James Comey INDICTED… But What Exactly Was He Indicted For? W/ Aronberg, Mike Davis, John Solomon

James Comey INDICTED… But What Exactly Was He Indicted For? W/ Aronberg, Mike Davis, John Solomon

I’m gonna start with you, Mike Davis, because you I think you’re closer than anybody here to the administration. What has Jim Comey been indicted for? Uh well, thank you for having me on. Uh John’s also very close, but I would say this that uh Jim Comey was indicted because he lied to Congress. Uh so 18 USC 10001 false statements and then he obstructed a congressional proceeding or investigation. So, it’s uh pretty clear-cut that he did both of those things. He had a uh there was a grand jury that found probable cause that both of those things happened. And so, that’s why Jim Comey, the former FBI director, is facing indictment. I I will say that I I shouldn’t take glee in someone being indicted, but I do. I’ll be honest with you. Jim James Comey is a scumbag. He made up the Russian collusion hoax, the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. He set up uh General uh General Flynn as the incoming national security adviser. Uh this guy is a sabotur of the uh dulyeleed president of the United States and uh he can go to prison and he and he can also go to hell. Yeah, I I appreciate your cander. I really do. Honestly, I’m feeling the same. I have absolutely no empathy for James Comey. He’s seems like a genuinely bad guy. To me, it seems like he committed multiple crimes that he got away with because the statute of limitations expired. Um, and now our only question today is to figure out whether these are viable and valid and whether he’ll and or whether he’ll be able to get them dismissed uh for whatever reason and we can go through them. All right. So, I didn’t get the answer the actual answer. I’m going to try with John on. Okay. I get that those are the legal claims. You know, I get it. There are two counts against him. What were the lies? because I like you guys have read the two-page indictment and it’s very thin. It does not tell us what is the perjury. I mean, it says um okay, he testified during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that he had not authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports. Um, okay. He had not authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports regarding an FBI investigation concerning person one. We don’t know who that is. Okay. Then they say that was false because he had he had done that. Now what’s not in here, John, is what what what are they talking about? What who did he authorize to be an anonymous source and what news reports? Do we know? Uh we don’t yet. I mean, I we think we think it involves an October 2016 leak to the Wall Street Journal about the Hillary Clinton uh investigation. And there are two people that have come forward. We have their documents. We’ve made them public that say that uh that James Comey authorized them to leak to the news media. One of them is Andy McCabe. Andy McCabe has a credibility issue. He’s a guy that uh was found himself to have lied uh in an inspector general report, but he was a deputy director in the inner circle of James Comey’s uh team. And then the second is James Baker uh a highly respected general counsel at the FBI. He has not been indicted or accused of any wrongdoing. Uh and he said, “Listen, I’m just going to be straight with you guys. When he was interviewed by the Postal Inspection Service, they brought them in as an independent agency when they were looking at leaking during the Comey errors. Hey, James Comey asked me to leak. And he not only asked me to leak, he asked me to leak uh classified information. And that instruction came through his chief of staff, James Rabiki. So, both men claimed that they were authorized to leak in this time frame around the October 2016 Wall Street Journal article. Now, I will agree with you, Megan. This is the thinnest word it do uh indictment I have ever seen as a reporter. It is so lean. I I was looking for an introduction. Didn’t even get that. Um, we will get some shot up with a zmpic. That is how lean it is. Exactly. It is that lean. Uh, we’re going to get more details next uh week. I think there’ll be some uh either an FBI affidavit in support of it uh or when the uh and then when the uh arraignment comes, we’ll get a little bit more detail. But I was shocked by the leanness. Based on the documents we have, we believe it involves that Wall Street Journal article in October 2016. Okay. Before we move on from that point, you said, “Okay, possibly he leaked to Andy McCabe, who was his deputy at the FBI, and possibly to James Baker, who worked for him at the FBI at the time.” Ask them to leak. Ask them to leak. Yeah. Sorry. Sorry. Ask them to leak um while they were all FBI employees. Now, the Andy McCabe leak that you’re referencing, is that the one that Andy McCabe already got reamed by the DOJ inspector general for? Because there there was a difference of opinion. Andy McCabe leaked to the journal and then he came out and said, “I did it, but Comey kind of authorized it after the fact. I I told Comey about it and he he authorized it, not before the fact.” Um, but then the inspector general just laid into Comey and the inspector general certainly seemed to think that that laid into McCabe seemed to think that Mabe was the liar because Comey was like, “I didn’t authorize it.” McCabe was like, “He did though it was after the fact.” And it seemed like the inspector general was like, “Mabe is the liar.” And I’m actually thinking he should he might potentially need to get prosecuted for lying. It didn’t happen. So is that the possible McCabe leak that you and I are talking about right now? Yeah, listen. They’re all talking about the same story and who leaked when what and who approved what when. What’s most important in this chain of events, the one clearest um direction to leak, one that doesn’t have the muddled up um uh analysis of the inspector general or the problems of Andy McCabe’s own credibility is what James Baker said. James Baker is unequivocal in his interview with the Postal Inspection Service. We put that document out. You were kind enough to have me on your show. We talked about it then. I think it’s a really important uh document. It is a claim by a member of uh the Comey inner circle that he was instructed in advance to leak something and that what he leaked was classified information and that that instruction came from James Comey through the chief of staff. So if you’re the United States Justice Department when you bring this case you’re going to have to bring in James or Bicki um uh James Baker and Andy McCabe and you’re going to have to synchronize their stories. Ripiki is the chief of staff who uh allegedly gave the instruction from Comey to there. Now, we also know that there are some emails and text messages and I would not be surprised that in the next version of this indictment or in the next affidavit from the FBI agent that we get a little bit more flesh on the bone. Uh but there’s a lot to still be answered here and I think that our suspicions are well founded. We need to get more data than we got in the original indictment. Is the James Baker leak what you and I discussed that was in the Durham annex that had been kept hidden from us and just got released in the latest tranch or where where did that come from? The the the Baker leak is actually in a timeline that Cash Patel found buried in a system in the FBI and it’s a a a timeline of all the leak investigations that occurred in the Comey Ray era. And in there there were some remarkable claims. And when they first got released by the Trump Justice Department, ironically, the Trump Justice Department redacted the most important piece of information, this story by James Baker. We appealed to the Justice Department and Pam Bonnie intervened and got it unredacted and that’s when we got this piece. So, it’s a timeline that someone in the FBI decided to write. When you look at it, it looks a little bit like a CIA timeline like, “Hey, if anyone ever asked, I want you to let you know what really went on with these leak investigations.” And in the middle of that timeline is this extraordinary story which we have corroborated independent of the timeline that Baker gave this testimony and he stands by that testimony to this very day. That’s not good for Comey, but I’m sure it was like finding a pot of gold for the the Trump DOJ which suspected Comey was a bad guy and that there would be proof of some potential crime and I think may have stumbled upon it. So, long story short, Mike, before I go to Dave, don’t believe the mainstream media that this is a and we’ll get to the political motivation, all that, but like that that on the merits, this is a baloney case. This actually could have real substance if you have James Baker saying Jim Comey through his intermediary told me to leak and I did leak on that direction and Jim Comey under oath, it’s on camera saying no, I didn’t. Yeah. I mean, look, you’re looking at the grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia, which is filled with Democrats and government workers right across the PTOAC River from the grand jury in DC that refuses to indict violent criminals. And so, there is definitely probable cause to move forward with these indictments if the grand jury found that there was probable cause. This is not some Southern District of Texas grand jury. again, Eastern District of Virginia. Okay. Now, Dave, here we go to you. What? Jim Comey uh hired Patrick Fitzgerald, a former federal prosecutor, the guy who went after Scooter Libby, among others. And um he’s sort of known as a Joe Friday kind of lawyer. It depends on who you ask, but uh he he knows his way around a federal courthouse, that’s for sure. He put out a very slim two-line statement saying he’s we look forward to his complete vindication in court. And then you got the the weepy sort of soft voice Jim Comey long like I’m innocent and don’t get downed on your knees and the vote like your government and your country depend on ah the selfserving sanctimonious Comey act. I don’t know if I have it in me to play it. We did it on am update. But let’s say you’re talking to Pat Fitzgerald and the two of you are chatting about how you’re going to go after this. And again we’re talking about legal merits. Now, we’ll get to whether this is politically motivated, unless you think that’s relevant to how you’ll go after it. What do you say? Well, Megan, you asked the right question from the beginning. We don’t know what the leak was, and that’s crucial here. Okay. Aside from their strategy, which will be focused on vindictive prosecution and selective prosecution, so it never gets to a jury. We still need to know what was the leak. What was the article? And for that, I would like to ask John Solomon because then I have a response to that. What was the article that James Baker allegedly leaked? It it was a consequential story that a lot of people believe, at least Hillary Clinton believes swung the election. There’s an irony in this that he’s being prosecuted for leaking a story that may have been damaging to Hillary Clinton. It was about what was going on in the Hillary Clinton email case in the Anthony Weiner laptop and what went on in that period of time. Isn’t it an irony that uh the uh that what may ultimately be if this turns out to be the article again the indictment is so thin we don’t know what article they were speaking about but just to clarify and I’ll give it back you in a day in a second day but that just to clarify so that article was one if I memory serves in which the FBI outed that it had it was having a war with the DOJ about what to do about Hillary and all those emails. That’s right. That’s right. And then there’s a piece of classified information that’s disclosed. Okay. Okay. Go ahead, Dave. If it’s about Hillary Clinton and Andrew McCabe, Megan, you’re correct. The inspector general found that it was Andrew McCabe was the one who could not be trusted. Lack cander and that he said after the fact he told Comey that he had leaked this stuff and Comey shrugged. It was not an authorization. Authorization has to be done beforehand, not afterwards. Right. But then John Solomon correctly brings up James Baker, which is separate because McCabe has his own issues here. Baker did uh come clean and say there was a leak. But here’s the thing. The it looks like according to the documents that are involved here, which we’re all basing it after. The article that James Baker led to that he leaked for was not a Hillary Clinton article, but something totally different. Because if you look at the documents, it says that this article appeared in October 2016, that it was sourced to two government officials. It contained classified information and involved, of course, the the uh the FBI. There’s only one news article that meets that criteria according to the New York Times, uh if you do a search, and it’s an article about Yahoo uh aiding the US email surveillance by adapting a spam filter, not the Hillary Clinton stuff, right? So if that’s the case, right, and if John agrees, if that’s the case, then there is no lie. That’s right. Because you remember what the question was by Cruz, it had tool the Clinton, right? Exactly. Yeah, that’s exactly right. Cruz teed up when he was getting Comey on the record because just for the audience at home, because I know this is a lot to follow. Comey was under oath in 17 uh and Chuck Grassley of Iowa asked him, a Republican, did have you leaked and have you authorized anybody to leak? And he said no and no. Well, if we can’t get him on those charges because that’s a long time ago and you have to it’s only five year statute of limitations. But in 2020, they had another shot at Comey and Ted Cruz brought up the Grassly testimony and said, “Do you stand by all that?” Because by the way, Andrew McCabe suggests you did tell him to leak. But in any event, do you stand by that earlier testimony to Chuck Grassley? And Comey said, “Yes, but it was specifically about did you leak about the Hillary investigation the FBI was doing or the Trump administration? Here’s the Ted Cruz exchange that, you know, we believe has led to this indictment. We we’re pretty sure the Ted Cruz exch exchange is the basis of the indictment. We’re just not sure exactly which leak or article he’s talking about here. On May 3rd, 2017 in this committee, Chairman Grassly 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 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. Okay. So, just to go back to John Solomon for a second, what’s your response to Dave’s point that the only thing he thinks James Baker was involved in leaking is about a Yahoo article. We we don’t know which one the classifier. We still don’t know what James Baker leaked. We know it’s in the same time frame as the article of that. We know it’s the same time frame where they’re asking Mabe. What uh I think is problematic for the prosecution there is that Ted Cruz’s question goes two different ways. when he starts it, it’s uh did you ever leak about the Trump administration or Trump investigation in Clinton? And he ends it, do you asking did you ever leak at all or authorize anyone to leak at all? That’s going to be an ambiguous uh if they’re resting the case on that second followup on Ted Cruz, which we don’t know yet because we have so little information. A juryy’s going to say, “Man, we are really starting to split hairs here on what you’re trying to pin Comey down.” Uh, I think one of our problems right now to judge the strength of this indictment is we need to know exactly what the grand jury made the decision on. Grand juries are pretty perceptive. Uh, they sometimes have lawyers on them, which is a good thing. Uh, there has to be something more than what we’re able to speculate on here for the grand jury to make that decision, but we’re flying blind. And I think that David is got some really great points. I I have wondered for the last 24 hours. I can’t tell exactly what they’ve indicted Comey for specifically. I know what they’ve indicted him in legal charges, but it’s been very difficult to understand what the actual transmission of information is. Did you know gold is up around 40% this year? 40. That’s not speculation. That is reality. And if a portion of your savings is not diversified into gold, you could be missing the boat. Here are the facts. Inflation is still high. The US dollar is still weak. And government debt is still growing. This is why central banks are flocking to gold. They’re the ones driving prices up to record high to record highs. But it’s not too late for you to buy gold. You’re not too late to get in on this from Birch Gold Group and to get in the door now. Birch Gold will help you convert an existing IRA or 401k into a tax sheltered IRA in gold. You can do it in whole or in part. You don’t pay one 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 for decades. So text MK to 989898 right now to claim your free info kit on gold. That’s MK to 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.

Megyn Kelly is joined by MK True Crime contributor Dave Aronberg, Mike Davis of The Article III Project, and John Solomon of “Just the News,” to discuss the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey on two felony counts, the allegation that he leaked information and obstructed a congressional investigation, the questions about specifically he’s being accused of, and more.

Birch Gold: Text MK to 989898 and get your free info kit on gold

LIKE & SUBSCRIBE for new videos everyday: https://bit.ly/3Aw93yw

Watch full clips of The Megyn Kelly Show here: https://bit.ly/3xFXNxI

Sign up for my ‘American News Minute’ weekly email: https://www.megynkelly.com

Tune in live on SiriusXM at 12-2pmET: SiriusXM.us/TheMegynKellyShow

Find the full audio show wherever you get your podcasts:
Apple — https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-megyn-kelly-show/id1532976305
Spotify — https://open.spotify.com/show/0awxEJH88Xur0GHXuteBLw?si=0EcxxHSLQhO2uYmpUN13KQ&dl_branch=1

Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms:
Twitter — https://twitter.com/MegynKellyShow
Instagram — https://www.instagram.com/megynkellyshow/
Facebook — https://www.facebook.com/MegynKellyShow

Connect with me on social media:
Twitter — https://twitter.com/megynkelly
Instagram — https://www.instagram.com/megynkelly/
Facebook — https://www.facebook.com/MegynKelly