Posts Tagged ‘Hillary Clinton’

Democrats are getting desperate as Mueller stalls

April 22, 2018

Criminal Referral from Justice Department IG for Andrew McCabe

April 19, 2018

Image may contain: 1 person, eyeglasses, beard and closeup

Former deputy director of the FBI Andrew McCabe

The Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has sent a criminal referral regarding former deputy director of the FBI Andrew McCabe to the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, D.C., a source familiar with the matter told CNN Thursday.

Hours before McCabe’s scheduled retirement in March, he was fired by Attorney General Jeff Sessions for “lacking candor” in interviews with federal investigators about his role in leaking information to a Wall Street Journal reporter in 2016.

An OIG report released last week confirmed that McCabe had in fact misled federal investigators on four separate occasions by insisting that he did not approve the leak, which was apparently intended to rebut rumors that McCabe had told FBI agents to “stand down” from their investigation of the Clinton Foundation. (The report asserts in a footnote that the substance of the leak was accurate, meaning McCabe’s claim that he had, in fact, internally defended the bureau’s right to continue the Clinton Foundation investigation was true.)

The report further indicated the disclosure did not fall under the “public interest” exception for disclosing ongoing investigations because it was made in order “to advance his personal interests at the expense of Department leadership.”

National Review

Stay Updated with NR DailyNR’s afternoon roundup of the day’s best commentary & must-read analysis.


Investigators also found that McCabe’s account of his dealings with then-FBI director James Comey differed from Comey’s account.

McCabe claimed that he told Comey he authorized the leak in an October 30 conversation and Comey “did not react negatively.” Comey maintained that McCabe did not disclose his role in authorizing the leak, which he claims he found “problematic” because it revealed the existence of the previously undisclosed Clinton Foundation investigation.

The Department of Justice declined to comment.

James Comey Was E-Mailing Lisa Page and Peter Strzok Just Before Deciding Not To Charge Hillay Clinton — Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy wants more investigation…

April 18, 2018

The head of the conservative House Freedom Caucus has asked the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to take a closer look at emails and texts between demoted FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page that previously had been given to Congress.

In a letter to Oversight Committee chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., claimed recently uncovered documents “suggest a concerning level of coordination between the Department of Justice and the FBI throughout crucial moments of the investigation into [Hillary] Clinton’s private email server.”

Meadows’ claim contradicts repeated statements by former FBI Director James Comey, who has said the bureau and the DOJ did not coordinate on his July 2016 statement recommending Clinton not be charged for keeping classified information on her personal email server.

“Given the tone of Director Comey’s sworn testimony, and his stated intention to continue to publicly speaking about the investigation in support of his new book,” Meadows wrote, “we believe it is important to further examine whether his previous statements before Congress and the American people were misleading.”

Meadows quoted a July 1, 2016 text exchange between Strzok and Page about then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s pledge to accept Comey’s recommendations in the email case.

“Timing looks like hell,” Strzok wrote. “Will appear choreographed. All major news networks literally leading with ‘AG to accept FBI [Director’s] recommendation.’”

“Yeah, that is awful timing,” Page answered. “Nothing we can do about it.”

“What I meant was,” Strzok said, “did DOJ tell us yesterday they were doing this, so [Comey] added that language.”

Page texted back: “I think we had some warning of it. I know they sent some statement to [Comey chief of staff James] Rybicki bc he called andy [Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe].”

The DOJ and FBI have tapped a federal prosecutor to oversee a subpoena by Bob Goodlatte for more than one million documents; Catherine Herridge has the latest from Washington DC.

Meadows said the cryptic conversation “raises concerns the FBI learned former Attorney General Lynch would accept Director Comey’s recommendation, leading him to add the ‘no coordination’ language to his public comments on July 5th 2016.”

He added, “These texts exchanged between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok also raise concerns DOJ sent remarks related to the ‘no coordination’ language to James Rybicki, Director Comey’s former Chief of Staff.”

According to Meadows, another document indicated that McCabe “reached out to ask that we set up another DOJ/FBI meeting to discuss developments in MYE (midyear exam).” MYE is the code for the Clinton email case.

“It is very possible former Director Comey did not coordinate specifics of his statement with the Deputy Attorney General [Sally Yates]. However, the documents suggest that at the staff-level, coordination on the Clinton MYE investigation was frequent,” Meadows wrote.

Gowdy told Fox News’ “The Story” Tuesday night that he had read Meadows’ letter and planned to forward it to Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz.

“I think it fits most neatly within what Horowitz is doing now, which is looking at just how unprecedented this investigation was in 2016,” Gowdy said.

The FBI and Justice Department did not immediately respond to Fox News’ requests for comment.

Fox News’ Samuel Chamberlain contributed to this report.

Fox News

Includes video:


A Higher Sanctimony — Narcissism, inflated ego, revenge and vindication — The perils of the righteous prosecutor and the rule of law

April 18, 2018

Comey’s memoir shows he is more like Trump than he cares to admit.

Image result for George Stephanopoulos and comey, photos

Donald Trump was warned. Seven days before his inauguration, these columns advised the President-elect to replace James Comey as director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. We had no knowledge of secret probes, but we did have long experience watching Mr. Comey. And we knew Mr. Trump, whose narcissism would cause him to believe he could charm or dominate the director.

Mr. Trump didn’t take that advice, firing Mr. Comey four months later when as President he was sure to pay a higher political price. He had ample cause to fire him, as a memo from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein laid out.

But Mr. Trump told an interviewer that he had fired Mr. Comey because the FBI chief wouldn’t say publicly that the FBI wasn’t investigating Mr. Trump. The President also threatened Mr. Comey with a false claim about Oval Office “tapes.” Mr. Comey responded by leaking documents that caused Mr. Rosenstein to name a special counsel, which has put Mr. Trump’s Presidency in mortal peril.


Now comes Mr. Comey’s memoir, “A Higher Loyalty,” which is an attempt at revenge and vindication. With the help of special counsel Robert Mueller, Mr. Comey may succeed at the former. He fails utterly at the latter. The main lesson from Mr. Comey’s book is that Mr. Trump’s abuse of political norms has driven his enemies to violate norms themselves.

The most notable fact in the book is how little we learn that is new about Mr. Trump. The tales of Mr. Comey’s meetings with the President were leaked long ago, and on the specific facts they are plausible. Mr. Trump is preoccupied with his critics and the validation of his presidential victory. He is clueless that his bullying and flattery would repel Mr. Comey, who thinks of himself as Eliot Ness as written by David Mamet in “The Untouchables.”

The book mainly adds Mr. Comey’s moral and aesthetic contempt for Mr. Trump. This may be catnip for the press, but it isn’t new and doesn’t amount to an impeachable offense. Mr. Comey’s comparison of Mr. Trump to a “mafia” boss is hilariously overstated. Don’t they call it “organized” crime? And what about that code of silence known as omerta? The Trump White House can’t keep anything secret.

The former director recoils that Mr. Trump once asked for his “loyalty” but within the law that is perfectly legitimate. As the Supreme Court said about executive officials in Myers v. U.S. (1926), “The moment that” a President “loses confidence in the intelligence, ability, judgment or loyalty of any of them, he must have the power to remove him without delay.”

Mr. Comey reveals in his excessive self-regard that he is more like Mr. Trump than he cares to admit. Mr. Trump’s narcissism is crude and focused on his personal “winning.” Mr. Comey’s is about vindicating his own higher morality and righteous belief.

That comes through most clearly in his defense of his handling of Hillary Clinton’s emails. Mr. Comey says he was put in an impossible situation: “I knew this was going to suck for me.” Yet he says he had to pre-empt his superiors at Justice in July 2016 to absolve Mrs. Clinton because only he could assure Americans that the probe was fair. He endorses following the chain of command, but then says he had to ignore it for the greater good.

He accuses Mr. Rosenstein of acting “dishonorably” by writing the memo describing how Mr. Comey mishandled the Clinton probe. Yet he barely engages Mr. Rosenstein’s arguments, which quoted from former Justice officials of both parties. Mr. Rosenstein wrote that Mr. Comey was “wrong to usurp” the authority of Attorney General Loretta Lynch and wrong to “hold press conferences to release derogatory information” about Mrs. Clinton.

That mistake made Mr. Comey feel obliged to intervene again in late October—this time to announce the reopening of the probe in a way that helped Mr. Trump. Had Mr. Comey followed Justice protocol in July, he would not have had to make himself the issue in October, damaging the reputation of the FBI and Justice in the bargain.

This has been the habit across Mr. Comey’s career, though you’ll find no mention in his memoir of Steven Hatfill, the government scientist he wrongly pursued for years as the anthrax terrorist; or Frank Quattrone, the Wall Street financier he prosecuted twice for obstruction of justice only to be rebuked by an appeals court; or Judith Miller’s recantation of her testimony against Scooter Libby.

Mr. Comey has also had little to say so far about the controversy over the Steele dossier and his handling of the Russian investigation of Mr. Trump. Did he know that the dossier was commissioned by Democrats for the Clinton campaign? He also has nothing to say about the dismissal of his former FBI deputy, Andrew McCabe, for “lack of candor.”


Mr. Comey is getting his moment of revenge as much of the press revels in the attacks on Mr. Trump. Yet his career, reinforced by his memoir, is a case study in the perils of the righteous prosecutor. It also shows why Mr. Comey’s view of the FBI as “independent” of supervisory authority is wrong and dangerous. A presidential bully who abuses power needs to be checked, but so does an FBI director who turns righteousness into zealotry.

Appeared in the April 18, 2018, print edition.



Republicans give eye-rolls and boos against James Comey during ABC interview

Some 23 Charleston Republicans booed, hissed and rolled their eyes Sunday night as they watched ousted FBI Director James Comey give his first TV interview since being fired last May.

“We all left with the impression that all he wants to do is sell books,” state Sen. Sandy Senn, R-Charleston, said Monday after taking part in a CNN focus group on Comey late Sunday night.

During an hour-long interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, Comey said President Donald Trump was “morally unfit to be president” and compared the commander in chief to a “mob boss” in his repeated demands for loyalty.

McCabe, the New ‘Deep Throat’ — It Wasn’t Just James Comey That Leaked, Lied and Blamed other FBI Agents

April 17, 2018

By William Mc Gurn
The Wall Street Journal
April 16, 2018 5:54 p.m. ET

Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe arrives to testify before the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on Capitol Hill, May 11, 2017.
Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe arrives to testify before the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on Capitol Hill, May 11, 2017.PHOTO: ERIC THAYER/REUTERS

Before there was Andrew McCabe, there was Mark Felt. Or, as he is better known, “Deep Throat.”

Both Mr. McCabe and Felt were FBI deputy directors. Both leaked information about an FBI investigation that was under way. Both did so for the sake of their own careers, lied about it to their bosses, and even let other FBI agents take the blame.

Start with Felt, who died in 2008. Though sometimes cast as the noble truth-teller of Watergate—in “All the President’s Men” he was memorably played by a chain-smoking Hal Holbrook—reality is less flattering. Felt saw himself as the rightful heir to J. Edgar Hoover. When he was passed over for L. Patrick Gray III, Felt flattered Gray to his face while sabotaging the new FBI director behind his back.

He also let others take the fall. On a Saturday morning in June 1972, a furious Director Gray summoned 27 agents from the Washington field office to the conference room at FBI headquarters. He then cussed them out over a leak to Time magazine. Paul Magallanes, an FBI agent working the Watergate burglary, said Gray called them all “yellow-bellied sniveling agents” and demanded the guilty party step forward. No one did, of course, and Gray vowed to find out who the leaker was and fire him.

Felt never corrected the record on behalf of his falsely accused brother agents. To the contrary, Deep Throat would himself assume control over the investigation into who was leaking—and use that position to admonish other agents about leaks for which he himself was the culprit.

Mr. McCabe is Felt’s heir. Like Felt, he had a highly personal reason for authorizing a leak to The Wall Street Journal and then denying it. In October 2016, the Journal had raised questions about Mr. McCabe’s impartiality on the Hillary Clinton email investigation by reporting that his wife, Jill, had accepted donations from political action committees associated with Terry McAuliffe —a Clinton friend and former member of the Clinton Foundation board. Now the Journal was following up, and asking about an alleged order from Mr. McCabe telling FBI agents investigating the Clinton Foundation to “stand down.”

To counter the narrative that he might be compromised, Mr. McCabe authorized FBI counsel Lisa Page and a public-affairs officer to tell the Journal about a phone call with a high-ranking Justice official. In this account, Mr. McCabe is the fearless G-man pushing back against Justice complaints that the bureau was still investigating Mrs. Clinton’s family foundation during the election.

In the process the leak made public something Mr. Comey had studiously kept quiet: an FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation. In a report released Friday, the Justice Department’s inspector general notes that while this disclosure “may have served McCabe’s personal interests,” it did so “at the expense of undermining public confidence in the Department as a whole.”

Mr. McCabe’s disservice to the bureau didn’t stop there. Just as Felt had covered his tracks by shifting blame, Mr. McCabe implicated innocent agents. After the second Journal story appeared, he called the heads of the New York and Washington field offices to berate them for what appears to be his own leak. The head of the Washington office says he was told “to get his house in order.”

Then, in a final Feltian flourish, Mr. McCabe lied to his director.

The IG report says that Messrs. Comey and McCabe give “starkly different accounts” of their conversation about the article containing the leak. Mr. McCabe insists he told Mr. Comey he’d authorized it—and that Mr. Comey had answered it was a “good” idea. Mr. Comey is categorical that Mr. McCabe “definitely did not tell me that he authorized” the leak.

Just two men with different memories? The inspector general thinks not. The circumstantial evidence, the report notes, all runs against Mr. McCabe. Not a single senior FBI official backs Mr. McCabe’s claim that within the bureau people generally knew he’d authorized the leak. It isn’t the only McCabe statement to conflict with accounts given by other agents: At one point, he claimed FBI agents who had interviewed him under oath had wrongly reported he’d denied authorizing the leak.

Back in the early 1970s, Mark Felt leaked information about an investigation in hopes it would eventually lead to his becoming director. In a 1999 interview with Slate’s Timothy Noah, six years before his Watergate role was revealed, Felt rightly declared that if he had been Deep Throat, it would have been “terrible” and “contrary to my responsibility as a loyal employee of the FBI to leak information.”

Today Mr. McCabe stands accused of an unauthorized leak that poisoned the FBI’s relationship with Justice and of a “lack of candor” under oath. President Trump is having aTwitter field day calling Mr. McCabe a liar. But the irony of the McCabe defense is that it hinges on having us believe it was not him but Mr. Comey and other FBI agents who gave the false accounts of his actions.

Write to

Appeared in the April 17, 2018, print edition.

‘Trust but Verify’ Applies to the FBI

April 15, 2018

America’s premiere law enforcement agency suffers the consequences of self inflicted wrongdoing and failures….

We refute tyranny when we hold law enforcement accountable.

‘Trust but Verify’ Applies to the FBI

Federal law enforcement did not cover itself in glory—again—in the just-concluded trial of Noor Salman, wife of the Pulse nightclub mass murderer in Orlando, Fla.

A judge scolded prosecutors during the trial for withholding exculpatory evidence. At her original bail hearing, the FBI had relied on a confession, extracted from Ms. Salman in an 11-hour interrogation, that she had helped Omar Mateen scope out the gay nightclub in advance of the shooting. As was subsequently revealed, the FBI was already in possession of cellphone location data that contradicted her claim. Other evidence also cast doubt on the confession, which the FBI failed to record or sustain with circumstantial proof. Ms. Salman was acquitted.

Happily, the malpractice here was less consequential than in the thrown-out corruption conviction of the late Sen. Ted Stevens. It was less brazen than the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s manufacture of fake statistical evidence of racial bias in auto lending or the questionable federal and state asset seizures that keep coming to light.

The Noor outcome may not be flattering to the FBI, but it should be flattering to America. Holding law enforcement accountable is the best refutation of the authoritarian temptation, with its mocking of our insistence on due process, elections and respect for individual rights.

At the same time, not every culpable police action is motivated by careerism or dishonesty of purpose. Murders are down in New York City. Policing is a reason. Yet two of the city’s most productive detectives were recently charged with manufacturing evidence to support an otherwise legitimate seizure of an illegal gun. Now under way is a spreading crackdown on police “testilying” in court.

So skepticism, leavened with a certain understanding, is required in the clash between individual rights and the police. This is about to become especially true in the mother of all cases, the FBI’s role in the 2016 election.

We’ve already learned a few unsettling things. Trump associates Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos were treated in unforgiving fashion for lies that may not have been lies, whereas the FBI practically conspired with Hillary Clinton and her aides to make sure their truth-shading was overlooked. The FBI’s use of evidence to win a Carter Page surveillance order appears to have been every bit as disingenuous as that used by prosecutors in the Noor Salman bail hearing.

Political bias or simply toadying to the party in power may turn out to have been a factor, but we are likely to hear a great deal about what top law-enforcement officials believed, rather than knew, about Donald Trump.

The autobiography of FBI chief James Comey is due next week. The chances are nil that it will deal honestly and completely with the 2016 race, especially the role of U.S. intelligence agencies in influencing some of the FBI’s actions. But as leaks already reveal, the book is accurately redolent of the contempt and distrust top officials felt for Candidate Trump, leading to actions that are hard to defend in hindsight.

Coming next will be a Justice Department inspector general’s report on Mr. Comey’s anomalous exculpation of Mr. Trump’s Democratic rival in the 2016 race. If, as we suspect, Robert Mueller is framing his own investigation partly to justify the pre-election actions of the FBI, then we will doubly need the recently launched investigation by U.S. Attorney John Huber, which doesn’t start from the assumption that the one thing that doesn’t need investigating is the investigators.

Then there’s the Stormy Daniels matter, in which a seamy but not illegal payment might, in theory, be illegal under campaign-finance rules.

At least efforts at suppressing Mr. Trump’s sexual history are a gentlemanly improvement on those of the Bill Clinton campaign 24 years earlier. If Trump lawyer Michael Cohen made an “in-kind” donation by paying off Ms. Daniels, didn’t Ms. Daniels make an in-kind donation when she agreed not to speak? Weren’t those Clinton women who didn’t come forward because they didn’t want to be savaged by the Clinton machine making in-kind contributions to the Clinton campaign?

The questions are absurd because the law is absurd. What should be a personal and political embarrassment for Mr. Trump has become another superfluous legal jeopardy for the man 46% of American voters wanted for their president. When we metastasize laws for criminalizing politics, we become more like Vladimir Putin’s Russia, not less so. Witness the liberal group Common Cause, which can’t get enough campaign regulation, rushing out Stormy-related federal complaints against the Trump campaign on Thursday.

But another lesson also applies in such a world. All presidents face opponents who seek to make sure they deliver as little as possible even when delivering would be good for the country. Mr. Trump came to the presidency with too much baggage that his opposition could use against him. That’s something Mr. Trump’s voters and party should have thought about before nominating him.

Appeared in the April 14, 2018, print edition.

James Comey proves he only cares about himself — Most of the merchandise being peddled here is tawdry — Beneath any great law man or investigator

April 15, 2018

“FBI abused their powers to play politics during the 2016 campaign.”

By Michael Goodwin
The New York Post

Trump hits back at ex-FBI chief’s book, calls Comey an ‘untruthful slime ball’

April 13, 2018


© Nicholas Kamm, AFP | These two file photos show then-FBI Director James Comey (L) in Washington, DC, on March 20, 2017; and US President Donald Trump in Washington, DC, on June 6, 2017.

Text by FRANCE 24 

Latest update : 2018-04-13

Former FBI director James Comey says in a new book that President Donald Trump reminded him of a mafia boss who demanded absolute loyalty and lied about everything. Trump hit back on Friday, calling Comey a “liar” and a “slime ball” on Twitter.

According to excerpts leaked by US media on Thursday, Comey, whom Trump fired in May 2017, says the US president lives in “a cocoon of alternative reality” into which he tried to pull others around him, according to The Washington Post. The official release of Comey’s “A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies and Leadership” is slated for next Tuesday.

“James Comey is a proven LEAKER & LIAR. Virtually everyone in Washington thought he should be fired for the terrible job he did — until he was, in fact, fired,” Trump wrote in a Twitter tirade on Friday morning.

“He leaked CLASSIFIED information, for which he should be prosecuted. He lied to Congress under OATH.”

In the book, Comey said the president was also obsessed with the alleged existence of a video in which Russian prostitutes said to be hired by Trump urinated on the bed in a Moscow hotel room.

The allegations left Trump fuming.

“He is a weak and untruthful slime ball who was, as time has proven, a terrible Director of the FBI,” Trump added in a second tweet.

“His handling of the Crooked Hillary Clinton case, and the events surrounding it, will go down as one of the worst ‘botch jobs’ of history. It was my great honor to fire James Comey!”

Meetings with Trump gave Comey “flashbacks to my earlier career as a prosecutor against the Mob,” he writes.

“The silent circle of assent. The boss in complete control. The loyalty oaths. The us-versus-them worldview. The lying about all things, large and small, in service to some code of loyalty that put the organization above morality and above the truth.”

But Comey goes even further, saying that Trump, congenitally, has no sense of what is right and wrong.

“This president is unethical, and untethered to truth and institutional values,” he writes, according to The New York Times.

“His leadership is transactional, ego-driven and about personal loyalty.”

(FRANCE 24 with AFP)

Clinton Supporters Have Some Questions for Comey

April 13, 2018

Why did the FBI wait almost four weeks before examining the emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop?

Former FBI Director James Comey testifies at a U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hearing, June 8, 2017.
Former FBI Director James Comey testifies at a U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hearing, June 8, 2017. PHOTO: BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES

James Comey’s book comes out next week. While promoting “A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership” the former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation should face some tough questions. First, will he correct the postelection distortions by “friends and associates” meant to justify his decision to send the Oct. 28, 2016, letter to Congress? That letter—which announced the FBI was reopening its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails—almost certainly handed Donald Trump the presidency.

In an Oct. 29, 2016, internal memo, Mr. Comey claimed he was “obligated” to inform Congress because of a public commitment he had made during a congressional hearing. But that is untrue. On Sept. 28, 2016, Rep. Lamar Smith (R., Texas) had asked what the FBI chief would do if anything new on the Clinton emails issue was discovered. Mr. Comey responded only that “we would certainly look at any new and substantial information.”

The FBI began reviewing emails found on former Rep. Anthony Weiner’s laptop on Oct. 31, 2016, some four weeks after Mr. Comey was made aware of their existence. Agents completed their work on Nov. 5. Since it took less than a week to review the emails, couldn’t Mr. Comey have done so before informing Congress? If Mr. Comey argues he didn’t know how long it would take, the question remains: Why didn’t he look first? This is especially important given the undeserved political damage caused by the letter.

Mr. Comey also falsely claimed that the FBI needed to obtain a warrant before reviewing the Clinton emails on Mr. Weiner’s laptop. In fact, attorneys for Huma Abedin and Mr. Weiner told the New Yorker’s Peter Elkind that they would have “readily acceded” to FBI requests to review the Clinton emails without a warrant. But Mr. Comey and the FBI never asked. Why?

Then there is the still-unexplained delay between Mr. Comey’s being told about the Weiner-Clinton emails and obtaining a warrant. On Oct. 3, 2016, Mr. Comey first learned about the discovery of the new emails. Yet it wasn’t until Oct. 30 that he and the FBI obtained a warrant to look at them. Many conservatives believe Mr. Comey and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe deliberately delayed the review to help Mrs. Clinton, but the opposite is the case.

Had Messrs. Comey and McCabe immediately begun the search after finding the emails Oct. 3, the FBI would have completed its review within days. By Oct. 10, the headlines would have been that Mrs. Clinton had been “cleared,” again, of legal wrongdoing regarding her emails. She could have spent the last four weeks of her presidential campaign focused on positive messages. Instead, the crucial closing days of the campaign were about her emails—and her polling numbers plummeted in key battleground states.

Worst of all is Mr. Comey’s self-serving distortion that once the emails were discovered on Mr. Weiner’s laptop, he had only two choices: to speak or to conceal. There was a third choice. As Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein wrote in his May 10, 2017, memorandum to President Trump, Mr. Comey could have remained silent, as required by longstanding Justice Department policies and due-process principles.

Mr. Rosenstein wrote: “Concerning his letter to the Congress on October 28, 2016, the Director cast his decision as a choice between whether he would ‘speak’ about the decision to investigate the newly-discovered email messages or ‘conceal’ it. ‘Conceal’ is a loaded term that misstates the issue. When federal agents and prosecutors quietly open a criminal investigation, we are not concealing anything; we are simply following the longstanding policy that we refrain from publicizing nonpublic information.” Mr. Rosenstein concluded: “Silence is not concealment.”

The irony of Mr. Comey’s book title—“A Higher Loyalty”—should be obvious. While he deserves respect for resisting President Trump’s demand for personal loyalty, the FBI director’s true higher loyalty is to his self-righteous definition of what is best for himself and the FBI—the rules applicable to the rest of us be damned.

Mr. Davis, who served as a special counsel to President Bill Clinton, is a columnist for the Hill newspaper and author of “The Unmaking of the President 2016: How FBI Director James Comey Cost Hillary Clinton the Presidency” (Scribner, 2018).

Appeared in the April 10, 2018, print edition.

Comey says in book Trump denied allegations of lewd behavior: Washington Post

April 13, 2018

Image may contain: 3 people

FILE PHOTO: Former FBI Director James Comey testifies before a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on “Russian Federation Efforts to Interfere in the 2016 U.S. Elections” on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., June 8, 2017. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File PhotoREUTERS

WASHINGTON (REUTERS) – President Donald Trump denied allegations of lewd behavior made in an intelligence dossier and asked whether the FBI would consider proving it was a lie, former FBI Director James Comey wrote in an upcoming memoir, according to the Washington Post.

    Comey, fired by Trump in May 2017, wrote in “A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies and Leadership” that Trump raised the dossier with him at least four times during meetings, the Post said. The dossier was compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele about Trump’s ties to Russia, and included an allegation that involved prostitutes.

    The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Reuters. Comey’s publicist also did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Federal Bureau of Investigation declined to comment.

The newspaper said it obtained a copy of the 304-page book, scheduled to be released on Tuesday, and that Comey detailed in it his private interactions with Trump.

    Comey’s firing led to the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller to investigate allegations that Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election and possible collusion between Russians and the Trump campaign.

    Russia has denied interfering in the election. Trump has said there was no collusion.