A case of unsubstantiated conclusions

By Jim Campbell

April 29, 2018

Note in the interview with Fox New’s Brett Bayer below,  Comey’s inability to provide  a yes or no answer.

It’s clear, Former FBI Director James Comey used woeful decision-making process in the Hillary Clinton email investigation, origins of the anti-Trump dossier, memos of conversations with President Trump and new book ‘A Higher Loyalty,’ all point to a seriously flawed individual.



His book, a clear attempt to resurrect his legacy which will stand out at the FBI annals as one of the most damaged deceitful individuals since J. Edgar Hoover took ballet lessons with  his paramour, Clyde Tolson.


Typical responses, I can’t recall,  I don’t know, others were involved and then made the outlandish  statement that the Republicans funded the Russian Dossier rather than the Democrats who did so at the behest of Hillary Clinton.

The Wall Street Journal

By Byron Tau and Michael C. Bender

WASHINGTON—The Republican-led House Intelligence Committee released its long-awaited report on alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election, concluding that Moscow waged a campaign to undermine the legitimacy of the U.S. democratic process, but finding no evidence that Donald Trump or his campaign assisted in the effort.


Comey’s veracity dramatically improves while under oath in the questioning of Trey Gowdy.



Democrats on the committee contested the Republicans’ findings, writing in their dissent that Russia sought influence in Mr. Trump’s campaign and that the campaign was open to such contact.



A declassified and heavily redacted version of the 253-page report was released by the committee Friday.

A summary of the panel’s initial recommendations were first made public in March.

The panel’s main conclusion was that Russia didn’t aim to boost Mr. Trump’s chances of winning the election in particular, but instead sought to subvert the notion of free and fair elections and spread “chaos and discord” in the U.S.

It concludes the campaigns of Mr. Trump and his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, both displayed “poor judgment” in their engagement with Russian actors.



The report is also critical of law-enforcement and intelligence agencies for their response to the Russian activity in 2016 and beyond.

The report blames the Democratic administration of former President Barack Obama for a “slow and inconsistent” response to Russian interference in the 2016 election.

It also said that a major pillar of the intelligence agencies’ conclusions in January 2017 about Russian intentions “did not employ proper analytic tradecraft.”

It criticizes the intelligence agencies for their failure to warn Mr. Trump’s campaign about several aides under investigation as possible counterintelligence threats.

“This lack of notification meant that the campaign was unable to address the problems with each campaign member and was ignorant about the potential national-security concerns,” the report concludes.


Please see the entire article below.


The dissent written by the Democrats—based on the same underlying source materials—found ample evidence of a Russian government attempt “to gain entree to and influence with individuals associated with the Trump campaign,” as well as a “willingness by Trump campaign officials to accept those overtures.” The conclusions in the report “wither under scrutiny,” the dissent concludes.

The report, issued by a committee that has been rife with partisan infighting over the course of the yearlong investigation, is unlikely to quell the controversy over what occurred during the 2016 election. The matter is still the focus of an active investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller, and several guilty pleas and criminal indictments of Trump associates have arisen from that probe, including charges of tax fraud and conspiracy to launder money. None of these charges relate to collusion with Russia.

The Senate Intelligence Committee is also conducting a review of the same matters as those the House panel examined. Russia has denied interfering in the U.S. election.

The report provided immediate fodder for Mr. Trump, who has long denied any collusion. Minutes after the report was released publicly, he tweeted: “Just Out: House Intelligence Committee Report released. ‘No evidence’ that the Trump Campaign ‘colluded, coordinated or conspired with Russia.’”

The House committee’s work was based on interviews with 73 witnesses and a review of more than 300,000 documents over the course of more than a year.

During that time, the Democrats and the Republicans on the panel frequently tangled over the direction of the investigation.

Partisan divisions on the panel grew so deep that the Republicans planned to build a wall to separate their staff from the Democratic committee aides, The Wall Street Journal has reported.

Democrats said the panel seemed more interested in protecting Mr. Trump from scrutiny than in finding the facts.

“Throughout the investigation, committee Republicans chose not to seriously investigate—or even see, when in plain sight—evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, instead adopting the role of defense counsel for key investigation witnesses,” Rep. Adam Schiff of California, the top Democrat on the panel, said in a statement Friday.

People familiar with the matter said that the Democrats have had discussions about reopening the investigation if they retake control of the House in the November elections.

One of the most contentious findings of the report rebuts a January 2017 conclusion by the U.S. intelligence community that President Vladimir Putin of Russia ordered a campaign to influence the outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidential election in Mr. Trump’s favor.

The report said that the conclusion was the product of inadequate “tradecraft”—and resulted from an “unusually constrained review and coordination process, which deviated from established CIA practice.”

The report chastises Mr. Trump’s campaign for taking part in a June 2016 meeting with a Russian lawyer that was ostensibly arranged to discuss allegedly damaging information about Mrs. Clinton.

The meeting was attended by Mr. Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. , his son-in-law Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort, then the campaign chairman.

The report concludes that meeting “demonstrated poor judgment.” It also criticizes Mr. Trump and his associates for their “praise for and communications with WikiLeaks,” a website that released thousands of emails from the Democratic Party during the campaign.

The report also criticizes Mrs. Clinton’s campaign for its efforts to obtain opposition research on Mr. Trump “from Russian sources, including a litany of claims by high-ranking current and former Russian government officials.”

The research was conducted by an ex-British spy and formed the basis for what is now called the “dossier” on Mr. Trump—a series of unverified and salacious allegations about his business ties and personal life.

Mr. Trump said he was “honored” by the outcome of the committee’s investigation.

He called the report “conclusive” and “very powerful” during brief remarks to reporters in the Oval Office.

“But what we really should do is get on with our lives,” Mr. Trump said.



About JCscuba

I am firmly devoted to bringing you the truth and the stories that the mainstream media ignores. This site covers politics with a fiscally conservative, deplores Sharia driven Islam, and uses lots of humor to spiceup your day. Together we can restore our constitutional republic to what the founding fathers envisioned and fight back against the progressive movement. Obama nearly destroyed our country economically, militarily coupled with his racism he set us further on the march to becoming a Socialist State. Now it's up to President Trump to restore America to prominence. Republicans who refuse to go along with most of his agenda RINOs must be forced to walk the plank, they are RINOs and little else. Please subscribe at the top right and pass this along to your friends, Thank's I'm J.C. and I run the circus
This entry was posted in A case of unsubstantiated conclusions and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to A case of unsubstantiated conclusions

  1. Brittius says:

    Reblogged this on Brittius.


  2. Rule of Law says:

    This so-called “Investigation” was a complete farce. Rep. Adam Schiff of California, the top Democrat on the panel, has shown himself to be a partisan hack who simply makes up what he refers to as facts to justify his opinions which are always Anti-Trump. He should recuse himself because he is bias.

    The only “error” the Trump team made was not making real time videos of their meeting with the Russians. Muck the same as a deposition this meeting should have had a court reporters notes and a video to avoid this type bickering.

    Of course, one must wonder just what6 the reason Hillary has not been examined in full on the same subject given the massive campaign contributions she received. Just the fact that some hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions were receive by the Hillary campaign is evidence that Hillary was dirty. Where is the money paid to the Trump Campaign? Apparently there was none or non found. The amount of money was so large as to be easily traceable. The Clinton Foundation is a great case in point. How much and why were the contributions being made?

    Of course, there is an abundance of evidence against Hillary for numerous crimes against America. AND, Hillary has doubled down with her Sedition against Trump. So, Hillary appears to m have committed TREASON and now SEDITION – both punishable by death.

    AND SO, what does Mueller do? Hey let’s look at Trump’s sex life six years ago? Just how does that matter? If Stormy Daniels did get a $130,000 check as she claims was it reported as Income to the IRS? If Stormy Daniels was paid the fee does that make her a whore and guilty of pandering? What about Blackmail? IMO – this whore has big problems and someone is paying her to be stupid. On the surface, she is guilty of extortion and blackmail. If Stormy Daniels was represented by a pimp then pandering is also involved.

    Time to level the playing field on this harassment case! My conclusions are based on the published information and the existing laws as I understand them. While I am not familiar with the detailed facts of the entire matter, one thing is clear Trumps sex life i9s not an issue. BUT, if the sex life of the candidates is open to exposure and debate then let’s put Hillary’s and Bill’s sex life on display. Of course, there is some question as to whether or not Mueller had an affair with Nancy Pelosi. Does sleeping with the enemy disqualify Mueller?

    The FBI and DOJ are required to apply the law equally to all Americans! Clearly, Comey, Holder, Hillary, Lynch, Mueller and the rest of these corrupt fools have forgotten their oath and the meaning of the word – JUSTICE!


    • JCscuba says:

      No arguments here. Stormy has her own pay to play porn site. That in itself should be investigated as the used her alleged sex acts with a sitting president who at the time was single. It would be nice to nail her for treason, as in trying to bring down a sitting president.


    • JCscuba says:

      Hillary will never be examined. Those who should do so don’t want to end up in one of her body bags.


    • JCscuba says:

      Great points Dave as usual, Thanks my friend.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.