Judicial Watch: Emails Show That Comey "Coordinated" With Robert Mueller About His Congressional Testimony Before His Appearance

Getting their stories straight.

Why does a truthful man need to consult with anyone about what he'll say or not say under oath?

Judicial Watch today released new emails from the Department of Justice (DOJ) showing that former FBI Director James Comey was advised by FBI officials in May 2017 to consult with Special Counsel Robert Mueller prior to testifying before any congressional committees regarding Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election and his firing as FBI director.

According to numerous news reports, Comey met directly with Mueller previous to his June 8, 2017, testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Sources said that Comey's opening statement and subsequent testimony were coordinated with Mueller.

...

The documents obtained by Judicial Watch are the first to reveal that high-ranking FBI officials helped Comey coordinate his testimony with Mueller.

...

"These documents show that James Comey, who was fired by the president, nevertheless had easy, friendly access to the FBI as he prepped his infamous anti-Trump testimony to the Senate," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "This collusion led to Comey's attacking President Trump and misusing FBI records as part of a vendetta against the president."

Remember: Any contact between any two people is "collusion" between them.

Their rules.

Related: One of the companies Mueller indicted for allegedly conspiring to collude with Russia (or whatever) has decided to appear in court and demand a speedy trial. And discovery.

Incredibly, Mueller's office objected to this request, claiming that they needed time to make sure the defendant was properly served.

If you don't get it: the defendant might attempt the defense of saying that the prosecutor failed to serve him properly, and therefore the prosecutor has no jurisdiction over him, and therefore the charges should be dismissed.

The defense that the defendant was not properly served by the prosecutor is a defense raised by the defendant.

Here, incredibly, the Special Counsel attempts to stall for time by pleading the defendant's defense for it, saying, "Hey, we don't know if we properly served them and have to check on it." The prosecutor, incredibly, is raising defendant defenses which the defendants did not raise and in fact explicitly reject as a defense of themselves, to spare them the bother of having to prove the claims they made in the indictment.

Lotta firsts in this case.

Richard Pollack of the Daily Caller:

Mueller generated headlines with the February indictment, safe in the knowledge the 13 Russians were beyond U.S. jurisdiction. Therefore, there would be no trial -- only sensational Russian collusion accusations.

Mueller may now have to try the case, and Concord's lawyers have put the special counsel on notice. The Russian company's lawyers intend to invoke "discovery" to obtain U.S. intelligence about what they knew of Russian activities.

"I guess Mueller thought it was a freebie, for sure," former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy told The Daily Caller News Foundation after the court proceeding.

"He thought it could make this association (of Russian collusion) and it would never be challenged in court," McCarthy, also a National Review contributing editor, said.

...

McCarthy called Mueller’s entire indictment an "unforced error."

"One thing you never want to do is to indict in a case that you’re not prepared to try," McCarthy said.

Mueller tried to delay Wednesday’s hearing and floated a claim Concord had not been properly served notice.

...

But Concord opposed the motion. "The Special Counsel is not entitled to special rules and is required like the Attorney General to follow the rules of the Court," Dubelier stated in his response to Mueller.

The judge agreed with Concord and denied the Special Counsel's motion flatly with no written opinion.

posted by Ace of Spades at 06:10 PM

| Access Comments