Melania Humiliated As Comey Reveals Details About The Pee Pee Tape

Posted by Conover Kennard on 12 Apr 2018  Trump reportedly told then-FBI Director James Comey to investigate the infamous “pee-pee tape” allegations in order to reassure Melania that the allegations that he paid Russian hookers to urinate on a hotel bed aren’t true, according to the New York Post. Quotes from Comey’s new book are being revealed, but this one which was obtained by the Post is a whopper.  “He brought up what he called the ‘golden showers thing’ … adding that it bothered him if there was ‘even a one percent chance’ his wife, Melania, thought it was true,” Comey writes in his new book “A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership.”
“He just rolled on, unprompted, explaining why it couldn’t possibly be true, ending by saying he was thinking of asking me to investigate the allegation to prove it was a lie. I said it was up to him.”
Comey reportedly warned Trump that such a probe might “create a narrative that we were investigating him personally.” To that, the so-called president replied that he “might be right” — but continued to ask him to consider the idea.  The conversation reportedly took place during the same private dinner on Jan. 27, 2017, where Comey had previously claimed that Trump demanded his “loyalty.” It also took place just days after the publication of the Steele dossier which claims that the Kremlin had a tape of Trump paying prostitutes to urinate on a bed once occupied by President Barack Obama.
The dossier was compiled by Christopher Steele, the former British intelligence officer and in 2016 it was unverified — but since then, major parts of the dossier have been verified by subsequent investigations into Russian election meddling.
It’s not the Director of the FBI’s job to assure Trump’s wife that he didn’t pay prostitutes to pee (on him? in front of him?). And since that time, Trump’s been outed for silencing women, one of them a porn star, from speaking out about their sexual encounters with Trump, even just after Melania gave birth to their son. Comey can’t help you with that, Mr. Trump.
Privately, Comey writes that he wondered why Melania would even consider the possibility that the “pee tape” could be real.
“In what kind of marriage, to what kind of man, does a spouse conclude there is only a 99 percent chance her husband didn’t do that?” he writes.
The White House has been reportedly bracing for the book’s release and now excerpts are being released.
In the book, Comey calls the Trump presidency a “forest fire” that is doing serious damage to the country’s norms and traditions, according to the New York Times.
“This president is unethical, and untethered to truth and institutional values,” Comey writes. “His leadership is transactional, ego-driven and about personal loyalty.”
“We are experiencing a dangerous time in our country,” Comey writes, “with a political environment where basic facts are disputed, fundamental truth is questioned, lying is normalized and unethical behavior is ignored, excused or rewarded.”
We can’t argue with that.
Suffice it to say that with ‘James Comey’ and ‘Pee Pee tape’ trending, Donald Trump is not having a very good day.


66 total views, no views today

James Comey tweets about ‘truth’ and ‘lies’ after Trump lashes out at him

Sonam Sheth
Nov 11th 2017 8:24PM
President Donald Trump called former FBI director James Comey a “political hack,” a liar, and a “leaker” on Saturday morning.
Shortly after, Comey tweeted out two quotes about truth, lies, and justice.
Trump fired Comey in May, while Comey was spearheading the FBI’s investigation into whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to tilt the 2016 election in his favor.
Former FBI director James Comey tweeted out two quotes about truth and justice after President Donald Trump attacked him Saturday morning and again cast doubt on the intelligence community’s assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 election.

Trump said he believed Russian President Vladimir Putin when he said he did not order Russia’s election meddling. Trump also lashed out at Comey, along with former CIA director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, calling them “political hacks.” All the men have consistently emphasized that Russia mounted an elaborate campaign to undermine the election and to propel Trump to victory.

“I mean, give me a break, they are political hacks,” Trump said of the three former intelligence officials. “So you look at it, I mean, you have Brennan, you have Clapper, and you have Comey. Comey is proven now to be a liar and he is proven now to be a leaker. So you look at that and you have President Putin very strongly, vehemently says he had nothing to do with them.”

Comey took to Twitter shortly after Trump’s remarks.

“‘If you want truth to go round the world you must hire an express train to pul it; but if you want a lie to go round the world, it will fly; it is light as a feather and a breath will carry it,'” Comey tweeted after the president criticized him, quoting an 1855 sermon from the Rev. Charles Haddon Spurgeon.

The tweet included a photo of the Great Falls of the Potomac, and Comey said in a follow-up tweet that he liked it because it reminded him of his favorite scripture verse, from Amos. “‘But let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream,'” Comey quoted in his tweet.

Trump has long expressed doubt about the intelligence community’s findings on Russia’s election interference, particularly as it relates to the Kremlin’s effort to help his campaign and hurt that of his opponent and the former Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton.

Though he praised Comey after he revealed eleven days before the election that the FBI was reopening its investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server, Trump later soured on the FBI director, particularly after he confirmed in March that the FBI was investigating whether the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow in 2016.

Trump ultimately fired Comey in May. The the White House initially said Comey was fired because of the way he handled the bureau’s investigation of Clinton’s emails, Trump later told NBC’s Lester Holt that “this Russia thing” had been a factor in his decision.

Trump also reportedly called Comey a “nut job” whose firing had taken “great pressure” off of him during an Oval Office meeting with two senior Russian officials that took place one day after Comey’s dismissal.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed former FBI director Robert Mueller as special counsel in charge of the bureau’s Russia investigation shortly after Trump fired Comey. As part of his investigation, Mueller is said to be building an obstruction-of-justice case against Trump relating to his decision to fire Comey.

75 total views, 3 views today

Using Comey as a Distraction, Trump Bombed Syrian Govt As They Fought ISIS

08 Jun 2017   Posted by Claire Bernish

With attention diverted to testimony by James Comey, the US attacked Syrian government forces — again — but this time, Damascus warned there would be dire consequences, which could bring about world war.
As if further proof were needed that the U.S. harbors interests having nothing to do with fighting terrorists and the Islamic State in Syria, American troops have attacked Syrian government forces — who were fighting the Islamic State at the time they were attacked.

This bold move inside a sovereign nation against its military — if continued, unfettered — could find the U.S. culpable in provoking the next world war.

Even if the U.S. military wishes to somehow justify attacks on the troops of a sovereign nation inside that nation’s borders, under the premise Syrian President Bashar al-Assad must be deposed, firing upon troops actively engaged in thwarting the nefarious terrorist caliphate — considered everyone’s enemy — is, at the very least, counterproductive.

Actions wholly contrary to the War on Terror’s arguably most formidable foe began when the U.S. declared a no-go ‘deconfliction zone’ — inside Syria — and warned the military would attack anyone breaching its boundaries.

On Tuesday — acting without an official declaration of war — the U.S. conducted an airstrike against Syrian Arab Army forces near At Tanf under the guise those troops posed a threat to “partner forces,” garnering the condemnation of both Damascus and its allies, Russia and Iran, in the process.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov railed against the Pentagon on Wednesday, asserting it had carried out “an aggressive act, that violated the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic and — deliberately or not — targeted the forces which are most effective in fighting terrorists on the ground.”

Al Tanf, quite near the Syrian border with Iraq, is of imperative geostrategic importance to the U.S., which of course has heightened military presence on both sides. Reports say Iranian Shi’a forces have been active in the area

Of course, this arbitrary zone declared by the United States has not been recognized by Damascus or Moscow — thus, any so-called breaches would only be on the opinion of the U.S. — yet the Pentagon released a statement, notably calling the demarcated area “agreed upon.”

According to the Department of Defense:

“Despite previous warnings, pro-regime forces entered the agreed-upon deconfliction zone with a tank, artillery, anti-aircraft weapons, armed technical vehicles and more than 60 soldiers posing a threat to coalition and partner forces based at the At Tanf Garrison.

“The coalition issued several warnings via the deconfliction line before destroying two artillery pieces and an anti-aircraft weapon and damaging a tank, Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve officials said.”
However, as the statement continues with a quote from unnamed and thus unverifiable ‘officials,’ a clear conflict in the summation of events as told by Syrian proxy war adversaries becomes startlingly clear:

“The coalition does not seek to fight Syrian regime or pro-regime forces, but remains ready to defend themselves if pro-regime forces refuse to vacate the deconfliction zone. The coalition calls on all parties in southern Syria to focus their efforts on the defeat of ISIS, which is our common enemy and the greatest threat to regional and worldwide peace and security.”
Moscow recoiled at the very concept of a deconfliction zone, as Lavrov noted,

“I don’t know anything about such zones. This must be some territory, which the coalition unilaterally declared [deconfliction zones] and where it probably believes to have a sole right to take action. We cannot recognize such zones.”
Zero Hedge reports:

“The US strike on Syrian forces came on the same day U.S. and coalition aircraft were busy supporting thousands of Syrian Arab and Kurdish forces assaulting the de-facto Islamic State capital of Raqqa, the terrorist group’s last urban stronghold in what is left of its ‘caliphate’ in Iraq and Syria.

“The Raqqa assault comes even as U.S. officials acknowledge that most of the Islamic State’s leadership has already fled the city for the more isolated Euphrates River valley running from the city east to the Iraqi border. But military planners have stuck with plans drawn up under the Obama administration and continued under President Donald Trump, predicated on the fall of Mosul and Raqqa before launching an effort to push the terror group out of the valley and Deir Ezzor province.

“U.S. officials view the Iranian movement near al Tanf, in the extreme south of Syria, as a probing action to test the U.S.-trained forces there, and possibly act as a blocking force to prevent them from moving north to Deir Ezzor, according to FP. The Syrian regime wants to eventually retake the province, and Iran views the province and the river valley as a vital conduit to maintain influence from Iraq, through Syria and into Lebanon.”
Were fighting ISIS truly the primary agenda, a slight breach of the contentious deconfliction zone by Syrian forces fighting those militants should be considered an acceptable infraction, at least within reason — not an impetus for an airstrike.

In an agreement with Damascus, Russia, Iran, and Turkey signed an agreement for multiple “de-escalation” zones in Syria — not the U.S.’ deconfliction zone — in which firm truces are to be in effect. However, Reuters did not make apparent with any certainty whether or not Moscow had actually signed that agreement.

“This approach was agreed to by Syria,” Lavrov noted. “We consider illegitimate any unilateral declaration of ‘deconfliction zones’ not endorsed by Damascus. We hope the coalition will adhere to the agreement it has reached with us, which states that the de-escalation zones must be agreed to in detail by all stakeholders.”

As Iranian state-run Press TV paraphrased Lavrov’s statement:

“He added that the Syrian troops who had been attacked in the US airstrike had been attempting to protect a route between Syria and Iraq which Daesh was trying to destroy. He stressed that the US attack resulted in what Daesh was seeking to achieve.”
Whether the U.S. is fighting terrorists — or simply bequeathing them an upper hand — seems apparent to most of the non-Western world.

Such imbroglios have marred the supposed shared goals by all parties fighting this multi-faceted conflict and its offshoot proxy wars. While all sides — unironically, including various iterations of the terrorist group, al-Qaeda, whose fighters have been puppeteered by the U.S. to ultimately topple Assad — continue fighting Daesh, their political grudge matches inch us ever closer to full-scale conflict, as in world war.

Evincing this dance around the line of acceptability, Reuters reported Wednesday, “A military alliance fighting in support of President Bashar al-Assad threatened on Wednesday to hit U.S. positions in Syria, warning its ‘self-restraint’ over U.S. air strikes would end if Washington crossed ‘red lines.’”

“America knows well that the blood of the sons of Syria, the Syrian Arab Army, and its allies is not cheap, and the capacity to strike their positions in Syria, and their surroundings, is available when circumstances will it,” the statement from the pro-Assad alliance asserted, adding those attacks would employ “different missile and military systems, in the light of the deployment of American forces in the region […]

“This will not last if America goes further, and crosses the red lines.”
Propaganda and reports from any side in this conflict must be considered in light of other statements — each side will naturally justify its actions in preservation of individual goals.

But to claim publicly the penultimate goal of combating terrorists of the Islamic State — terrorism, in general — while then carrying out an airstrike against albeit adversarial troops fighting Daesh seems disingenuous, at best, and provocative, at least.

In the global War on Terror, additionally encompassing proxy wars — Syria’s secondary battles between the United States and both Russia and Iran, for instance — muddy the waters significantly, arguably making fighting terrorism take a back seat at times when direct action would be prudent.

As in the case of the United States bombing Syrian forces engaging the Islamic State.

The U.S. can declare an arbitrary deconfliction zone ‘til the cows come home, but if the other parties to the conflict fail to recognize its existence, that zone inside a sovereign nation — especially when defended militarily — is both illegal and could be considered an invasion or act of aggression.

Extenuating circumstances, entangled details, and innumerable complications aside, it is of paramount importance to understand the War on Terror never primarily sought to quash terrorism.

Declaring war on a tactic or concept, by design, pompously aggrandizes any agenda the Pentagon could manifest — while writing a blank check to permit U.S. actions appearing to have the semblance of fighting terrorism to proceed without hindrance.

Can it be said the U.S. actively fights the Islamic State in Syria? Absolutely.

But destroying adversarial troops attempting to do the same belies the true motive — controlling geostrategically-important areas and forcefully opposing the Syrian government and, ultimately, deposing Assad and controlling the region with governments and militaries favorable to other hegemonic ends.

With overbearing propaganda citing terrorism as the world’s enemy, the U.S. has instead deflected ethical responsibility to uphold that mission — choosing instead to thrust the War on Terror as a reason to undertake aggressive, illegal, counterproductive, imperialist, and generally reckless actions throughout the Middle East — including the training, arming, and funding of actual terrorist groups.

One time-tested axiom indeed exists for a solid reason: ‘You can’t fight fire with fire’ — the United States empire cannot claim with believability to desire fighting terrorism … and then employ terrorists using terrorism to meet that goal.

For the Liberty Report, Dr. Ron Paul discussed the same hypocritical, diametrically opposed narratives and actions by the Pentagon against its proxy adversaries — and the folly with which these acts could lead the world into another war:

69 total views, no views today

Oh Jesus: Is James Comey About to Get Trump Fired?

A leaked memo by the former F.B.I. director reportedly documents Trump’s attempt to shut down an investigation into Mike Flynn.

Donald Trump shakes hands with James Comey during an Inaugural Law Enforcement Officers and First Responders Reception in the Blue Room of the White House, January 22, 2017.
By Andrew Harrer/Pool/Getty Images.

James Comey’s unexpected ouster last Tuesday sent Washington into an unprecedented tailspin as the White House communications apparatus tried to explain away Donald Trump’s seemingly abrupt decision to fire the man heading the Justice Department investigation into his campaign’s alleged Kremlin ties. But, one week later, that scandal seems rather quaint by comparison. In another twist in the seemingly endless Russian melodrama, The New York TimesMichael S. Schmidt reported that Trump explicitly asked Comey to shutter the F.B.I. investigation into Mike Flynn, his former national security adviser, shortly after his inauguration.

“I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go,” the president said, according to a memo that Comey prepared after the meeting, part of which was read to the New York Times by an associate of the former law enforcement official. “He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” Comey reportedly responded, “I agree he is a good guy,” but did not promise to close the probe. The existence of the memo was quickly confirmed by NBC News and The Washington Post. (Trump and his associates have denied any wrongdoing.)

According to the Times report, the conversation between Trump and Comey took place in the Oval Office on February 14—the day after Flynn resigned amid scandal following the Post’s report that the former general had misled White House officials, notably Vice President Mike Pence, about whether he discussed election-related sanctions against Moscow with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Comey reportedly informed other F.B.I. officials of the existence of the memo, which sources told the Times was part of a broader paper trail kept by the seasoned law enforcement officer, detailing his interactions with the president. According to those two sources, Comey took detailed notes on every phone call and meeting he had with the president.

The White House flatly denied the Times report. “While the president has repeatedly expressed his view that General Flynn is a decent man who served and protected our country, the president has never asked Mr. Comey or anyone else to end any investigation, including any investigation involving General Flynn,” an official said in a statement. “The president has the utmost respect for our law enforcement agencies, and all investigations. This is not a truthful or accurate portrayal of the conversation between the president and Mr. Comey.”

Acting F.B.I. Director Andrew McCabe also denied that the White House or Trump had attempted to interfere with the Justice Department investigation in sworn testimony before the Senate last week. “There has been no effort to impede our investigation to date,” said McCabe.

The revelation that Trump allegedly asked Comey to close the Flynn investigation is the latest in a string of devastating headlines for the White House. Within hours of Comey’s ouster, CNN revealed that federal prosecutors in Virginia had recently issued grand jury subpoenas seeking business records from associates of Mike Flynn, fueling speculation that Trump dismissed the F.B.I. director over the Russia investigation. The White House press shop subsequently spent the next few days denying that this was the case—arguing that Comey was dismissed for mishandling the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s e-mail scandal, and on the recommendation of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein—only to be undermined by Trump himself.

“Regardless of recommendation, I was going to fire Comey,” the president told NBC News’s Lester Holt. In the interview, Trump created further headaches for his embattled staff when he revealed that he had a private dinner with Comey shortly after the election, during which the president reportedly asked for the F.B.I. director’s loyalty. On Friday, Trump seemingly leveled a threat against Comey when he wrote on Twitter, “James Comey better hope that there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!” (According to the Times, Trump began his February 14 conversation with Comey by suggesting that the F.B.I. consider jailing journalists who leak classified information.)

The Trump administration was dealt another blow Monday when the Post reported that the president had revealed “highly classified” information to Kislyak and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov—a move intelligence experts characterized as “a stunning lapse in judgement.”. (The White House has denied that Trump did anything inappropriate during the meeting with the Russian officials.)

The response from lawmakers on Captiol Hill to the Times report was swift. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said he was “shaken” by the news and that the “country is being tested in unprecedented ways.” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi warned that if the reports are true, “At best, Trump has committed a grave abuse of executive power. At worst, he has obstructed justice.” When asked during an interview with CNN by Wolf Blitzer whether the Times report could lead to an impeachment process, Independent Senator Angus King conceded, “Reluctantly, Wolf, I have to say yes.” Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal said, “We are witnessing an obstruction of justice case unfold in real time.” Obstruction of justice was the first article of impeachment against President Richard Nixon, who resigned from office in 1974 amid a similar controversy.

A number of Republicans, the vast majority of whom stopped short of publicly rebuking Trump over the past week, also began to speak out soon after news of the alleged Comey letter broke. Rep. Carlos Curbelo wrote on Twitter that “If recent allegations are true, they mark the beginning of a new and very sad chapter of scandal and controversy in our country.” House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz told NBC News, “If the memo exists, I need to see it and I need to see it right away,” adding that the subpoena process is already underway. Richard Burr, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, also stressed the importance of obtaining the memo. “I think the burden is on the New York Times, if they’re reporting it and they’ve got somebody who’s got the document,” he told Politico. “They need to get the document and get it released.”

66 total views, no views today