getting back at you.

    1. True, but my file is probably not too extensive since I was not a principal in the matter.

  24. maybe this can be discussed. Let’s ask the people to trust the FBI because the FBI has the data of all the people. feedback my website http://mg2ovo.com/

  25. “I was wrong,” said Comey. However, he maintained that ultimately the report had vindicated the FBI because the more outlandish conspiracy theories of a deep-state-orchestrated coup were not deemed credible.

    Here’s an outlandish conspiracy theory: The reason they’re all laying heavily into the Ukraine thing as Trump trying to dig up dirt on Biden is because they want you to ignore that the whole first part of “the favor” Trump was asking for was that server and information on Cloudstrike’s connections to it.

    Remember that Cloudstrike worked for Hillary and the DNC and they’re the ones who claimed the server had been hacked by the Russians, the FBI concurred on that conclusion and the other intelligence agencies concurred with the FBI. There’s a lot of rumors out there that say the “hack” was no hack but simply an insider downloading the files directly off the server – something an independent forensic examination would easily show.

    Which would mean it wasn’t just Hillary and the DNC lying about the Russians, it was the FBI as well. I strongly suspect Trump didn’t want that server for dirt against Hillary, he wanted it for dirt against the deep state. The Bidens were more an afterthought – a more obvious case of corruption.

      1. This isn’t only wild speculation. The word at the time was that the speed of the transfers cited by Crowdstrike were impossible over an outside network. The transfer had to be local.

        This was a popular discussion in technical circles for about 5 minutes, but since the FBI never secured any of the evidence, it went nowhere.

    1. Correct jerry

    2. No no, you can’t say this … it has all been D E B U N K E D !
      No further discussion necessary or allowed.

    3. Didn’t wikileaks and the ex British ambassador to Kazakstan(?), who picked up the emails, say they were a leak not a hack?

      Still who would believe them?

  26. I don’t

  27. Awesome information very nice Post sir thanks for sharing

    My blog is https://www.helpgurugroup.com

  28. That was my understanding from the “transcript.” Reading it in context, Trump brings up Cloudstrike first and spends more time inquiring about how that effected the election. The Biden thing seemed more like a curiosity (which may have something to do with that being in the news cycle at the time.) It is disingenuous to explain this as Trump threatening another country to dig up dirt on Biden. The dirt was already out in the open, but he chose to highlight it and ask for answers.
    Now, it is also worth looking into how he went about seeking this investigation. From the transcript a generous interpretation is that he simply asked a favor in a matter of mutual interest. Alternatively, it is possible he was strong-arming since his words can be interpreted that way and bureaucrats seemed to assume it (noting that all those interviewed so far seem hostile to Trump.)
    I lean towards finding the Giuliani involvement suspicious but otherwise the evidence is that at worst Trump overstepped a bit. It is frustrating that Reason and almost all of the media keeps ignoring the transcript and spinning everything as negative for the president contrary to the evidence. It’s disturbing how deep this site has delved into tds and can’t use logic anymore.

    1. Giuliani’s involvement was that he was trying to find proof that the charges against Trump were bunk, by proving that it was in fact the DNC that was working with foreign governments to create problems in the US election.

      Whether he was getting played or not is another question – but there were several Ukrainian officials who were complaining about the behavior of the Obama administration well before Giuliani gets involved – as was documented back in 2017 in Politico.

      1. I’ll grant the possibility. I also see how Trump would want to go around a hostile bureaucracy. It still looks shady and I’d actually like to see some answers to what was going on there. Just because Trump’s opponents are insane doesn’t mean he isn’t involved in shady shit. It sucks that the left is completely about power and have no principles outside of gaining it. Still, I’d like to see government held to account no matter who is abusing power.

        1. Thats all any of us want if Trump is guilty then clearly Hillary the FBI and Obama are guilty. old joe is so far only guilty of holding back money to stop a prosecuter in another country which may not be a crime and if so is the lesser of the crimes the others have made

  29. How remarkable that the best defence he has is incompetence.

    1. Same as Hillary. And a bad memory.

      1. It’s all about establishing criminal intent. “I don’t know” or “I don’t recall” or “mistakes were made” are much less actionable statements than “yeah, we were out to get Trump. So what?”

        Remember, these are federal swamp creatures. No one knows more about avoiding Section 1001 prosecutions than they do.

  30. Sure, I’ll blindly trust the avowed liar who outright refused to prosecute Hillary after admitting she had committed a felony on the insistence that she’s above the law, especially when it comes to looking the other way for Democrat corruption and abuses of power.

  31. Love how journalists and opinion writers who have spent three years ridiculing the idea that the FBI was spying on Trump in a politically motivated investigation, are now hanging onto the idea that the IG exonerated the FBI of any political motivation. He did no such thing. He simply chose not to say what is obvious to anybody with any common sense.
    I’m assuming Robby has common sense so the only explanation for him to buy into this line is deep embarrassment and an inability to admit the truth.

  32. The Chron this morning had it that there was some ‘sloppyness’, but no real “mistakes”.
    It is hereby declared that using FBI-doctored evidence to support a warrant is not a ‘mistake’. Nope, just NOP

  33. “Hanlon’s razor—Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity—certainly applies here, and that’s a lesson Team MAGA should take to heart.”

    Lol. now do the Ukraine call. Then realize how dishonest you all are and call out impeachment for what it is rather than stroke Amash like he has any power beyond what the socialists give him during the hearings

    1. I am certain all these Donkeys know that Trump thoroughly researches every interaction with important persons and vets all of his discussion points with his relevant staff. Thus, he is guilty of committing a horrible crime of discussing issues between our two countries.

  34. The Executive Summary of the Inspector General report was sufficiently damning of the FBI’s actions in using the Steele dossier to obtain a warrant to wiretap a presidential campaign that I didn’t initially bother reading much beyond that. Since then, I’ve heard some tings quoted, and so I ended up reading more of the IG’s assessment of what the FBI knew and when they knew it–and it’s far worse in the details than it is in the Executive Summary.

    The FBI’s interview with Steele’s Primary Subsource in January 2017, shortly after the FBI filed the Carter Page FISA Renewal Application No. 1 and months prior to Renewal Application No. 2, raised doubts about the reliability of Steele’s descriptions of information in his election reports. During the FBI’s January interview, at which Case Agent 1, the Supervisory Intel
    Analyst, and representatives of NSD were present, the Primary Sub-source told the FBI that he/she had not seen Steele’s reports until they became public that month, and that he/she made statements indicating that Steele misstated or exaggerated the Primary Sub-source’s statements in multiple sections of the reporting. 336 For example, the Primary Sub-source told the FBI that, while Report 80 stated that Trump’s alleged sexual activities at the Ritz Carlton hotel in Moscow had been “confirmed” by a senior, western staff member at the hotel, the Primary Sub-source explained that he/she reported to Steele that Trump’s alleged unorthodox sexual activity at the Ritz Carlton hotel was “rumor and speculation” and that he/she had not been able to confirm the story. A second example provided by the Primary Sub-source was Report 134’s description of a meeting allegedly held between Carter Page and Igor Sechin, the President of Rosneft, a Russian energy conglomerate. Report 134 stated that, according to a “close associate” of Sechin, Sechin offered “PAGE/ TRUMP’s associates the brokerage of up to a 19 percent (privatized) stake in Rosneft” in return for the lifting of sanctions against the company. The Primary Sub-source told the FBI that one of his/her subsources furnished information for that part of Report 134 through a text message, but said that the sub-source never stated that Sechin had offered a brokerage interest to Page. We reviewed the texts and did not find any discussion of a bribe, whether as an interest in Rosneft itself or a “brokerage. “

    . . . .

    The Primary Sub-source was questioned again by the FBI beginning in March 2017 about the election reporting and his/her communications with Steele. The Washington Field Office agent (WFO Agent 1) who conducted that interview and others after it told the OIG that the Primary Sub-source felt that the tenor of
    Steele’s reports was far more “conclusive” than was justified. The Primary Subsource also stated that he/she never expected Steele to put the Primary Subsource’s statements in reports or present them as facts. According to WFO Agent 1, the Primary Sub-source said he/she made it clear to Steele that he/she had no proof to support the statements from his/her sub-sources and that “it was just talk.” WFO Agent 1 said that the Primary Sub-source explained that his/her information came from “word of mouth and hearsay;” “conversation that [he/she] had with friends over beers;” and that some of the information, such as allegations about Trump’s sexual activities, were statements he/she heard made in “jest.”

    “Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane Investigation”


    So, let’s establish three things:

    1) FBI Supervisors knew that Steel’s sources had disavowed the the Steele Dossier.

    2) They submitted the same information to the FISA court three more times–and attested to its accuracy on each occassion.

    3) According the Executive Summary, the supervision of the three teams’ working on the FISA court warrant applications went all the way to the top of the FBI, to Comey, because of its sensitive nature in a high profile investigation.

    The FBI renewed these warrants three times with information they knew to have been disavowed–even after Trump was elected. Why should President Trump trust the FBI to do anything?

    Where is the independent counsel to investigate the FBI and its leadership?

    1. The FBI needs downsizing to a point just short of complete dismantlement.

  35. “Hanlon’s razor—Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity—certainly applies here,”

    No it doesn’t. Its clear that Comey isn’t stupid. Its also clear that he’s a lying prick who should be in jail with Hillary.

  36. “Third, he had no explanation for why or how new information about Page—including that he had reported his contacts with Russians to the CIA—was misrepresented in the warrant.”

    That information should have been known and disclosed in the warrant but that isn’t exculpatory evidence. Page shouldn’t have been anywhere near a political campaign if he was a double agent. Trump hired the version of Page who the Russians believed was their useful idiot. He didn’t hire the Page who was supposedly passing along information to the CIA.

    1. Trump hired the version of Page who the Russians believed was their useful idiot. He didn’t hire the Page who was supposedly passing along information to the CIA.

      What a stupid, self-justifying statement. Literally nothing you say should be taken as anything other than fan fiction.

  37. It’s unfortunate the media, and most surprisingly Reason(!!!), are providing such cover for these acts by calling them accidental “mistakes”! It’s flabbergasting really. How can any objective person view these convenient omissions, half-truths, and fabrications given to the FISC as simple “absent minded or careless mistakes”? “Shame on the FBI for making these ‘careless mistakes'” says finger wagging Reason. It’s like we’re in some twilight zone.

    1. If the FBI routinely makes these types of mistakes then how many innocent people are in jail because of their mistakes. If anyone hires a person who makes multiple mistakes they get fired when will the FBI be fired

  38. I think it is clear that the entire senior leadership and much of the mid level management of the FBI need to be replaced.

  39. Reason unwittingly unites Reason commentariat. First time in ages.

    1. Pod is an outlier, as Hihn would be if he got up before noon. Not to mention the other trolls.

  40. I’m not a fan or an opponent of the FBI. They are the federal police. So by default, I am always a little suspicious of them. That’s just the nature of power. I am equally suspicious of militias, people with basements full of guns, wealthy people, and large corporations. What I find interesting though, is that conservatives can so easily crap all over the FBI but the second someone protests the local police all heck breaks loose. How dare they cross that thin blue line!

    I get it. Hypocrisy cuts both ways. We see some progressives not being critical enough of Comey and the FBI but happy to denounce their local racist cops. It’s all too obvious that the FBI is being used as a convenient pawn. But it is clear that Trump is far from impartial. While Clinton was being investigated he is all to happy with the FBI. When they announce (via leaks) that the FBI is re-opening a case againt Clinton before the election he is ok with it. But the second they investigate Mr. “lock her up” they become some out-of-control Gestapo. They cry about biiiaaaasss but can care less when racist cops shoot unarmed black men and then turn around and call the BLM movement a front for Communim of something. If bias were a legitimate complaint then more than half the black men sitting in prison right now could get a judge to overturn their pleas and sentences. But let’s be honest, you will not hear a Republican entertain that notion any time soon.

    1. Both sides!!!!!

      How original.

    2. You must be new here, Heraclitus. Very few of the libertarians who comment here are fans of, or apologists for, police of any type.

      Your point about investigations falls flat. The excuses used for the investigation of Trump were based on a pack of lies and innuendos, which has now been verified by Comey and others. This is not the same as the Hillary/DNC hijinks which were glossed over because she didn’t have ‘mens rea’ despite the fact the crime explicitly did not require mens rea.

      1. BigT
        December.16.2019 at 3:45 pm
        “You must be new here, Heraclitus….”

        Nope, that lefty pile of shit has shown up for quite a while. Just not very often, but very stupid.

  41. We now know that Obama politicized and weaponized the IRS and FBI for his own personal political gain and that of his party. When is he going to be indicted for his crimes?

    1. It’s a bad idea to start investigating Obama in particular. Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch and a few others, however, should be investigated.

  42. Hanlon’s Razor explains Robby Soaves thinking and this column, not the FBI’s

  43. Comey is the new Epstein.

  44. “Hanlon’s razor—Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity—certainly applies here, and that’s a lesson Team MAGA should take to heart.”

    Nothing to see here, just a bunch of Barnie Fifes stumbling over themselves.


  45. Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Seventeen times in a row is definitely enemy action, not mere stupidity.

  46. Russia corrupt. Nigeria corrupt. Venezuela corrupt. China corrupt.

    USA good. A beacon of truth, justice, and light for the world to see. A force for good.

    There, I fixed it for you all.

    BTW, did I tell you about the unicorn in my backyard? It’s beautiful!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.