Because of Tuesday’s presidential debate, the testimony of former FBI Director James Comey before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday didn’t get the attention it deserved at the time. But now, after a few days to unwind from that excruciating night, let’s take a look at what happened during the Comey hearing.

Comey was there at the prodding of Sen. Lindsay Graham, chairman of the committee, which is looking into Crossfire Hurricane and FBI corruption related to that case. If there was ever any doubt that James Comey is the slipperiest, slimiest snake in the swamp, he certainly put it to rest on Wednesday. Comey showed a selective lack of “recall” that was even more pronounced than Hillary Clinton’s, if that is possible. He just couldn’t remember with specificity much of anything he did that had to do with the “dossier” or FISA.

Any more mental lapses and he would’ve been qualified to run for President as a Democrat. Except in Comey’s case, it was an act.

Someone as smooth as Comey has to be pinned down quite forcefully to show how much he has to hide and how hard he’s trying to hide it. On Wednesday, Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley did exactly that. He skillfully filleted Comey like a fish. Hawley must be pleased to know that Megan Fox at PJ Media described his style as that of “a young Perry Mason with better hair.”

I\If Sen. Hawley was having a good hair day, he was also having a good questioning day. Comey could only go into his “Duh, I dunno” routine and at one point, after being hopelessly caught in an inconsistency, smirk and shrug idiotically. But Comey is not an idiot; his line of defense at the hearing was obviously to protect himself legally by “knowing” or “remembering” as little as possible, present himself as ethically pure, and give the impression that, hey, the FBI is ALWAYS this incompetent.

Comey tried to distance himself from the grossly misleading and error-ridden FISA application and weasel out of his own responsibility, even as Hawley pressed him on the fact that he had personally signed off on it. (Examples of Comey’s distancing: He said “what the FBI Director does in connection to a FISA is actually very narrow.” He said he doesn’t regret his “role” in this matter; he regrets that “it happened.”) If Comey’s not responsible for the verified accuracy and truthfulness of the content, then what does his signature to that effect even mean?

Comey claimed he didn’t have “personal knowledge that would have led me to understand that we weren’t supplying complete information.” But Hawley challenged him on the true extent of his personal knowledge, asking him if at the time he certified the first FISA application against Carter Page, he knew that Christopher Steele was working for the DNC.

"I don’t know if I knew [it was] the Democratic Party,” Comey prevaricated. “I knew that he was working for political opponents of President Trump.” (We know now that by the time of the FISA application, Comey and all those top-tier people knew Steele was working for Hillary.)

Hawley zeroed in: “Now surely you recognized at the time that relying so heavily on a biased source would undermine public confidence in the FBI’s activities, didn’t you?”

"No, I did not,” Comey answered tersely. NO, HE DID NOT??

Hawley went on, using Comey’s self-serving comments from other testimony against him. (Example: “You...said, ‘A reasonable appearance of bias can corrupt the American people’s faith in your work as much as actual bias can.’ Do you stand by those remarks?”) It was masterful.

He brought up Stuart Evans, a lawyer in the national security division of the DOJ under Obama, “reminding” Comey that before the first FISA, Evans raised “serious concerns about the ostensibly partisan nature of the information provided by Mr. Steele, did he not?”

Comey, again very tersely: “I don’t know.”

Hawley then cited Evans’ concerns as they appear in the IG report. This was a total take-down of Comey, who went on to claim not to have known who Steele’s sub-source was or anything about him. (Of course, we now know that the FBI had previously investigated this person over several years on suspicion that he was a Russian agent.) Hawley again read from the IG report: “‘Comey told us that the application seemed factually and legally sufficient when he read it. He had no questions or concerns before he signed it.’”

Comey stared into the camera like a diminished human being.

The former FBI Director actually said that the referral from the IC (intelligence community) to the FBI of Hillary’s plan to smear Trump with a story about “collusion” with Russia (the one referred to by DNI John Ratcliffe in a letter to Sen. Lindsay Graham) “doesn’t ring any bells with me.” If that is true, Joe Biden’s not the only one who could benefit from memory-enhancing drugs.

More details at the link, including the spectacular must-watch video of Sen. Hawley expertly nailing Comey to the wall.

It should now be obvious to all that James Comey and Hillary Clinton were cut from the same cloth. And the cloth is that slippery kind that slides around and won’t stay put.

Keep in mind, Comey was FBI Director, supposedly at the helm of an enormously significant and politically-charged case. Imagine: investigating a major-party presidential candidate for possibly being an agent of Russia and colluding with Vladimir Putin to win the election! That would be treason. Comey would have demanded to know every detail –- just as Obama and Brennan would have.

And yet, today, Comey is vague on the details. How was he able to write a book?

Reaching the end of his time to question Comey, Hawley asked the former FBI director, “How are the American people supposed to trust the FBI following abuses like this?” Comey responded just the way you’d expect: he focused on his own integrity.

Comey will go down in history all right, not for his integrity but for his stupendous lack of it. Thanks to Sen. Hawley for giving the world a clearer look at the FBI, from the top down, in 2016.

Yesterday, we learned –- soon after Sen. Lindsay Graham did, in a letter from Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe –- that Hillary green-lighted the plan to smear Trump as “colluding” with Vladimir Putin to win in 2016, in an effort to draw attention away from her own email scandal, and that this was known by THE highest-level government officials, including then-CIA Director John Brennan (who briefed the others), President Obama, some of Obama’s national security advisers, and the FBI. They were more than happy to take the Steele “dossier,” which they knew was paid for by Hillary as part of her plan, and use it not to look into what she was doing but to investigate Trump.

Democrats have reacted predictably to this news, claiming that one reference in the Ratcliffe letter to lack of verification nullifies the whole story. No, it doesn’t, as the allegations against Hillary are consistent with what investigative reporters have turned up on their own. This is just more confirmation. We know she’s behind it, her campaign paid millions to set it up, and now we have the evidence that Brennan briefed officials at the highest level.

Yesterday, we quoted former acting DNI Ric Grenell about running out of patience with the intel community for withholding documents. If Grenell was aware of who is doing this, he wasn’t naming names. But Sean Davis at THE FEDERALIST reports that CIA Director Gina Haspel is personally blocking the declassification of documents relating to the 2016 election.

Former FBI Director James Comey testified on Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee that he didn’t even remember the referral made to the FBI about Hillary’s plan. This is laughable –- Brennan himself gave the briefing, and such a stunning piece of information had to have been etched in the minds of everyone –- but what did you expect from such a slippery eel?

Davis appeared with Tucker Carlson Wednesday night and put it just the way we have, saying that it wasn’t Trump who “colluded” with Russia, but Hillary Clinton. It really was a “coup” plotted against Donald Trump at the highest levels.

Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was on with Tucker Tuesday night (before Comey’s testimony) to talk about how extraordinary this news was. He is stunned by the failure of characters such as Sally Yates and Rod Rosenstein to take any responsibility and wondered if Comey would be any different. Of course he wasn't!

"Heads need to roll,” he said, “and there needs to be top-to-bottom reform at the FBI.”

While Comey was testifying Wednesday, Brennan tweeted: “Unsurprisingly, Lindsay Graham is willfully, brazenly & cravenly misrepresenting the facts in today’s Senate Judiciary hearing with Jim Comey. I am so looking forward to the day when Graham, Trump & the rest of their ilk are no longer associated with the U.S. government.” Personally, just from what we already know, I look forward to the day when Brennan and his ilk ARE associated with the U.S. prison system.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz was one of those who questioned Comey, and he pointed out to Shannon Bream on FOX News Wednesday night that “John Brennan is one of the most partisan leftists to ever serve in the intelligence services, and John Brennan and James Comey were part of, really, some of the worst legacy of the Obama-Biden presidency, which was the politicization of the FBI, the Department of Justice, the CIA.” He accused Comey of giving the “Sgt. Schultz defense,” as in, “I see nothing, I know nothing” about the persecution of Trump and also Michael Flynn. And, of course, all roads lead back to Hillary, doing her bidding with “a political persecution not based on facts.” Comey is “in CYA mode,” Sen. Cruz said, and that’s the reason for the wild accusations he throws around, even when no evidence has ever been found for them.

Cruz questioned Comey about Kevin Clinesmith, the FBI official who has pleaded guilty to altering an official document used to deceive the FISA court about Carter Page. Comey feigned ignorance even of this. Yes, it’s disgusting, snakey behavior, but it’s exactly what we know to expect from Comey.

They’re hiding what they know at the CIA, too, according to Sean Davis, and he’s been told the order comes from the top. When you look at Gina Haspel’s ties within the CIA, this doesn’t seem surprising. Between 2014 and early 2017 –- which would include the 2016 presidential campaign –- she was the London CIA station chief under then-CIA Director John Brennan, hand-picked by him for that post. She was the main link between Washington and London. Maybe it’s just coincidence that Christopher Steele was doing his work on the “dossier” at that time in London. Maybe not. I just hope we find out.

Davis speculates that the people blocking the release of these documents are likely implicated in them. “You have these career bureaucrats whose careers may be destroyed by the facts within them,” he said.

What he’d like to see is President Trump just declassifying everything, period. Trump certainly has the power to do that. “I think at this point,” he said, “we need the President, Donald Trump, to step in and say, ‘No more obstruction. No more blocking.’ We need transparency and the American people need to know the truth.”

Agreed, with one caveat. If U.S. Attorney John Durham is pursuing criminal charges and there's some particular piece of evidence that he needs to keep close to the vest, Trump might need to keep a lid on a certain very few documents for now. Otherwise, it’s time to open Pandora’s Box.

We’re sad to report the deaths of two major music stars of the 1970s on Tuesday, both at age 78. No cause of death was announced for pop singer Helen Reddy, but she suffered from Addison’s disease and was diagnosed with dementia in 2015.

During her heyday, Reddy had her own variety show, appeared on countless other TV shows, acted in movies such as Disney’s “Pete’s Dragon” and on Broadway and London’s West End, and 15 top 40 Billboard singles, including six top 10’s and three #1 hits. They include “I Don’t Know How to Love Him,” “Delta Dawn,” “You and Me Against the World,” “Ain’t No Way to Treat a Lady” and “Angie Baby.”

Her biggest hit, though, and the one that cemented her forever as a feminist icon, was 1972’s “I Am Woman,” for which she wrote the lyrics and Ray Burton wrote the music. It went to #1 and won her the Grammy for Best Female Pop Vocal. She said it was inspired by the strong women in her family who survived the Depression, world wars and abusive, alcoholic husbands, and by the sexism she’d had to battle in show business. (Ironically, some feminists were upset over the line, “But I’m still an embryo,” since they didn’t want to associate the women’s lib movement with a pregnancy – or maybe they didn’t want to associate an embryo with a human being.)

Ironically, the massive success of “I Am Woman” helped end Reddy’s career. When she learned it was mentioned in a friend’s daughter’s history book, she decided she’d made her mark and could never outdo it, so she retired in 2002 to her native Australia. Aside from a few occasional live performances, she mostly devoted herself to her family and a new career as a clinical hypnotherapist. Ironically, just this month, a new movie about her life debuted. It’s called “I Am Woman.”

Also on Tuesday, pop/country singer/songwriter/actor Mac Davis passed away in Nashville after heart surgery. Davis recorded a number of hits, including “Stop and Smell the Roses,” “Baby, Don’t Get Hooked on Me” and “It’s Hard to Be Humble.” He also wrote many hits for other artists, including Kenny Rogers’ “Something’s Burning,” Gallery’s “I Believe In Music,” the Elvis classics “In The Ghetto,” “Memories” and “A Little Less Conversation,” and even co-wrote the recent Bruno Mars hit, “Young Girls.”

Like Reddy, Davis also hosted his own NBC variety series and acted in movies (“North Dallas Forty,” “The Sting II”) and on stage (“The Will Rogers Follies.”) He was so versatile, he is both a member of the Nashville Songwriters Hall of Fame and has a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.

* * * *

A personal post-debate note…

Last night, to cure my post-debate headache, I put on Amazon Prime to watch “The Andy Griffith Show.” By sheer dumb luck (the same force that kept my wife Laura from dying when she caught swine flu under Obama/Biden), the next episode up in my rotation was “Politics Begins at Home” (Season 7, Ep. 8.)

In it, Aunt Bea decides to run for city council, not knowing that Andy has already endorsed county clerk Howard Sprague for the seat. She accuses Andy of being a sexist and doesn’t believe his pleas that he just thinks Howard is better qualified for the position. After making his life miserable for a while, she goes to a debate with Howard. When people ask about issues of local importance, like whether to build a new bridge or sewer system, she has the same answer:

If the people want a bridge (or sewer system or whatever), then they shall have a bridge! The people’s will shall always be supreme and lead us through the dark night of politics (or something like that.) Naturally, it gets a lot of applause.

Then Howard keeps explaining, with facts and figures, why those projects would be wastes of taxpayer money and how the same thing could be accomplished much cheaper.

Eventually, Aunt Bea stands up and urges everyone to vote for Howard because he’s obviously the most qualified and she doesn’t know why anyone would vote for her.

If only last night’s debate had gone like that, with Uncle Joe in the role of Aunt Bea.

An extremely important discovery might be lost in the after-debate autopsy: some partially-declassified notes cited by Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe in a letter to Sen. Lindsay Graham concerning a briefing in September, 2016, about Russian intel finding Hillary Clinton was trying to tie then-candidate Donald Trump to Russia to distract from her own email scandal. Democrats are dismissing this action by Ratcliffe as pure politics, but a very dependable source, Catherine Herridge, says CBS News (she works there now) was told that investigator John Durham turned up the notes and that they “opened a new track in his probe.”

This may be what Sen. Graham was referring to a few days ago on SUNDAY MORNING FUTURES when asked about upcoming revelations.

Of course, this lends even more credence to what we’ve long said, that when it comes to corruption, ALL ROADS LEAD TO HILLARY CLINTON. This thing just keeps getting deeper, and that’s why the investigation never seems to end. But it will end eventually, and Americans deserve to know as much as possible NOW.

Again, two words: INTERIM REPORT.

Ratcliffe declassified three pieces of information for Graham. The first was that in the summer of 2016, the CIA asked the FBI to investigate Hillary's plan to “stir up” a scandal against Trump when he was running against her for President. In late July --- recall that the opening of Crossfire Hurricane was on July 31 --- U.S. intel “obtained insight” into this plan, which was to tie Trump to Putin and the so-called hacking of the DNC emails. One key statement here: “The IC [intelligence community] does not know the accuracy of this allegation or the extent to which Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication.” Hard to tell, but I think this is referring to the accuracy of the Russian-hacking story, which has, after all, never been proved.

The second piece of information was that then-CIA Director John Brennan briefed President Obama and “other senior national security officials” on this intelligence, including “the alleged approval by Hillary Clinton on July 26, 2016, of a proposal by one of her foreign policy advisors to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services.”

The third piece was an investigative referral, dated September 7, 2016, sent to then-FBI Director Jim Comey and then-FBI deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok regarding “U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s approval of a plan concerning U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.” Note the wording: it doesn’t actually say the plan was a made-up scandal; one could read this and think Trump really was involved with Russian hackers, even though there was no evidence of this.

Ratcliffe writes Graham, “Additional declassification and public disclosure of related intelligence remains under consideration; however the IC welcomes the opportunity to provide a classified briefing with further detail at your convenience." has a good write-up on this story, and some of the comments are quite astute as well.

We'll have an update soon. I assume Graham has received or will soon receive that briefing. One big question I hope he’ll be able to answer: whatever happened to that referral?? At the time, Peter Strzok was just wrapping up the “Mid-Year Exam,” a cursory look at Hillary’s CRIMINAL use of a personal email server for all her State Department work, and he must have laughed at the idea of opening another investigation on her. They were going to be much too busy investigating Trump.

For now, I guess the answer to that question is still classified.

But we know Hillary did precisely what these documents are talking about. She and the DNC were the ones who, through intermediary law firm Perkins Coie, hired Christopher Steele to come up with the Trump/Russia “dossier.” Apparently, the CIA, Obama, "other senior national security officials" and the FBI were aware of Hillary’s scheme in late July of 2016. They should have been investigating THAT. Instead, they used her phony "dossier" as evidence...against Trump.

It also occurs to me that this is just one more piece of information the FBI had concerning the “dossier” that they hid from the FISA court. They knew all about the political motivations --- not only on the part of Steele but also Hillary --- and STILL went after Trump. They should have been looking at Hillary, and they knew it.

The one part of this that really raises my eyebrows is the briefing Brennan gave Obama. Knowing what we know about Brennan, I can’t help but think they were meeting to see how they could keep the intel about “Hillary’s plan” under wraps while actually helping to further it, particularly as it concerned the DNC “hacking.” Again, we still have no actual evidence that the Russians hacked the DNC, try as the Democrats might to blame them. Julian Assange still has not revealed his source, but he has been adamant that it was not the Russian state. There's also reason to suspect it was an inside job --- not a hacking, but a leaking. Being open to that possibility when we don’t know what happened does not make me a conspiracy theorist.

On the slowness of the declassification, Ric Grenell, who was the acting DNI before Ratcliffe was confirmed, has a message for whoever it is within the intel community refusing to release documents.

He says there’s still a LOT to see about the origins of “Trump/Russia” –- “the very early days of how this investigation was developed.” And he’s “getting really impatient with those individual agencies that know exactly what I’m talking about...that know exactly what they need to release...they’re playing games.”

"The many warning signs [about the “dossier”] were ignored,” he told Liz MacDonald on FOX Business News, “...If we had been able to see the full package of the information instead of having it, really, edited down and pushed into a direction that the head of the FBI clearly wanted it to go in, I think most people would have come to the same conclusion, that Russia propaganda, from the beginning, had infiltrated into the Steele ‘dossier.’

"We’ve gotta make sure that government isn’t weaponized,” he added, going on to cite the release of President Trump’s tax information just the previous day as an example of the bureaucracy being weaponized “against people they don’t like.” If one of your enemies goes to work inside the government, they can use those tools against you, “and there’s nothing you can do about it,” he said.

That's exactly what happened to Trump, and even today there must be millions of low-information Americans who still believe he conspired in some way with Russians to become President. No one knows how to use and abuse the tools inside the government like Hillary. She lost the election, but her twisted, fictional "narrative" endures.

Note to Chris Wallace

September 30, 2020

Chris Wallace is taking a lot of flak over his “moderation” (odd to use that word in this context) of Tuesday’s Presidential debate, but one moment in particular rankled many conservatives. It was when he couched President Trump’s ban of “critical race theory” seminars in government offices as banning “racial sensitivity training.”

“Critical race theory” is almost the opposite of racial sensitivity. It’s born out of a Marxist movement to use race to sow division and resentment. It’s fundamentally racist itself, as it singles out white people for public shaming, making them admit to being evil racists even if they’re not. It not only destroys Dr. King’s vision of a colorblind society, it actually promotes racism by insisting that people be judged not by their individual character but by the color of their skin. If it hadn’t been promoted and protected by the left, I would imagine it would have resulted in a lot of lawsuits by now for blatantly violating federal anti-racist workplace laws.

If you want to know more about what “critical race theory” is, where it slithered out of, and the damage it’s doing, Timothy Daughtry has an excellent review of it at I also recommend that Chris Wallace read it.