Trump should offensively depose Yates and Comey

Yates and Comey's statement to FISA contains words which they had to have known were inexact and untrue. What is Trump doing with that fact?

Mark Langfan,

Mark Langfan
Mark Langfan
Mark Langfan

As previously discussed, the Schiff Memo inadvertently and objectively opened the gates of an Obama governmental criminal conspiracy involving at least the Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and FBI Director James Comey to have seemingly perjured themselves in their joint swearing that the sentence in footnote #8 on page 15-16 in the October 21, 2016 FISA application that “The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person [Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS] was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1’s [Trump’s] campaign.” was true.  See Schiff Democrat Intelligence Minority Memo page 5.  

By October 21, 2016, both surely knew Glenn Simpson aka “identified U.S. Person” was a paid Clinton Campaign/Democrat Committee agent.  So, to aver to the FISA court in writing that the FBI only “speculated” that it was only a “likely” that there was a political motive of Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS was objectively and grossly knowingly a doubly false statement to the FISA court.  

The key is for the Trump defense to offensively use that sentence to destroy the entire Mueller investigation legally by asserting the October 21, FISA application was based on that perjurious sentence, and therefore the entire Mueller investigation is based on fruit of the poisonous tree of the perjured October 21, 2016 application.  

Critically, one would argue that before a sitting president, President Trump, could or should be forced to testify, the defense should be able to depose Yates and Comey to expose what was an objectively cognizable conspiracy to knowingly lie in their FISA court application whose result could be to effect a coup d’etat.

The first question would be: Is such an offensive motion by the Trump defense team for a Yates/Comey deposition in, and of itself, an “obstruction of justice?”  The answer is that if legitimately attempting to zealously defend your client against a governmental conspiracy in seeking to depose the authors of a sworn written FISA document where the statement is objectively false is an “obstruction of justice,” then any legitimate act of President Trump’s legal defense by the President is, in and of itself, an “obstruction of justice.”  A person and his legal team legitimately defending himself can’t be considered “obstruction of justice,” otherwise every legitimate act in every  legal defense for every alleged defendant in the United States is obstruction of justice.

It is fair to say that all the “evidence” produced so far is based on evidence trickled out or illegally spun from from the original October 21, 2016 perjured FISA application.  So, if the footnoted sentence “The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person [Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS] was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1’s [Trump’s] campaign.” was perjury, then the entire October 21, 2016 will surely be found to be legally defective.

If the authors of the October 21, 2016 are criminal perjurers, then all Mueller’s legal claims based on illegal fruit of the October 21, 2016 FISA application tree become legally unusable to show any legal basis for Trump being forced to testify in the first place. In fact, just the opposite will occur. It will show that Mueller has, in fact, been, at best, unwittingly conspiring with those who made that statement, Yates and Comey, to effectively advance what was an Obama governmental attempt at a criminal coup d’etat against President Trump.

Imagine for one moment, that two Trump administration ICE agents conspired to perjure themselves in a written application for a warrant to arrest an illegal alien.  The newspapers and cable shows would be screaming “perjury” “Nazi criminal ICE agents lie to the court for the new Hitler.” Or better yet, if two Republican-leaning Deputy Attorney General and FBI Director knowingly perjured themselves in a FISA warrant against a Democrat Presidential candidate?  The world would end as we know it. But, since Yates and Comey did so to destroy the Republican Trump, the media ignores the ugly reality staring them in the face.

Everyone should focus of the October 21, 2016 FISA application statement, “The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person [Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS] was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1’s [Trump’s] campaign.”  The key perjury words are “speculates”, and “likely.”

“Speculate” is defined as to “Form a theory about a subject without firm evidence.” The FBI had firm evidence that Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS were in Clinton's pay. The use of “speculates” is a lie.  And, “likely” is defined as “probable.” It was also a lie when the FBI and DOJ claimed it was only “probable” that Glenn Simpson sought dirt on Trump when it was absolutely positive. There was nothing “probable” about GPS Fusion’s singular intention. So, one sentence, two lies.

Most important, the Trump team’s legally focusing on what was an objective fraud on the FISA court is a fundamental protection of the US Constitution itself, and of every American’s rights.  If the governmental can conspire to lie to destroy a candidate from one political party, then we have become a country of men, and not of laws. If the government can affect an unconstitutional criminal coup against a presidential candidate, then no American is safe from the government’s tyranny.  President Trump legal offensive against the perjured October 21, 2016 FISA application is the ultimate defense of the United States of America.








top