BOMBSHELL: Comey can't recall who told him Sessions would recuse
So Comey knows, somehow, that Sessions will resign on the Russia matter and that somehow this is connected to the Mike Flynn lying investigation, but he "doesn't remember" who told him Sessions would recuse, even though he was aware that Sessions' career officials were pressuring Sessions to recuse.
Remember, the pressure on Sessions to recuse was vital to get control of the Russia probe shifted to Rosenstein, who could and would immediately appoint a special counsel -- Mueller -- to cover everything up. If Comey was aware of the pressure on Sessions from career officials to recuse, he should know where that pressure was coming from, and those people would be members of the conspiracy being covered up.
But Comey "doesn't remember" how he learned Sessions would recuse. He doesn't remember because he doesn't want to expose the conspiracy.
BOMBSHELL: Comey likely knew about the Trump tower meeting in June 2016
Why is this important? The meeting happened June 9th, and the investigation didn't open until the end of July, and Comey says he can't answer because the question touches on Mueller's investigation. But if he didn't know about the meeting he could answer that. If he knew, and can't answer, it's because it was related to the Mueller investigation -- which didn't exist at the time.
So Comey knew about the meeting before the investigation opened in July.
How? Did he get the information from Steele, or Perkins-Coie through Baker, or surveillance on Trump?
Remember, Comey argued Clinton couldn't be prosecuted because evidence of guilt was missing. But Clinton immediately moved to delete her emails as soon as she was subpoena'd by Congress for them. That's evidence of guilty intent.
BOMBSHELL: Comey stumbles on Baker's contact with Perkins-Coie
Baker, FBI general counsel at the time, has testified that he received information from Perkins-Coie and passed it on to others. He said this was unusual ("unique", even). Comey is claiming to have absolutely no knowledge of this. Would Baker have done that and never mentioned it to Comey? Seems unlikely. My gut tells me Comey is lying here, and that he knew it was going on. Comey is claiming tips like that happened all the time, and he wants to see what Baker testified to before he answers. This is serious stumbling by Comey.
BOMBSHELL: Comey can't hold the end of July timeline!
Comey can't dance fast enough. He first denies any information gathering about Trump at the FBI before the last week of July, then walks it back and admits "it's possible I knew at the time." It was absolutely going on, and he absolutely knew about it (and still does, but he has to claim a memory lapse to avoid talking about it).
BOMBSHELL: Comey's lawyers agreed believing the testimony would be essentially public
I've discussed before that Comey and others are hiding behind classification rules and the fiction of a continuing investigation exception to protect themselves from answering dangerous questions. That's why Congress insisted that this testimony be taken behind closed doors. But Comey's lawyers seem to think that the agreement between Comey and Congress precludes such topics, effectively making the setting public and defeating the point of a closed hearing.
She is, or was, the election supervisor of Broward County, Florida, which has gotten a lot of attention under her "supervision" for voter fraud, especially this last election. Recently, she announced she would resign effective January 1st, 2019. Now she has announced she is unresigning.
I think she should be prosecuted and imprisoned. That would settle the issue.
Why should even a forensic psychiatrist get a say? One thing we keep hearing, even and especially from "experts", is that it's impossible to tell the patients who will turn violent from those who don't. They don't want the responsibility when it comes with liability, and they can't demonstrate the ability to predict results reliably either. The medical profession should restrict itself to treating wounds, not lobbying for gun control.
But then, it's not the doctors doing the lobbying. It's the professional organizations and the medical journals. Pournelle's iron law applies.
Google debating burying conservative media in search results
How is this different from what they are actually doing now? As the author of a reasonably conservative blog, I've noticed a definite drop in traffic from Google over the past few years, and I've noticed many other similar authors talking about the same thing. It's possible that "better" sites appeared, or Google changed their algorithms to favor "mainstream" news sources more positively over blogs. It's possible those changes are politically neutral. But if they favor the legacy media, and the legacy media is almost universally biased, isn't that itself an inherent bias?
McCabe launched obstruction probe of Trump before Mueller was appointed
Not much "new" news here except that the Rosenstein "Do you want me to wear a wire?" discussion was part of an official obstruction of justice investigation. (Such an investigation would be bullshit in any case; the President can hire and fire as he pleases, subject to Senate confirmation of his hires).
Was this one of the secret mandates given to Mueller that he wants to protect? Probably.
Comey is refusing to answer questions from Congress
If it's wrapping up at 1:15 EST, it's probably because Comey is not answering questions. Is Comey pleading the 5th or using some other excuse? It almost doesn't matter. Congress won't enforce its own subpoenas and the House will be under Democrat control next year.
I fear a significant opportunity was lost with Republican control of the House. With the Democrats back in power, FBI and DOJ will stonewall even harder.
Manafort's passports do not show trips to meet Assange
So, maybe one stamp in 2016, but it might also be 2010. I imagine the date of that last stamp can probably be proven with other data. Even if Manafort was in London, it doesn't prove he met with Assange, but the lack of stamps relevant to all of the claimed meetings throws serious doubt on the accusations.
Selectively blocking political ads from reasonably mainstream politicians running for office is about as clear an example of unacceptable censorship as you can get. While individual websites and publicans should be free to refuse ads for pretty much any reason, when you achieve a dominant market share for your ad platform, different rules apply.
He has been the last person still working at FBI/DOJ who we knew was involved to some degree in the SpyGate scandal, and the speculation (because he was still there) was that he was a cooperating witness in the investigation. He has now resigned, which suggests whoever was picking his brain is now done with him and new shoes should be dropping soon as whatever reports or indictments start appearing.
Muslim "refugee" acquitted of sex crimes for cultural differences -- twice
I could understand -- not forgive or excuse, but understand -- using cultural differences as an excuse once. Twice on the same person means you should have learned the first time.
And frankly, I question the "cultural differences" excuse in substance as well as frequency. Muslim women are explicitly treated differently from foreign women in Muslim (and I think particularly Arab) culture. It's not just "oh this is how we treat women at home." It's more like "This is how we treat women we assume to be foreign whores because they are outdoors in public without wearing a full veil and bringing a protective escort."
These "Muslims" would be outraged if a "good Muslim woman" was treated the way they treat people they see as foreign whores.
Which should remind you that they don't see themselves as making a new home in Europe. They see themselves as conquering Europe.