XPost: alt.law-enforcement.corruption, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, sac.politics XPost: talk.politics.guns, or.politics

Now we are finally getting somewhere. Hopefully. Influential independent investigative journalist Matt Taibbi ran a story on his Substack �Racket
News� yesterday headlined, �At Last: John Brennan and James Comey Under Criminal Investigation for Russiagate.�

In the rush and tumble of the tsunami of anticlimactic disappointment over
the strangely sudden end of the official Epstein investigation, a speck of
hope appeared in the waves. It appeared in the form of a Fox News
exclusive (i.e., a friendly leak), announcing that FBI Director Kash Patel
has opened formal criminal investigations into former FBI Director James
Comey and former CIA Chief John Brennan, for their roles in manufacturing
the RussiaGate hoax, interfering in elections, and for their seditious
efforts to overthrow the American government.

Haha! Sorry! I was just kidding. It�s not for that stuff. The two men are
under investigation only for lying to Congress. And possibly for
conspiring to lie to Congress.

Taibbi did not directly confront that painful shortcoming. But he nodded
to it. One of his sources, presumably connected to the House Intelligence Committee, said he was not disappointed the charges only related to
perjury. �You have to understand, there�s no statute that really fits what these people did,� the source said. �But there is one against lying to Congress, and given that that�s what they have to work with, (it) makes
more sense to me now.�

The charge has a storied history. Back in the late 1940s, furious
Republicans couldn�t prove that Alger Hiss was a Soviet spy� at least, not
in any way that satisfied strict evidentiary demands. Hiss, a top-ranking
State Department official and darling of the New Deal set (he helped draft
the UN Charter), denied under oath that he�d ever passed secrets to the
Soviets or ever met his accuser and handler, defected Soviet spymaster Whittaker Chambers.

https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!imY8!,w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto :good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post- media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Faf703535-1a43-45da-b466- d30b7ffc03ee_668x306.png

But Chambers delivered the goods: typewritten documents, a dramatic, Hollywood-style courtroom unveiling of a secret cache of microfilm inside
a pumpkin, and a slow-burning credibility that ultimately trumped Hiss�s polished, white-shoed denials. In the end, espionage didn�t bring Hiss
down. It was perjury� two counts. That�s what the jury latched onto like a submerged mine clamping onto a disguised trawler. Hiss got ten years, and
maybe more importantly, his insidious influence was finally neutralized.

The political impact was seismic. The Hiss case detonated the Cold War consensus and helped launch Richard Nixon�s career. More importantly, it
set a precedent: when the crime is too vast, too murky, or too
institutionally protected to prosecute directly, perjury becomes the
precision tool. It is a thin but devastating charge when properly brought;
it�s the legal equivalent of slipping a shiv between the ribs.

Though the new investigations into Brennan and Comey might look limited,
they draw from that same Alger Hiss energy, which probably explains why Taibbi�s source said �no� when asked if he was disappointed.

Following the Alger Hiss benchmark, perjury has become a sort of default fallback for when the real crime is too untouchable, too complicated, or
too inconvenient. Just ask Martha Stewart. The government never proved
insider trading� but they pinned misleading federal investigators on her,
and down she went.

Or Scooter Libby, not charged for leaking CIA operative Valerie Plame�s identity (he didn�t), but for giving conflicting testimony during the hunt
for the leaker. Or Barry Bonds, who wasn�t convicted for taking steroids
or for illegal gambling, but for denying his steroid use too smoothly
under oath.

So, while perjury might sound like a consolation prize, it has a lot to
offer. To prove that crime, prosecutors need only show knowingly false statements under oath. That�s it. They don�t need to untangle the entire Russiagate narrative. They don�t need to march into the foggy swamps of subjective motives and �tradecraft principles violations.� They don�t need
to wrestle with qualified immunities. They don�t even need to use the
words �conspiracy� or �coup.�

In other words, perjury is a prosecutorial shortcut, like convicting Al
Capone for tax evasion. A shortcut that is exactly what the Administration needs just now. And even as a shortcut, it�s no small deal. Convictions of either Comey or Brennan would make history. No former FBI or CIA Director
has ever been criminally charged or convicted for misconduct in office.

Actually, these new investigations are already historic. Comey and Brennan
are, ingloriously, the first former directors of their respective agencies
to officially fall under formal criminal investigation. They�re also the
first to face potential perjury charges for official conduct while in
office. Welcome to the record books, gentlemen.

I don�t know who in the Administration needs to hear this: nice work and
so forth� but what you absolutely don�t need is another unsigned memo
abruptly ending the Comey and Brennan investigations. Just saying.

https://floppingaces.net/most-wanted/the-lie-that-might-bring-down-the- spies-comey-and-brennan-are-finally-cornered/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.law-enforcement.corruption, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, sac.politics XPost: talk.politics.guns, or.politics

useapen wrote:

I don’t know who in the Administration needs to hear this: nice work and
so forth— but what you absolutely don’t need is another unsigned memo abruptly ending the Comey and Brennan investigations. Just saying.

I forwarded this to the White House janitor & electrician. The
electrician said he would put it up on his refrigerator.

--
Hasbro

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.law-enforcement.corruption, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, sac.politics XPost: talk.politics.guns, or.politics

On 12 Jul 2025, useapen <yourdime@outlook.com> posted some news:XnsB31AD6BDBCCBX@135.181.20.170:

Now we are finally getting somewhere. Hopefully. Influential
independent investigative journalist Matt Taibbi ran a story on his
Substack ‘Racket News’ yesterday headlined, “At Last: John Brennan and James Comey Under Criminal Investigation for Russiagate.”

In the rush and tumble of the tsunami of anticlimactic disappointment
over the strangely sudden end of the official Epstein investigation, a
speck of hope appeared in the waves. It appeared in the form of a Fox
News exclusive (i.e., a friendly leak), announcing that FBI Director
Kash Patel has opened formal criminal investigations into former FBI
Director James Comey and former CIA Chief John Brennan, for their
roles in manufacturing the RussiaGate hoax, interfering in elections,
and for their seditious efforts to overthrow the American government.

Haha! Sorry! I was just kidding. It’s not for that stuff. The two men
are under investigation only for lying to Congress. And possibly for conspiring to lie to Congress.

Taibbi did not directly confront that painful shortcoming. But he
nodded to it. One of his sources, presumably connected to the House Intelligence Committee, said he was not disappointed the charges only
related to perjury. “You have to understand, there’s no statute that really fits what these people did,” the source said. “But there is one against lying to Congress, and given that that’s what they have to
work with, (it) makes more sense to me now.”

The charge has a storied history. Back in the late 1940s, furious
Republicans couldn’t prove that Alger Hiss was a Soviet spy— at least, not in any way that satisfied strict evidentiary demands. Hiss, a
top-ranking State Department official and darling of the New Deal set
(he helped draft the UN Charter), denied under oath that he’d ever
passed secrets to the Soviets or ever met his accuser and handler,
defected Soviet spymaster Whittaker Chambers.

https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!imY8!,w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_a
uto
:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-
media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Faf703535-1a43-45da-b466- d30b7ffc03ee_668x306.png

But Chambers delivered the goods: typewritten documents, a dramatic, Hollywood-style courtroom unveiling of a secret cache of microfilm
inside a pumpkin, and a slow-burning credibility that ultimately
trumped Hiss’s polished, white-shoed denials. In the end, espionage didn’t bring Hiss down. It was perjury— two counts. That’s what the jury latched onto like a submerged mine clamping onto a disguised
trawler. Hiss got ten years, and maybe more importantly, his insidious influence was finally neutralized.

The political impact was seismic. The Hiss case detonated the Cold War consensus and helped launch Richard Nixon’s career. More importantly,
it set a precedent: when the crime is too vast, too murky, or too institutionally protected to prosecute directly, perjury becomes the precision tool. It is a thin but devastating charge when properly
brought; it’s the legal equivalent of slipping a shiv between the
ribs.

Though the new investigations into Brennan and Comey might look
limited, they draw from that same Alger Hiss energy, which probably
explains why Taibbi’s source said ‘no’ when asked if he was disappointed.

Following the Alger Hiss benchmark, perjury has become a sort of
default fallback for when the real crime is too untouchable, too
complicated, or too inconvenient. Just ask Martha Stewart. The
government never proved insider trading— but they pinned misleading
federal investigators on her, and down she went.

Or Scooter Libby, not charged for leaking CIA operative Valerie
Plame’s identity (he didn’t), but for giving conflicting testimony
during the hunt for the leaker. Or Barry Bonds, who wasn’t convicted
for taking steroids or for illegal gambling, but for denying his
steroid use too smoothly under oath.

So, while perjury might sound like a consolation prize, it has a lot
to offer. To prove that crime, prosecutors need only show knowingly
false statements under oath. That’s it. They don’t need to untangle
the entire Russiagate narrative. They don’t need to march into the
foggy swamps of subjective motives and “tradecraft principles violations.” They don’t need to wrestle with qualified immunities.
They don’t even need to use the words ‘conspiracy’ or ‘coup.’

In other words, perjury is a prosecutorial shortcut, like convicting
Al Capone for tax evasion. A shortcut that is exactly what the
Administration needs just now. And even as a shortcut, it’s no small
deal. Convictions of either Comey or Brennan would make history. No
former FBI or CIA Director has ever been criminally charged or
convicted for misconduct in office.

Actually, these new investigations are already historic. Comey and
Brennan are, ingloriously, the first former directors of their
respective agencies to officially fall under formal criminal
investigation. They’re also the first to face potential perjury
charges for official conduct while in office. Welcome to the record
books, gentlemen.

I don’t know who in the Administration needs to hear this: nice work
and so forth— but what you absolutely don’t need is another unsigned
memo abruptly ending the Comey and Brennan investigations. Just
saying.

https://floppingaces.net/most-wanted/the-lie-that-might-bring-down-the- spies-comey-and-brennan-are-finally-cornered/

Good. Both those two disloyal assholes need to leave this world
swinging at the end of ropes.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)