Daily Stormer The Most Censored Publication in History
Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
June 13, 2017
UPDATE:
Here’s the uncut, full video, for anyone who wants to watch it. It wasn’t as exciting as the Comey hearing for sure, but for those of you into this stuff, it is very interesting.
Not as wild as I had hoped.
But some ass was kicked. I’m just going to go over some highlights – I haven’t yet read what the media is saying, I watched the hearing without taking notes and then had lunch. So this is all going to just be my impressions. The media is probably talking about other things, which I will probably address tomorrow, but I’m going to note the important takeaways I have as a first impression.
First, here are the prepared opening remarks, which I thought were very good.
Thank you Chairman Burr and Ranking Member Warner for allowing me to publicly appear before the committee today.
I appreciate the Committee’s critically important efforts to investigate Russian interference with our democratic process. Such interference can never be tolerated and I encourage every effort to get to the bottom of any such allegations.
As you know, the Deputy Attorney General has appointed a special counsel to investigate matters related to Russian interference in the 2016 election. I am here today to address several issues that have been specifically raised before this committee, and I appreciate the opportunity to respond to questions as fully as I am able to do so. But as I advised you, Mr. Chairman, and consistent with long-standing Department of Justice practice, I cannot and will not violate my duty to protect confidential communications with the President.
Now, let me address some issues directly: I did not have any private meetings nor do I recall any conversations with any Russian officials at the Mayflower Hotel. I did not attend any meetings at that event. Prior to the speech, I attended a reception with my staff that included at least two dozen people and President Trump. Though I do recall several conversations I had during that pre-speech reception, I do not have any recollection of meeting or talking to the Russian Ambassador or any other Russian officials. If any brief interaction occurred in passing with the Russian Ambassador during that reception, I do not remember it. After the speech, I was interviewed by the news media, which had gathered as I remember in a different room, and then I left the hotel.
But whether I ever attended a reception where the Russian Ambassador was also present is entirely beside the point of this investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 campaigns. Let me state this clearly: I have never met with or had any conversations with any Russians or any foreign officials concerning any type of interference with any campaign or election. Further, I have no knowledge of any such conversations by anyone connected to the Trump campaign. I was your colleague in this body for 20 years, and the suggestion that I participated in any collusion or that I was aware of any collusion with the Russian government to hurt this country, which I have served with honor for over 35 years, or to undermine the integrity of our democratic process, is an appalling and detestable lie.
Relatedly, there is the assertion that I did not answer Senator Franken’s question honestly at my confirmation hearing. That is false. This is how it happened. He asked me a rambling question that included dramatic, new allegations that the United States intelligence community had advised President-elect Trump that “there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump’s surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.” I was taken aback by these explosive allegations, which he said were being reported in breaking news that day. I wanted to refute immediately any suggestion that I was a part of such an activity. I replied, “Senator Franken, I’m not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn’t have – did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it.”
That was the context in which I was asked the question, and in that context, my answer was a fair and correct response to the charge as I understood it. It simply did not occur to me to go further than the context of the question and list any conversations I may have had with Russians in routine situations, as I had with numerous other foreign officials.
Please hear me now. It was only in March of this year that a reporter asked my spokesperson whether I had ever met with any Russian officials. This was the first time that question had been posed. On the same day, we provided that reporter with the information related to the meeting I and my staff had held in my Senate office with Ambassador Kislyak, as well as the brief encounter in July after a speech that I had given during the convention in Cleveland, Ohio. I also provided the reporter a list of all 25 foreign ambassador meetings I had held during 2016. In addition, I provided supplemental testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee to explain this. I readily acknowledged these two meetings. Certainly nothing improper occurred.
Let me also explain clearly the circumstances of my recusal from the investigation into the Russian interference with the 2016 election. I was sworn in as Attorney General on Thursday, February 9th. The very next day, I met with career Department officials, including a senior ethics official, to discuss some things publicly reported in the press and that might have some bearing on the issue of recusal. From that point, February 10th, until I announced my formal recusal on March 2nd, I was never briefed on any investigative details and did not access information about the investigation; I received only the limited information that the Department’s career officials determined was necessary to inform my recusal decision. As such, I have no knowledge about this investigation beyond what has been publicly reported, and I have taken no action with regard to any such investigation. On the date of my formal recusal, my Chief of Staff sent an email to the heads of the relevant departments, including by name to Director Comey of the FBI, to instruct them to inform their staffs of this recusal and to advise them not to brief me or involve me in any such matters. And in fact, they have not. Importantly, I recused myself not because of any asserted wrongdoing on my part during the campaign, but because a Department of Justice regulation, 28 CFR 45.2, required it. That regulation states, in effect, that Department employees should not participate in investigations of a campaign if they have served as a campaign advisor.
The scope of my recusal, however, does not and cannot interfere with my ability to oversee the Department of Justice, including the FBI, which has an $8 billion budget and 35,000 employees. I presented to the President my concerns, and those of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, about the ongoing leadership issues at the FBI as stated in my letter recommending the removal of Mr. Comey along with the Deputy Attorney General’s memorandum, which have been released publicly by the White House. It is a clear statement of my views. It is absurd, frankly, to suggest that a recusal from a single specific investigation would render an Attorney General unable to manage the leadership of the various Department of Justice law enforcement components that conduct thousands of investigations.
Finally, during his testimony, Mr. Comey discussed a conversation he and I had about a meeting Mr. Comey had with the President. I am happy to share with the committee my recollection of the conversation I had with Mr. Comey. Following a routine morning threat briefing, Mr. Comey spoke to me and my Chief of Staff. While he did not provide me with any of the substance of his conversation with the President, Mr. Comey expressed concern about the proper communications protocol with the White House and with the President. I responded to his comment by agreeing that the FBI and Department of Justice needed to be careful to follow Department policies regarding appropriate contacts with the White House. Mr. Comey had served in the Department of Justice for the better part of two decades, and I was confident that Mr. Comey understood and would abide by the Department’s well-established rules governing any communications with the White House about ongoing investigations. My comments encouraged him to do just that and indeed, as I understand, he did. Our Department of Justice rules on proper communication between the Department and the White House have been in place for years. Mr. Comey well knew them, I thought, and assumed correctly that he complied with them.
I will finish with this. I recused myself from any investigation into the campaigns for President, but I did not recuse myself from defending my honor against scurrilous and false allegations. At all times throughout the course of the campaign, the confirmation process, and since becoming Attorney General, I have dedicated myself to the highest standards.
The people of this country expect an honest and transparent government and that is what we are giving them. This President wants to focus on the people of this country to ensure they are treated fairly and kept safe. The Trump agenda is to improve the lives of the American people. I know some have other agendas, but that is his agenda and it is one I share.
Importantly, as Attorney General I have a responsibility to enforce the laws of this Nation, to protect this country from its enemies, and to ensure the fair administration of justice. I intend to work every day with our fine team and the superb professionals in the Department of Justice to advance the important work we have to do. These false attacks, the innuendo, and the leaks, you can be sure, will not intimidate me. In fact, these events have only strengthened my resolve to fulfill my duty to reduce crime, and to support our federal, state, and local law enforcement officers who work our streets every day. Just last week, it was reported that overdose deaths in this country are rising faster than ever recorded. The murder rate is up over 10 percent—the largest increase since 1968. Together, we are telling the gangs, the cartels, the fraudsters, and the terrorists—we are coming after you. Every one of our citizens, no matter who they are or where they live, has the right to be safe in their homes and communities. And I will not be deterred, and I will not allow this great Department to be deterred from its vital mission.
The most outrageous aspect of this is that Sessions was able to confirm the entire Trump narrative, under oath, without ever outright calling Comey a liar. I think this is what the Sanhedrin wanted, as far as that goes. I would very much have liked to have heard, when he was asked about Comey’s claims regarding the weird gestures he made, he would have said “Mr. Comey was not being truthful.” Instead he said “I’m not sure he remembered that correctly,” “I don’t know why he said that but that’s incorrect” or something along these lines whenever given the opportunity to drop “dishonest,” “untruthful” or some other word that would fit in a headline.
What the Democrats focused on was his refusal to divulge personal conversations with the President. What they claimed was that he was obligated to divulge the content of these conversations, unless the President has invoked executive privilege, which he has not done.
One of the GOP Senators commented that Holder had done the same thing, and not been pressed on it – I assume during the Fast and Furious hearings, in which Holder testified regarding his role in a Mexican gunrunning scandal. I am not certain, but I’m just guessing that was the reference. Whatever the case, there was an identical parallel – the head of the DoJ testifying before the Senate and refusing to discuss private conversations with the President without invoking executive privilege, and no one pressed him on it.
That mysterymeat bitch Harris – no Kamala, you’re not “black,” you’re a Paki halfbreed – was the most irate with him, to the point where the chairman had to intervene and ask her to allow Sessions to answer the questions.
She demanded a law be cited that allows him to refuse to answer a question about a private call.
It was a simple question. Can Sessions point to the policy, in writing, that allows him to not answer a whole host of our questions today.
— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) June 13, 2017
Sessions answer was “precedent,” and he is too much of a gentleman to cite Holder explicitly, so it’s good a member of the panel did.
In context of this – although it was before Kamala went all sassy niggerbitch – the Jew Wyden tried to build on the Comey innuendo that Sessions is involved in a secret conspiracy with Russians.
“Why don’t you tell me?” was probably the highpoint of the hearing.
This was also the closest he came to calling Comey a liar.
“Innuendo” is not “lie” – but it’s about as close as you can get.
SEN. RON WYDEN (D-OR): Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing in the open and in full view of the American people where it belongs. I believe the American people have had it with stonewalling.
Americans don’t want to hear the answers are privileged and off limits or they can’t be provided in public or it would be inappropriate for witnesses to tell us what they know. We are talking about an attack on our democratic institutions and stonewalling of any kind is unacceptable. General Sessions acknowledged that there is no legal basis for this stonewalling. So now to questions. Last Thursday, I asked the former director Comey about the FBI’s intersections with you prior to your stepping aside from the Russia investigation. Mr. Comey said your continued engagement with the Russian investigation was “problematic ” and he said he could not discuss it in public.
Mr. Comey had also said that FBI personnel were calling for to you step aside from the investigation at least two weeks before you finally did so. In your prepared statement you said you received, quote, limited information necessary to inform your recusal decision. Given director Comey’s statement, we need to know what that was. Were you aware of any concerns at the FBI or elsewhere in government about your contacts with the Russians or any other matters relevant to whether you should step aside from the Russian investigation?
ATTORNEY GENERAL JEFF SESSIONS: Senator Wyden, I am not stonewalling. I am following the historic policies of the Department of Justice. You don’t walk into hearing or committee meeting and reveal confidential communications with the President of the United States who is entitled to receive conventional communications in your best judgment about a host of issues and have to be accused of stonewalling them. So I would push back on that.
Secondly, Mr. Comey, perhaps he didn’t know, but I basically recused myself the first day I got into the office because I never accessed files. I never learned the names of investigators. I never met with them. I never asked for any documentation. The documentation, what little I received, was mostly already in the media and was presented by the senior ethics public — professional responsibility attorney in the department and I made an honest and proper decision to recuse myself as I told Senator Feinstein and the members of the committee I would do when they confirmed me.
WYDEN: General Sessions, respectfully, you’re not answering the question.
SESSIONS: What is the question?
WYDEN: The question is Mr. Comey said that there were matters with respect to the recusal that were problematic and he couldn’t talk about them. What are they?
SESSIONS: I — why don’t you tell me? There are none, Senator Wyden. There are none. I can tell you that for absolute certainty. This is a secret innuendo being leaked out there about me and I don’t appreciate it. And I tried to give my best and truthful answer to any committee I have appeared before and it’s really — people are suggesting through innuendo that I have been not honest about matters and I’ve tried to be honest.
WYDEN: My time is short. You made your point that you think Mr. Comey is engaging in innuendo. We’re going to keep digging into this —
SESSIONS: Well, Senator Wyden, he did not say that.
WYDEN: He said it was problematic. And I asked you what is problematic about it?
SESSIONS: Some of that leaked out of the committee that he said in closed session.
The exchange with Tom Cotton was the second highest point.
Cotton mentioned spy novels, and how absurd the kookspiracy is.
He asked Sessions if he watches Jason Bourne or James Bond films and Sessions said “no” and then started laughing and said “yes, I do” – the kooky kikes might try to get him on perjury for that! Honestly, at this point, I fully expect to see a headline from some kike reading: “did Sessions perjure himself when he initially claimed not to like Jason Bourne and James Bond films, before correcting himself?”
I’m serious. Not only would it not surprise me to see such a headline, I will be surprised if I don’t see it.
After Cotton pointed out the absurdity of the kookspiracy claims, Sessions replied “thank you for saying that, Mr. Senator. This is like ‘Through the Looking Glass.’ I mean, what is this?”
This was another time he came within striking distance of “Jimmy Boy is a fucking liar,” but didn’t quit get there.
SEN. TOM COTTON: Well, I am on this side of the dious and I could say a very simple question that should be asked. I am on this side of the dious, so a very simple question that should be asked is: “Did Donald Trump or any of his associates in the campaign collude with Russia in hacking those e-mails and releasing them to the public? That’s where we started six months ago. We have now heard from six of the eight Democrats on this committee, and to my knowledge. I don’t think a single one of them asked that question. They have gone down lots of other rabbit trails but not that question. Maybe that is because Jim Comey said last week as he said to Donald Trump on three times he assured him he was not under investigation. Maybe it’s because multiple Democrats on this committee have stated they have seen no evidence thus far after six months of our investigation and ten months or 11 months of an FBI investigation of any such collusion. I would suggest what do we think happened at the Mayflower? Mr. Sessions, are you familiar with what spies call trade craft?
SESSIONS: A little bit.
COTTON: That involves things like covert communications and dead drops and brush passes, right?
SESSIONS: That is part of of it.
COTTON: Do you like spy fiction: John le Carre, Daniel Silva, Jason Matthews?
SESSIONS: Yeah, Alan Furst, David Ignatius’ books.
COTTON: Do you like Jason Bourne or James Bond movies?
SESSIONS: No, yes, I do.
COTTON: Have you ever ever in any of these fantastical situations heard of a plot line so ridiculous that a sitting United States senator and an ambassador of a foreign government colluded at an open setting with hundreds of other people to pull off the greatest caper in the history of espionage?
SESSIONS: Thank you for saying that, Senator Cotton. It’s just like through the looking glass. I mean, what is this? I explained how in good faith I said I had not met with Russians, because they were suggesting I as a surrogate had been meeting continuously with Russians. I said I didn’t meet with them and now, the next thing you know I’m accused of some reception plotting some sort of influence campaign for the American election. It’s just beyond my capability to understand, and I really appreciate, Mr. Chairman, the opportunity to at least to be able to say publicly I didn’t participate in that and know nothing about it.
COTTON: And I gather that’s one reason why you wanted to testify today in public. Last week Mr. Comey in characteristic dramatic and theatrical fashion alluded ominously to what you call innuendo, that there was some kind of classified intelligence that suggested you might have colluded with Russia or that you might have otherwise acted improperly. You’ve addressed those allegations here today. Do you understand why he made that allusion?
SESSIONS: Actually I do not. Nobody’s provided me any information.
COTTON: Thank you. My time is limited and I have a lot of questions. Mr. Blunt asked you if you had spoken in response to Mr. Comey’s statement to you after his private meeting with the president on February 14 or February 15. You said that you did respond to Mr. Comey. Mr. Comey’s testimony said that you did not. Do you know why Mr. Comey would have said that you did not respond to him on that conversation with you on February 14 or 15?
SESSIONS: I do not. It was a little conversation, not very long, but there was a conversation, and I did respond to him, perhaps not to everything he asked, but he — I did respond to him. I think in an appropriate way.
COTTON: Do you know why Mr. Comey mistrusted President Trump from their first meeting on January 6? He stated last week that he did. He didn’t state anything from that meeting that caused him to have such mistrust.
SESSIONS: I’m not able to speculate on that.
COTTON: Let’s turn to the potential crimes that we know have happened: leaks of certain information. Here’s a short list of what I have. The contents of alleged transcripts of alleged conversations between Mr. Flynn and Mr. Kislyak, the contents of President Trump’s phone calls with Australian and Mexican leaders, the content of Mr. Trump’s meetings with the Russian foreign minister and the ambassador, the leak of Manchester bombing — the Manchester bombing suspect’s identity and crime scene photos and last week within 20 minutes of this committee meeting in a classified setting is with Jim Comey, the basis of Mr. Comey’s innuendo was. Are these leaks serious threats to our national security, and is the Department of Justice taking them with the appropriate degree of seriousness and investigating and ultimately going to prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law?
SESSIONS: Thank you, Senator Cotton. We have had one successful case very recently in Georgia. That person has been denied bail I believe and is being held in custody, but some of these leaks, as you well know, are extraordinarily damaging to the United States security, and we have got to restore a regular order principle. We cannot have persons in our intelligence agencies, our investigative agencies or in Congress leaking sensitive matters on staff, so this is — I’m afraid will result — is already resulting in investigations, and I’m — I fear that some people may find that they wish they hadn’t leaked it.
COTTON: Thank you. My time has expired but for the record it was stated earlier that the Republican platform was weakened on the point of arms for Ukraine. That is incorrect. The platform was actually strengthened, and I would note that it was the Democratic president who refused repeated bipartisan requests of this Congress to supply those arms to Ukraine.
It’s disappointing, as when asked why Comey made the innuendo, he could have said something like “I suspect that the former director was not being entirely honest with this committee.” That would have been the killshot, where you’d have a direct claim by the Secretary of of the Department of Justice that James Comey lied under oath on purpose.
Effectively, he did say this, he just didn’t say it in proper soundbyte form.
Cotton set him up for it, but he didn’t do it. And yes, that is disappointing.
We all know that Comey lied. He lied about a lot. But there was no place Sessions could have actually pinned him down for perjury. He could have given the soundbyte though.
McCain was again not fully coherent, and Sessions was forced to say he didn’t understand. Though it wasn’t as bad as with Comey. McCain didn’t even talk about the issues at hand, but instead rambled on about Russian spies mapping US infrastructure and some other Russian stuff.
Oh, and he took a different angle than the rest on the meeting with Kisliac – he implied Sessions should have used the meeting to berate the Ambassador for Assad’s “indiscriminate use of chemical weapons against his own citizens.”
Overall, the media is going to focus on the private conversations that Sessions didn’t want to divulge. There may have been something planted in here that they can bring up later. I honestly do not know. But I do know that what they are going to run with right now is the fact that Sessions refused to relay the contents of these conversations, without being able to cite a law to back up why he was unable to do that.
Overall, for me, even more disappointing than the fact he didn’t drop a soundbyte on Comey being a liar was the fact that he didn’t push back against the “Russia did Wikileaks” narrative. He was asked if he believes it, and simply said that he believes it’s true because “17 intelligence agencies.”
He did say he hadn’t seen any evidence of it personally, and had only read media reports.
However, he could have just as easily said something like:
I haven’t personally seen any evidence that leads me to believe that is the case.
And for bonus point:
All I’m aware of as having been presented as evidence is the report issued by a private contractor hired by the DNC to examine the server, and I understand that this private contractor has since retracted, or at least shown uncertainty about, the initial claims that the intelligence community is citing as incontrovertible proof that Russia was responsible for the hacking of the DNC server.
And for extra double bonus points:
To be honest with you, I’m very surprised that the intelligence community is making these kinds of claims based on the analysis of a private company in the first place; certainly the claim of Mr. Assange is that the documents were leaked, rather than obtained by an entry into the DNC server, so I would think that the FBI would want to examine that server themselves and come to their own conclusions.
And for triple backflip points:
In my opinion, the intelligence community needs to be more forthcoming with the American people with regards to what evidence they do or don’t have to support these claims that are being made with regards to Russian involvement with the DNC leaks, and with the Podesta leaks, which I have not even seen them claim to have evidence was done by the Russians, yet they are claiming it is an incontrovertible fact.
I know someone from the Trump team must be reading this website, because they followed our advice to send Dennis Rodman as an unofficial ambassador to North Korea.
So for those reading, I can’t stress this enough: the very most important thing you can do is strike at the root of this insanity. The claim that Sessions is secretly meeting with ambassadors to plan conspiracies at public forums is no more “Through the Looking Glass”-tier than the claim that it is an “incontrovertible fact” that Russia “hacked the elections” by hacking the DNC and sending Podesta a phishing email and then passing it to Julian Assange.
As I have said a thousand times: the biggest mistake by the Trump Team in this whole debacle was giving any acknowledgement at all to the initial claims of conspiracy by Russia.
Because look – even if Trump gets off the hook for the kook “collusion” claims, if the “Russia installed Trump as President” thing sticks, that hangs over him forever.
Also: Someone needs to point out the fact that the media and the Democrats went totally silent on all of this for five weeks following the Syria strike. Because the only singular individual I have seen draw attention to that fact is Tucker Carlson.
SIDE ISSUE
Also, I just want to point out – does it seem weird that some bitch’s naked legs were behind him, visible on screen throughout the entire hearing?
I think this is a little bit weird.
Honestly, I think it is weird for a woman in a professional setting to wear a skirt that short, unless it is in the capacity of slutty secretary, slutty high school teacher, slutty waitress or perhaps slutty French maid.
Is there seriously no dress code at all in the Senate? Surely, wearing a miniskirt that goes all the way up when you sit down, is inappropriate in this setting?
Did someone purposefully place this woman’s naked legs inside the shot of the entire hearing? Honestly, I assume the seating was assigned, she knew she’d be in that spot, and she wore the short skirt on purpose. Or, she was assigned that spot, specifically because she has hot legs and wears miniskirts in totally inappropriate settings.
By the way, just for those who rant about me hating women, I do want to say that being a reporter on this type of a meeting – I think she was reporting on it, rather than transcribing it, based on the rate at which she was typing – is actually something women probably are better at than men. They have an ability to multitask, which comes from the evolutionary fact that during childrearing, you have to be able to focus on multiple things at once, whereas in war or hunting or building things – man stuff – a single-minded focus is needed.
To be honest, I have a hard time taking notes on these hearings and listening at the same time, as so much information is being communicated in such an obtuse fashion, I need full focus on what is being said to take it in properly.
So there, white knights: I just said there’s something some women are probably better than men at.
Also, I’ll add, in praise of women, that they are generally much better liars, as they are all natural solipsists and actually believe that reality is whatever they think it is.
Original article follows.
Jeff Sessions is going on to call Comey a liar under oath.
The Jews think they can kike him again, like the gotcha on the ambassador meeting.
Can the boy scout Sessions go toe-to-toe with these vile kikes, tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, without getting tricked in some fashion?
We’re going to see.
The thing is, I have a very strong suspicion they will try the same trick, try to plant something to use later, exactly as they did with the ambassador meeting.
This is a little bit like sending Tin-Tin to fight the Cylons.
Godspeed, Secretary Sessions.
This is history in the making here, people.
Starts at 2:30 EST.
