Montgomery [and Klayman!] v. Comey (D.D.C.)

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43725
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Montgomery v. Comey (D.D.C.)

#26

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Wed Jun 07, 2017 1:43 pm

Foggy wrote:
Sterngard Friegen wrote:Because of GIL's propensity to sue people, I would suggest posters on this thread review their posts and add the magic word "allegedly" where appropriate.
All fixed. Allegedly look up. That's how you allegedly do it, peeps. :mrgreen:
Reality Check wrote:I think we are confusing two sets of hard drives. I think the 47 hard drives that Arpaio was trying to have destroyed are still in possession of the Judge Snow's court or the monitor in Arizona. The hard drives that Montgomery turned over to the FBI supposedly contained the source code for Montgomery's magic spyware and evidence that the FBI and CIA was spying on everyone.
That's UNPOSSIBLE. We're talking about NINETY FOUR hard drives that just coincidentally are broken into two groups of 47 each?

No. :nope: :talktothehand:

When Arpaio testified in Snow's court, he said Montgomery told him the hard drives had evidence of the federal government spying on everybody, including Judge Snow. That's what he said he was doing -- trying to protect the judge from government spying :lol: . But he said they were junk.

It SOUNDS like two different sets of hard drives because ALLEGEDLY Klayman is so allegedly talented at falsely describing the alleged contents that his alleged descriptions of the alleged contents are allegedly so different. But Klayman is allegedly such an allegedly talented alleged liar that next week (allegedly) he's going to claim that those 47 allegedly hard drives allegedly contain evidence that Obama was allegedly born in Kenya, allegedly the son of Malcolm Allegedly X and a lady allegedly from Duluth.

Allegedly. :blink:
Well, Foggy, you are a smart rooster. Too bad no one else is interested in taking my advice.

Allegedly.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 24005
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Montgomery [and Klayman!] v. Comey (D.D.C.)

#27

Post by bob » Wed Jun 07, 2017 1:48 pm

At this point, I surmise the "data" on the MCSO's disks (technically with the special monitor, IIRC) and the "data" on the disks dumped on the FBI is the same. If we are to take these characters at their words. :roll:


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14674
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Montgomery [and Klayman!] v. Comey (D.D.C.)

#28

Post by Reality Check » Wed Jun 07, 2017 2:04 pm

bob wrote:At this point, I surmise the "data" on the MCSO's disks (technically with the special monitor, IIRC) and the "data" on the disks dumped on the FBI is the same. If we are to take these characters at their words. :roll:
I don't recall any discussion in the Melendres case about there being software on the drives that were in possession of the MCSO but you can fit a lot of crap on 47 hard drives can't you?


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 16411
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: Montgomery [and Klayman!] v. Comey (D.D.C.)

#29

Post by RTH10260 » Wed Jun 07, 2017 2:22 pm

Reality Check wrote:
bob wrote:At this point, I surmise the "data" on the MCSO's disks (technically with the special monitor, IIRC) and the "data" on the disks dumped on the FBI is the same. If we are to take these characters at their words. :roll:
I don't recall any discussion in the Melendres case about there being software on the drives that were in possession of the MCSO but you can fit a lot of crap on 47 hard drives can't you?
Luckily this was some years ago, todays models range nicely in the 6 to 8 terrabyte range without breaking your bank account.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 24005
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Montgomery [and Klayman!] v. Comey (D.D.C.)

#30

Post by bob » Wed Jun 07, 2017 4:16 pm

P&E commentary:
matt_man wrote:
Rondeau wrote:Klayman said that he arranged for Montgomery to testify to two FBI agents in a 3+-hour session with the understanding that Montgomery’s claims would be investigated.
Perhaps Klayman should have read the letter dated July 28, 2015 from DOJ laying out the terms of the agreement.
USDOJ wrote:(5) Finally, this agreement does not obligate the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia to take any action or refrain from taking any action not described in this letter. In addition, your client understands that this Office has made no additional promises to your client not contained in writing herein.
There was no promise to do anything other than to not use any of the information against Montgomery in a criminal trial.
Rondeau wrote:Is the U.S. Attorney the same as the FBI? Link to the document you are citing?
:brickwallsmall:


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

Somerset
Posts: 3600
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:52 am
Location: Silicon Valley
Occupation: Lab rat

Re: Montgomery v. Comey (D.D.C.)

#31

Post by Somerset » Wed Jun 07, 2017 6:48 pm

June bug wrote:
bob wrote:Too also: Back in 2015, it looks like the FBI told Klayman that the hard drives dumped on the FBI contained oodles of data and the source code.
Per the link, what the FBI told Klayman was that Montgomery said the drives contained the data and source code, but didn't provide information to help the government locate or produce the software:
That's correct. Someone also asked if the FBI or other three letter agency could quickly and easily sort through the data and determine if there was anything of value. I mentioned that such an endeavor would be fairly resource intensive, both in man-hours and compute time, and the cost would likely be five figures, and possibly into six. The FBI knew this and stated very clearly that they would not undertake any cataloging activity absent a court order.

It looks like GIL may be trying to force such an order. Allegedly.



User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 6983
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: Montgomery v. Comey (D.D.C.)

#32

Post by Slartibartfast » Wed Jun 07, 2017 7:47 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Phoogie wrote:Allegedly. :blink:
Well, Foggy, you are a smart rooster. Too bad no one else is interested in taking my advice.

Allegedly.
Not true! I am going one step further and maintaining complete plausible deniability by not posting in this thread at al...

wait a sec...
:think:

Damn.
:?

never mind.


"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24005
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Montgomery [and Klayman!] v. Comey (D.D.C.)

#33

Post by bob » Wed Jun 07, 2017 8:33 pm


TL;DRW.


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 7424
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm

Re: Montgomery [and Klayman!] v. Comey (D.D.C.)

#34

Post by Orlylicious » Thu Jun 08, 2017 1:41 am

I'm looking... does anyone have a screenshot or link to the transcript page where Arpaio calls the Montgomery info junk? That would be good to send around to people who don't know this is a con.

Wouldn't it be something if Arpaio and Corsi got this information to Donald and he's relying on it in some way that blows up in his face. That would be epic and Fogbow should get a Pulitzer!



User avatar
bob
Posts: 24005
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Montgomery [and Klayman!] v. Comey (D.D.C.)

#35

Post by bob » Thu Jun 08, 2017 1:50 am

Orlylicious wrote:I'm looking... does anyone have a screenshot or link to the transcript page where Arpaio calls the Montgomery info junk?
Here's the NYT article reporting on it.


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 7424
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm

Re: Montgomery [and Klayman!] v. Comey (D.D.C.)

#36

Post by Orlylicious » Thu Jun 08, 2017 2:56 am

Thanks Bob!
Monty Junk Tweet.JPG
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 24005
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Montgomery [and Klayman!] v. Comey (D.D.C.)

#37

Post by bob » Thu Jun 08, 2017 5:28 pm

Right on schedule: P&E: Mike Zullo: Sheriff Arpaio Responsible for Public Awareness of Former NSA/CIA Contractor’s Claims of Government Surveillance:
“THERE WAS A GREATER GOOD”

* * *
Zullo wrote:If it weren’t for Sheriff Arpaio initiating an investigation into the possible identity theft of 151,000 Maricopa County residents in 2013, the ability of Montgomery to come forward to federal authorities simply would not have been possible. Montgomery had tried for years to accomplish this but was turned away numerous times.

The Sheriff’s Office endeavor to get Montgomery to a federal judge was predicated upon information received by Montgomery and the requirements of federal statute. Montgomery was not cooperative about going to the FBI in the beginning, so we had to devise a plan and make the effort to get him there, which also included the strategic decision to reach out to Klayman and have him secure a meeting with a federal judge and take the position as Montgomery’s attorney.

Contact was made with Klayman securing his assistance to arrange a meeting with a federal judge in Washington, DC to bring Montgomery and his information forward. Klayman became Montgomery’s attorney as a result of the coordination with the Sheriff’s Office.

This was a calculated risk in that we were acutely aware that we would lose control over our informant once Klayman was involved; however, it was a necessary sacrifice.

Over a span of a year’s time, at the direction of Sheriff Arpaio, I continually monitored Montgomery’s progress. Eventually Montgomery decided that he was willing to speak with the FBI in a cooperative manner and Klayman arranged for that to happen.
Be prepared for actual news! :shock: :
Zullo wrote: Prior to Klayman’s involvement Montgomery also supplied Sheriff Arpaio with some of the same information that was turned over to the FBI. I had personally spoken to Montgomery and he relayed to me that he turned over the information to the FBI indicating illegal wiretap activity conducted by the federal government on Sheriff Arpaio and others years earlier.

Even with Montgomery’s credibility challenges, we still invested the time. We didn’t invest the time because of Dennis Montgomery; we invested it because of the voluminous amount of personal information he had in his possession regarding Maricopa County residents and millions of citizens and the obvious national security implications.
Bonus:
Rondeau wrote:After hearing Montgomery’s report, U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth arranged for Montgomery to testify to two FBI agents . . . .
As Montgomery dumped his (maybe it exists?) source code on the FBI to avoiding turning it over to Risen, Lamberth's "role" may just have expanded. (I would say "culpability," but the time to punish anyone for all of this has long since passed.)


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 6596
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Montgomery [and Klayman!] v. Comey (D.D.C.)

#38

Post by Northland10 » Thu Jun 08, 2017 8:36 pm



North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24005
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Montgomery [and Klayman!] v. Comey (D.D.C.)

#39

Post by bob » Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:53 pm

Freedom Friday on Facebook:
1 minute video - THIS IS PART OF ZULLO'S EARTH SHATTERING INFO - Must Watch!

James Comey sued by intelligence contractor Dennis Montgomery over spying on Americans

("Near dead" :roll: ) Montgomery briefly speaks around the :20 mark. :yawn:


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24005
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Montgomery [and Klayman!] v. Comey (D.D.C.)

#40

Post by bob » Fri Jun 09, 2017 8:12 pm

The Register (UK): Ex-NSA bod sues US govt for 'illegally spying' on Americans: We drill into 'explosive' 'lawsuit':
Friend, do we have a bizarre legal battle for you

* * *

So, we may have had James Comey testifying in Congress earlier today but the obvious question is: why haven't we heard more about this extraordinary case in which we have conclusive evidence of widespread illegal surveillance of American citizens?

And the answer is: because it is a liberal mainstream media conspiracy to keep the people uninformed and ignorant as their representatives continue to wipe their asses with the Constitution and spit on the graves of the Founders.

But really it's because of the two people bringing the case.

* * *

It may be worth noting that Montgomery's own lawyer called him a "con artist" and a "habitual liar engaged in fraud."

* * *

OK, but if there was proof that Klayman is not in it for notoriety but for truth, justice and the American way, it must be when he started up a new company called Freedom Watch – after the fictional company name given to fictional character Larry Claypool in television series The West Wing.

Larry Claypool – not to be confused with Larry Klayman – was portrayed in the series as a partisan hack who constantly filed groundless lawsuits against the Bartlett administration in an effort to find damaging information. He was, on occasion, successful in dredging up embarrassing but ultimately irrelevant information.


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24005
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Montgomery [and Klayman!] v. Comey (D.D.C.)

#41

Post by bob » Mon Jun 12, 2017 4:26 pm

Newsmax: Senate Intel's Side Show for Trump Take Down Fails:
Klayman wrote:It was last Thursday morning and I awoke at 4:30 a.m., showered, dressed, and headed down to the Senate Hart Building on Capitol Hill to meet Freedom Watch’s process server at 6:00 a.m. in front of the main entrance. Already in line to enter this office building were about 100 mostly young interns, students, and other concerned citizens from the Washington, D.C. area and around the nation. They were there to observe and thus take part in this "historic" hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee. The hearing was scheduled that day to receive the much anticipated testimony of former FBI Director James B. Comey.

The reason that I had asked our process server to meet me was to serve Comey with a summons and complaint, which my client, Dennis Montgomery and I had filed the day before. A complaint which alleged, among other charges, that this highly "overrated" top law enforcement officer had himself obstructed justice by burying an investigation into illegal and unconstitutional surveillance on President Trump and millions of American citizens, including the chief justice of the Supreme Court, other justices, hundreds of judges, and even yours truly.

* * *

So it was that I felt that we the people needed to, once again — as I have on our collective behalf over the last decades at Judicial Watch and now Freedom Watch — spring into action. However, not only did I want to serve Comey that day (as to do so at his home would be difficult) but as a member of the public I also wanted to observe up close and personal the hearing. As the doors of the Hart Building opened at 7:30 a.m., the process server and I rushed to room 216, where the hearing was set to take place. However, when we got there we observed a line ahead of us of about 200 to 300 persons lining three hallways — nearly all of them were wearing government identification around their necks.

It was clear that these "privileged" persons had entered the building long before the public was allowed in. Most all were Senate staff. When it became apparent that we not be able to take a seat much less enter the hearing room and serve Comey politely at the witness table before the great event was about to begin, and later watch the hearing — incredibly only tens of chairs were left for the public to occupy — even cynical me was shocked.

* * *

Wanting still, before the hearing commenced, to serve Comey that day, the process server and I had approached the Capitol Police who were standing guard at the entrance to Hart 216 and asked them if they, or someone else of authority, could arrange to have the former FBI director accept service of the complaint quietly either before or after the hearing.

These police officers, while polite and courteous, then called in the committee’s director of security [ . . . ], who with a tense voice and pained expression told us both, in so many words, to get lost. When we then suggested that [the director] could simply deliver the complaint to Comey and ask him ato accept service in a non-provocative and confidential manner, he refused, again with an expression of disdain that seemed as if he were about to come unglued.

Not to be deterred, the process server and I then walked across a long hallway to the Senate Russell Building where the establishment Republican chairman of the committee, Sen, Richard Burr, R-N.C., has his office. There, I asked his scheduler [ . . . ] if she would ask the chairman, at the conclusion of the hearing, to provide Comey with the complaint and summons showing service and ask him to accept service. I also asked her to have the chairman call me to again attempt to arrange for my client, Montgomery, to be interviewed by the committee. I added that if Chairman Burr did not contact me, I would have to assume that he would be furthering Comey’s cover-up of the on-going illegal surveillance, as well as evasion of service of process.

Of course, to this day I have heard nothing back from Sen. Burr or his staff.


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 9945
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Montgomery [and Klayman!] v. Comey (D.D.C.)

#42

Post by Notorial Dissent » Mon Jun 12, 2017 4:37 pm

And again, ignoring KKKlayman, like ignoring la Taitz, is a capital offense. Otherwise blah blah blah blah....


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 25979
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Re: Montgomery [and Klayman!] v. Comey (D.D.C.)

#43

Post by Foggy » Mon Jun 12, 2017 8:26 pm

Those bad people hurted GIL's delicate fee-fees! :violin: :crying:


Kindly recall that I'm a 44th degree Jedi Master.

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 9945
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Montgomery [and Klayman!] v. Comey (D.D.C.)

#44

Post by Notorial Dissent » Mon Jun 12, 2017 8:53 pm

Poor GIL, alas I suspect there is a lot more of that in his future. :rotflmao: :rotflmao:


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24005
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Montgomery [and Klayman!] v. Comey (D.D.C.)

#45

Post by bob » Tue Jun 20, 2017 3:25 pm

FW: Klayman and Montgomery File for TRO Against Comey and FBI, NSA and CIA Defendants in Case Alleging Obstruction of Justice:
Motion Will Cause Court to Move Quickly

Today, Larry Klayman, the founder of both Judicial Watch and now Freedom Watch, and a former federal prosecutor, announced that he and his client whistleblower Dennis Montgomery have moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in their lawsuit against former FBI Director James Comey, the FBI itself, and the NSA and CIA, among other defendants. The underlying lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by Freedom Watch is styled Montgomery and Klayman v. Comey et. al, Civil Action Number 1:17-cv-01074 (RJL).

The case involves allegations that James Comey, in concert with the other defendants, buried an FBI investigation, caused by whistleblower Dennis Montgomery, a former NSA/CIA contractor, into mass illegal surveillance on not just President Trump, but the chief justice of the Supreme Court, other justices, 156 judges, and even Klayman. Montgomery came forward to Comey years ago with 47 hard drives containing classified information, under grant of immunity, and even was interviewed under oath by FBI agents Walter Giardina and William Barnett. Despite this, the complaint and the motion alleges that Comey buried the investigation and thus obstructed justice, since as recently alleged and revealed by Circa News and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the FBI was engaged in this illegal and unconstitutional surveillance under Comey, allegedly along with the intelligence agencies.

The motion for TRO and preliminary injunction filed late last night asks the court to order a temporary halt to this continuing illegal surveillance, as well as preserve the evidence which Montgomery provided to Comey and the FBI. . . .

Klayman had this to say: "Having asked the intelligence and judiciary committees in Congress to investigate the alleged obstruction of justice, and their having not taken action to date, Mr. Montgomery and I, on behalf of ourselves, had to take matters into our own legal hands. This mass surveillance, which threatens the privacy of all innocent Americans, must be ordered to cease forthwith, as it endangers our democracy and our republic."
The TRO/PI motion. The motion requests two disparate actions: (1) for the federal government to stop violating the Fourth Amendment :roll: ; and (2) for the FBI to not destroy the 47 hard drives Montgomery dumped on them. The second request will likely be granted (in an abundance of caution).

Attached to the motion are Montgomery's and Klayman's affidavits. Klayman's "proof" of him being surveilled is his bum phones. :roll:


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 9945
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Montgomery [and Klayman!] v. Comey (D.D.C.)

#46

Post by Notorial Dissent » Tue Jun 20, 2017 4:24 pm

I'm curious as to how they can get a TRO against Comey who has no official position or ability to do any of the things they are wanting restrained? Or that they have any evidence that what they allege has even happened. Oh right GIL, so the rules and reality don't apply.


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24005
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Montgomery [and Klayman!] v. Comey (D.D.C.)

#47

Post by bob » Tue Jun 20, 2017 4:32 pm

Notorial Dissent wrote:I'm curious as to how they can get a TRO against Comey who has no official position or ability to do any of the things they are wanting restrained?
The motion seeks to enjoin "all defendants," but really it is aimed at the FBI, CIA, and NSA. Suing Comey is just Klayman's usual trick to create some drama and publicity.
Or that they have any evidence that what they allege has even happened.
Their "evidence" is: (1) Klayman's previous (and technically still active) lawsuit against the NSA; (2) that declassified FISA court order recertifying the surveillance; (3) that Circa article about that court order (which Klayman fed to Circa); (4) Montgomery's handwaving declaration (that doesn't pass the laugh test); and (5) Klayman's bum phones.

In other words, a whole lotta nothing. Like we've seen before. But Klayman litigates for attention, not results.


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 9945
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Montgomery [and Klayman!] v. Comey (D.D.C.)

#48

Post by Notorial Dissent » Tue Jun 20, 2017 4:54 pm

bob wrote:
Notorial Dissent wrote:I'm curious as to how they can get a TRO against Comey who has no official position or ability to do any of the things they are wanting restrained?
The motion seeks to enjoin "all defendants," but really it is aimed at the FBI, CIA, and NSA. Suing Comey is just Klayman's usual trick to create some drama and publicity.
Or that they have any evidence that what they allege has even happened.
Their "evidence" is: (1) Klayman's previous (and technically still active) lawsuit against the NSA; (2) that declassified FISA court order recertifying the surveillance; (3) that Circa article about that court order (which Klayman fed to Circa); (4) Montgomery's handwaving declaration (that doesn't pass the laugh test); and (5) Klayman's bum phones.

In other words, a whole lotta nothing. Like we've seen before. But Klayman litigates for attention, not results.
My thoughts, but wanted confirmation, in otherwords, DDSOS.


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

SLQ
Posts: 2089
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:33 am

Re: Montgomery [and Klayman!] v. Comey (D.D.C.)

#49

Post by SLQ » Tue Jun 20, 2017 6:27 pm

Notorial Dissent wrote:I'm curious as to how they can get a TRO against Comey who has no official position or ability to do any of the things they are wanting restrained? Or that they have any evidence that what they allege has even happened. Oh right GIL, so the rules and reality don't apply.
I was thinking similar thoughts while catching up on this thread. How is Comey even a proper defendant? Doesn't he have qualified immunity when acting in his role as FBI Director? Shouldn't acting director Andrew McCabe be substituted. Inquiring minds . . .



User avatar
bob
Posts: 24005
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Montgomery [and Klayman!] v. Comey (D.D.C.)

#50

Post by bob » Tue Jun 20, 2017 6:36 pm

SLQ wrote:How is Comey even a proper defendant? Doesn't he have qualified immunity when acting in his role as FBI Director? Shouldn't acting director Andrew McCabe be substituted. Inquiring minds . . .
1. IT IS KLAYMAN.
2. Klayman and Montgomery allege that Comey assured them via the FBI's counsel that the FBI would investigate the 37 hours of Al Jazeera universe-shattering information on the hard drives. And then mean ole Comey allegedly ordered the FBI to bury the hard drives.
3. This is, of course, notwithstanding the integration clause in the FBI's letter granting production immunity.


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

Post Reply

Return to “Other Fringe Groups & Individuals”