14.05.2017
James Comey
Written by Prof Michel Chossudovsky; Originally appeared at Global Research
The recommendation to fire Comey did not emanate from the White House. It was an initiative of US Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who prepared a three page memorandum, which criticized James Comey for his handling of the Clinton email investigation and the release of his October 28, 2016 Second Letter to Congress 11 days before Election Day.
The Attorney General’s office visibly acted in defiance of the White House.
1. Trump was manipulated into accepting and endorsing the Attorney General’s initiative. The media relentlessly displayed a narrative of personal confrontation between Comey and Trump. The propaganda campaign contributed quite deliberately to triggering personal divisions between Trump and Comey. According to the Independent (May 11, 2017) quoting FBI insiders: “James Comey was fired by Donald Trump because of his refusal to end the investigation into links between Russia and the US leader’s presidential campaign team…”
That authoritative explanation –which pervades the Western media– is contradictory and nonsensical. It fails to address the fact that Trump did not decide to fire Comey.
2. What was the purpose of firing Comey: Cui Bono? Who was behind it? That decision served the interests of the Neocons. It was motivated by US foreign policy and US-Russia relations. It was taken by the Attorney General’s office overriding the Presidency, precisely with a view to removing potential obstacles to the conduct of the Fake “Trump-Moscow collusion” investigation. In this regard, Comey was slated to be removed. He was viewed as unpredictable and uncooperative. Moreover, the decision was also intended to weaken the presidency.
3. The comparison with President Richard Nixon‘s firing of special prosecutor Archibald Cox is a red herring (a media diversion) because it was not president Trump who took the decision to fire James Comey. Moreover, the alleged collusion between Moscow and Trump is FAKE. It cannot reasonably be compared to the Watergate investigation, which Nixon attempted to block.
4. A pro-forma letter was sent by President Trump to FBI Director James Comey, which casually endorsed the recommendation of the office of the Attorney General.
Trump did not express his opinion other than supporting the recommendations drafted by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein (see screen shot of Trump’s letter below and letter of Jeff Sessions to Trump)
5. Does the firing of Comey serve the interests of President Trump? The answer is NO. The firing of Comey was intended to weaken the president and provide ammunition to the smear campaign against him. The Attorney General’s recommendation to fire Comey will eventually backlash on President Trump in the context of the Russia Probe, namely the investigation into the FAKE collusion between Moscow and the Trump campaign.
6. In all likelihood more compliant replacement candidates for the position of FBI director were contemplated PRIOR to Comey’s dismissal.
7. Who instructed AG Jeff Sessions to make this decision? Not the White House. What political interests are being served?
Ironically, the Democrats have raised the broader issue of the alleged “Russian hacking” of the DNC pointing to the fact that the firing of Comey will jeopardize “the integrity of the investigation”. In recent developments they are calling for the appointment of an independent special prosecutor to take over the investigation into “Russian meddling” prior to the appointment of a new FBI Director.
8. Following the firing of James Comey, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe has become Acting Director of the FBI pending the confirmation of an “interim” director (and eventually a new director). The relationship between McCabe and Comey is central to an understanding of the James Comey saga.
Divisions within the FBI
This crisis hinges on an understanding of profound political rivalries as well as divisions within the FBI pertaining both to the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s State Department email trove as well as to the Russian meddling allegations.
Was Comey “uncooperative” as underscored by several Congressional Democrats in March expressing an “independent” perspective with regard to the investigation into Russia’s alleged support of the Trump election campaign?
Democrats allege that perhaps Comey is biased: They say he was perfectly willing to talk about Hillary Clinton’s emails — though Comey says he commented in that case because it was a closed investigation. Others have said the director is simply being uncooperative.(Washington Post, March 19, 2017)
What was his stance with respect to Hillary’s email trove? Both his First Letter (July 2016) and Second Letter (October 28, 2016) were detrimental to Hillary’s presidential candidacy. It should be understood that the FBI “Russia Probe” and the Hillary investigation are intimately related. One does not go without the other.
Flashback to October-November 2016
Let’s recall some important events leading up to James Comey’s Second Letter to the US Congress regarding the investigation into Hillary’s email trove.
There were serious divisions within the FBI between James Comey and his Number Two Man Andrew McCabe.
Who is FBI Acting Director Andrew McCabe? (image left) What is his role? Whose interests is he serving?
There were pressures from the Obama administration as well as attempts from within the FBI to block the investigation into Hillary’s emails, not to mention the fraudulent transactions of the Clinton Foundation. There were also divisions within the investigating team headed by Andrew McCabe.
James Comey was fully aware that Andrew McCabe had been coopted by Hillary Clinton, promoted to the FBI’s Number Two position and put in charge of the investigation of Hillary’s emails.
What motivated the release of the Second Letter to the US Congress, which according to the Democrats contributed to jeopardizing Hillary’s candidacy?
In his Second Letter, Comey called for steps allowing the FBI “to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.”
The second letter by FBI Director Comey came as a Bombshell. Comey’s initiative points this time to the possibility that a candidate to the presidency of the United States be under criminal investigation by the FBI.The Second letter pertaining to the Emails opens up a “Pandora’s box” of fraud, corruption, bribery and money laundering. …This does not solely pertain to the Email scandal, the FBI “has an open investigation into the Clinton Foundation”, which constitutes a hotbed of fraud …” Moreover, a class action lawsuit was launched against the Democratic National Committee (DNC) “alleging fraud and collusion with the Hillary Clinton campaign”. And a lot more….(including mysterious deaths). (Michel Chossudovsky, Hillary Clinton: Wall Street’s Losing Horse? Constitutional Crisis? What’s the End Game? Global Research, November 1, 2016)
What triggered Comey’s October 28 decision, less than two weeks before the elections?
Hillary’s “donation” of close to half a million dollars to Andrew McCabe’s wife as well as his “conflict of interest” were made public, following a damning report by the Wall Street Journal.
The WSJ report revealed that “Clinton friend [Virginia Governor] Terry McAuliffe donated money to a [senior] FBI investigator’s wife when she ran for office” . Governor Terry McAuliffe transferred the money on behalf of Hillary Clinton:
“Last night’s revelation that close Clinton ally Terry McAuliffe authorized $675,000 to the wife of a top official at the FBI, who conveniently was promoted to deputy director, and helped oversee the investigation into Clinton’s secret server is deeply disturbing and calls into question the entire investigation,” Jason Miller, Trump’s senior communications adviser, said in a statement, The Hill reported. “The fact that this was allowed to occur shows either outright negligent behavior by the FBI or a level of corruption that is beyond belief.The FBI needs to fully address these issues as soon as possible.” (UPI, October 24, 2016, emphasis added)
The “donation” went to the 2015 Virginia state Senate election campaign of Dr. Jill McCabe, who just so happens to be the wife of FBI official Andrew McCabe who — a few months later in January 2016– was appointed deputy director of the FBI. McCabe was also put in charge of the Clinton Email investigation. How convenient (See WSJ, October 24, 2016).
Hillary Clinton had attempted to “buy legal immunity” by “coopting” a senior police official, a practice which has been widely applied by US organized crime. The only difference is that Clinton was a candidate to the presidency of the United States.
Andrew McCabe became Hillary’s Trojan Horse within the FBI.
Upon the release of the WSJ report, FBI Director Comey, responding to pressure from within the FBI, also with a view to protecting his authority, decided to release a second letter regarding the Clinton Emails.
Did this release have the support of Andrew McCabe who was leading the Hillary investigation (on behalf of Hillary)?. Unlikely.
Whether Comey was acting on behalf of the Trump campaign by releasing damaging information regarding Hillary Clinton eleven days before the election remains to be firmly established. Unquestionably, however, the Second Letter was detrimental to Clinton’s presidential candidacy. And Trump at the height of the Election campaign acknowledged Comey’s courage: “he showed guts”, according to candidate Trump and earned his “respect”. What explain’s his about turn? Why did he accept the recommendations of the Attorney General’s office at face value?
The fact of the matter is that James Comey with some ambiguity took a stance which recognized the need to investigate Hillary Clinton’s alleged criminal wrongdoings, which were being investigated under the helm of Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.
The Role of the Wall Street Journal
The timing of Comey’s decision to release the Second Letter less than two weeks before the elections was crucial. But it was ultimately the WSJ (and those behind the release of the report on the Clinton-McAuliffe-McCabe affair) which determined the “conflict of interest” of Andrew McCabe who was in charge of the Clinton investigation (on behalf of Hillary). The WSJ is owned by the News Corp conglomerate, one of the most powerful global media groups owned by the Murdoch Family Trust. Rupert Murdoch is a firm supporter of Donald Trump.
For further details see
Hillary Clinton: Wall Street’s Losing Horse? Constitutional Crisis? What’s the End Game? By , November 01, 2016
Why was James Comey fired?
Was Comey “uncooperative” in the investigation into the Russian hacking allegations? Opinions are divided on this issue. What is significant is that Comey had not been “co-opted” in the same way as McCabe. And that’s why they wanted him out.
While Comey’s “October Surprise” may have benefited the Trump campaign, the actions of his Deputy Andrew McCabe (who was in charge of the investigation into Hillary’s emails) were geared towards obfuscating Hillary Clinton’s alleged crimes as well as protecting her candidacy (on behalf of the Neocons and her corporate sponsors).
Andrew McCabe was in “conflict of interest”. This is something which Donald Trump raised during the election campaign following the release of the WSJ article.
Comey’s actions were acknowledged by Trump on October 28, 2016 following the release of the Second Letter. During the election campaign Trump “hailed the October 28 letter as an action in which Comey “showed guts”. (See Patrick Martin, World Socialist Website, May 10, 2017)
“This Is Bigger than Watergate” said Trump.
Comey had Trump’s support during the election campaign.
What can be said about James Comey is that he did not act as a political proxy (on behalf of the Neocons) in releasing his Second Letter.
And that is why he was fired.
The Appointment of the Next FBI director
The divisions within the FBI both during the election and its aftermath are intimately related to ongoing political rivalries. And that applies to the appointment of the next FBI director.
At this stage an Interim FBI Director is sought to replace Acting Director McCabe. But McCabe is also a candidate for that position. The moment an interim director is appointed pending Senate approval of a new FBI director, the acting director will be replaced by the interim director.
According to the WSJ, “the temporary chief [interim director] will immediately find himself at the epicenter of the politically fraught investigation into potential collusion between Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and the Kremlin…”
The Neocons seek Compliance
Why is this selection process so important?
What is sought by the Neocons is that the person in charge of the FBI must be fully compliant in conducting the fake investigation against Moscow meddling, while also focussing on the collusion between the Trump campaign and Moscow.
The stakes are high. A power-play is ongoing which has a bearing on the mainstay of US Foreign Policy, which consists in confronting Moscow as well threatening to wage war on Russia.
To sustain their diabolical foreign policy design, the Department of Justice will no doubt seek once again to bypass Donald Trump. As in the case of the firing of Comey, they will push for the selection of a reliable crony to head the FBI with a view to:
1) Actively pursuing the Fake Russia meddling investigation without the FBI acting “independently”. This objective is central to the Deep State’s confrontational foreign policy agenda against Russia. The Dems are pushing for the appointment of a Special Prosecutor.
2) Eventually close down the investigation into Hillary’s email trove (bear in mind that the Russia and Hillary investigations are interrelated).
3) Use the Russia election meddling investigation to reignite the smear campaign against Trump, portraying him as an instrument of Moscow. That process would not have occurred in the same way with James Comey as head of the FBI.
Already, the Stage has been Set in the wake of Comey’s demise. The door is now open to smearing Trump and his immediate political entourage:
“The Senate Intelligence Committee is conducting a wide-ranging investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election, and is looking at sensitive questions about whether anyone in Mr. Trump’s orbit may have coordinated with Russia.” (WSJ, May 12, 2017)
What the Neocons and their allies at the Department of Justice are seeking is a “reliable proxy” to take on the position of interim FBI director.
Comey was fired because he was “unpredictable”. He could not be relied upon to fully endorse the two investigations, one of which had been entrusted to Andrew McCabe (acting on behalf of Hillary Clinton).
Several candidates have been interviewed by AG Jeff Sessions including Clinton’s Trojan Horse Andrew McCabe whose candidacy is supported by the Neocons, yet visibly opposed by President Trump. On the other hand, Trump has interviewed potential candidates in the Oval office.
What must be underscored is that the firing of James Comey suggests that president Trump is either unable or unwilling to take important decisions.
Was Trump aware of the fact that the Sessions-Rosenstein recommendation was ultimately intended to smear him and weaken his presidency?
No doubt Andrew McCabe will be among the Neocons preferred candidates acting on their behalf as proxies. At first glance, McCabe’s appointment appears unlikely. Trump has reason to be dead against him. But the question is whether president Trump will refuse or accept the recommendation of the Attorney General in regards to the candidacy of McCabe or another crony put forth by the Neocons.
One suspects that the candidacy of Andrew McCabe as interim director of the FBI had already been contemplated at an earlier stage prior to the firing of James Comey on May 9, 2017. Update: Andrew McCabe is part of the short list for the position of director of the FBI
The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Prof Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2017
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!
No comments:
Post a Comment