The disgraced former director of the FBI, Leakin’ James Comey, took to Twitter to encourage Americans to support the Party that less than two years ago was calling for his head on a platter. Immediately following the Hillary Clinton’s election loss, Democrats were calling for Comey’s firing. That was before they understood that together, with Barack Obama’s crooked AG Loretta Lynch, James Comey was actually working to help Hillary Clinton avoid the appearance of being under “investigation”.

Comey tweeted: This Republican Congress has proven incapable of fulfilling the Founders’ design that “Ambition must … counteract ambition.” All who believe in this country’s values must vote for Democrats this fall. Policy differences don’t matter right now. History has its eyes on us.

Here’s how Twitter users responded…

Our good friend Tanya Grimsley nailed it with her response to Comey: Worth noting that James is currently under investigation for lying and leaking classified information. Under the legal standards of The Resistance, he clearly just obstructed justice by electioneering on behalf of officials who might shut those investigations down.

Trending: Mike Lindell’s NEW Free-Speech “Frank” Reaches ONE BILLION Views In Less Than 48 Hours!

Twitter user Jesse Kelly accuses James Comey of stating the obvious: When you come out as a Democrat but don’t realize everyone already knew that anyway.

Immigrant Marcia Cox responded to Comey’s tweet: I’m an immigrant woman. I used to be a democrat in my country of origin. Changed to independent here. Have been voting republican. Trump is shaking D.C. You are under investigation. We should do exactly the opposite of what you suggest. Are you getting WORRIED? DRAIN THE SWAMP!

Before putting too much stock in James “Leaker” Comey’s endorsement of the Democrat Party, every American should read ACLJ’s Jay Sekulow’s brutal assessment of the crimes, corruption and congressional deceptions of the disgraced former FBI director.

Jay Sekulow – I’ve said it before, and I’ll say again: fired FBI Director James Comey “has broken the sacred trust of the American people.” Comey was hired to lead the FBI to protect the American people. Instead, he chose to lie, interfere in the democratic process, and break the law.

Though fired for his failures, the former director’s misdeeds are still being dragged from the shadows of the deep state and deserve to be investigated. We have been suspicious of Comey and his “investigation” of Hillary Clinton from the beginning. Now, as more information comes to light, more questions are raised.

Just days ago, news broke that Comey drafted a statement exonerating Hilary Clinton of any wrongdoing in the email investigation three months before interviewing her or sixteen other key witnesses in the case. So much for an “investigation.” An investigation finds the facts and then comes to a conclusion. Comey made his determination, then collected the facts. That is not how criminal investigations work.

The reality is there was not an actual investigation. It was fake, a fraud on the American people. Worse yet, Comey used his position of power to toy with the democratic process during a crucial election.

Here is just a brief timeline of Comey’s incessant meddling: On June 27, 2016, Bill Clinton met with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the tarmac. On July 1, 2016, Lynch said she would take the recommendations of law enforcement officials. On July 5, 2016, Comey announced he would not recommend charges against Hilary Clinton. On July 6, 2016, AG Lynch accepted that recommendation. On October 28, 2016, Comey informs Congress the FBI is reopening the case. On November 6, 2016, two days before the election, Comey closes the case again, telling Congress there is nothing new.

But then it gets even more nefarious when you consider this: If Comey had already concluded in April or May of 2016 that there was no basis to charge Clinton, then why drag it out? It makes the timing of his public pronouncement exonerating Clinton a mere ten days after Obama’s Attorney General was embroiled in a public collusion scandal over the investigation all the more suspect.  And then he again reopens and quickly closes the investigation just days before the presidential election. Was he just trying to look like he was conducting a real investigation?

It sure appears that way. This is an unprecedented interference by an FBI Director. Comey manipulated the American people. It’s staggering corruption.

This is further evidence by the fact that instead of looking for facts, Comey’s FBI aided in their destruction. Instead of investigating Clinton’s cronies, Comey’s FBI was handing out immunity to top Clinton aides. Even worse, these immunity deals came with sweetheart terms: the aides can destroy evidence and limit the investigation to emails before January 2015, effectively covering up the cover-up. These deals also effectively prevented Congress from conducting its own investigation, thwarting subpoenas.

Comey couldn’t even give Congress an honest, straight answer about the number of emails involved in the investigation, having to return more than once to explain his blatantly misleading testimony.

Further, Comey rewrote the law. On July 5, 2016, Comey declared that “no reasonable prosecutor would bring” a case against Clinton in this matter. His reasoning was that the evidence did show she had the required criminal intent. Yet, the relevant statute (18 U.S.C. § 793(f)) “does not have an intent requirement.” In other words, Comey created an entirely new criminal statute out of whole cloth and then exonerated Clinton from his own created legal analysis.

Simply put, that’s lawlessness.

As we have said for over a year now, Comey’s “investigation” of Clinton was a sham. The Obama Administration was never going to bring charges against Clinton.

In fact, Comey’s FBI tried to help cover up the cover-up, directly lying to the ACLJ when we submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the then Comey-led FBI asking for any details it had about the secret Clinton-Lynch tarmac meeting that called the entire investigation into question.

Now we know why. There was no investigation.

However, Comey’s corruption does not end with a failed, fake investigation. Comey admitted, under oath, before the Senate Judiciary Committee to intentionally leaking privileged communications he had with President Trump to a friend for the express purpose of influencing the appointment of a Special Counsel. As we’ve explained before, this in and of itself could be a criminal act in violation 18 U.S.C. § 641, which prohibits improper disclosure of government records.

Meanwhile, Judicial Watch continues their fight to expose the emails James Comey’s FBI reviewed.

Today, Judicial Watch announced that it is fighting the State Department for a full production of records responsive to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit for the emails found by the FBI on Anthony Weiner’s laptop. According to then-FBI Director James Comey, Weiner’s laptop contained “hundreds of thousands” of emails of former Secretary Clinton.

Weiner is an ex-Congressman and the incarcerated husband of former Clinton top aide Huma Abedin. He was convicted of having sexually explicit communications with teenage girls. In October 2016, FBI investigators from its New York field office discovered Abedin’s emails on Weiner’s laptop, including data indicating the emails went through Clinton’s “private” non-“” email system.

The court filing comes in May 2015 lawsuit Judicial Watch filed against the State Department (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00684)). Judicial Watch sued after the State Department failed to respond to a March 2015 FOIA request seeking:

In fighting the State Department’s effort to close the case, Judicial Watch refers to the State Department claim that only 3,000 of those “hundreds of thousands” are agency records and 147 total emails were unique agency records. Judicial Watch argues that the State Department has not released information on the total number of emails that they reviewed, how they reviewed them, how many emails were personal and not agency records and how the agency would have made those determinations.

Again, all we know is that the FBI provided an unspecified number of emails to [the State Department], that [the State Department] reviewed the emails, and that [the State Department] identified 3,000 emails that contained evidence of [the State Department’s] activities. [The State Department] has not even attempted to explain the discrepancy between the “hundreds of thousands” of emails identified by ex-Director Comey and the mere 3,000 emails identified by [the State Department]. At this late point in the Secretary Clinton email saga, [the State Department] should not get the benefit of the doubt.

Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.