Megyn Kelly Breaks Down Why the Case Against James Comey is STRONGER Than the Media Makes it Seem

All right, we've got something very interesting to start with today. The case against James Comey just got a lot hotter, so he's moved to have it dismissed just to set the scene for our audience. OK, there's a two page indictment against him. It's pretty straightforward. And they allege in the Eastern District of Virginia

that on or about September 30th, 2020, James Comey willfully and knowingly lied, lied to Congress telling a U S senator that he, James Comey had not authorized someone at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports regarding an FBI investigation. Um, okay. So that's basically what the whole thing is based on. And there's really not much more to the indictment than that.

Two counts that we think are based on just that one allegation that he lied to Congress in September of 2020. Now, in September 2020, what they're really what what happened was in an exchange with Ted Cruz, Jim Comey reaffirmed testimony he gave to Chuck Grassley three years earlier in 2017 and doubled down on those assertions that he had not leaked to the media about an FBI investigation and he had not authorized a person at the FBI to leak to the media about any investigation

into Trump or Hillary. And I'm just going to play you those testimonials just so we're really clear. All right. First, we're going to go in chronological order here because they're both at issue very much in this case against him. Here he is in 17, 2017. The date was May 3rd, speaking under oath to Senator Chuck Grassley.

Listen.

Director Comey, have you ever been an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation?

Never.

Have you ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation? No. Has any classified information relating to President Trump or his association, associates been declassified or and shared with the media.

Not to my knowledge.

OK, so it's that middle question that is at issue. He very clearly testified. The question was, have you ever been an anonymous? Sorry. Have you ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Hillary investigation?

Answer no. Now, that was May 3rd, 2017, which was just a couple months after the period of June 2015 through February 2017, where his good friend Daniel Richman, who is a Columbia law professor, had been deputized by Comey to act as a special governmental employee at the FBI on Comey's behalf, who he used to both advise him, James Comey, and now we do know to leak to the media. OK, so this testimonial to Grassley was post that, you know, year and a half period where he had been using Daniel

Richman to leak to the media. So it would appear to be a very clear lie. He had been using him. He'd been using him for a year and a half. And the guy had been an employee at the FBI, special governmental employee. And that's what Grassley asked.

Ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about Trump investigation or Hillary So he said that he said in May of 17. No never did then Ted Cruz. It's a little convoluted. Hold on to your armrests there Gets them to double down on it three years later in 2020 September 2020 and the only reason they use the September 2020 exchange with Cruz as the basis for the indictment is because the 17 exchange is barred as time limited. The five year statute of limitations on that lie ran out, but he renewed his lie to Ted

Cruz. It's more convoluted, but it's there. I urge you to listen to this exchange, but pay attention most importantly to the last part of it.

Listen.

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. Now as you know, Mr. McCabe, who works for you, has 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.

Mine is the same today, which is a very good hook for prosecutors to say. Not only did he reaffirm the testimony as of 2017, but he expanded it from 2017 forward to 2020. So both time periods would be covered where James Comey is on the record saying he never authorized someone to leak on his behalf

while at the FBI. Okay, that's clearly his testimony. In any event, there's no doubt he stood by that Grassley testimony, at least through his testimony on May 3rd, 2017. So if he did authorize somebody to leak for him at the FBI prior to May 3rd, 2017. So if he did authorize somebody to leak for him at the FBI

prior to May 3rd, 2017, they've got him. They've got him. And we were speculating when the indictment first came out, who's the indictment even talking about? You heard Ted Cruz there was talking about Andy McCabe who worked for him.

Was that who it was? Or was it somebody else? Was it the Trump investigation? Was it the Hillary? Who knows and now it appears I mean, I don't want to limit them, but it appears that at least We have clear evidence that Comey did use Daniel Richmond who was an employee of the FBI again from June for 2015 through February 2017 to leak to the media about the Hillary Clinton email investigation

Prior to the time he denied it under oath to Chuck Grassley The reason I say that is today in the news is an explosive report from John Solomon based on documents provided by Kash Patel at the FBI that they found at the FBI that show correspondence between James Comey and Daniel Richman, his BFF and employee for that year and a half, making clear Comey wanted Richman to leak and that Richman did then act as an anonymous source to the New York Times and possibly others.

All right. And we'll just go through a couple of them. First, he points out, this is Mike Davis summarizing some of it. Comey had a burner Gmail, which he named himself Reinhold Niebuhr. I don't know who that is,

Victor. You're a historian. Does that name ring a bell to you? Yes, it does. He was a very famous Protestant clergyman, public intellectual in the United States. He was the father of Elizabeth Sifton, the head editor for a while at Alfred Knopf, and at one time my book editor, so it's kind of a coincidence you asked that. But he was very well known as a voice of morality in America. So you-

Oh, so smart.

I love that you knew that. Yeah, sanctimonious Comey would always try to identify with a higher moral authority.

Okay, so there, that's his alias. And he's corresponding with his BFF, Daniel Richman. And okay, I'm going to try to make this clear. It's not that easy. Hold on. First, just to set the scene for the audience again, it was October 28th, 2016, that Comey wrote a letter saying that the FBI

had discovered new emails relevant to the Hillary Clinton use of private email servers. That was just like a few days before the election. That was the fight. Like, in July of 2016, Comey came out and he was like, Hillary sucks. She has a private home brew server. It's very problematic, but we're not going to indict her because we can't meet certain elements of a crime. And Republicans were pissed, like, she should be indicted.

Then October comes around and we're just like a week before the vote now and he says, ah, we found more emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop, who's married to Huma Abedin, who was Hillary's right hand person. And then the Democrats lost their mind saying he's this is election interference by the FBI, which is works for the DOJ days before an election. And Comey's like, I had to tell people, I kind of exonerated her in July. And then just before the election, now I find all these other emails. And look, I felt a moral obligation to tell America, we did find other stuff.

And you can hear him. He's upset because then the left wing press went nuts on him. And the left wing press was important to James James Comey who wanted them to love him and what he's doing is using Daniel Richman to massage the press into thinking Comey was moral like you point out like like this Reinhold Neuber Neuber that he was he did the right thing and he's writing to his BFF here about how, look, you know, I did something noble, saying first first his friend says, do you want me to respond, basically?

And then Comey responds from his burner account. No need. At this point, it would be shouting into the wind. Someday they'll figure it out. And as Jack and Ben point out, my I don't know who that is. My decision will be one a president elect Clinton will be very grateful for, though that wasn't

why I did it. So he's anticipating Hillary is going to win and that ultimately, after she wins, she'll forgive him for doing the October thing. The next day, Daniel Richman sent Comey an email regarding an op eded he'd been asked to write for the New York Times about the Comey letter regarding Hillary's emails. Richman stated he was not inclined to write something, but that he would if Comey thought it would help things to explain that the defendant owed Congress absolute candor and that Comey's

credibility with Congress could be, would be, particularly important in the coming years of threatened congressional investigations. That's when Comey wrote back, no need,, would be particularly important in the coming years of threatened congressional investigations. That's when Comey wrote back, no need. It would be shouting into the wind. Someday they'll figure it out. And Hillary Clinton, president-elect, will be very grateful for me having done this.

Then Comey appears to have reconsidered that view very shortly thereafter, alleges the government. On November 1st, 2016, he emailed Daniel Richman again saying, when I read the times coverage involving reporter one, I'm left with a sense that they don't understand the significance of my having spoken about this case in July. It changes the entire analysis, meaning he's like,

his point is having said something in July about how she should be, she can't be charged. I owed it to the public to update my statements in October when I found the Anthony Weiner laptop. And then he says to Daniel Richman, perhaps you can make him smarter. And he goes on about why he's so noble and this needs to be explained to the press. My inactivity was not an option here. The choices were act to reveal or act to conceal.

Richman responds the next day, stating, this is precisely the case I made to them and thought they understood. I was quite wrong. Indeed, I went further and said mindless allegiance to the policy and recognition that more evidence could come in would have counseled silence in July to have let Hillary twist in the wind. Richman emailed Comey shortly thereafter, writing, I just got the point home to reporter one, who we think was Michael Schmidt of the New York Times, probably

was rougher than you would have been. Then Comey emails Richman shortly thereafter, entitling the message, pretty good, sending a link to the New York Times piece regarding the defendants, Comey's purported options in late October 2016 about the Clinton email investigation. Comey wrote, someone showed some logic. I would paint the cons that I was facing in not disclosing more darkly, but not bad.

So this clearly he says to Richmond here, Victor, perhaps you can make him smarter in writing this piece. Then he writes the piece, and we have the piece, by the way, from the New York Times, where they weigh exactly what Comey had to do, the pros and the cons. And Richmond says, OK, I just got the point home. I was rougher than you would have been. And then Comey forwards him the piece saying someone shows some logic, forwarding the piece to him, with which Richman participated at Comey's behest.

Did you know gold is up around 40% this year? That's not speculation. It's reality. And if a portion of your savings is not diversified into gold, you're missing the boat. Here are the facts.

The US dollar, still too weak. The government debt? Still growing. This is why central banks are flocking to gold. They're the ones driving prices up to record highs. But it's not too late to buy gold from Birch Gold Group and get in the door right now. Birch Gold will help you convert an existing IRA or 401k into a tax-sheltered IRA sheltered IRA in gold. You don't pay a dime out of pocket. Just text MK to 989898 and claim your free info kit. There's no obligation, just useful information.

The best indicator of the future is the past, and gold has historically been a safe haven. So text MK to 989898 right now to claim your free info kit on gold. So text MK to 989898 right now to claim your free info kit on gold. MK to the number 989898. Protect your future today with Birch Gold.