Mark Levin: This is the real SCANDAL

Hello, America.

I'm Mark Levin, and this is Life, Liberty and Levin Sunday. Thanks for joining us. The Comey scandal. You're hearing a lot, especially from former federal prosecutors and others, that this is really a bad indictment against Comey because, well, we have McCabe, who's untrustworthy, according to an inspector general report of the Department of Justice.

McCabe is the former deputy director of the FBI. And you see, McCabe leaked information to the Wall Street Journal to cover his tokens, and I'll get to that in a minute. But you see, the problem here, they're telling us, is that in this back and forth with Ted Cruz,

Ted Cruz is really talking about the authorization by Comey, the director of the FBI, for his deputy director, McCabe, to have leaked to The Wall Street Journal. And everybody's pointing out, well, it's not exactly what McCabe said. McCabe talked about an after-the-fact leak.

He said Comey knew it, but he actually authorized it after the fact.

On May 3rd, 2017, in this committee, Chairman Grassley asked you point blank, quote, have you ever been an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation? You responded under oath, quote, never.

He then asked you, quote, have you ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton administration? You responded again under oath, no.

Okay, now that's accurate. I went back and looked at his prior testimony. So that is a blanket statement. He was never a source for the media, ever. In the Clinton investigation or the Trump investigation. That's what he said. Now let's look in the indictment.

On or about September 30, 2020, in the Eastern District of Virginia, the defendant, James B. Comey Jr., did willfully and knowingly make a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement in a matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch of the government of the United States by falsely stating to a U.S. senator during a Senate Judiciary hearing that he, James B. Comey Jr., had not authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports regarding an FBI investigation concerning person one.

Person one. Number two, that statement was false because it James B. Comey Jr. then and there knew he had in fact authorized person three to serve as an anonymous source in news reports regarding an FBI investigation concerning person one. Now let's pick up the clip where I left off. Go.

As publicly and repeatedly stated that he leaked information to the Wall Street Journal and that you were directly aware of it and that you directly authorized it. Now, what Mr. McCabe is saying and what you testified to this committee cannot both be true. One or the other is false. Who's telling the truth?

I can only speak to my testimony. I stand by what the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017.

So your testimony is you've never authorized anyone to leak. And Mr. McCabe, if he says contrary, is not telling the truth. Is that correct?

Again, I'm not going to characterize Andy's testimony, but mine is the same today.

Now, I want to go to an Inspector General report. August 2019, Office of Inspector General, Report of Investigation of Former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey, Disclosure of Sensitive Investigative Information and Handling of Certain Memoranda.

Now I don't have enough time to read it all, and you probably don't have the patience for me to read it all, but just a few pieces. Part C, Comey failed to immediately alert the FBI to unauthorized disclosure of classified information. Comey learned of the FBI's classification decision regarding Memo 2 when the FBI allowed him to review copies of all seven memos with classified

banners and markings in preparation for his June 8, 2017, congressional testimony. Once he knew the FBI classified portions of Memo 2, Comey failed to immediately notify the FBI that he had previously given Memo 2 to his attorneys. And it goes on. The FBI did not learn that Comey had shared any of the memos with anyone outside the FBI until Comey's June 8, 2017 congressional testimony. Now why am I reading things like this to you?

Because we're getting reports that, well, the prior Inspector General report involving McCabe said McCabe is sketch. And he is. But it basically said Comey, Comey was telling the truth. Well, in this Inspector General report, they're saying nothing of the sort.

This goes to character. This goes to believability. It goes to pattern. But there's more. Conclusion, item six, Congress have provided the FBI with substantial powers and authorities to gather evidence

as part of the FBI's criminal and counterintelligence mission. The FBI uses these authorities every day and it's many investigations to allegations of drug trafficking and so forth and so on. A host of other threats to national security and public safety and in the process the FBI lawfully gains access to a significant amount of sensitive

information about individuals many of whom have not been charged, may never be charged, or may not even be a subject to the investigations. For this reason, the civil liberties of every individual who may fall within the scope of the FBI's investigative authorities depend on the FBI's ability to protect sensitive information from unauthorized disclosure, it says later. However, after his removal as FBI director two months later, Comey provided a copy of

Memo 4, which Comey had kept without authorization to Richmond, a Columbia Law School professor, friend of his, with instructions to share the contents with a reporter for the New York Times, had his friend leak a story, a document to the New York Times, which in fact wrote a story. Memo four included information that was related to both the FBI's ongoing investigation of General Flynn and by Comey's own account, information that was related to both the FBI's ongoing investigation of General Flynn and, by Comey's own account, information that he believed and alleged constituted evidence of an attempt to obstruct the ongoing Flynn investigation.

Later that same day, the New York Times published an article about Memo 4, so they followed through. Comey Memo says Trump asked him to end Flynn investigation. Former Director Comey failed to live up to this responsibility by not safeguarding sensitive information obtained during the

course of the FBI, his FBI employment, and by using it to create public pressure for official action. Comey set a dangerous example for the over thirty five

thousand current FBI employees and the many thousands more former FBI employees who similarly have access to or knowledge of nonpublic information. Comey said he was compelled to take these actions.

If I love this country and I love the Department of Justice and I love the FBI. However, we're current or former FBI employees to follow their own strongly held example and disclose sensitive information in service to their own strongly held personal convictions. The FBI would have been able to dispatch its law enforcement duties. So he retains memos, he gives out information on the memos, he does in fact have somebody

leak on his behalf and has leaked before. What was not permitted was the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive investigative information obtained during the course of FBI employment in order to achieve a personally desired outcome. This is August 2019 by the Inspector General. Now let's go on. The testimony you heard there, a little bit, with Ted Cruz was in 2020, subsequent to this report.

During the 2020 testimony, you heard Comey double down to the Senate that he had not been authorizing leaks to the press when he was FBI director, a top sensitive 2016 investigations. He had previously testified in 2017

that he hadn't authorized leaks. In 2020, Comey said, I can only speak to my testimony. You heard him say it. I stand by the testimony you summarized I gave in May of 2017. In part, if not altogether, he's responding to Cruz, who's sort of focusing in on McCabe. So there's a couple of points I want to mention here. This man is a very sleazy character in history, Comey.

So those who are writing in National Review and elsewhere saying, well, look, the inspector general in the prior cases, holding up McCabe is, you sensitive information and leaking and so forth, which raises serious questions about his believability, which I'm sure the prosecutors have looked at and the prosecutors will likely use. Now McCabe has said Comey was aware of the leak and approved of it after the fact. And you heard Comey's response. He was not involved in any leaks.

In any leaks. In any leaks. And so we're hung up with this word authorized, aren't we? Authorized leaks. Was Comey aware of the leak? Was he told about the leak?

It's a very significant question too.

Remember his situation? He was set up by Comey. Absolutely set up by Comey. Absolutely set up by Comey. An FBI leak to the Washington Post on January 12th, 2017, regarding conversations between Flynn and Russia's ambassador. That was used as an excuse for the FBI to interview the incoming head of the National Security Council, who was Flynn.

So they show up. The purpose, though, was to entrap Flynn during the transition. In fact, a note handwritten by then FBI counter intelligence head Bill Prestap asked, quote, what's our goal? Truth? Admission? Or get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired? They had no reason to interview Flynn. Flynn was interviewed without a lawyer. He was not warned about false statements. That's routine. In fact, the

usual procedures used in interviewing a high-level or incoming high-level individual were bypassed. Comey even bragged about it, wrote about it, said he wouldn't do it in other circumstances. Flynn was charged with false statements. Oh, the irony. And he spent seven7 million in his defense. He went broke. And they were threatening to prosecute his son. So he pled to one count of false statements. It was completely set up. President Trump pardoned him based on Bill Barr's recommendation

as well. This is who we're talking about. This is Comey. So for those legal analysts out there that say, well, McCabe wasn't believable. No, McCabe is not believable, but neither is Comey. I'll give you another example of a few months ago, July 23, 2025. Here we have Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence. And she says a treasonous conspiracy led by President Obama and his national security team, including James Clapper, John Brennan, and James Comey, to manipulate and manufacture intelligence that promoted a contrived false

narrative, falsely claiming Putin aspired to help President-elect Trump's election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton. Now they knew it was a lie. They knew Clinton was the one putting together this dossier. They knew it. Brennan knew it. Comey would find out about it. He knew it. They all knew it.

Obama knew it, which is why he ordered a new CIA report with a result that he wanted, which was the opposite of the truth. And that launched the whole Russia collusion issue. Comey was in on it. President Obama directed the creation of this January 2017 intelligence community assessment after President Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election and it served as the basis for

what was essentially a years-long coup, writes Gabbard, correctly against the duly elected president of the United States subverting the will of the American people and attempting to delegitimize Donald Trump's presidency. These are the people we're talking about. Now the question to me is this, when Comey said he never ever leaked information to the media, ever, in the Clinton case or in the Trump case. Is that true? These former federal prosecutors who are like a conga line of dancers now, who all say the same thing because it's a kind of a network where

they read each other's stuff and they regurgitate it. They give the benefit of the doubt to Comey? I don't think so. And remember, his testimony in 2017 and otherwise was that he never, never spoke to the media or leaked to the media about these things. That's his responses to Senator Grassley. And he referred to that when the question came up about,

we think it's McCabe, could be others, could be other instances, I don't know. But in the McCabe case, even if it's McCabe saying he was aware of it, Comey, and subsequently authorized it or accepted it, isn't that bad enough? Well, Mark, it's bad enough, but is it criminal? Is that a false statement? Yeah, I think so. Read the false statement statute. Intentionally misleading, too. False statement, intentionally misleading. Oh, and by the way,

Martha Stewart. What does Martha have to do with anything? Fox News. Martha Stewart's anger at James Comey for making her trophy criminal is understandable, her attorney says. Remember Martha Stewart? She went to prison for four or five months, among other things, for what? Making a false statement. Hard to prove false statements, we're told, but James Comey was the US Attorney at the Southern District of New York when this took place. He was proud of it. Comey, who was behind the now-defunct 2016 Russia

investigation into Donald Trump that the former president dubbed a witch hunt, writes Fox, was the lead prosecutor who indicted Stewart on charges of obstruction of justice and lying to the FBI in 2003. The charges came in connection with the FBI's insider trading investigation into her friend's company Imklon. She said, I was a trophy, a prominent woman, the first billionaire woman in America.

When charges were initially filed against Stewart, then 62, then U.S. Attorney Comey, and during a 2003 news conference, that the case is about lying. Lying to the FBI, lying to the SEC, lying to investors. That is conduct that will not be tolerated. Martha Stewart is being prosecuted not because of who she is, but what she did. Oh, the irony.

The specific language of the statute being cited here, the case involving Comey, 18 U.S. Code, Section 101A2, makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement of representation a felony. What the government is alleging here

is a statement that Comey made referencing his, never ever do I deal with the media, talk to the, you know, leak to the media, unauthorized information to the media. They're saying here that statement was false

because James Comey Jr. then and there knew he in fact had authorized Person 3 to serve as an anonymous source in news reporting regarding the FBI investigation concerning person one is he knew about it and then subsequently authorized it. I'm prosecuting this case There's a lot to go for by the way a lot to use but I would say to Mr. Comey you knew about this

And you didn't do anything to stop it Well, then you authorized it. Whether you formally authorized it and used the word authorized or used the word I authorized the day after, if you knew about it and you didn't stop it, isn't that a problem? And if you knew about it, what did you do about it? Did you punish Mr. McKay?

Did you report Mr. McKay? Or did you never know about it, what did you do about it? Did you punish Mr. McCabe? Did you report Mr. McCabe? Or did you never know about it, ever? Did you ever even read the article that has your name in it? Did you read it? Has McCabe's name in it too? I read it. And when you read it, what did you say? Did you wonder who leaked it? Did you ask for a leak investigation? Comey was so busy with his own media operation, working with Obama, doing all these other things, that it's probably hard for him to keep everything straight.

But this isn't a man who's clean. It's just not. There are many questions that can be asked of Comey that relate to this authorization issue. He has a bad history of using memos and the press, later using a friend and so forth and so on. So when you have people come on and they're saying to you, oh, the authorization came subsequent, according to McCabe. Actually, McCabe said more than that. He said that Comey was aware of it

and a subsequent authorization, which seems like kind of weird wording to me. But if the director of the FBI was aware of it and did nothing about it, then I think it can be impliedly said he authorized it. Again I'm not a special pleader but there are prosecutors and

authorized it. Again I'm not a special pleader but there are prosecutors and there are prosecutors and some of whom are better than others.