Was the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate Team Trump just a set up that Comey helped initiate to bring down the president?

06/14/2017 / By JD Heyes / Comments

There was much learned from fired FBI Director James Comey’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday which helps explain a year’s worth of events that, heretofore, seemed unrelated and disconnected.

For one, we discovered that Obama’s attorney general and Comey’s former boss, Loretta Lynch, completely politicized his agency’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s illegal and improper handling of classified intelligence data via her home-brew email server.

For another, we learned that President Donald J. Trump was never under any investigation for suspected ties to Russia, and that was just about the only factual thing that could have been leaked to the disgusting “mainstream” media, but wasn’t. (Related: Read All the times James Comey cleared President Trump and his administration during his Senate testimony — while admitting to potential crimes.)

For for a third, we learned that Comey himself was a leaker of information that very well may have been a protected conversation he had with the commander-in-chief over sensitive intelligence matters (like Russia) — in violation of U.S. statutes.

And, as Joel Pollack of Breitbart News posits, his testimony could have been the culmination of a plot to not only undermine the current lawful occupant of the Oval Office, but also to bring him down.

Early in Comey’s testimony, Pollack points out, he was complimentary of the special counsel as a “tool” that is “critical” to learning what is real and what isn’t about Russia’s alleged 2016 election interference when he said: “Understanding what efforts there were or are by the Russian government to influence our government is a critical part of the FBI’s mission, so — and you’ve got the right person in Bob Mueller to lead it.”

But remember when Comey dropped the bombshell that he was the one who leaked his memo to The New York Times, routing it through a friend and confidant? He said he hoped the leak would “prompt the appointment of a special counsel” and for reasons that didn’t have a thing at all to do with Russia.

Well, that’s just what happened: After Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself months ago from any Russia investigation, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein made the decision to appoint Mueller, himself a former FBI director, as a special counsel to ostensibly look into this Russia business.

Only, as Pollack notes, “Comey leaked his memo, he said, so that he could corroborate claims by aides that he told them Trump had asked for his ‘loyalty.’” The Times reported those claims May 11, and the president summarily denied the following day, even accusing Comey of leaking them to the press. Then, just three days later, Comey told the Senate during his testimony, he remembered he had written the memo (on a government computer?) and then proceeded to leak it.

The thing is, Comey knew all along, as did several members of Congress (confirmed by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla.), but never acknowledged that publicly (though he had no trouble publicly divulging the particulars of the Hillary Clinton investigation last July, before announcing she wouldn’t be charged).

And yet, Comey still pushed for a special counsel to be appointed — why? Because “he wanted to take revenge on the president,” Pollack insists.

It makes sense:

He leaked through Columbia Law School professor Daniel Richman, who approached the New York Times. (It was a left-wing trifecta: a former government bureaucrat, an Ivy League academic, and a liberal mainstream media outlet.)

Moreover, the special counsel that was appointed was — coincidentally? — one of Comey’s long-time associates, the FBI director when Comey was Deputy Attorney General.

“For Mueller to be brought in to investigate the behavior of the guy who sacked Comey seems a conflict of interest,” writes Carl M. Cannon of RealClearPolitics. “These two guys, working in tandem, have a track record of bureaucratic infighting — with another Republican White House as their shared adversary — that belies their reputations for being above political intrigue.”

Comey didn’t have to tell the Senate he leaked his memo to ensure the appointment of a special counsel — who just happened to be a close former colleague. He could have just revealed it during testimony.

“Instead, Comey blurted out the truth: He had seen a chance to make the political case for a special counsel through the power of the mainstream media,” wrote Pollack.

In short, “Mueller was not appointed to find the truth about Russia, but to bring down the Trump presidency.”

Read the entire analysis here.

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for NaturalNews.com and NewsTarget.com, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.

Sources include:

Breitbart.com

JonathanTurley.com

RealClearPolitics.com

NewsTarget.com

Submit a correction >>

James Comey, President Donald J. Trump, Robert Mueller, Senate testimony, set up, special counsel

This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author