Part of an extended decode on Russiagate and key players (this post Comey).
Prior segment start points, pb: >>115813, >>116087, >>117057, >>118140
Last post, pb: >>118144
In the most recent set of posts, I argued from widely accepted evidence to the conclusion that James Comey is a straight-up white hat.
In short, the crucial fact is that he threw the 2016 election to Trump.
All the "negatives" on him are either misdirection for the enemy or signs that he is a "Judas goat".
(I haven't used that term before, but I'm taking it from the last installment of Patel Patriot's Devolution series, which argued that we must conclude that the white hats have long had Judas goasts embedded in the enemy camp. I think Comey is one of them.)
Comey was a leader in Russiagate, the enemy's major counterattack against Trump.
It was a disaster for them.
(Yes, we took some losses, but THIS IS NOT A GAME.)
Now I will start looking at subtle clues from Q, Comey and perhaps others pointing to Comey as a white hat.
Here I will focus on his two books, A Higher Loyalty and Saving Justice.
In this particular post I want to draw attention to a number of themes that appear in the two books.
(I'm skipping page references as I am trying to convey this in the most intuitive manner possible. If you find this plausible, read the books or review my other posts.)
First, Comey makes a point of displaying particular concern for the fact that people are treated equally by the justice system regardless of their social status.
He devotes attention both to the Martha Stewart insider trading case and the case of Richmond Mayor Leonidas Young.
Anons know that Martha Stewart did the time.
The Richmond case involved the mayor (also a preacher) who had some "side honeys", but needed some medical help to "perform" with them.
He engaged in some financial chicanery and embroiled one of his church assistants in it.
That guy did some stuff to help his pastor conceal the transactions and then lied to the feds about it.
Comey put him in jail.
Likewise, even though he admitted that he once added basil to his turkey due to Martha's advice, he put her in jail.
The charge in both cases was lying to the feds.
Comey makes the point that making the case in white-collar financial crimes often involves proving intent, which is quite hard.
But it is much easer to prove that someone lied (if they did).
He says that in our day, many people don't believe that God will punish them, and so they will try to get away with crime by lying.
And so, Comey says, when they get caught in the lie, the judicial system needs to make them pay the price.
And that goes whether they are a rich celebrity or someone just trying to "help" a friend.
Here is the obvious question: didn't Hillary get "special treatment"?
Why does Comey focus on these topics?
Next, Comey highlights prominent people who got hit with charges relating to classified information.
Scooter Libby (Bush guy) got charged with exposing CIA agent Valerie Plame.
Sandy Berger (Clinton guy) got charged with mishandling classified documents at the National Archives.
David Petraeus (potential presidential candidate) got charged with giving classified info to his mistress.
They all got convicted.
Obviously, these cases are different and each is politically charged in its own way.
My point relates to Comey's discussion of these cases.
Hillary was neither charged nor convicted.
So why does Comey mention this stuff?