Comey’s Incomplete Testimony and his Core Act of Perjury

Comey’s core act of perjury during the Comey Hearings may well be intertwined with his inaccurate, incomplete testimony about his leaks that, in turn, hid false testimony about why he leaked and lied about President Trump’s demand for his loyalty.

President Trump’s personal attorney, Marc Kasowitz pointed out this potential for Comey’s foundational act of perjury regarding the loyalty memo:

“Although Mr. Comey testified he only leaked the memos in response to a tweet, the public record reveals that the New York Times was quoting from these memos the day before the referenced tweet, which belies Mr. Comey’s excuse for this unauthorized disclosure of privileged information and appears to entirely retaliatory.”

Yes, there are two leaks and Comey only testified about one of the leaks. On May 11, two days after Comey was fired, the first leak occurred. The New York Times reported that two Comey “associates” leaked information about a one-on-one dinner seven days after the inauguration. Then on May 15 Comey decides to leak the information in the memo in a second way, through Daniel Richman. This leaked memo appears in The Times on May 16.

This is the incomplete element of Comey’s testimony that may hide his perjury. Susan Collins did not follow up her questioning properly. She could have and should have also asked, “Did you speak with anyone besides the Justice Department about your discussions with the president?”

The horse sense of the issue is that if Comey leaked the same lies before the tweet, his claim that he only began to lie only after Trump’s tweet is a false testimony. The false testimony, then, forms the basis for Comey’s perjury about why he leaked his memos.

There was also some confusion in Comey’s testimony before Senator Susan Collins. Susan Collins of Oregon had asked about a memo, singular, but then she asks a question about all the memos. Comey remains focused only on the loyalty memo about the Trump dinner on January 27.

Susan Collins – Maine: And finally, did you show copies of your memos to anyone outside of the department of justice? (From the context: A.G. Sessions and Deputy A.G. Rosenstein.)

James Comey: Yes. I asked President tweeted on Friday after I got fired that I better hope there is not tapes. I woke up in the middle of the night on Monday night, because it didn’t dawn on me originally, that there might be corroboration for our conversation, might be a tape, my judgment was I needed to get that out into the public square and so I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter. Didn’t do it myself for a variety of reasons, but asked him to, because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel. I asked a close friend of mine to do that.

Susan Collins – Maine: Was that Mr. Wittous (Benjamin Wittes, a reporter for the New York Times)?

James Comey: No.

Susan Collins – Maine: Who was that?

James Comey: A good friend of mine, professor at Columbia Law School.

Despite the confusion, how Comey claimed to have leaked still involves critical omissions. He claimed to have leaked the loyalty memo only by way of a single friend (Columbia University law professor Daniel Richman), but there are two leaks of the conversation included in this memo. Even though the leak of the information in this memo was accomplished in two different ways, both leaks are material to a full answer to Senator Collins’ question. Is Comey’s partial answer a simple oversight, or is he dodging the heart of her question? The answer hinges on a complete testimony by Comey concerning all of his leaks.

Both leaks involved people outside of the Justice Department, so both elements of the leak are germane to the answer Senator Collins sought: was there anyone who knew about the contents of this memo who was not authorized to know? If these conversations with the President were so serious that they constituted a law enforcement matter, how did this information get to the New York Times before it reached the Justice Department? Certainly, despite her shock at Comey’s admission, Senator Collins should have followed up her questions.

Nevertheless, it makes little difference as to whether Comey discussed the contents of his memo or emailed a copy of his memo; in both instances the contents of conversations Comey claims were critical law enforcement matters were leaked. Both go to his motivation for leaking.

Is Comey’s incomplete testimony is perjury? Did he purposely omitted a key portion of the answer to Collins’ question to obscure his motives for leaking? His motives for leaking on the 15th make little sense in light of his earlier leaks. Did Comey purposely misrepresent, by conscious omission,  how he leaked the loyalty memo, when he first leaked it, and why he leaked it?

Comey claimed that Trump’s response to his first leak on May 11th, this May 12th tweet, motivated him to leak the loyalty memo:

“James Comey better hope that there are no “tapes” of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press,”

Because of Comey’s inaccuracies and omissions, other narratives are much equally plausible.

Perhaps, terrified that he was trapped by Trump’s “tape,” Comey raced to his lawyer friend in Columbia, a friend to whom he’d embellished off the record criticisms of the President before. Any lawyer would suggest that a “contemporaneous memo” would establish that even if the “tape” was different than Comey’s recollection, Comey hadn’t lied, he’d only misunderstood what Trump was saying.

Perhaps there never was a contemporaneous memo about any of President Trump’s conversations until after May 15. This would explain why Comey can’t produce originals of those memos as of this date.

It is also possible that Comey’s descriptions of what constitutes a “memo” is a bit subjective. Are the Comey memos simply notes for his ten million dollar book? Perhaps financial gain, not malignant bitterness is Comey’s motive for leaking these memos and for insisting on a public testimony before the Senate. No one can know without having this disgraced FBI official back under oath before a congressional committee.

Comey’s may have committed a core act of perjury that then poisoned his entire testimony. His lies about his motivation fed his pathetic excuses as to why he didn’t report his “disturbing and confusing” conversations with the president and why he has no memos to show for his conversations with Loretta Lynch. Whether Comey ever, in his entire career, made contemporaneous memos on “confusing and disturbing” conversations is now an open question.

Putin is Right: Turkey is a Traitor in the War on Terror

Putin is right; Turkey’s rising Islamic fundamentalism has made it a traitor in the war on terror. Turkey has stabbed Russia in the back just as it has stabbed the United States in the back. Unlike the United States’ doormat diplomacy, Putin’s is likely involve measures not words.putin

Whether you are Russia or the United States, Turkey is unreliable. In a way similar to that often ascribed to President Obama, when the political winds turn in an ugly direction against radical Islamic fundamentalism, you can expect Turkey to choose Islam. Turkey’s current population, as a majority, is not interested in Western, Christian values such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of association and security in one’s person from tyrannic imposition by any form of government. This majority makes Turkey a traitor in the fight against radical Islamic terrorism because a great number of their voting population embrace radical Islamic principles.

By the way, the Marxists have all left Russia. Apparently, they’ve immigrated to the United States and are faculty chairs at Harvard. Nevertheless, the United States and Russia now have more in common than the United States and Turkey, but don’t expect anyone among the learned Western elite to admit that.

1413642615684_wps_64_In_this_undated_but_recen

Betrayed by Turkey, these Kurdish fighters are on the front lines of the war on terror.

Consider Turkey’s unwillingness to open the northern front for the American invasion of Iraq in March of 2003. Instead of opening the front, by July Turkey had special forces in Northern Iraq trying to assassinate Kurdish leadership. Then, in August of 2015, Turkey finally agreed to let the Obama administration fly sorties “against ISIS” from its air bases. But instead of helping target ISIS, Turkey limited its air war to intense attacks on Kurdish fighters in Northern Syria and Northern Iraq. In so doing, Turkey used its U.S. “ally’s” air war against ISIS as a pretext to break its 2013 ceasefire with PKK and to harm one of the regions best fighters in the war against ISIS.

The entire American air war against ISIS is very suspect. It is dismaying that the Kurds had made significant inroads against ISIS in Northern Syria throughout 2014  and 2015 only to be attacked by what surely appeared to them to be an American-Turkish air alliance. Russia took in the back once; we got it twice..but shhh… We don’t want to offend our important ally.

The standard logic for Turkey’s failure as an ally is that the Kurdish PKK rebel forces in Turkey are a terrorist group like ISIS. If the PKK are a terrorist group, it is only as the Irish were terrorists in Belfast. There is a political guerrilla, civil war going on. These are not religious terrorists like many of those in Palestine and all of those in ISIS and Al’ Qaeda. However, the truth is far more complex. In 2015 Turkish officials worked with top ISIS leadership. (OK, make that three times Turkey has stabbed America in the back). Is it simply oil money? Is it simply a territorial problem with the Kurds? The rational West, if one still exists, ought to be asking itself why Turkey can’t get along with the Yazidis and the Kurds, and why they can’t deal in good faith with the United States’ war on terror.

Despite the proliferation of liberal fluff pieces on the Islamic Justice and Development Party (AKP) by outfits like the Berkley Center or the Brookings Institution (groups that want secularism above all else and turn a blind eye to the reality of faith for virtue and for evil), Turkey’s ascendant Muslim fundamentalist majorities have ongoing associations with the Muslim Brotherhood, and, reputedly, they openly raise funds for ISIS and other terrorist organizations. The fact that Putin is bellowing about an ISIS-Turkey link only shows that he believes our once great ally Israel.

Given this background, it’s certain that the Russians were not targeting the Kurds or their allies in Northern Syria, and, given Turkey’s history, it’s more likely that Turkey shot down the Russian Su-24, not for a violation of Turkish airspace, but as payback for successful Russian sorties against Islamic fundamentalist groups. Their brazen ambush of an unsuspecting Russian pilot, was not a traditional shot across the bow; it has the hallmark unprovoked cowardly violence one expects of terrorists.Sukhoi_Su-24_inflight_Mishin-2

Meanwhile, American “leaders” continue to fight the cold war. Instead of recognizing that Christians, Yazidis and non-aggressive Muslims are far safer under Assad than they are under the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Queda and ISIS, they carry on as though Russia needs to be brought down a peg.

Russia may have taken over America and NATO’s leadership role in the Middle East, but the West has no one to blame but its liberal blindness. If the western powers can actually bring themselves to say “we are at war against radical Islam,” they would be fit to lead once again. Perhaps, if the West would actually name names of Radical Islamic groups, and if they openly exposed the central doctrines that are hateful to all mankind, they could emerge again as a profitable force for conscience in the Middle East. Until the West can do these basic things, they should be quiet and stay out of the way of real leadership, wherever that leadership may arise.