Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Does This Pose Make Me Look Guilty?
Replace the book he’s holding with a mug shot sign.
So … the James Comey Book Tour has had its first week. An extremely rocky voyage so far. It seems to this observer that it is about to hit an iceberg, a la the Titanic.
Just today, we have Kim Strassel at the WSJ [paywall] with 11 questions (her column had space restrictions for adding more) that an honest interviewer would ask the former head of the FBI. We have Jim Geraghty at NR [link] echoing Mike Wallace about the catty gossipiness and pointing out the yuge blanks that need filling about Hillary, McCabe, and Lynch. At The Hill … Jonathan Turley appropriately titles his article … FBI A House Of Lies In Comey Era.
And at The Federalist, we have the esteemed Mollie Hemingway [Comey’s memos indicate the dossier briefing of Trump was a setup] who takes apart the now recently published memos of this disgrace of a man and a former head of the FBI. Sad.
Ms. Hemingway makes a very effective case that this man set up the incoming President of the United States for the public reporting of the most salacious details of what Comey also testified to Congress was “unverified,” and that although he intentionally omitted it from his testimony, he knew it was produced by the Hillary Clinton campaign as “opposition research.”
Here’s Mollie’s concluding paragraph:
That [Comey’s firing by Trump] led to Comey leaking multiple memos in order to get a special counsel appointed out of revenge. That special counsel has utterly distracted multiple agencies and embroiled all three branches of government at the highest levels. All over a document that was secretly funded by Hillary Clinton and the DNC, contracted by a Democrat research firm with ties to the Kremlin, and authored by a shady foreign spy whose relationship with the FBI was terminated because he lied to them.
Treason, by any other name, is still treason.
Published in General
No, they published it within an hour (I think — might have been a few hours) of CNN’s story. But after CNN ran the story. Also, the AP said they went ahead and covered the dossier because of the CNN story as well. So it definitely “worked” to legitimize a dossier that had — frankly — been known by many journalists for months but considered too illegitimate to publish. This meeting provided the hook that CNN — according to Comey, not me! — said they needed to write the story.
Thanks. I had my timeline mixed up.
Curious to answer this, I did some looking on The Way Back Machine.
The earliest time-stamped article I found from CNN about the dossier is from January 10, 2017 at 5:09PM (though this says it was updated at that time, which suggests that it was published earlier). The earliest version of the BuzzFeed I could find was from eleven minutes later. Unless there are earliest versions that weren’t recorded, that means @MollieHemingway is correct about the timing and I (and others) misremembered. (I could have sworn Buzzfeed broke the story, but it looks like Buzzfeed was the first to publish the dossier).
Interestingly, the CNN article (accurately!) reported the dossier’s origin:
I was surprised to see that that was reported so far back.
Because someone from the media might have been talking to him about it. That is, the reporter heard about it from some other source (someone in the Obama Administration, Congress, etc.) and they asked Comey or someone on his staff if they could confirm it.
Again, I’m saying this is an alternative explanation; for all I know, Comey was the original source. I don’t think this is known at the moment.
I don’t know but it sure should have been.
Yes I erred in thinking Buzzfield published this first.
@MollieHemingway After all this back and forth I still stand by my estimation that Chait’s piece provides needed context and additional salient facts that inform the theory you propose in your original piece. I no longer, however, think your theory “absurd” and regret using that term. I believe I had an overly emotional reaction to what I perceived as people taking your theory as fact instead of as one plausible explanation of the available facts.
I agree with you regarding points 1 and 2.
With regard to 3, if Trump reads it first, he can’t really say ‘lol, wut?’ because being briefed by the intelligence agency makes it intelligence agency-grade legitimate.
With regard to 5, I imagine that it is the worst of both worlds to find out about a ludicrous accusation (to which people might reasonably assume you will overreact) and then be broadsided by additional accusations.
Regardless, the idea that this was a completely orchestrated set up seems unlikely.
As does the idea that this all about decent people doing their jobs correctly.
I suppose that’s aimed at me and a few others? I disagree. I never took at as fact, and I resent your assertion.
If I was going to aim at at fellow members I would say so.
There are many ways he could have known CNN had it, including the most reasonable — they had it and they told the FBI they had it and sought comment on it. What is so fascinating in the 1st Comey memo is that he says — straight up — CNN was looking for a hook in order to publish it. And we know with benefit of hindsight the hook they needed and used just a few days later was that he briefed Trump/Obama/Biden on it. That’s just really interesting to me.
I actually happen to think that this was not a Comey leak (despite how good he is at it leaking). I think him mentioning that Clapper asked him to do the briefing privately is significant. And while I think it’s fairly well established that Clapper was “a” source for CNN (he gave contradictory testimony to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence about him being a source for CNN and they mentioned this in the dossier report, so I figure that he was being evasive on just that point), I think he was perhaps just a “confirming” source. Meaning, someone else leaked it and then they called him to confirm it and he did. He could have directed the original leak, too, but had an associate do it. Or it could have come from the man that many people find the most political and calculating (and smartest) guy in the orbit — Brennan.
But someone leaked it, that’s for sure. And it’s worth considering why they did.
AND @max reminds us that “the great Mollie Hemmingway” tweeted this on 4/21/2018:
She’s right of course. There is no innocent explanation.