Connect with us

Politics

Comey Defends FBI Top Lawyer | ‘Anyone Can Be Attacked For Political Gain’

Published

on

(Via Daily Mail)

Former FBI Director James Comey issued a statement in defense of the FBI’s top lawyer James Baker who Republicans on Capitol Hill are trying to cast as a leaker.

‘Sadly, we are now at a point in our political life when anyone can be attacked for partisan gain,’ Comey remarked on his Twitter account Friday night. ‘James Baker, who is stepping down as FBI General Counsel, served our country incredibly well for 25 years & deserves better.’

Hill Republicans, who are attempting to sniff out political bias within the agency, have suggested that Baker – who is in the process of changing roles at the FBI – may have leaked information about the infamous dirty dossier to Mother Jones reporter David Corn.

Corn, who broke the story on the existence of the dossier, has stated that Baker was not his source.

President Trump, however, suggested something shady might be afoot in a Saturday afternoon tweet. ‘Wow, “FBI lawyer James Baker reassigned,” according to @FoxNews,’ the president wrote.

Politico put out a story Friday that quoted two unnamed Congressional GOP sources who told the publication that House Republicans are investigating contact between Baker and Corn in the weeks leading up to the 2016 presidential election.

Corn broke the story on the dossier on October 31, 2016, eight days before the election.

On October 28, 2016, Comey had told lawmakers that the FBI had found additional emails pertinent to the Hillary Clinton email investigation – a statement that the Democrat would later say helped her lose.

Corn’s piece pointed out that then Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, sent a ‘fiery’ letter to Comey and revealed the existence of the dossier.

‘In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government,’ Reid wrote. ‘The public has the right to know this information,’ the Senate’s Democratic leader told Comey.

Corn then laid out what he knew.

The liberal journalist said his primary source was a ‘former senior intelligence officer for a Western country who specialized in Russian counterintelligence,’ who told Mother Jones ‘in recent months he provided the bureau with memos, based on his recent interactions with Russian sources, contending the Russian government has for years tried to co-opt and assist Trump – and that the FBI requested more information from him.’

It’s since been reported that the dossier’s author was Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent.

Corn also cited a ‘senior U.S. government official not involved in the case’ who called the dossier’s source ‘credible’ and ‘with a proven record of providing reliable, sensitive and important information to the U.S. government.’

In a statement to Politico Corn said, ‘I’m not going to discuss my sources. But in order to prevent the dissemination of inaccurate information, I will say that James Baker was not my source for this story.’

Baker, however, was receiving attention because of a Washington Post story that came out Thursday that said he’s being reassigned from his position atop the Office of General Counsel at the FBI.

Two of the Post’s sources said the move didn’t come because of the political controversies plaguing the FBI, but rather as part of the leadership transition at the hands of new FBI Director Christopher Wray, who was confirmed for the job in August.

The Post’s story also pointed to Baker’s involvement in a leak probe that involved news reports detailing surveillance techniques for a specific email provider.

A source told the paper that on that issue, Baker ‘was distressed about it but was confident he hadn’t leaked anything.’

That probe, the newspaper reported, had recently petered out.

Politico’s story, which came out a day later, had Republican sources revealing that Baker had been in contact with Corn in the weeks leading up to the 2016 election, citing documents that had been provided to lawmakers recently by the Department of Justice.

However, the story also noted that the congressional sources told the publication that there was no conclusive evidence that Baker assisted Corn with his reporting.

‘But Republicans are pointing to the connection to cast suspicions about whether FBI officials had a hand in directing the details of the dossier to reporters, and the two sources said they expect it to be a focus on GOP investigators’ upcoming lines of inquiry,’ Politico wrote.

The contents of the dossier were also reportedly shopped around to reporters by Fusion GPS, the firm hired by Hillary Clinton’s campaign to dig up dirt on Trump.

The dossier had originated as opposition research on Trump, first funded by an unknown Republican primary opponent and then taken over by the Democrats and Clinton’s campaign.

Republican allies have questioned the FBI’s use of the dossier, which has never been verified in full, as a way to cast doubt on the handful of investigations into Russian meddling of the 2016 election and any Trump ties.

The president has also made great hay over government officials leaking information to the media.

Questions about Baker’s media ties began several days ago, Politico pointed out, when he appeared with FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe on Tuesday as McCabe took part in a closed-door session with the House Intelligence Committee, one of the panels investigating the Russia links.

GOP lawmakers in the meeting grilled McCabe on who at the FBI was allowed to talk to the media.

One Republican member then asked McCabe about a ‘hypothetical,’ outlining a meeting between the FBI’s general counsel and a Mother Jones reporter, Politico said.

In front of the panel, McCabe – who has also taken recent heat from the president over alleged political bias – said a meeting between such an FBI official and a reporter would be unauthorized, as Baker was seated in the room.

The committee’s top Democrat, Rep. Adam Schiff of California, suggested it was Republicans who should be ashamed for leaking information about Baker to the media, as Politico’s sources had done.

‘While we do not comment on the substance of nonpublic investigatory interviews, congressional Republicans again appear to be leaking information in an effort to discredit the FBI and Justice Department in the hopes of undermining the Mueller investigation,’ Schiff said.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller has taken over the FBI’s investigation into Russia and Trump.

‘Disdainful of the damage they are doing to our system of checks and balances, they would drag down another public servant in order to protect the president at any cost,’ said Schiff.

Besides his Capitol Hill testimony in June, Comey – who was fired by President Trump in May – has largely stayed away from FBI-related matters, using his social media presence to share timely quotes and inspirational phrases.

But on Friday night, he used his Twitter account to back a former colleague.

‘He is what we should all want our public servants to be,’ Comey said of Baker.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

President Donald J. Trump on Israel and Iran: “Two Countries Don’t Know What the F*** They’re Doing.”

Published

on

Trump’s Blunt Rebuke of Israel and Iran: A Strategic Display of Control Amid Ceasefire Chaos

On June 24, 2025, President Donald J. Trump delivered a characteristically unfiltered assessment of the faltering ceasefire between Israel and Iran, declaring, “Two countries don’t know what the f*** they’re doing.” The comment, made to reporters as he departed for a NATO summit, underscored his frustration with both nations for violating a fragile truce brokered just a day earlier on June 23, 2025. Far from a mere outburst, Trump’s statement and the actions surrounding it reveal a calculated approach to reasserting U.S. influence over a volatile Middle East conflict, showcasing his ability to navigate and control a complex geopolitical crisis.

The Context: A Ceasefire Undermined

The ceasefire, intended to de-escalate tensions between Israel and Iran, was a significant diplomatic achievement for the Trump administration, signaling a potential pause in a conflict that has long threatened regional stability. However, within hours, Iran launched a strike that killed several people, prompting Israel to respond with a “symbolic attack” on the same day. These violations unraveled the truce, drawing global attention and risking further escalation, particularly given Iran’s nuclear ambitions and Israel’s military resolve.

Trump’s blunt remark came in response to this rapid deterioration. He expressed particular displeasure with Israel, noting that it “unloaded” on Iran shortly after the agreement, undermining the deal he had championed. “I’m really unhappy with Israel,” he told reporters, a rare public rebuke of a key U.S. ally. Yet, his criticism extended to both parties, reflecting his view that their tit-for-tat actions lacked strategic clarity and jeopardized a cycle of violence.

Why Trump Said It: A Strategic Calculus

Trump’s choice of words was no accident. His provocative language served multiple purposes, each reinforcing his ability to steer the situation:

  1. Reasserting U.S. Authority: By publicly chastising both Israel and Iran, Trump signaled that the United States, under his leadership, remains the dominant force in Middle East diplomacy. His frustration highlighted the U.S.’s role as the ceasefire’s architect and underscored that violations would not be tolerated without consequences. This move reminded both nations of their reliance on U.S. support—militarily for Israel and diplomatically for Iran in avoiding broader sanctions or isolation.
  2. Pressuring for Compliance: Trump’s bluntness was a calculated pressure tactic. By calling out Israel’s “unloading” and Iran’s initial strike, he aimed to shame both into reconsidering further violations. His urgent appeal to Israel to avoid additional strikes against Iran, labeling such actions a “serious violation” of the ceasefire, was a direct warning to an ally accustomed to significant autonomy. Similarly, his criticism of Iran’s actions reinforced his earlier stance of giving them “chance after chance” to negotiate, signaling that his patience was not infinite.
  3. Shaping the Narrative: Trump’s colorful language ensured his message dominated global headlines, keeping the focus on his administration’s efforts to broker peace rather than the ceasefire’s collapse. By framing Israel and Iran as directionless, he positioned himself as the clear-headed leader seeking order amid chaos. This narrative was particularly critical as he headed to the NATO summit, where allies would scrutinize his handling of the crisis.
  4. Balancing Domestic and International Audiences: Domestically, Trump’s tough talk resonated with his base, who value his no-nonsense style. Internationally, it sent a message to adversaries like Iran that he was not afraid to confront allies like Israel, challenging perceptions of unchecked U.S. support for Israeli actions. This balancing act strengthened his leverage in future negotiations.

Trump’s Control: Actions Speak Louder Than Words

Beyond his rhetoric, Trump demonstrated control through decisive actions that underscored his influence over the situation:

  • Direct Diplomacy: Prior to the ceasefire, Trump had privately and publicly urged Israel to refrain from striking Iran, emphasizing his desire for a deal to prevent escalation. Despite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to act, Trump’s ability to extract a ceasefire agreement in the first place showcased his diplomatic clout.
  • Public Rebuke as Leverage: By openly criticizing Israel, a move described as a “rare public rebuke of an ally,” Trump shifted the dynamic of U.S.-Israel relations. This signaled to Israel that U.S. support, while steadfast, comes with expectations of compliance with American-led initiatives. It also positioned Trump as a neutral arbiter, increasing his credibility with other regional players.
  • Pushing for De-escalation: Trump’s comments were paired with a clear call for negotiations to resume, particularly with Iran, to address its nuclear program and prevent further strikes. His insistence that both nations “don’t know what they’re doing” was a strategic jab to nudge them toward the negotiating table, where the U.S. could dictate terms.
  • Navigating NATO and Global Opinion: Departing for the NATO summit, Trump used the crisis to project strength to allies wary of U.S. foreign policy under his second term. His ability to manage the ceasefire’s fallout while engaging with global leaders demonstrated his multitasking prowess and commitment to U.S. leadership on the world stage.

The Bigger Picture: A Pattern of Control

Trump’s handling of the Israel-Iran ceasefire breach aligns with his broader foreign policy approach: bold rhetoric, strategic pressure, and a knack for keeping adversaries and allies alike off balance. His critics, such as those on X who argue he has ceded too much control to Israel, overlook the nuance of his strategy. While Israel’s actions may have tested his influence, Trump’s public frustration and diplomatic maneuvering suggest he is far from a bystander. Instead, he is actively shaping the conflict’s trajectory, using the ceasefire’s collapse as an opportunity to reinforce U.S. dominance.

Conclusion

President Trump’s June 24, 2025, statement that Israel and Iran “don’t know what the f*** they’re doing” was more than a soundbite—it was a calculated move to reassert control over a spiraling Middle East crisis. By leveraging blunt rhetoric, public rebukes, and diplomatic pressure, Trump demonstrated his ability to steer the actions of both allies and adversaries. While the ceasefire’s breach exposed the region’s volatility, Trump’s response showcased his strategic acumen, ensuring the U.S. remains the central player in the quest for stability. As he navigates this crisis, his blend of bravado and pragmatism continues to define his approach, proving that even in chaos, he knows exactly what he’s doing.

Continue Reading

Iowa

Chad Pelley Lawsuit in Shambles – Free Speech Win Relieves Bailey Symonds, Strips Injunction

Published

on

In a pivotal legal ruling issued on May 14, 2025, the Iowa District Court in Linn County struck down nearly all of the speech-restricting injunctions in the high-profile case of Chad Pelley v. Dustin Mazgaj et al. The decision significantly weakens Pelley’s attempt to silence critics through civil court orders—and raises fresh questions about where the case goes from here.

Chad Pelley Injunction Dissolved Bailey Symonds by Populist Wire


Symonds Cleared, Mazgaj Partially Restricted

At the heart of the ruling is a clear rejection of Pelley’s broad effort to restrict speech. The court fully dissolved the injunction against Bailey Symonds, stating that Pelley failed to prove she caused harm or was likely to in the future. As of now, Symonds is under no legal restrictions, restoring her full right to speak about the case, attend public meetings, and post freely online.

In the case of Dustin Mazgaj, who operates under the name Butt Crack News Network, the court issued a narrowed injunction: Mazgaj is now only prohibited from publicly referring to Chad Pelley as a:

  • “Pedophile”
  • “Drug user”
  • “Drug dealer”

All other parts of the injunction—including no-contact orders and broad bans on speech or proximity—were dissolved.


Melissa Duffield Confirmed Unrestricted

The court also clarified that Melissa Duffield, another named defendant, was never placed under an injunction at any point. Attempts by Pelley’s legal team to restrict her speech in a separate post-trial filing were also rejected, with the judge referencing potential First Amendment concerns.


BCNN Not a Company, Just a Username

In a notable clarification, the court determined that Butt Crack News Network is not a separate business or legal entity—it’s simply the name of Mazgaj’s YouTube account. As such, any restrictions on BCNN are effectively just extensions of those on Mazgaj personally.


Skylar Price Still in Limbo

One original defendant, Skylar Price, has not responded to the lawsuit and was found in default. The court did not revisit the injunction as it applies to Price, meaning the original restrictions may still technically be in effect—but without any new legal activity or defense.


Beau Bish and Flex Your Freedoms Not Bound

Though Pelley filed a second motion earlier this year to add Beau Bish and the media group Flex Your Freedoms to the injunction, the court noted that they have not yet been formally served. As a result, they remain unrestricted by the court at this time.


Where Does Pelley’s Case Go From Here?

The judge’s ruling sends a clear signal: courts will not issue broad gag orders unless the speech in question is proven to be false and harmful—and even then, only in narrowly tailored ways.

Pelley may still pursue defamation claims, but without the broad powers of a speech-restricting injunction, he faces a steeper road. The ruling emphasizes the high bar courts place on prior restraint, especially when it involves criticism of someone involved in public matters like real estate development, civic boards, and local politics.

As for the remaining claims—libel, false light, and emotional distress—they will now move toward a full trial. But the public gag orders Pelley once used to silence his critics have been largely rolled back, and the spotlight on his case is only getting brighter.

Continue Reading

Politics

President Donald Trump 45 – 47

Published

on

Donald Trump’s political journey over the last eight years has been a vivid illustration of modern populism, defying conventional political odds. Starting with his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump, a real estate mogul and reality TV star, harnessed populist sentiments to propel his candidacy. His message resonated with many Americans feeling left behind by globalization and economic shifts, promising to restore jobs, combat what he described as unfair trade deals, and prioritize American interests over international cooperation. This populist wave was marked by his direct communication style, bypassing traditional media to connect with voters through rallies and social media, where he spoke of “draining the swamp” in Washington, suggesting a deep-seated distrust in the political establishment.

The struggle of Trump supporters has mirrored this populist movement, characterized by a sense of alienation from what they perceive as a detached political and cultural elite. This group, often labeled pejoratively by some in the mainstream, found in Trump a voice for their frustrations with immigration policies, economic policies favoring global trade over local jobs, and cultural shifts they felt were imposed without their consent. The Trump family, from Melania’s fashion choices to Ivanka’s political involvement, became symbols of this populist resistance against the perceived elitism of politics. The criticism they faced only deepened the solidarity among Trump’s supporters, who saw in his family a reflection of their own battles against the establishment.

The alt-media ecosystem was instrumental in this populist surge, serving as both a battleground and a bastion. Outlets like Breitbart and Infowars, and later platforms like Parler and Truth Social, became the echo chambers where Trump’s narrative of being a victim of political witch hunts and media bias was amplified. These platforms didn’t just report news; they crafted a narrative where Trump’s every move, from policy to personal tweets, was framed as part of a larger fight against a corrupt system. This interaction between Trump, his supporters, and the alt-media has redefined political discourse, showcasing how populism can harness media, both traditional and digital, to challenge and reshape political norms. Trump’s journey has thus not only defied odds but has also redefined what political success looks like in an era where populism can sway elections and influence policy discussions at the highest levels.

Continue Reading

Trending

Donate to Populist Wire

*Note: Every donation is greatly appreciated, regardless of the amount.