FBI Director appears before House Intel Committee…

FBI Director Comey is certain to be asked for information about Trump’s acusation that President Obama ordered his Trump Tower wiretapped…..

(  The first open public acknowledgement that several of Trump’s people WHERE the subject of intercepts has been made by the House chair  Rep. Nunes , something most people who understand how the NSA works knew all along)

He will also asked about investigation’s into Trump & Co. Russian connections…And the 2016 Elections 

Some questions he answer in public…So only in private sessions and one would quess some questions he won’t answer at all…

Above all one would guess he has had visions of his actions last November right before the Presidential election….

The House Intelligence Committee has begun its first public hearing on alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election, with FBI Director James B. Comey and National Security Agency head Michael S. Rogers set to testify.

The two senior officials will likely face questions about possible collusion between associates of President Trump and the Kremlin.

The hearing comes amid the controversy fired up by Trump two weeks ago when he tweeted, without providing evidence, that President Barack Obama ordered his phones tapped at Trump Tower.

Comey is expected publicly to debunk that allegation, according to the committee’s ranking Democrat, Rep. Adam Schiff (Calif.), following a parade of current and former senior officials who have said there is no evidence of wiretaps on Trump or Trump Tower.

Comey privately told lawmakers last week that there was no basis to the charge.

“The fact that Russia hacked U.S. election-related databases comes as no shock to this committee, which has been closely monitoring Russia’s aggressions for years,” the committee’s chairman, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), said in an opening statement.

Nunes said he hoped the hearing would focus on several key question, including what actions did Russia undertake against the U.S. during the 2016 election and did anyone from a political campaign conspire in these activities? He also wants to know if the communications of any campaign officials or associates were subject to any improper surveillance. “Let me be clear,” he said. “We know there was not a wiretap on Trump Tower. However, it’s still possible that other surveillance activities were used against President Trump and his associates.”…



NSA head Michael S. Rogers is also appearing before the House committee  today also….Most of his information will probablem be in closed sessions….

image…CNN screen capture

59 thoughts on “FBI Director appears before House Intel Committee…”

  1. David Ross did a quickstep to “Go Cubs Go.” It didn’t seem like he was very good, but I am actually going to have to vote for this now.

  2. I think it’s somewhat interesting that Trump had a big rally in Louisville tonight and did not make a single reference to the Russian story or anything related to today’s hearing.

    1. Interesting?

      Anderson Cooper straight out says Trump is trying ignore/divert from todays event’s in the House intelligence hearing…

      1. Trump KEEPS digging himself DEEPER…..


        ….Jared Rizzi Retweeted
        Maggie Haberman‏ @maggieNYT
        That fight, the adviser said, is between Trump’s instinct to never back down, which is now bumping into his fear of failure.

        1. …Washington Post….

          ….The most striking moment from the Sunday shows came when Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the ranking Democrat on House Intelligence, suggested that there are indications of “collusion” between Trump campaign figures and Russian operatives. Make no mistake: Schiff, who graduated from Harvard Law School, understands exactly how freighted that word is in the legal context.

          Want more stories like this?
          Get the must-read morning briefing for decision-makers.

          “There is circumstantial evidence of collusion,” Schiff said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “There is direct evidence of deception, and that’s where we begin the investigation. There is certainly enough for us to conduct an investigation. The American people have a right to know. In order to defend ourselves, we need to know whether the circumstantial evidence of collusion and direct evidence of deception is indicative of more.”

          Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes, a member of Trump’s transition team who has called reporters at the White House’s request to try watering down unflattering stories for the president, disputed Schiff’s assertion on “Fox News Sunday.” “I’ll give you a very simple answer: No,” Nunes told Chris Wallace. “There’s no evidence of collusion…..

          More @ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2017/03/20/daily-202-new-transatlantic-rifts-underscore-why-russia-preferred-trump-in-2016-election/58cf1fe7e9b69b72b2551012/?utm_term=.91f2a56d9b92

  3. By the way, former one-term Right Wing Congressman Joe Walsh agrees it was “unfair” that Comey only told the voters about Hillary when both were under investigation.

  4. He’ll have multiple Tweets attacking Charro for her performance on Dancing With the Stars.

    (I’m just waiting for David Ross to come on)

    1. He, he, he…..


      That’s ALL Trump would need is a reopening of his women ‘thing’…

  5. As Jack said, hope dies hard….maybe Chaffetz can keep hope alive.

    The FBI and NSA both called Trump a liar today, not a good day for the White House.

    1. No it wasn’t….
      But tomorrow morning he’ll tweet something from left field for the media to be distracted by,,..

  6. I doubt Hillary wanted to be indicted any more than anyone here ever would have wanted to have been indicted but if she “never walked away from a fight”, she probably should have campaigned a bit more aggressively and devoted more time to doing so in retrospect, right?

  7. We don’t know for sure if it was hacked or not. We were told “no direct evidence.” If it truly wasn’t, she and all of America were extremely lucky to have dodged that bullet. It would have been her fault through what everyone concedes was her “negligence” and “extreme carelessness.”

  8. Jack is completely right of course.

    But parroting the Trump line, “Hillary has suffered….”. Such patronizing bullshit, Hillary never walked away from a fight in her life, and, I am told she would welcome charges because she would beat them a rented mule. No matter the location.

    After today I am beginning to think the Republicans are just stupid or desperate enough to try.

    Gotta deflect!

  9. Lady Justice wears a blindfold.

    I was not one of the people saying that Comey was part of a “rigged system” when she was not charged. I accepted his finding,

    But I maintain that as a citizen, I have to say she was “lucky.” If we are to accept Comey acted properly we also have to realize that he said she was “extremely careless” and “negligent” and that if she had been working for her she would have been fired and that any government employee who did what she did deserved to be fired. I don’t think anyone could disagree that if she had still been Secretary of State when these findings were announced that Obama would have had to demand her resignation or fire her.

    So, legal technicalities about “intent” aside, I consider her lucky to gotten off like that. I did not expect she would lose to Donald Trump, but based on what we all know she actually did and the irrefutable ways she was publicly dishonest about as a Presidential candidate, I certainly considered her disqualified for a promotion to Commander in Chief.

    1. Anyone want to compare the Chinton Srrvet story to Trump’s Russian one?

      Not on the Same level at ALL

  10. We know that Hillary Clinton was under criminal investigation personally last year before being “cleared.” We do not know that Donald Trump has been or is personally a target of an investigation. It’s possible, but we do not know that.

  11. Yes I do but I live in the real world.

    I’ve tried hundreds of cases in my career,not involving national figures of course, but in any case jury composition is ALWAYS an issue as any trial attorney would tell you.

    Of course Sessions isn’t going to prosecute her ,anymore than Comey was going to recommend that she be prosecuted.There simply was and is NO CASE, your obvious strenuous effort to convince yourself otherwise not withstanding

    Hope dies hard ,however.Whereas J Beauregard may have bowed to reality,Republican loon Jason Chaffetz still wants to do some more “investigating.”

    Perhaps you could pen a missive to him as to ,uh,


  12. Maybe because Loretta Lynch wasn’t taking a meeting with Melania Trump on an airplane, making the need for transparency appear more necessary.

    Or maybe because they have something really, really bad on someone associated with Trump that they couldn’t compromise at that time.

  13. He said that after he laid out what she did.

    I saw your comments on here that day. You knew how bad it was for her, at least politically.

    This is all hindsight now, but I just do not know how a case can be made that what Petraues was charged with some somehow a much worse action.

    As for now, Hillary has suffered enough. It would look beyond horrible for someone to prosecute a defeated opponent. In general though, I would hope that a jury in DC or anywhere in America, would judge any case on the facts and the evidence and non political considerations. I think deep down you agree with that.

    1. Heck, Trump might have both Obama and Clinton to his daughters’ kinds baby shower
      You NEVER with the Donald….

  14. James Comey…

    “…no REASONABLE (emphasis added) prosecutor would bring such a case”

    CG apparently doesn’t understand that merely believing someone “could” have violated a given statute is not the standard a REASONABLE prosecutor uses in proceeding with a prosecution.

    The statute in question required that the person so charged took actions KNOWING that the statute was being violated, an extremely high burden.Comey well understood that the MOST that could be PROVEN was that Clinton may have been “careless.”Such is not sufficient to justify a prosecution.(which is why it has rarely been used)

    However, if CG REALLY believes that Clinton was not prosecuted due to”who she was,” he surely doesn’t believe that AG J. Beauregard Sessions would be in the least intimidated by any such thing.

    So why doesn’t J. Beauregard prosecute?

  15. The “no evidence of” is exactly what the Trumpists say about Russia.

    We don’t know if her server was hacked. It certainly could have been and she should have never even thought about trying to do what she did.

    I believe just about all honest Democrats will admit in hindsight, at least privately, that after Comey’s press conference, pressure should have been placed on Hillary to withdraw, and the party could have quickly substituted Biden (probably with Warren as VP), and regardless of whatever kind of President he might have turned out to be, Trump would not be in office right now.

  16. Such ridiculous hyperbole, there is no evidence that Hillary’s server was compromised.

    My God, the Bush folks used RNC servers and lost millions of emails to cyberspace without consequences. And every Agency of the Federal Government have been compromised by outside sources. This was always much ado and the Republicans played it expertly.

    Fun to watch the Republicans twist on this. They own Trump now.

    1. Clinton’s server WAS NOT HACKED….

      People WHERE LISTENING to Trump’s staff people…..

      I believe that by tweeting?

      Trump is using a lightly secured social media outlet

      Trump the guy doing business out in the open in Margo Largo an unsecured open location ain’t diddly on Clinton….

  17. For the record, I have not “equated” Hillary’s malfeasance with what Trump might have done. She thought she could get away with something because of who she was and not have to be remotely honest about. He might have been actively working with a hostile power to cause illegal acts or harm to the United States, so I would be more willing to equate that with treason and thus consider that possibility a lot worse.

    However, that does not mean that Hillary Clinton did not put the national security of the United States at risk, when she certainly should have been expected to realize that. She has paid a steep political price and is not going to be facing any more legal risk. Who knows what will happen with Trump, but in my view, both candidates acted in ways that completely disqualified themselves.

  18. Oh rubbish, no one is too big to jail and Comey is and was no fan of Hillary.

    There was no there there, they had bupkis.

    Yes, well put Jack. I too wish they would try to indict Hillary.

  19. “BECAUSE she was Hillary Clinton”

    i.e, too big to jail.

    She’s very lucky she was not a low level bureaucrat. Comey basically alluded to such in his Congressional testimony.

    Trump at this point will probably get pardoned too one day if it comes to that.

  20. Well put Jack. I’m gladly part of the 48% that didn’t buy into the false equivalency and proudly voted for the one person on the ballot that could have stopped the REAL threat to our system.

  21. I still wish AG J. Beauregard Sessions would indict Hillary Clinton.

    I really want to see his Justice Department try that case in a DC Court with a DC jury in a case that FBI Director James Comey said clearly lacked prosecutorial merit (contrary to CGs implication above) , indeed going so far as to state that no competent Prosecutor would bring such a prosecution and that to do so would in fact be prosecuting her BECAUSE she was Hillary Clinton,i.e., for political reasons only .

    But, yes, let’s equate that with interference in a national election by a hostile power for the purpose of helping elect a certain candidate.


  22. Hopefully, Roger Stone winds up behind bars at a minimum.

    We can always be grateful for all the “scoops” he provided to Ron G. for P1 back in the day.

  23. We know now for sure that last year saw both major party nominees under FBI investigation and with very reasonable implications of corruption. I feel sorry for the 94% of voters who felt they had to pick one.

      1. Why didn’t Lynch say something?

        They didn’t have go into detail

        But could have said something

  24. Comey clearly came to a decision last summer that Hillary Clinton was “too big to jail.” I hope he won’t come to that conclusion this time, if it leads to the top, but I have no idea what kind of legal mechanism would even exist for something like that. All he would really be able to do is present the evidence to Congress.

  25. Sean Spicer said today that the White House stands behind the wiretapping allegation no despite todays testimony .

    Trump is doubling down ,as he has since day one, that his supporters HATE Barack Obama so much that they will allow nothing as insignificant as FACTS get in the way of his LIES.

    Probably a good bet on his part.

    1. Trump seems incapable of admitting he’s won something,…
      Being who he is?
      He can and Does have crowd of Yes men agreeing with him even if they do look stupid…..

    2. Trump took a hit in today’s Comey and Rogers hearing
      No doubt….
      The fact that Comey stated the Trump/Russian
      Probe back in last July and did NOT mention THAT, But DID mention Clinton’s is puzzling 🤔

  26. I have to think that a group of voters that “overlook” mocking the handicapped, what Paul Ryan called “textbook bigotry”, brags of sexual assault and siding with Putin and Wikileaks over the FBI and CIA, yet can’t overlook that Clinton said half of them might be deplorable are real real assholes!

  27. Actually, at today’s hearing ,many of the Republicans seemed much more concerned with the source of “leaks” than the Russians meddling investigation, notably SC Rep. Trey “Bubba” Gowdy.Amusingly, Carl Bernstein cited Bubbas Benghazi Committee as one of the “leakiest” around.

    Bubba is just trying to deflect attention from his party’s leader and on to a distinctly secondary matter.

    As to Scott’s comment,I agree totally.

    As to CGs comment, when it comes to Trump, Republicans seem that “overlook “a whole lot.

  28. And there were certainly pockets of anti-law enforcement sentiment on the right in the past. We heard a lot about it in the 90s. I suppose a difference is that Republican and conservative leadership used to have the guts to denounce them.

  29. I think if you are going to cite the polls, you would also see that a majority of Republicans have concerns about allegations of Russian ties and want an investigation and do not look favorably upon Putin, unlike Trump. I would suggest a vast majority of Republicans, even those who like Trump, would still side with the CIA and FBI over Wikileaks, despite Trump doing the exact opposite during the campaign. They just choose to overlook it.

  30. It doesn’t necessarily mean he is a Republican, especially if he says he isn’t. He has had many bad things to say about Republicans over the years, but perhaps qualifies among those who is now a full-fledged Trumpist and he reacts accordingly.

    My only point is that he specifically is contrast to someone like me who has openly proclaimed and embraced being a Republican for many years and who definitely fits with your first paragraph rather than the second one.

  31. No,

    I was making the point that Republicans have been known for years as defenders of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies and were well known for criticizing Democrats for being insufficiently supportive of them.

    Now, and somewhat awkwardly I might add some Republicans feel the need to take their lead from party leader Donald Trump and not only voice skepticism about such ,but in a few cases actually hint that Trumps views vis a vis them have some validity.

    Yes that a major change from just a year or so ago.

    As to Manila, I merely said ,”like Manila.”Assuming you don’t believe him to be aRepublican, that would have no effect upon the gist of the comment.

    So,if you want to believe that someone who daily defends Republicans and criticizes Democrats is not a Republican?

    More power to you!

  32. I think you should at least make a distinction among those who have never said they were a Republican and think one way and those who have definitely said they were and think another.

    Why not just say he is wrong? Wrong is wrong. That’s what should be of primary importance in America.

  33. I don’t play those games.

    If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck it’s a duck.

    I really don’t care what he calls himself.

  34. Has he ever called himself a Republican or said that he associated in any way with that label?

    Unlike me, who was once proud to do so.

  35. Remember when Republicans ,like Manila,were bewailing Democratic “attacks” on the intelligence agencies?

    Ah those were the days.

    Now ,forced to defend their new leader , they Join him in questioning the , FBI, CIA, etc.

  36. Comey said “Russian” manipulation of votes.

    He also said Putin HATED Clintons guts.

    I didn’t hear anything about Weiner again which was the FBI’s most effective meddling and the last nail in the coffin for Hillary.

    Now all they have to prove is that the CIA didn’t do it themselves and make it look like the Russians.

    See Wikileaks.

        1. Donald Trump is NOT gonna have a good day today….

          AG Sessions would be wise to let this stay in Comey’s hands….

          The Media IS gonna have stories to run for days….



      Jake Tapper‏

      Comey and Adm. Rogers testify no evidence of any tampering of any actual votes.

Comments are closed.