James Comey Going Down For Perjury or Worse? Looks Like It.

Alex Jones and InfoWars was actually on this story last year:

Despite admitting President Trump “simply hoped” the FBI would drop its probe into former national security advisor Michael Flynn, former FBI Director James Comey said he interpreted this as a direct order, which contradicts his sworn Senate testimony on May 3.

Comey now confirms Trump simply hoped the investigation into Flynn would end during their Feb. meeting in the White House, which Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) pointed out was a “wish” rather than an actual directive from the president:

But Comey claims he interpreted Trump’s wish as a direct order, which contradicts his sworn Senate testimony on May 3 in which he said from his experience, the Trump administration did not try to stop the investigation.

The former FBI director even told Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) it would “be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that – without an appropriate purpose.”

“But I’m talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal. It’s not happened in my experience,” he said.

Here’s that exchange from May 3:

Others are picking up on the Comey Perjury story as well.

Take a look at this article, from the American Thinker:

The 2018 Groundhog Day release of the Nunes FISA memo was preceded by partisan and establishment objections that its disclosure would somehow jeopardize … something.

The contents of the memo now show the objections by anti-Trump forces in this historic matter were certainly a case where they “doth protest too much.”

J. Marsolo explains why FISA warrant procurers James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Sally Yates, Rod Rosenstein, and Dana Boente have reason to be nervous:

“The Memo confirms that the political origins of the Steele Dossier, that it was bought and paid for by Hillary and the DNC, were not disclosed to the FISA court.”

In other words, it seems the procurers of the FISA warrants that are the subject of the Nunes memo failed to disclose material facts on which the FISA judges could determine the credibility of the probable cause before issuing and re-issuing the warrants.

The Fourth Amendment warrant authorizes and justifies what is otherwise a trespass -- an intrusion or encroachment on the right of security -- by government officials, but solely to protect the community against specific wrongdoers. Its requirement of oath and affirmation before issuance of a warrant helps ensure the search is based in honestly and solemnly presented facts that may be discerned -- and judged -- by neutral judicial officers.

The solemn protocol of oath and affirmation before issuance of a warrant, with potential consequences of perjury for knowingly presenting false information, helps prevent an unreasonable trespass. The ex ante protocols are expressly required by the Fourth Amendment for all warrants (“no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation”), and are indispensable to the right of security when the awesome power of justifiably trespassing on private properties and affairs is to be exercised via warrants.