Thursday, May 17, 2018

It's got to be illegal

I do not get how this could be legal and I strongly suspect that it is not legal.

JW President : “Judicial Watch uncovered some new emails that are pretty startling, because they show collusion between James Comey, Robert Mueller, & the FBI in Comey’s anti-Trump Russia testimony last year before the Senate. " Learn more here:

If it is legal, it is certainly unethical.  And if there was collusion between James Comey and Robert Mueller, it not only means that Mr. Comey is not a reliable witness; it also means that Mr. Mueller must be fired as special counsel.

From Judicial Watch:

(Washington, DC) — 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.
At the hearing, Comey revealed that he had intentionally leaked material from a memo allegedly documenting a meeting with President Trump in order to help assure the appointment of a special counsel.
I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter. Didn’t do it myself, for a variety of reasons. But I asked him to, because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.
The DOJ and FBI have stated that Comey’s leaks were unauthorized and compared the disclosures to Wikileaks.
The documents obtained by Judicial Watch are the first to reveal that high-ranking FBI officials helped Comey coordinate his testimony with Mueller.
Judicial Watch obtained the documents in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the DOJ on January 31, 2018 (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-00220)). The lawsuit was filed after the DOJ failed to respond to an August 14, 2017 FOIA request seeking:
  • All records of communications between the FBI and Comey prior to and regarding Comey’s testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on June 8, 2017.
  • All records of communications between the FBI and Comey relating to an upcoming book to be authored by Comey and published.
  • All records, including but not limited to forms completed by Comey, relating to the requirement for prepublication review by the FBI of any book to be authored by Comey with the intent to be published or otherwise publicly available.
On May 17, 2017, Comey received notices to appear before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee.
An email chain dated May 18 and 19, 2017, with the subject line “Future testimony” shows then-FBI Chief of Staff James Rybicki, then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and Assistant Director Gregory Brower, Comey and others discussing Comey’s upcoming testimony:
In this chain, on May 18 at 6:30 pm, Comey wrote to Rybicki to confirm that he had accepted the invitation to testify before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) but declined the invitations from the Senate Judiciary Committee and House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee.
Comey also writes: “Last, would you please tell OGC [Office of the General Counsel] that I would like to be able to review any documents authored by me or on which I am copied that will be produced to SSCI in connection with my testimony and would like the opportunity for that review before I testify?”
An email from a redacted sender, apparently Comey, to Rybicki dated May 19 at 11:49 am reads:
I just got off a call with Senators Burr and Warner. They would like to have a hearing next Wednesday at which I testify, first in open session and then in closed, if necessary. I asked them not to announce it until I check with FBI/DOJ to see if you want to discuss anything before they do that. I told them I had asked for guidance on any institutional prerogatives and for the opportunity to review any documents FBI has produced that relate to me. I told them I would communicate with them by the end of the day to either ask them to hold announcing the Wednesday hearing or go ahead.
Many thanks.
On May 19 at 2:10 pm, Rybicki writes back:
Director: We just met to discuss the requests outlined in the two emails below. Before responding the General Counsel has asked me to confirm that you have discussed with the attorneys representing you, and that you are comfortable discussing these issues with us rather than communicating through your counsel.
On May 19 at 3:02 pm, a redacted sender, likely Comey, responds to Rybicki: “Yes and yes.”
Also in this chain, on May 19 at 4:11 pm, Rybicki writes to McCabe, FBI Deputy Director David L. Bowdich, former FBI General Counsel James A. Baker, Brower, Elizabeth Beers and other redacted names:
Please see a DRAFT response to Director Comey (below). I will hold pending further direction….
In response to your emails below we have consulted with executive management here, including the General Counsel, and recommend the following:
  1. That your counsel convey any acceptance or declinations to invitations to testify directly to the Committees.
  2. That your counsel consult with Special Counsel Mueller to determine the timing of any such testimony and,
  3. The Office of General Counsel stands ready to discuss with you in consultation with the Department of Justice and the Special Counsel, institutional privileges or prerogatives that may be presented by any such testimony.
“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.”

This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Thursday, May 17, 2018.  Moqtada madness all around.

Let's start with this graph.

Some critics are challenging my global projections on Iraq future Government and Iran influence. Fine: do your maths...

So we have photos and percentages of the vote.  What does this have to do with Iran?

First of all, Iran shares a border with Iraq.  They are neighbors, there will be influence, that's a given.

Second, the faces are not new.  Except for Faith with their 50%, all the above have been running each cycle.  Faith is the militias and they are indebted to the government of Iran, I don't disagree, but I don't know what a graph like that is supposed to prove.  The only person who might be against Iran -- against -- above is Ayad Allawi and that's due to the 2010 election which isn't a detail the graph above goes into.  Nor does the PUK's 15% note that Hero Talabani regularly visited Iran while her husband (then-president Jalal Talabani) was unable to speak or move but they were concealling that (for 18 months) from the Iraqi people.

Iran will have influence, it's a neighbor.

It's influence, by some western observers, is always seen as sinister.  The US interest is seen as benign by the same observers.  I'd argue that both judgments overdue it.

Tuesday, the US State Dept held one of those rare 'daily' press briefings (only the second 'daily' press briefing for the month so far).  Spokesperson Heather Nauert was asked about the Iraqi elections and their outcome.

QUESTION: Yeah. On Iraq and the Iraqi – and the parliamentary elections. Do you have any comment?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. I think it’s certainly notable, first of all, that Iraq held elections that were largely free of violence. Imagine, think about not long ago, ISIS had controlled large swaths of that country. And the fact that they were able to pull off elections that were relatively free of violence is certainly a pretty amazing feat and a testament to the Iraqi people. We congratulate Iraq and the Iraqi people for participating in the democratic process yet once again. Iraqis are certainly eager to build a safe and prosperous future for themselves in the context of a government that’s sovereign and stable. So we’d like to congratulate them for doing that.

QUESTION: I have two more on this, Heather. Do you have any comment on Moqtada al-Sadr, who emerged as the big winner in these elections?

MS NAUERT: Yes. Let me just remind folks that he wasn’t an actual candidate on any of the ballots, but yet his slate of people were candidates. Iraq is still finalizing its election results right now. They’re likely to have to form some sort of coalition government, so I don’t want to get ahead of the process and presume how things are going to look in the end. But I think the overarching theme right now is congratulations to Iraq for holding democratic and free elections.

QUESTION: And on the formation of the new government, Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s commander Qasem Soleimani is in Baghdad to discuss the formation of the new government. How do you view this Iranian role in the formation of the government?

MS NAUERT: We have a good relationship – bless you – with the Government of Iraq, and we believe that we will continue to do that. There have been many – in Iraq and in other countries as well – that have been concerned about Iran’s reach into many other countries. That is certainly always a concern of ours, but we have a great deal of trust and faith in the Iraqi people and whoever ends up governing, whatever the structure is, the governing of that country going forward.

QUESTION: Is Brett McGurk – is he still --

QUESTION: Are you concerned --


QUESTION: Is Brett McGurk there for the talks along relations to the elections?

MS NAUERT: I can confirm he is in Iraq right now; I don’t have the details of his entire itinerary and why he’s there. I can see if I can get more for you on that. Okay. Hey, Laurie.

QUESTION: And also some are – one more here.


QUESTION: And also, some of the political parties are charging that the election was rigged by groups in – that were probably backed by Iran. Do you have any comment on that?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. I can just say the Independent High Electoral Commission – that’s basically the Iraqi equivalent of the Federal Election Commission – they are investigating; they are taking a close look at allegations of fraud and intimidation. There were civil society observers who were participants or who – involved in watching the process. And there were also international observers who were on the ground as well, and they have reported to us that they found the elections to be credible. Okay.


MS NAUERT: Hi, Laurie.

QUESTION: What do you see as next steps in this political process? And are you concerned that if it takes too long that there may be a resurgence of Islamic State or other insecurity?

MS NAUERT: I’ll just say we’re not going to get ahead of that process right now. We have faith in the Iraqi Government, and so we’re just going to wait and see how this all plays out. They’re still finalizing the election results, so I don’t want to get ahead of that.

QUESTION: And you’re comfortable that the leading two party lists include people who were opposed to the United States presence in Iraq up to 2011?

MS NAUERT: We are very well aware of Moqtada al-Sadr and his background and his positions now, yes.

QUESTION: And as well as the Conquest list, which includes figures like Qais al-Khazali?

MS NAUERT: I don’t have any information on the so-called list that you mentioned.

QUESTION: They were number two.

MS NAUERT: Okay. I don’t have any information on that, Laurie. I’ll see if I have anything more. 

'The State Dept is not clutching the pearls over Moqtada's victory.  Nor is former US Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad.  NPR's Mary Kelly spoke with him this week for ALL THINGS CONSIDERED:

KELLY: Right. He has refashioned himself, reinvented himself as a crusader against corruption. And I want to ask you, do you believe this is a sincere transformation?

KHALILZAD: Well, it is possible he has evolved. He was against the political process, at one point resorted to military force. We fought him. He thought the U.S. occupation was a mistake, that we had said we had come for liberation and we ended up occupying Iraq. And now embracing the political process and participating in it at one level can be seen as a success because if someone who was a warrior now becomes a politician, that is itself a positive development.

KELLY: But this - he wasn't just a warrior. He has blood on his hands for the deaths of U.S. soldiers, many U.S. soldiers. How do you reconcile that person with a man who may now hold the reins of power in Iraq?

KHALILZAD: Well, of course you're right about that. He does have the blood of American soldiers on his hand. And we killed a lot of his people. We were on the verge of killing him when Ayatollah al-Sistani intervened. And...

KELLY: Ayatollah al-Sistani, the most senior Shiite cleric in Iraq.

KHALILZAD: Indeed. And arranged for him, for Muqtada, to leave Iraq and go to Iran for a while. But now he says he has changed. He is improving relations with the Middle Eastern countries. He's participating in the political process. He's even saying politicians should not be in government, they should control the government from Parliament, that technocrats should address the issues of concern to the people. So perhaps he is on a journey from becoming a militant fighter to becoming a political leader. And if that truly happens, it will be positive because that's the definition of success - to turn enemies into constructive partners.

KELLY: You sound, Ambassador Khalilzad, cautiously optimistic about the way this vote appears to be turning out. And I guess that surprises me a little bit given this is not an outcome the U.S. would have predicted, certainly not one that the U.S. would have hoped for back in the days when you were ambassador to Baghdad.

KHALILZAD: Well, I would have - in the days that I was ambassador would have liked to see Muqtada become what he has become, for his forces to abandon war and for his forces to join politics and for politics to break out.

We'll note some of Moqtada's history via this series of Tweets:

Tired of seeing people trying to re-invent the image of a tyrannical madman. A man known for violence, corruption & sectarianism. In 2007, the Mahdi Army replaced Al-Qaeda as the most dangerous accelerant of potentially self-sustaining sectarian violence in Iraq. THREAD
He is being rebranded as anti-Iran but they forget to mention that Sadr has receiving Iranian aid, the Iranian Quds Force supplied the Mahdi Army with weapons and financing. Iran also harbored Sadr in Qom, allowing him to run Mahdi Army operations from their territory.
  • The morally-corrupt Sadr issued a fatwa in 03 that allowed theft & racketeering on the condition that perpetrators pay the requisite Khums to Sadrist Imams The Mahdi Army used extortion, car theft, weapons trafficking, armed protection of businesses, & kidnapping to finance ops
  • Sadr's Mahdi Army often beat, raped and killed Sunni civilians forcing many to relocate. His militia sponsored death squads during the sectarian civil violence that targeted Sunni neighbourhoods, their aim was to drive Sunnis out from their land.
  • Sunnis who were 'lucky' enough to remain in Mahdi Army controlled areas were often denied important resources.
  • June, 2008, the Mahdi Army detonated a car bomb in a Shia neighbourhood in Baghdad - 51 civilians were killed and 80 wounded.
  • August, 2007, the Mahdi Army engaged in a firefight with the Badr Brigade which resulted in the death of 50 Shia pilgrims and injuring over 200.
  • August, 2007, The Mahdi Army assasinated the governors of the Muthanna and Qadisiyah provinces. The Govenors were killed in two separate roadside bombings - 6 killed
  • October, 2007, Mahdi Army clashed with the Iraqi military and Police in Basra - 50 soldiers were taken hostage, 4 killed in the line of duty and 10 wounded
  • June, 2007, the Mahdi army launches a series of attacks targeting Sunnis in Baghdad in an effort to force Sunni citizens to relocate.
  • May, 2007, Mahdi Army attack the Nasiriyah Mayor's office with mortars and explosives and launch RPGs at a police officers nearby home - 12 killed, 75 wounded.
  • October, 2006, the Mahdi Army attack Iraqi police stations in Amara, 15 killed, 90 wounded
  • August, 2006, the Mahdi Army clashed with Iraqi soldiers in Diwaniya - 28 killed, 70 wounded
  • October, 2005, a group of Mahdi Army militiamen set several homes northeast of Baghdad on fire - 20 killed
  • The Mahdi Army also benefited financially from its involvement in Iraqi politics. General Electric, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, AstraZenca, & Roche Holding A.G. won contracts w/ the Iraqi Ministry of Health w/ the understanding that they also provide addition medical supplies &/
  • free medicine. Sadr's politicans controlled the ministry when the contracts were awarded, and they later sold these additional supplies on illicit markets in order to fund Mahdi Army operations.
  • You can read more on Sadr politicians exploitation of Iraq's Ministry of health in this informative thread by
  • Also important to note that more civilians died in 2006 (29,517) and 2007 (26,078) than any year during the ISIS conflict.
  • Do not be fooled by the PR! This is nothing more than a brief summary of what this man stands for. There are hundreds of crimes linked to Sadr and the Mahdi Army but I don't have the time to list them all. Feel free to add to this thread.

    Lastly, at approximately 6:02 a.m. EST, THE NEW YORK TIMES published a column by THE NATIONAL's Mina al-Oraibi.  Strange, they've never been interested in Mina's opinion before.  But THE NEW YORK TIMES, as Gore Vidal used to note repeatedly, is the voice of the US State Dept.  Strange that the paper of a bad record finally notices Mina when she's claiming -- with no evidence to back her up -- that Moqtada will form an alliance with Hayder al-Abadi.  Very strange.  Dropping back to yesterday's snapshot:

    The US State Dept is starting a whisper campaign that Moqtada will side with Hayder so Hayder can have a second term -- that is what the US government wants.  But there's no indication that this is what Moqtada would want or support.  Watch the press to see who presents that US government created rumor as word that's supposedly developing in Iraq -- it's not brewing in Iraq.  They hope they can plant it in Iraq and have it pick up speed but it's a US created rumor with no current basis in fact.

    Imagine that.  The State Dept, as we noted yesterday, was attempting to spread a false rumor in the hopes that it would make the rumor come true, force Moqtada to go along with the rumor, maybe pick up popular support for the rumor.  Mina just happens to present the rumor as fact in her piece and suddenly THE NEW YORK TIMES is interested in her.

    Strange how that worked.


    165 seats in Parliament.  That's how many are needed to become prime minister.  Moqtada does not need to form an alliance with Hayder to achieve that.  He has 55 seats right now (if the current count holds).  He could, for example, go with the minor parties that won 52 seats (classified as "other" in the chart we noted at the top of the snapshot).  That puts him at 107 and he needs 58 more seats.  He could align with Ayad Allawi (as he did in the move to have a no confidence vote on then-prime minister Nouri al-Maliki) and the KDP (ibid) and that would give him 45 seats.  Take on the PUK and he's got 15 more and more than enough to form the coalition government.

    That would allow him to avoid third place Hayder (who is seen as inept when it comes to fighting corruption -- the issue that determined this election cycle), to avoid Hadi al-Ameri (who I don't believe he is as at odds with as the press tries to play up) and Nouri al-Maliki (who is corrupt and a real foe of Moqtada's).

    The scenario in the second paragraph above is only one way he could avoid forming a coalition with Hayder.  There are many other ways he could do so.

    There's no proof that he won't end up forming an alliance with Hayder but there's no proof that he will.  And right now Iraq is more focused on Ramadan than on politics.  It would probably be better for the US State Dept and its minions to let the process play out and stop attempting to steer it.

    The following community sites -- plus PACIFICA EVENING NEWS and BLACK AGENDA REPORT --  updated: