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. Okay, there's a two-page

indictment against him. It's pretty

straightforward. And they allege in the

Eastern District of Virginia that honor

about September 30th, 2020, James Comey

willfully and knowingly lied lied to

Congress, telling a US 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

Grassly 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 we're going to

go in chronological order because

they're both at issue very much in this

case against him. Here he is in 17,

2017.

Uh 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.

>> Okay. So, it's that middle question that

is at issue. He very clearly testified.

Yeah. 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

Richmond, who was a Colombia 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. Okay, so this testimonial to

Grassly was post that you know year and

a half period where he had been using

Daniel Richmond 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

Grassly 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

5-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 a 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

when 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 um while

at the FBI. Okay, that's that's clearly

his testimony. Um, in any event, there's

no doubt he stood by that Grassly

testimony, at least through his

testimony on May 3rd, 2017. They they

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 he talk

who's the indictment even talking about?

You heard, you know, Ted Cruz there was

talking about Andy McCabe who worked for

him. Was 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 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 Cash Patel at

the FBI that they found at the FBI that

show correspondence between James Comey

and Daniel Richmond, his BFF and

employee for that year and a half,

making clear Comey wanted Richmond to

leak and that Richmond did then act as

an anonymous source. 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 uh

this is Mike Davis summarizing some of

it. Comey had a burner Gmail,

which he named himself Reinhold Neber. 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 um clergyman, public

intellectual in the United States. He's

this he was the father of Elizabeth

Sipton the head editor for a while at

Alfred Canoff and at one time my book

editor so it's kind of a coincidence you

asked that but he was very well known

that as a voice of morality in America

>> so you I love that you knew that yeah

sanctimonious Comey would always try to

identify with a higher moral authority

>> okay so there that he that's his alias

and he's corresponding with his BFF

Daniel Richmond and Um,

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 um 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 f

like in July of 2016, Comey came out and

he was like, "Hillary sucks. She has a

private homebrew 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 Amad Abadin who was um 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 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 Comey who wanted them to love him.

And what he's doing is using Daniel

Richmond to massage the press into

thinking Comey was moral like you point

out like like this Reinhold Nubber neber

that he was he did the right thing and

he's writing to his BFF here

um about how look you know I I did

something noble uh saying first first

his friend says do you want me to

respond basically and 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 presidentelect

Clinton will be very grateful for."

Though that wasn't why I did it. So,

he's anticipating Hillary's going to win

and that ultimately after she wins,

she'll forgive him for doing the October

thing. The next day, Daniel Richmond

sent Comey an email regarding an op-ed

he'd been asked to write for the New

York Times about the Comey letter

regarding Hillary's emails. Richmond

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 cander 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. 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

Richmond again saying when I read the

times coverage involving reporter 1 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 this 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 to update my statements in

October when I found the Anthony Weiner

laptop and then he says to Daniel

Richmond perhaps you can make him

smarter and Comey 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 Richmond

respond s 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 counseledled silence

in July to have let Hillary twist in the

wind." Richmond emailed Comey shortly

thereafter, writing, "I just got the

point home to reporter one, who we think

was Michael Schmid of the New York

Times, probably was rougher than you

would have been." Then Comey emails

Richmond 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 with

the pros and the cons. And Richmond

says, "Okay, 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

Richmond 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 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. MK to the number

989898.

Protect your future today with Birch

Gold.

Thanks so much for watching. If you like

what you just saw, hit the subscribe

button for more clips and full episodes.