72 – Take A Knee? Really?

Marines Raise Flag Over Iwo Jima Archival Footage PublicDomainFootage.com

Consider the Marines on Iwo Jima as they “raised a flag” in honor of their defeat of the Japanese armed forces. The Japanese attack on American forces in Hawaii took place on the morning of December 7, 1941. The American forces took the island of Iwo Jima on February 9, 1945. Consider the importance of paying honor to the flag of the United States Of America.



It is “football Sunday” in much of the USA. Very soon, as players and fans enter into football stadiums, to see a game that will determine which of the two opposing teams will be declared to be “the best team” on this day. Unfortunately, there will be multi-millionaire football players who will decide to not stand for the national anthem but, instead, will choose to “take a knee.” During the past week, there have been videos of “eight year old boys,” who have also decided to “take a knee” at the beginning of their game. The playing of the national anthem has been done for many years in honor of the armed forces of the United States of America.

The Attack On Pearl Harbor – December 7, 1941

The axis powers of the world, being led by Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), and Hirohito (Japan), had their declared intent of taking over the whole world. Hitler was already overrunning much of Europe. Great Britain was the last significant military force that Hitler was trying to overthrow. France had it’s “resistance,” but had no military force to oppose Germany. After the Japanese attack on American forces in Hawaii, on Dec 7, they attacked American forces in the Republic of the Philippines on the next day, Dec 8, 1941. Japanese forces began their plan of overthrowing all nations and forces in the south Pacific.

Marines Raise Flag Over Iwo Jima 1945 United News Newsreel; World War II

Consider the allied forces, of which the United Sates assumed leadership.

After the United States of America was drawn into the second world war, American military forces also began engaging axis forces in Europe and North Africa. Other nations of Allied support followed the lead of the United States to stop Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito as they brutalized the citizenry and military of the nations that were on their map of world domination. Without the entry of the United States into World War II, Hitler would have overthrown Russia and Asia, through its attack from the West, with Hirohito advancing from the East, and Mussolini attacking from the South. Could any nation have succeeded in defending itself from such a three-front attack? Consider the numbers of Russian civilians and soldiers that died at the hands of Hitler’s soldiers, minus the forces of Japan and Italy.

Soviet military dead and missing, 8.7 million


Consider the Blitzkrieg, of Britain by German aircraft.


The importance of the presence of U.S. forces in the battle against the axis powers can not be understated. Without the defeat of the forces of Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito, the freedom of America, and other free countries, would not have been saved.

Group of American and British prisoners are marched through streets under German …HD Stock Footage

(U.S. And British POWs being marched by German soldiers through a French city. Notice how the French citizens mistreat the POWs.)

Hitler had a strong hold in North Africa, and would have marched southward, until all of Africa would fly the flag of Nazi Germany. Germany, Italy and Japan would have continued their assault on Asia, until the flags of those nations would fly no more. The nations of the Pacific, to include the continent of Australia, would be easy prey for the assault of the axis forces, with the result of many more Nazi flags flying in the lands of Nazi-led conquest.

After the attack on Hawaii, there was great concern that the west coast of the United States would also come until Japanese attack. There was also a fear that sympathizers of Japan living in the United States would begin attacks on the mainland of the United States. Democrat President Franklin Delano Roosevelt reacted to the fear of attack “from within” the USA, by the internment of citizens of the USA, who were of Japanese ancestry.


Concerns of the President were found to be valid when a German u boat was sunk off of the east of coast of the USA, and was found to have loaves of bread from a local bakery stored in the boat.

The military forces of the USA was at a weakened state of readiness when the Japanese attacked Hawaii. Without a national resolve to defend our country, and defeat the axis forces in other parts of the world, the USA would have been the starting point of axis entry into North, Central and South America, where the Nazi flag would have been planted. The success, liberty and tolerance that we have as great fortune in the United States of America, would have been replaced with the Nazi desires for our country, as well as for the rest of the world. There would be no NFL, NBA, MBL, or multi-millionaire contracts for athletes. Every other aspect of our lives would be totally different, whether it would be employment, hobby, relaxation, recreation, or religious.

So, how do we respond to the millionaire athletes that think that they should not show honor for the members of our military, by not standing in respect for the flag of the USA? The players can continue to “take a knee,” but I will not be watching their games. If enough people were to make the same decision, that I have taken, NFL ratings would take a nose dive. If fans would not go to NFL games, teams would be sent a direct message.

The assault on America exists also in the media which broadcasts “sports.” Consider ESPN.


ESPN has become a “paid political announcement” for things that are anti-God, anti-USA, and anti-family. It is hard to watch a college football game that is not shown through an ESPN affiliate. But, now, my tv set will not give a rating to any ESPN station, nor will it give a rating to ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, CNBC, or to any network that broadcasts programs that oppose the values of God, family or country. My tv set used to be set for me to watch NFL games every Sunday, and on any other day that NFL games would be broadcast. My tv set also used to be set for me to watch ESPN-telecast college football games every Saturday, and on other days. But, that is history. I will not support ungodly entities that are trying to destroy our country with values that are not of God, family or country. I will no longer watch the SEC or ACC networks, because they have ESPN corporate involvement.



Consider the relationship that ESPN has with Disney and ABC. My money will not be spent at Disney Land or Disney World. I will not give money to buy “Mickey’s ears,” to a company that has men openly kissing other men, “during Disney’s “gay days!” Consider the shock that comes across the faces of parents who have that experience also being forced on their impressionable children.


As for my viewing of local tv stations, I will watch local news broadcasts, but I will not watch those stations once they switch to network viewing of ABC, NBC or CBS programs.

The Liberation of Dachau

Notice the American Soldiers liberating the German concentration camp at Dachau. The prisoners were Jews of the Holocaust.

Notice the numbers of American War deaths.

405,399 Americans of our armed forces lost their lives in World War II. They died in their support for our flag, and to keep it flying.


I am proud to be an American, and proudly salute our flag.

U.S. Air Force, Retired.


BREAKING!!! Obama’s IRS ‘misled’ Obamacare customers – Obamacare Scheme That Gave Congress Free Health Care

Click onto any highlighted word to see the videos and text on the blog.


The following news accounts don’t seem to find their way onto the daily news broadcasts of fake news.

From Washington Times


Obama’s IRS ‘misled’ Obamacare customers: Audit Search

By Stephen Dinan – The Washington Times – Thursday, August 3, 2017

The Obama administration “misled” Americans into thinking signing up for Obamacare would be cheaper than it really was, according to an inspector general’s report Thursday that said the IRS dramatically understated the actual cost of enrolling.

IRS officials sent the letters to try to prod Americans to comply with the 2010 health law’s “individual mandate” that penalizes them for not holding coverage.

But as part of the letters, the IRS said most people could find plans for $75 a month or less once government subsidies were figured in.

That was untrue — in fact, the average cost was more than twice that figure, at $168 a month, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration said.

“Many of the nearly 7.5 million taxpayers who receive letters and seek insurance may feel misled if the actual cost of their insurance is much higher than the $75 per month detailed in their notification letter,” the inspector general concluded.

The IRS said it was only using numbers provided by Department of Health and Human Services and verified by the Treasury Department. They said the $75 figure was true for some taxpayers.
The inspector general said it asked for that documentation but never received it.

Auditors said their own analysis found the HHS studies were based on a smaller sample and was limited to those who chose lower-coverage plans with fewer benefits.

According to the new audit, federal regulations require agencies to present accurate information.
Investigators uncovered the misleading information as part of a broader audit about how the IRS was handling its role in alerting Americans who aren’t complying with Obamacare’s mandate to hold insurance.

Some 19.3 million Americans ducked the Obamacare mandate in 2016, with 12.8 million claiming an exemption and 6.5 million paying the tax penalty.

The IRS was supposed to begin sending letters in June 2015 to encourage those who ducked the mandate to sign up, but the agency declined, saying it wanted to instead study behavior from Obamacare’s first full year of operations in 2014.

The agency also missed the deadline in 2016, but did send notices beginning at the end of the year.
Officials said they figured they’d get better reception if they sent them close to the time of enrollment for 2017.

Some 7.5 million letters were sent — about half in English and half in Spanish.

From CBN News

Analyst Phil Kerpen Reveals Obamacare Scheme That Gave Congress Free Health Care (August 2, 2017)

Breaking – Senate announces probe of Loretta Lynch behavior in 2016 election


By Stephen Dinan – The Washington Times – Friday, June 23, 2017

The Senate Judiciary Committee has opened a probe into former Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s efforts to shape the FBI’s investigation into 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, the committee’s chairman announced Friday.

In a letter to Ms. Lynch, the committee asks her to detail the depths of her involvement in the FBI’s investigation, including whether she ever assured Clinton confidantes that the probe wouldn’t “push too deeply into the matter.”

Fired FBI Director James B. Comey has said publicly that Ms. Lynch tried to shape the way he talked about the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s emails, and he also hinted at other behavior “which I cannot talk about yet” that made him worried about Ms. Lynch’s ability to make impartial decisions.

Mr. Comey said that was one reason why he took it upon himself to buck Justice Department tradition and reveal his findings about Mrs. Clinton last year.

The probe into Ms. Lynch comes as the Judiciary Committee is already looking at President Trump’s firing of Mr. Comey.

Sen. Charles E. Grassley, chairman of the committee, said the investigation is bipartisan. The letter to Ms. Lynch is signed by ranking Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein and also by Sens. Lindsey Graham and Sheldon Whitehouse, the chairman and ranking member of the key investigative subcommittee.
Letters also went to Clinton campaign staffer Amanda Renteria and Leonard Benardo and Gail Scovell at the Open Society Foundations. Mr. Benardo was reportedly on an email chain from the then-head of the Democratic National Committee suggesting Ms. Lynch had given assurances to Ms. Renteria, the campaign staffer, that the Clinton probe wouldn’t “go too far.”

At a Senate hearing earlier this month, Mr. Comey told lawmakers that Ms. Lynch had attempted to change the way the FBI described its probe of Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server. The change appeared to dovetail with how Mrs. Clinton’s supporters were characterizing the probe.

“At one point, [Ms. Lynch] directed me not to call it an ‘investigation’ but instead to call it a ‘matter,’ which confused me and concerned me,” Mr. Comey said during his June 8 testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. “That was one of the bricks in the load that led me to conclude I have to step away from the department if we are to close this case credibly.”

Acknowledging that he didn’t know whether it was intentional, Mr. Comey said Ms. Lynch’s request “gave the impression the attorney general was looking to align the way we talked about our investigation with the way a political campaign was describing the same activity.”

Mr. Comey said the language suggested by Ms. Lynch was troublesome because it closely mirrored what the Clinton campaign was using. Despite his discomfort, Mr. Comey said, he agreed to Ms. Lynch’s language.

• Andrea Noble contributed to this story

Democrat Dictionary

As shown below, Hillary Clinton described the FBI investigation of her as being a security inquiry. In the following articles, read what James Comey said about Obama Attorney General, Janet Lynch, and the word “Matter,” instead of “Investigation.” So, let’s take a look at the purpose of the FBI. Is it called the Federal Bureau of Security Inquiries? Or, is it called the Federal Bureau of Matters? Or, is it known as The Federal Bureau of Investigation? It appears that democrats are ambidextrous, and can choose the word that best accomplishes their objectives. Maybe we should use another name, such as, (you can provide your own name).

News sources are selected without prejudice (John 8:32)

Federal Bureau of Investigation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), formerly the Bureau of Investigation (BOI), is the domestic intelligence and security service of the United States, which simultaneously serves as the nation’s prime federal law enforcement agency. Operating under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Justice, the FBI is concurrently a member of the U.S. Intelligence Community and reports to both the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence.[2] A leading U.S. counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and criminal investigative organization, the FBI has jurisdiction over violations of more than 200 categories of federal crimes.[3]

What we know about the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails

By Lauren Carroll on Thursday, May 12th, 2016 at 6:01 p.m.


Over the past couple of days, some Hillary Clinton critics have complained over the way her campaign has described the FBI’s probe into her private email server. Clinton and her campaign have called the probe a “security inquiry” regarding information stored on the server, as opposed to a criminal probe.
“I say what I have said now for many, many months: It’s a security inquiry,” she said on CBS May 8.

But on May 11, reporters met with FBI Director James Comey, and he said he is not familiar with the term “security inquiry.” Instead, he said, “we’re conducting an investigation. That’s what we do.”

So is it an “inquiry” or is it an “investigation”? While Clinton might shy away from the word “investigation,” it is truly a distinction without a difference. Inquiry is just another word for investigation.

Clinton’s critics jumped on Comey’s words as proof that the FBI is on track to prosecute Clinton for mishandling classified information. Her campaign continues to deny that the case will ever reach that point.

While serving as secretary of state, Clinton sent and received emails hosted on a private server located in her New York home, outside the State Department’s cyber security fence. Clinton says she did this out of convenience but that, in retrospect, it was a mistake.

Here’s what we know about the investigation so far.

The FBI is conducting an investigation. (It’s the Federal Bureau of Investigation, after all.)

Inspectors General from the State Department and the intelligence community referred the case to the Executive Branch in July 2015. The referral memo made clear that the Inspectors General were not suggesting that anyone involved in Clinton’s email setup committed a crime. Rather, they were following their statutory obligation to inform the intelligence community about any potential security breach — namely, that Clinton possibly held classified information on her email server located outside secure government facilities.

Clinton says she never knowingly sent or received classified information, a possibly criminal action.

In August, the FBI entered the case.

The FBI is determining if criminal activity occurred in connection with the email setup.

We talked to experts in federal criminal investigations, and they told us that the FBI doesn’t look into issues just for the heck of it. They assess cases to find out whether criminal activity occurred.

“We don’t do these because we’re curious,” said Ellen Glasser, a retired FBI special agent who worked on cases regarding mishandled classified information. “There’s a potential that a criminal violation took place.”

Glasser, immediate past president of the Society of Former Special Agents of the FBI, emphasized that she has no inside knowledge about the Clinton case beyond what has been publicly reported.

Clinton’s phrasing — calling it a “security inquiry” — is not necessarily wrong, said Mark Pollitt, former chief of the FBI’s computer forensics program. But it obscures the fact that an investigation can be both security-related and criminal.

A reasonable person might take Clinton’s phrasing to mean the FBI is simply conducting a risk assessment of her server to see whether it’s secure. Agents might do that as part of an investigation, but it’s not the end game, Pollitt said.

Some news organizations have reported that the FBI is also looking into whether the server was hacked.

Clinton is undoubtedly a subject of the investigation, but whether she meets the definition of an official FBI “target” is unknown. That term is reserved for people for whom there is substantial evidence linking them to a crime, according to the prosecutor’s judgment.

Clinton said in March that investigators have not told her that she or any of her staff members are targets of the investigation.

If people ask about their status in an investigation, it’s common practice for the Justice Department to tell them whether they’re targets or not, said Lauren Ouziel, a former federal prosecutor and a professor at Temple University Beasley School of Law.

“If she has been informed by the DOJ that she is presently not a target, then her statement that she is not a target would be accurate,” Ouziel said, noting that she has no non-public knowledge of the case.

But of course, Clinton’s actions are clearly front-and-center in the FBI investigation. Based on her knowledge of how classified information mishandling cases proceed, and her understanding of public reports about Clinton’s role in the email setup, Glasser said the FBI is very likely looking at Clinton specifically.

“My experience tells me that Hillary Clinton is a subject of a criminal investigation,” Glasser said.

The FBI doesn’t open an investigation definitely knowing it will seek charges against someone. If an investigation does not reveal evidence of a crime, or if there is insufficient evidence of criminal conduct, then the investigation will close without any charges filed.

“You don’t know if it’s criminal until you get to the end of it,” Pollitt said.

As part of its investigation, the FBI has looked into the security setup for Clinton’s home server and a thumb drive that has copies of Clinton’s work emails. They have also interviewed several aides, with the Justice Department even granting immunityto the staffer who set up Clinton’s home server.

Agents have not, though, asked Clinton for an interview yet, she said May 8.

The investigation has been going on for nine months now. To Pollitt, that means it’s probably a tough case to pin down.

“If this thing was dead on arrival, nobody would be willing to keep this thing going,” he said.


Loretta Lynch Told Comey He Should Call Clinton Probe a “Matter,” Not An Investigation
Katie PavlichKatie Pavlich|Posted: Jun 08, 2017 10:55 AM

Speaking on Capitol Hill Thursday morning in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee, former FBI Director James Comey revealed former Attorney General Loretta Lynch asked him to call the probe into former Secretary of State and then Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton a “matter,” not a criminal investigation.

“She [Lynch] told me to call it a matter, which confused and concerned me. But that was one of the bricks in the load that led me to conclude I have to step away from the [Justice] Department if we’re to close this case credibly,” Comey said. “We had an open criminal investigation.”

Comey’s revelation came after a question from Chairman Richard Burr, who asked the former director how the June 2016 secret meeting between Lynch and former President Bill Clinton on her private plane effected his decisions surrounding the case. At the time of the meeting, Clinton was under criminal investigation for storing and sharing top secret and classified information on a private server. Lynch claims the discussion was about golf and grand children, not about special treatment for the former First Lady. Days later, Comey announced she would not be referred to the Justice Department of prosecution.

During the 2016 campaign, Clinton and her campaign team repeatedly referred to the criminal investigation as a “security review,” a classification Comey took issue with.

“I don’t even know what that means, a ‘security inquiry.’ We do investigations here at the FBI,” Comey told Fox News’ Catherine Herridge last year, adding that the term is unfamiliar within the Bureau.

Comey added during his testimony Thursday that he became concerned Lynch was aligning herself with the Clinton campaign by using the same language when referring to the criminal investigation.


Comey hearing
JUNE 8, 2017, 8:04 A.M.
Comey: Then-Atty. Gen. Lynch urged that the Hillary Clinton email probe be called a ‘matter,’ not ‘investigation’
Associated Press

CBS News ✔@CBSNews
#JamesComey says Bill Clinton’s meeting with AG Lynch influenced email probe: “That was the thing that capped it for me”
10:50 AM – 8 Jun 2017
242242 Retweets 240240 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Former FBI Director James Comey said Thursday that then-Atty. Gen. Loretta Lynch urged him to refer to the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails a “matter” instead of an “investigation.”

Comey said in his Senate Intelligence Committee hearing that he was confused by the request and that it was one of the reasons he felt the need to publicly announce his findings in the Clinton email case.

Comey said the other major factor was Lynch’s meeting with former President Clinton on the tarmac of an Arizona airport. Comey said he had to announce his findings to protect the credibility of the FBI and the Justice Department.

‘Trump is the last best chance to get things done’


By Jennifer Harper – The Washington Times – Sunday, June 11, 2017

Despite calculated Democratic distractions and media attacks, President Trump has signed more bills into law at this point in office than four of his predecessors, besting former Presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush. So says House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy himself.
“Considering that President Trump is getting hit with slings and arrows from all sides including from within his own White House, he is counterpunching and deflecting far better than the press and Democrats think. Trump’s chief concern now is to get congressional Republicans to stop being scared of their own shadow and pass his pro-growth agenda,” Ford O’Connell, adjunct professor at The George Washington University Graduate School of Political Management, tells Inside the Beltway.
“That said, President Trump could make his life easier by expanding and bolstering his communications shop so that his message is more streamlined and consistent. As for Twitter, Trump needs to start tweeting with a message-specific purpose and cease the stream-of-consciousness tweets, particularly when they relate to ongoing investigations and matters before the courts. In politics, there are a lot of things you can’t control, but to be successful you should control what’s in your grasp. If you do that, the rest will take care of itself,” Mr. O’Connell continues.
“Contrary to media reports, a good number of Trump’s core supporters recognize the president’s mistakes and shortcomings. Most previously voted for Bush 43 or Mitt Romney, some voted for Obama. But what unites them is a belief that Trump is the last best chance to get things done in a Washington that no longer represents them,” says Mr. O’Connell. “What fuels these folks is a press corps obsessed with Russia, a Democratic Party kowtowing to an inflamed left-leaning base and smug Republican elites who are all hell-bent on taking down Trump. In other words, it is the venom of this motley consortium that keeps Trump’s grass roots support thriving. As strange as this may seem, welcome to the new normal in politics.”
“The Democrats have a playbook. We know it. It’s resist, obstruct. We see them do it at every level,” Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel tells Fox News Sunday.
Part two, however, is underway.
“Now, it’s throw doubt on the administration. Open as many investigations as possible, cloud the administration as much as possible because they are trying to run out the clock to 2018. That is their playbook. We know it,” Ms. McDaniel adds.
After personally witnessing President Trump’s speech at the recent Faith and Freedom Coalition conference in the nation’s capital, Father Frank Pavone, director of Priests for Life, came away with a new mission.
“As the president spoke passionately of the role of faith in American life, of the freedom Americans must have to live their faith and of the freedom pastors must have to preach that faith without government restriction, I could not help but think that there are so many in the church who do not yet realize what a blessing this president is for the church,” says Father Pavone.
“Perhaps most important of all is that he told us that we religious believers delivered the election to him and that in next year’s midterms, we need to do the same to increase pro-life majorities both in the House and in the Senate. This inspiring event made me all the more committed to do exactly that,” declares the priest.
From a new Gallup poll: 49 percent of Americans say abortion is “morally wrong”; 65 percent of Republicans and 32 percent of Democrats agree. Another 43 percent overall say abortion is “morally acceptable”; 27 percent of Republicans and 61 percent of Democrats agree.
In addition, 50 percent overall say abortion should be legal “in only certain circumstances”; 56 percent of Republicans and 44 percent of Democrats agree. Another 29 percent say it should be “legal in all circumstances”; 14 percent of Republicans and 46 percent of Democrats agree. And finally, 18 percent say abortion should be “illegal in all circumstances”; 28 percent of Republicans and 8 percent of Democrats agree.
Former Vice President Al Gore will soon preside over a “Climate Reality Leadership Corps” training session in Bellevue, Washington, at the end of the month. Here’s the pitch from the advocacy group:
“Over the course of three days, participants will: learn from our founder and chairman former U.S. Vice President Al Gore how to communicate the urgency of the climate crisis to people everywhere. Learn how to combine science and solutions to engage audiences. Learn to inspire others to take action. Hear from subject experts in such fields as strategic communications, climate science, and grassroots organizing. Network with global leaders and influencers.”
Oh, and one more thing:
“There is no cost to attend the training. However, participants must pay for their own travel and accommodations.”
49 percent of U.S. voters have an unfavorable opinion of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi; 29 percent have a favorable opinion; 22 percent have never heard of her.
43 percent have an unfavorable opinion of House Speaker Paul D. Ryan; 36 percent have a favorable opinion, 21 percent have never heard of him.
41 percent have an unfavorable opinion of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell; 24 percent have a favorable opinion, 36 percent have never heard of him.
32 percent have an unfavorable opinion of Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer, 26 percent have a favorable opinion, 42 percent have never heard of him.
Source: A Morning Consult/Politico poll of 1,999 registered U.S. voters conducted June 1-2.

Breaking – Two Stories: (1) Trump’s lawyer slams Comey’s memo leak, suggests ‘authorities’ should investigate (2) Comey leaked his own memos to contradict Trump, spur special prosecutor

Trump’s lawyer slams Comey’s memo leak, suggests ‘authorities’ should investigate


By Dave Boyer – The Washington Times – Thursday, June 8, 2017

Responding to the testimony of fired FBI Director James B. Comey, President Trump’s personal lawyer said Thursday that Mr. Comey “makes clear that the president never sought to impede” the FBI’s investigation of Russia’s alleged interference in the 2016 presidential election.
Lawyer Marc Kasowitz also said Mr. Comey made “unauthorized disclosures” of “privileged communications” that he had with the president.
Mr. Kasowitz blasted leaks of classified information by government employees “who are actively attempting to undermine” the president. He criticized the former FBI director for conceding to lawmakers that he provided a friend with a memo he’d written of his conversations with the president, for the purpose of leaking the information to the media.
SEE ALSO: Comey leaked his own memos to contradict Trump, spur special prosecutor (At bottom of page)
“Mr. Comey has now admitted that he is one of these leakers,” Mr. Kasowitz said. “We will leave it to the appropriate authorities to determine whether these leaks should be investigated.”
The president’s lawyer said Mr. Trump “feels completely vindicated” after Mr. Comey’s testimony and looks forward to getting on with his agenda.
The president’s lawyer read his statement to reporters at the National Press Club but took no questions.
Mr. Kasowitz said that Mr. Trump “never pressured Mr. Comey” into dropping the Russia investigation, and never sought a loyalty oath from the FBI director.
“It is now established that there the president was not being investigated for colluding with the or attempting to obstruct that investigation,” he said. “As the [Senate Intelligence] committee pointed out today, these important facts for the country to know are virtually the only facts that have not leaked during the long course of these events.”

Comey leaked his own memos to contradict Trump, spur special prosecutor


By Stephen Dinan – The Washington Times – Thursday, June 8, 2017

Fired FBI Director James B. Comey orchestrated the leak of details of his memos of his conversations with President Trump, he testified to Congress on Thursday, saying he was hoping it would spur the Justice Department to announce an independent prosecutor to probe the Trump operation.
Mr. Comey said he used a law professor friend at Columbia University as a go-between to share information with reporters, though he didn’t name the professor. He said he wanted to get information out after Mr. Trump took to Twitter to dispute that he had asked the FBI to let former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn off the hook.
“I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel,” Mr. Comey testified.
Sen. Roy Blunt said that sounded like a cop-out.
“What you do there is create a source close to the former director of the FBI, as opposed to just taking responsibility yourself,” the Missouri Republican said.
Mr. Comey said he felt so disturbed by his interactions with Mr. Trump that he took notes of their conversations, fearing the president would “lie” about them later. He said he wrote memos in unclassified form so they could be discussed publicly.

Two top intelligence chiefs felt no pressure from Trump to end Russia investigations

By Dan Boylan – The Washington Times – Wednesday, June 7, 2017
Two of the government’s top intelligence officials said Wednesday that they did not feel pressured to end investigations into Russian meddling in the November presidential election, though fired FBI Director James B. Comey did say President Trump asked him to drop a piece of the probe looking into a former top aide.
In testimony prepared for delivery Thursday to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Mr. Comey also confirmed that he thrice told Mr. Trump he was not personally under investigation.
But the former director said Mr. Trump did suggest cutting short the investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, asking the FBI to “let this go.”
In recounting five interactions with the president, Mr. Comey never uses the term “obstruction of justice” and makes clear that Mr. Trump said the investigation of Russia’s efforts to influence the election should be completed to ensure that affiliates of his campaign didn’t violate any laws.
But overall, Mr. Comey described a testy relationship with Mr. Trump that began when he confronted the president-elect with unsubstantiated and “salacious” rumors during the transition, then later felt the newly elected president was trying to force on Mr. Comey a “patronage relationship.”
“I need loyalty, I expect loyalty,” Mr. Trump said, according to Mr. Comey.
The committee released the prepared testimony just hours after it heard from Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats and Adm. Michael Rogers, director of the National Security Agency, on similar topics.
The two men sidestepped questions about their specific interactions with Mr. Trump, but both said they didn’t feel pressure to curtail the FBI’s probe into suspected collusion between the Kremlin and Trump campaign associates.
“In my time of service, which is interacting with the president of the United States or anybody in his administration, I have never been pressured,” Mr. Coats said.
According to recent Washington Post and New York Times reporting, Mr. Trump asked both Mr. Coats and Adm. Rogers to try to influence the Russia investigation and reduce its damage to the Oval Office.
Despite making no direct claims of wrongdoing, Mr. Comey does describe a strange and strained relationship that, according to the former FBI director, appeared to be an effort to demand loyalty.
He emerged from a Jan. 27 meeting, just a week after the inauguration, saying he felt Mr. Trump was trying to pressure him by asking him — for a third time — whether he wanted to stay on as FBI director.
“My instincts told me that the one-on-one setting, and the pretense that this was our first discussion about my position, meant the dinner was, at least in part, an effort to have me ask for my job and create some sort of patronage relationship. That concerned me greatly, given the FBI’s traditionally independent status in the executive branch,” Mr. Comey says.
‘Totally vindicated’
White House independent counsel Marc Kasowitz said later Wednesday that Mr. Trump was satisfied that Mr. Comey had finally confirmed in public that he was not under investigation in any Russia probe.
“The president feels completely and totally vindicated. He is eager to continue to move forward with his agenda,” Mr. Kasowitz said.
Wednesday’s hearing included Mr. Coats, Adm. Rogers, acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and was nominally called to discuss Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act provisions.
But the thrust of the gathering addressed the Russia issue.
While Mr. Coats was firm in his denial of ever feeling pressured by the White House, he implied that he could provide more details of his White House conversations only in a closed meeting.
“I don’t believe it’s appropriate for me to address that in a public session,” he said.
The answers by Mr. Coats and the others indicate that Mr. Trump, in conversations with the leaders, may have asked the status of the investigations and said they should be dropped if they hadn’t produced anything actionable.
Mr. Comey will appear before the Senate intelligence committee at 10 a.m. Thursday to discuss his dealing with Mr. Trump leading up to his abrupt dismissal on May 9.
Lawmakers are expected to seize upon a particular passage about how the men seemed to interpret the phrase “honest loyalty” — which staffers on Capitol Hill are saying could allude to attempts by Mr. Trump to obstruct justice.
Senate frustration
Mr. Warner began the morning’s Senate hearing by telling the assembled chiefs of America’s leading law enforcement and intelligence agencies that the White House had engaged in an “appalling and improper use” of the nation’s intelligence apparatus.
But when asked, Mr. Coats, Adm. Rogers, Mr. McCabe and Mr. Rosenstein basically deflected attacks or said they could not discuss key matters in a public forum.
Frazzled Democrats were at times joined by exasperated Republicans as the number of questions being dodged increased.
Sen. Richard Burr, North Carolina Republican and the panel chairman, went so far as rebuke the intelligence officials for their lack of transparency.
“At no time should you be in a position where you come to Congress without an answer,” he said at the hearing’s end.
When Sen. Kamala D. Harris, California Democrat, sparred with Mr. Rosenstein, Mr. Burr had to jump in and suspend her line of inquiry.
Last month, Mr. Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller as special council to take over the Justice Department’s Russia probe. On Wednesday, Ms. Harris grilled him for specifics and guarantees that Mr. Mueller could not be fired by the president, as Mr. Comey was.
“Sir, if I may, the greater assurance is not that you and I believe in Mueller’s integrity,” she said as Mr. Rosenstein’s face tightened.
When he started speaking, she cut him off again until Mr. Burr finally intervened.
“The chair is going to exercise his right to allow the witness to answer the question,” the North Carolina Republican declared.
Ms. Harris scowled.
Sen. John McCain, not an intelligence committee member but in attendance at the discretion of the committee, painted a dark picture of the intelligence community’s inability to provide answers.
The Arizona Republican said Mr. Coats‘ refusal to explain about a conversation that The Washington Post already reported “shows what kind of an Orwellian existence that we live in.”
The Post report contained details of Mr. Trump allegedly complaining to Mr. Coats after a March 22 White House briefing about Mr. Comey’s handling of the Russia probe.
“Here in a public hearing before the American people, we can’t talk about what was described in detail in this morning’s Washington Post,” Mr. McCain said.
⦁ Andrea Noble and Dave Boyer contributed to this report.