Former FBI Director James Comey is appearing in court on Wednesday for a dramatic arraignment on charges of making false statements and obstructing a congressional investigation.
James Comey is appearing as a defendant in a court where he previously brought cases as FBI Director
According to an indictment brought by Lindsey Halligan, the recently appointed U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Comey faces two counts.
The first is ‘making false statements within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch of the United States Government.’
It is alleged that on September 30, 2020 he ‘willfully and knowingly made a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement’ while testifying to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The statement was that he had not ‘authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports regarding an FBI investigation concerning PERSON 1.’
Prosecutors allege that, contrary to that statement, he did authorize someone else to ‘serve as an anonymous source in news reports.’
‘PERSON 1’ in the indictment is believed to be Hillary Clinton, with Comey’s statement relating to an investigation into her private email server.
In the second count, Comey is charged with obstruction of a Congressional proceeding.
It is alleged he ‘did corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede ‘ a Senate Judiciary Committee investigation by ‘making false and misleading statements.’
If convicted Comey faces up to five years in prison, although actual sentences for similar crimes are typically less than the maximum.
The indictment against him has been brought by Lindsey Halligan, the new U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia
I like the way she speaks directly and definitely without resorting to weak rhetorical questions with obvious answers which often sound feeble or supplicating.
A strong tone can be spoken gently and convey meaning and purpose with great clarity while leaving zero doubt about what the issue is or what the speaker wants.
This is the way we should all speak about the decline of Western civilization and its peoples. ABN
I’ve watched Tucker Carlson’s docu The 9/11 Files released today! Ep 1 to 3 assume that Al-Qaeda Hijackers did 9/11 (but CIA, Saudis, blahblah)! Ep 4 does get into controlled demolition, WTC7, put options. It also mentions the dancing Israelis and the Hollywood, Fl. connection, but only to suggest that Israel had foreknowledge (of Al-Qaeda’s attack) which they didn’t share, but they apologized for it. No mention of Silverstein or Chertoff, of course. But Bush, CIA, Bush, CIA, Saudis, Bush, CIA… In other words: LIMITED HANGOUT. Funnily, at the beginning of Ep 4, Carlson tells us that conspiracy theories are fabricated by the Deep State to prevent an actual investigation. Confusing!
Although there are a few interesting bits (which any limited hangout must have), the general impression that the viewer is led to is that:
1. Al-Qaeda did 9/11,
2. Al-Qaeda was helped by CIA,
3. CIA had some foreknowledge,
4. We don’t know much (so many questions, so few answers), and we won’t until we have a new government commission.
5. and the main conclusion in Ep. 5: “despite the CIA’s previously unknown role in recruiting the hijackers, and the extent of their stonewalling to the 9/11 Commission, the CIA was, on net, maybe the biggest winner from 9/11″.
I believe most people in the world are all but forced to resort to ulterior motives when dealing with others or being dealt with by them.
Furthermore, I believe most people are in this position so often they don’t just resort to hidden motivations, they expect them, are habituated to them, rely on them, and even enjoy them even though they cause immense suffering.
This situation arises due to fundamentally bad communication and the mistrust and uncertainty that devolve from it.
If communication is fundamentally bad (ambiguous, misleading, can’t be cleared up), there is no one you can trust but yourself. No one else you can rely on.
You are all but forced to conceal what your really think, feel, or want because you probably won’t be understood if you try to explain yourself honestly. Worse, you may get played.
Your interlocutor may genuinely misunderstand and cause you harm due to their wrong interpretation of what you said or meant. Or they may feign interest and honesty when they are just gathering dirt to use against you.
Can anyone deny this happens very often? And that normal people have no recourse but to play that game?
An ulterior motive is one that is concealed. A motive that is different from what is being communicated. We all know what that means and how destructive it can be.
Ulterior motives arise because we do not use our communication systems (mainly speech and listening) at all well. Instead of communicating honestly, we try to “read” the other person while at the same time calculating to what extent or how they are “reading” us.
This is a disgusting situation for people to have put themselves in.
This problem can be fixed with one other person, so you can have at least one friend who does not do this to you and to whom you do not do it either. That makes two people who can escape the deadening, anti-life maze of ulterior motivation madness.
The way to do it is through FIML. I do not believe there is any other way.
If many people do FIML, eventually many of us will see the problems of bad communication clearly. Many of us will realize that virtually all people are trapped in a system that all but forces them to lie to others while suffocating themselves.
Edit 10/07/17: Here is a pop culture analysis of how to tell if someone is lying: 9 WAYS TO SPOT A LIAR. Scroll down to the list and notice how crude and dubious these tells are, but this is what many people work with. It’s all we have. With a good partner, FIML can lead you to levels of truth far higher and deeper than this. In this world, we really have to develop FIML relationships to fully explore our own psychology and human psychology in general. Without FIML, you are permanently locked out of your own depths by being trapped in ordinary communication which is accurately characterized by the shallowness of the linked article.
Andrew Kolvet, a Turning Point USA media handler, released a statement that reads like it was written by a crisis PR firm scrambling to patch up a failing narrative. Let’s break it down, line by line:
1. “I’m usually not interested in delving into online chatter…”
Translation: “I don’t usually respond to conspiracy drivel… but let me make an exception this time.”
This is the classic defensive opener: discredit public speculation while subtly signaling moral authority — as if his involvement should automatically be trusted.
2. “I just spoke with the surgeon who worked on Charlie in the hospital…”
Problem: Charlie died instantly from a gunshot wound that caused decerebrate posturing, massive arterial bleeding, and catastrophic CNS trauma.
Let’s be clear: he wasn’t “worked on”. He was dead on arrival — if not at the scene, then certainly before any meaningful medical intervention. Unless Kolvet thinks surgeons perform autopsies, this claim is either fabricated or a willful misuse of medical terminology to sell emotional closure.
3. “The bullet should’ve gone through… it would’ve killed a moose… but it didn’t…”
This is the “trust me bro” forensic analysis from someone with no background in terminal ballistics, gunshot trauma, or even basic anatomy. If the bullet lodged beneath the skin, that suggests low velocity, deflection, or inconsistency in caliber used — none of which support the idea of a clean high-powered rifle kill.
Also: where’s the actual ballistics report?
4. “His bones were so strong, like the man of steel.”
Now we’re just fully in the realm of myth-making. Turning a human corpse into Superman doesn’t just defy science — it tells you exactly what this is:
A psychological operation meant to close the book on forensic doubt and redirect the public into emotional worship of the martyr.
5. “Even in death, Charlie managed to save others. Remarkable. Miraculous.”
This is narrative closure layered on top of miracle-language. In legal or psychological terms, this is called “preemptive emotional closure” — used to block further questioning by dressing tragedy in divine finality.
When a known TPUSA employee uses miracle-language, contradictory medical claims, and a triple “trust me” format — all without forensic transparency — it’s not just cringe. It’s coordinated damage control.
The truth doesn’t require miracles. It leaves evidence.
This is very well done; concise, succinct, clear as a bell.
Let’s not jump to conclude that Kolvet is a willing or knowing actor in this. ABN
American Buddhist Net 