Comey says new information that Hillary Clinton drummed up Russia controversy to vilify Trump 'doesn't ring a bell' | Fox News
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Former FBI Director James Comey on Wednesday said it didn't "ring a bell" when asked whether he received an investigative referral on Hillary Clinton purportedly approving "a plan" attempting to tie President Donald Trump to Russia and distract from her email scandal before the 2016 election.
During his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, Chairman Lindsey Graham asked Comey about the newly declassified information released Tuesday by Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe.
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION BRIEFED ON CLAIMS HILLARY CLINTON DRUMMED UP RUSSIA CONTROVERSY TO VILIFY TRUMP, DISTRACT FROM EMAILS
According to the declassified information, in September 2016, U.S. intelligence officials forwarded an investigative referral on Clinton purportedly approving "a plan concerning U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections" in order to distract the public from her email scandal. That referral was sent to Comey and Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok.
"You don't remember getting an investigatory lead from the intelligence community? Sept. 7, 2016, U.S. intelligence officials forwarded an investigative referral to James Comey and Strzok regarding Clinton's approval of a plan [about] Trump…as a means of distraction?" Graham asked Comey Wednesday.
"That doesn't ring any bells with me," Comey replied.
"That's a pretty stunning thing that it doesn't ring a bell," Graham fired back. "You get this inquiry from the intelligence community to look at the Clinton campaign trying to create a distraction, accusing Trump of being a Russian agent or a Russian stooge."
Graham questioned "how far-fetched is that," citing the fact that Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, through law firm Perkins Coie, hired Fusion GPS and ex-British intelligence officer Christopher Steele to author and compile information for the controversial and unverified anti-Trump dossier.
The dossier contains claims about alleged ties between Donald Trump and Russia that served as the basis for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants obtained against former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.
"A bunch of crap to be used against an American citizen," Graham said. "You don't recall this?"
Comey replied: "It doesn't sound familiar."
Asked later, by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., on the matter, Comey said: "I don't know what the director is doing."
Graham's line of questioning came after Ratcliffe informed the committee Tuesday that the Obama administration obtained Russian intelligence in July 2016 with allegations against Clinton, but cautioned that the intelligence community "does not know the accuracy of this allegation or the text to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication."
Ratcliffe, in the letter sent to the committee, did not offer specifics on the intelligence, but did reveal that former CIA Director John Brennan's handwritten notes show that he briefed former President Obama on the information.
According to Ratcliffe's letter, the intelligence included the "alleged approval by Hillary Clinton on July 26, 2016 of a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisors to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services."
SOURCE OF STEELE DOSSIER WAS INVESTIGATED BY FBI FOR RUSSIAN CONTACTS
Nick Merrill, Clinton's spokesperson, called the allegations "baseless b———t."
"This is Russian disinformation," tweeted Rachel Cohen, spokeswoman for Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Mark Warner, D-Va., adding that it was "laundered by the Director Of National Intelligence and Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee."
"This is extraordinary," she tweeted.
But Ratcliffe, in a statement released after the information was made public, pushed back on the idea he was advancing "Russian disinformation."
"To be clear, this is not Russian disinformation and has not been assessed as such by the Intelligence Community," Ratcliffe said in a statement to Fox News. "I'll be briefing Congress on the sensitive sources and methods by which it was obtained in the coming days."
Graham, of South Carolina, said he would review the information, noting that Ratcliffe would make it available in a classified setting.
"This latest information provided by DNI Ratcliffe shows there may have been a double standard by the FBI regarding allegations against the Clinton campaign and Russia," Graham said.
The new information will likely add to criticisms from Republicans and those close to the president about the Russia investigation.
Attorney General Barr last year appointed U.S. Attorney of Connecticut John Durham to investigate the origins of the FBI's Russia probe shortly after special counsel Robert Mueller completed his years-long investigation into whether the campaign colluded with the Russians to influence the 2016 presidential election.
It is unclear whether this information will be considered part of Durham's investigation.
Brooke Singman is a Politics Reporter for Fox News.
Tags
Who is online
470 visitors
Comey: Nothing to see here, folks, I don't even recall ever hearing anything about this!
NO, folks, NOT AN ACTUAL QUOTE.
I would not trust Comey to walk my dog!
That shows a degree of sanity I fear is lacking in those who do trust him.
The man has been struck dumb by the pesky truth!
Last I heard, your abuela Hillary isn't running for President.
Oh, she never intended to be MY Abuela, that was aimed at the Hispanics she was pandering to, but it is encouraging that you know she isn't running this election!
Comey appears to have early onset dementia. Can’t remember anything he did just a few years ago. Sad to hear.
Must be a rare form of it, as he vividly remembers other stuff that happened around the same time or earlier.
Pretty selective!
At least his dementia appears to be not as bad as Trumps who couldn't remember what he did just weeks before when he told the Mueller investigators "I do not recall" 37 times...
Wow, nice deflection!!
Reminds me of George H W Bush during the Iran Contra hearings, "I have no clear recollection of those events.".
No wonder the damn gop is losing so badly. They are still rerunning the last election against the wrong candidates. Biden is not Clinton and this isn't 2016.
They're so desperate.
Stay on topic, please.
So the real topic is here is republican deflection to ..... But Hillary!!!!
The deflection is from:
How many times was Benghazi reviewed by republicans with nothing to show for it? This is the same shit, different day.
Stay on topic, please.
Benghazi?
Really?
Sad to see what passes as "on topic" in THAT comment.
It was a real event.
Unlike the piece of shit Steele Dossier, which was completely fake.
This isn't about the election. It is about corrupt FBI leaders doing favors for the Democrats.
Stay on topic, please.
What favor did Comey do for Hillary?
Pretty desperate to think he did.
Well, let's just think about that for a minute.
Hmmm....Comey gets a referral involving two candidates for President............and does absolutely nothing?
Ha!
[deleted]
Pretty desperate.
Downright ignorant.
Downright desperate.
Anything imaginable just so he wouldn't commit suicide by gunshot to the back of his head.
Amazing and completely unbelievable that Comey could receive a referral about this matter and not even recall it AT ALL.
Does that really sound plausible to anyone with a brain, especially on WHO the referral was for and the circumstances it was for?
I call bullshit on that, Comey.
You may fool some lemmings with that crap, but not anyone with a brain.
Well gee Tex, if Graham wanted to help Comey recollect the referral that Ratcliffe claims exists, all he had to do was enter a copy of the fucking thing into the record, hand a copy to Comey and THEN ask him about it.
Yet that didn't happen since it's pretty clear that neither Ratcliffe or Graham have any documentation that a fucking referral was made.
You mean the 'alleged' referral from an anonymous person right Tex?
I call bullshit on your seed Tex.
You may be able to gaslight some of the Trump sycophants with the crap in this seed but NOT anyone with a brain.
I promise I won't force you to stay here then.
No worries Tex. I'll stay voluntarily.
So let's see some proof of this referral Tex? Got a link to a copy of it? Know who made the referral? Date? Anything at all?
Oh and by the fucking way, this is what you're decrying:
If you insist THAT should be investigated by the FBI, what say you about the Trump campaign trying to create a distraction, accusing Biden and his son of corruption in Ukraine?
I await your outrage.../s
Sometimes it just pays to actually read the article before posting.
This is one of those times.
I already did. I think this is the best part:
In short, Ratcliffe has NOTHING.
Right. I'm sure you will keep right on thinking that, too, no matter what.
I don't 'think' it Tex, I KNOW it based on the quote I posted AND the fact that you haven't been capable of supporting the allegations in your seed with even one iota of evidence, even though you've had a day to do so.
Either you're unable to find any evidence or you haven't bothered to do so.
That alone tells me that YOU will keep right on acquiescing to the gaslighting in your seed, no matter what.
Gaslighting = deflection.
A popular republican tactic in the Trump era.....'caus they got no game!
Lots of people insist they know things which simply aren't true.
This certainly qualifies.
Stay on topic please.
I'm just talking about what YOU think YOU know and based on your inability to support your claim or the allegations in your seed I know that it's all unfounded.
You've had every opportunity to supply evidence but instead you've deflected.
Again, based on your seed, which is the ONLY information on the table, there is NO evidence of anything you our your seed alleges.
I'd love to see some ACTUAL, real proof for your scurrilous claim.
You don't happen to actually HAVE any, do you?
It is in the article, read it or not, I don't care.
Your seed is just allegation and innuendo. There isn't one iota of empirical evidence.
Again, I READ the article. I asked you to support your claims and the allegations in your seed and you failed. I'm still more than willing to read that evidence but I tire of your obtuse deflection.
Now THAT'S obvious and begs the question: Why post a seed that you have no interest in discussing or supporting?
So you say, so you say.
I note you claim that.
I will not be RSVPing to the circle jerk.
I look at it this way:
When one is reduced to personal attacks, it usually correlates to how weak the argument is.
Really Suz? Did you notice that Texan is the seeder of this article? Do you know that the seeder can flag a comment as off topic?
As for 'harassment', note that ALL of my comments are still posted. Which either means they were not flagged as 'harassment' or that the moderators don't think it's 'harassment'.
You've a right to your opinion, for what it's worth...
Again, It may behoove you to review the fucking CoC around here.
If you think my comment is an attack, flag the fucking thing but keep you admonitions to yourself.
Cheers.
Did you flag my comment Texan?
If not, WHY are you whining about it?
If so, the mods don't agree with you.
Cry me a river.
Weak arguments don't warrant flagging. Thought you understood the C of C better than that. My mistake, I shouldn't have assumed you knew it.
[deleted]
So now it's a 'weak argument' not a 'personal attack"? Got ya.
Either way, STOP whining about a comment you didn't flag. THAT'S in the CoC you pretend to understand.
[deleted]
Oh please DO tell me how I am trying to control others. How about you block quote my 'controlling' comments. THIS I gotta see...
Oh BTFW, doesn't your comment imply that YOU trying to control ME?
Not being one to try and control others, I suggest you use whatever fucking word you want.
Note that it doesn't matter since trolling is also a reason to flag a comment while refraining from trying to moderate a member yourself. READ the CoC.
The fucking point would be to follow the CoC that you agreed to as a member.
I could NOT care less whether you stop or not.
Now, IMHO, this has become META and though I'm not trying to keep you from posting more whinny comments here, I suggest you take this there...
"You may fool some lemmings with that crap, but not anyone with a brain."
[deleted]
Nope, you've got that backwards, as usual. Comey didn't do any democrats, much less Hillary, any favors whatsoever.
"There are none so blind as those who refuse to see."
That's so profound!
No, not really.
Just a little common sense.
I see no evidence of that either.
Shocking.
[deleted]
Last warning, Stay on topic or leave.
What exactly in my perfectly accurate and true statement did you not understand?
That’s for darn sure!
Lol ...... "doesn't ring a bell?"
Hilarious!
No wonder Hillary lost...what with all that incompetent help
How can anyone believe Comey after that fiasco?
How can anyone give any credibility to your seeds after this fiasco?
Stay on topic or leave.
No surprise that those who believe Comey also think Biden is the better choice to run the country.
Tempest in a teapot?
Bill Barr has been accused of a lot of favoritism towards Mr Trump.
and yet the DOJ sits on lots of referrals, many of which are produced by Devin Nunez and simply, apparently ignored.
Current referrals
James Comey
HRC
Rod Rosenstein
Andrew McCabe
Glenn Simpson
Christopher Steele
Nunes has sent 14 referrals altogether, primarily all Obama Admin types accused of lying or misleading Congress but refuses to name them.
Please stay on topic.
Thanks.
Let's see,
the seed is about criminal referrals and the DOJ, Jim Comey, Christopher Steele, Hillary Clinton etc.
I am certain they are all on topic,
Thanks.
At times, people "know" things which aren't true.
Looks like you consider this to be on topic, too, so obviously your "view" of what is on topic is certainly different than mine.
Not my comment. Try again?
I didn't claim it was your comment, Read what I wrote, please.
"Looks like you consider this to be on topic, too, so obviously your "view" of what is on topic is certainly different than mine."
I have read what you wrote.
It's not my quote that you block quoted to make it appear to be my comment. Period.
Don't beat around the bush Texan1211, say what you mean.
In short, META.
i have already stated it wasn't your comment, so why keep beating that horse?
Thanks for your permission and encouragement, but I already did. Thanks!
Still unsure why you have me confused with JBB's comment from yesterday.
Perhaps you can elaborate?
No confusion on my part at all.
I have already stated this:
and this:
so perhaps the confusion is on your end.
Apparently so neighbor.
Well I don't know what my opinion on that comment matters,
but it is more than evident to many that your laser focused opinion of what constitutes "on topic"
needs a much wider angle lens.
Yeah, I don't need anyone to agree with me. If I cared about their opinions, I would ask for them.
And what is considered on or off topic is highly subjective, not objective.
Agree to disagree.
Have a nice weekend.
but feel free to have the last word
Truly, shocking.
Thanks again for your vaunted permission. I can rest easy taking the last word now.
Adios.
That’s especially true!
That’s so very true!