Friday, May 01, 2026

The Comey Memos Open the Door to See the Appointment of Robert Mueller as FBI Target Continuation April 30, 2026 | Sundance |

 

The Comey Memos Open the Door to See the Appointment of Robert Mueller as FBI Target Continuation

April 30, 2026 | Sundance |

I apologize for the deep weed details, but this stuff will soon become critical.  If James Comey is indicted for leaking the “Comey memos” suddenly the door opens wide to see how the Robert Mueller appointment was a coordinated ongoing ‘conspiracy’ effort to target Donald Trump.

Back in June 2017 CNN (and other media) filed a FOIA suit to gain the Comey memos.  As the lawsuit progressed through a lengthy battle -where the Mueller team did not want to turn over those memos- Mueller’s lead FBI agent, David Archey, made sworn declarations to the court. Those statements became known as the “Archey Declarations”.  Inside those declarations agent Archey provided a specific outline of the FBI and the memos.

There are two sets of documents that outline a very specific picture.  Robert Mueller’s lead FBI Agent David Archey made sworn declarations to the court. However, at the time of his sworn statement, Archey did not have knowledge of an inside FBI “whistleblower” who provided information to DOJ Inspector General, Michael Horowitz.

There is a distinct conflict within the IG Horowitz report on James Comey (and memos) [Available Here] and the David Archey declarations [Available Here].  However, beyond the conflict there’s an even more alarming picture of how Robert Mueller was deployed, when all the information is overlaid in a timeline.   A very clear picture emerges; very clear.

Note the date: Agent Archey states the “investigative team” came into full possession of the Comey memos: on or by May 12th, 2017,”…

[Page #3 of Exhibit A – Archey Declarations]

The “investigative team” would be Andrew McCabe, Bill Priestap, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and then James Baker as lead counsel for the group.  The “Director’s staff” would be James Rybicki, who is identified by Archey as having “maintained” possession of the memos.

This “small group”, particularly Comey’s Chief of Staff, James Rybicki, is the center of the team.  This team is also confirmed by the IG Horowitz report. This team had the memos on May 12th, 2017.

Now we move into the aspect where the motives and ideology become clear as we look at the IG custodial record of the memos, as outlined by the Supervisory Special Agent in charge of Comey’s documents within the IG report, compared to the Archey declarations.

The FBI Supervisory Special Agent (SSA) in charge of Comey’s document retrieval is the “whistleblower” who eventually went to the IG.  I’ll explain why and how below; and to make understanding easier we shall use “SSA Whistleblower” to describe him.

♦ On May 10th, the Comey memos were not in Comey’s office [per IG report].  At the time of the search and review of Comey’s office there were no hard copies found by SSA Whistleblower.

Now, keep in mind “by May 12th” James Rybicki had all the Comey memos in his possession, per Mueller team FBI Agent David Archey.

♦On May 12th, SSA Whistleblower went to James Comey’s house along with James Rybicki and Deputy FBI Director David Bowditch.


During this May 12th visit James Comey never told SSA Whistleblower he had the memos in his personal safe.  James Rybicki was also present for this retrieval visit and also never told SSA Whistleblower that he was holding the memos in his FBI HQ office.

♦On May 15th, three days later, James Rybicki then tells SSA Whistleblower he knows the location of the Comey memos; and Rybicki informs SSA Whistleblower he has additional relevant material.

From the IG Report: “Rybicki told the SSA that he did not tell anyone about the Memos during the May 10 inventory because he understood that process to only include Comey’s office.”   Very sketchy.

At this point SSA Whistleblower had to suspect something sketchy was happening.  Keep in mind the following day May 16th, 2017, Comey sent memo content to his friend Daniel Richman with instructions to leak to the New York Times. [Article published 5:00pm 5/16/17]

If Rybicki didn’t inform SSA Whistleblower on May 15 about the Comey memos, then SSA Whistleblower would have found out from leaked media reports the next day May 16.

If Rybicki didn’t tell SSA Whistleblower about the memos on May 15, then it would have looked like the ‘small group’ was hiding and leaking the memos.

An intellectually honest review of the timing, and considering Rybicki had indeed been hiding the memos, leads to the conclusion Rybicki knew the NYT leak was coming; Rybicki was coordinating with James Comey; and Rybicki/Comey were trying to avoid team scrutiny. [Further evidence of this surfaces in the Mueller contact timeline.]

By May 16th, 2017, SSA Whistleblower, had to see the sketchy nature of how this was unfolding.   As a result this scenario from the IG report now makes sense:

If we overlay the FBI “small group” contact with Robert Mueller an even more clear picture emerges.

“Crossfire Hurricane” – During 2016, after the November election and throughout the transition period and into 2017, the FBI had a counterintelligence investigation ongoing against Donald Trump. FBI Director James Comey’s memos were part of this time-period as the FBI small group was gathering evidence.  Then Comey was fired….

♦Tuesday May 9th – James Comey was fired at approximately 5:00pm EST.  Later we discover Rod Rosenstein first contacted Robert Mueller about the special counsel appointment less than 15 hours after James Comey was fired.

♦Wednesday May 10th – From congressional testimony we know DAG Rod Rosenstein called Robert Mueller to discuss the special counsel appointment on Wednesday May 10th, 2017, at 7:45am. [See Biggs questions to Mueller at 2:26 of video]

According to his own admissions (NBC and CBS), Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe immediately began a criminal ‘obstruction’ investigation. Wednesday May 10th; and he immediately enlisted Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

A few hours after the Rosenstein-Mueller phone call James Comey’s office was being searched by the SSA Whistleblower per the IG report on Comey’s memos.

Thursday May 11th – Andrew McCabe testified to congress. With the Comey firing fresh in the headlines.  McCabe testified there had been no effort to impede the FBI investigation.

Also on Thursday May 11th, 2017, The New York Times printed an article, based on information seemingly leaked by James Comey, about a dinner conversation between the President and the FBI Director.   The “Loyalty” article [link].  The IG report shows: [Daniel] Richman confirmed to the OIG that he was one of the sources for the May 11 article, although he said he was not the source of the information in the article about the Trump Tower briefing“.

♦Friday May 12th –  Andrew McCabe met with DAG Rod Rosenstein to discuss the the ongoing issues with the investigation and firing.  Referencing the criminal ‘obstruction’ case McCabe had opened just two days before.  According to McCabe:

… “[Rosenstein] asked for my thoughts about whether we needed a special counsel to oversee the Russia case. I said I thought it would help the investigation’s credibility. Later that day, I went to see Rosenstein again. This is the gist of what I said: I feel strongly that the investigation would be best served by having a special counsel.” (link)

According to Andy Biggs questioning of Mueller, on this same day, May 12th, evidence shows Robert Mueller met “in person” with Rod Rosenstein.  This is the same day when SSA Whistleblower went to James Comey’s house to retrieve FBI material and both Rybicki and Comey never informed the agent about the memos:

May 12th is the date noted by David Archey when FBI investigators had assembled all of the Comey memos as evidence.  However, no-one in the FBI outside the “small group” knows about them.

♦On Saturday May 13th, 2017, another meeting between Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller, this time with AG Jeff Sessions also involved. [Per Andy Biggs]

♦Sunday May 14th –  Comey transmitted copies of Memos 2, 4, and 6, and a partially redacted copy of Memo 7 to Patrick Fitzgerald, who was one of Comey’s personal attorneys.  Fitzgerald received the email and PDF attachment from Comey at 2:27 p.m. on May 14, 2017, per the IG report.

♦Monday May 15th, McCabe states he and Rosenstein conferred again about the Special Counsel approach. McCabe: “I brought the matter up with him again after the weekend.”

On this same day was when James Rybicki called SSA Whistleblower to notify him of Comey’s memos. The memos were “stored” in a “reception area“, and in locked drawers in James Rybicki’s office.

Tuesday May 16th – Per the IG report: “On the morning of May 16, Comey took digital photographs of both pages of Memo 4 with his personal cell phone. Comey then sent both photographs, via text message, to Richman”

On this same day Rod Rosenstein takes Robert Mueller to the White House for a meeting in the oval office between President Trump, VP Pence, Robert Mueller and Rod Rosenstein.    While they were meeting in the oval office, the following story was published by the New York Times (based on Comey memo leaks to Richman):

Also, during the approximate time of this Oval Office meeting, Peter Strzok texts with Lisa Page about information relayed to him by Tashina Guahar (main justice) on behalf of Rod Rosenstein (who is at the White House).

Later that night, after the Oval Office meeting – According to the Mueller report, additional events on Tuesday May 16th, 2017:

Interesting that Tashina Gauhar was taking notes presumably involved in the 5/16/17 meeting between, Lisa Page, Rod Rosenstein, and Andrew McCabe. 

This meeting at Main Justice appears to be happening in the evening (“later that night”) after the visit to the White House with Robert Mueller.  This meeting appears to be Lisa Page, Rod Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe; along with Tashina Gauhar taking notes.

Why is the Tuesday May 16th, 2017, date of additional importance?

Wednesday May 17th, 2017:  Rod Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe go to brief the congressional “Gang-of-Eight”: Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, Devin Nunes, Adam Schiff, Mitch McConnell, Chuck Schumer, Richard Burr and Mark Warner.

… […] “On the afternoon of May 17, Rosenstein and I sat at the end of a long conference table in a secure room in the basement of the Capitol. We were there to brief the so-called Gang of Eight—the majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate and the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. Rosenstein had, I knew, made a decision to appoint a special counsel in the Russia case.”

[…] “After reminding the committee of how the investigation began, I told them of additional steps we had taken. Then Rod took over and announced that he had appointed a special counsel to pursue the Russia investigation, and that the special counsel was Robert Mueller.” (link)

Immediately following this May 17, 2017, Go8 briefing, Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein notified the public of the special counsel appointment.

What is clear from a review of all the related and released information is the FBI small group (McCabe, Page, Strzok, Rybicki, Baker) were hiding the ongoing FBI investigation from other FBI officials (including the SSA Whistleblower), inside the department after Comey was fired.

McCabe launched a “criminal investigation” (obstruction) May 10th, and Rosenstein was in immediate contact with Robert Mueller about being a special counsel after conversations with the FBI small group. The small group were then releasing information to their media allies, and hiding the releases from FBI agents outside the small group; until they no longer needed to do so (May 15).

On May 15th, it appears the SSA whistleblower was finally notified of the Comey memos because the small group already knew Robert Mueller was going to be appointed.

Comey, his lawyers and Lawfare allies, together with the small group, coordinated to leak and publish the NYT article (May 16th) the day Mueller was interviewing President Trump in the oval office. They knew Mueller was going to be appointed the following day, May 17th.  The NYT leak was cover and ammunition for Rod Rosenstein to fulfill his role.

This is the Special Counsel as the insurance policy deployed.

Everything was a set up by the small group; exclusively executed by the small group; kept hidden from other FBI agents and officials; and Mueller’s visit with President Trump was part of that investigative effort.

This overall conspiracy/plan is why the FBI SSA turned to Inspector General Michael Horowitz and requested Whistleblower protection.  This is also why IG Horowitz was motivated to carve out the Comey memos in his report.

KEY POINT – OIG Michael Horowitz outlined the Special Counsel appointment as fraudulently predicated.

Because FBI Agent David Archey was not part of the original team (he did not join until August 2017); and because Archey had no idea a whistleblower had gone to the FBI when he wrote his declarations; David Archey wrote about the FBI investigative team having all of the copies of the memos on May 12th, 2017.

FBI Agent David Archey was unaware the ‘small group‘ had kept the Comey memos hidden from the FBI SSA Whistleblower until May 15th, 2017; so he inadvertently exposed their assembled disposition prior to the ‘small group’ admissions to the SSA.

Lastly….

♦ June 1st, 2017 – After the “small group” had successfully organized the operation to get Robert Mueller appointed, then this same team sat down to classify the material that might expose their efforts to set up the special counsel appointment.

They knew about the leak from Comey to Richman and then to the New York Times on the 16th of May, but this group then told Inspector General Horowitz they didn’t know Comey shared his memos during their discussions on June 1st.

Prosecute James Comey for releasing classified information, and the background of all the FBI ‘small group’ effort comes into play.  Michael Horowitz would even be a good witness for the prosecution.  Their effort led to the appointment of Robert Mueller and the team of Lawfare operatives who targeted the office of the president for two years.

This was a conspiracy against rights, including the right of the American voter to have a functioning administration.

Report: Another DOJ Investigative Case Against James Comey Happening in Virgina – That’s Three States Now, and This One Has Big Irony April 30, 2026 | Sundance |

 

Report: Another DOJ Investigative Case Against James Comey Happening in Virgina – That’s Three States Now, and This One Has Big Irony

April 30, 2026 | Sundance |

In the first case against James Comey for allegedly lying to Congress, there was no dismissal; instead, the judge rejected US Attorney Lindsey Halligan’s involvement. After that, the statute of limitations ran out.  However, if the report below is accurate, this would represent the third currently active investigation against former FBI Director James Comey, and Lindsey Halligan might get the last laugh.

The first investigative notice to Comey was in mid-March from the Sunshine State.  Essentially the ‘conspiracy case’ being reviewed by Jason A. Reding Quiñones, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida {SOURCE}.  The second investigative case was in North Carolina, where a grand jury released an indictment for threats against President Trump {SOURCE}.  Now, Bloomberg is reporting on a third investigation against Comey for leaking classified documents to his friend and special government employee, Daniel Richman.

BLOOMBERG – […] The investigation is tied to his dissemination of documents to Columbia University Law Professor Daniel Richman, the individuals added. If successful, it would be the Trump DOJ’s third time indicting Comey since last fall.

[…] It hasn’t been decided if the department will present an indictment to a grand jury in Eastern Virginia, where Comey resides, or if the case could be pursued in a different location—such as in Richman’s home of New York. (read more)

It doesn’t really matter whether New York or the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA), either location would be the third state where the disgraced former FBI Director Comey would have to defend himself. Again, I remind everyone of ‘pressure points’ in Lawfare.

If the EDVA/NY case proceeds it is based around James Comey leaking his memos to his friend Daniel Richman.

In addition to being a close personal friend to James Comey, Daniel Richman is part of the Lawfare network and close friends with Benjamin Wittes, another member of Comey’s tribe.  The evidence of this leaking operation is solid, very solid.  The only defense James Comey holds in this matter is to claim his memos were not ‘classified’ material.

In fact, several months ago I was told the reason Comey was not yet indicted was due to an internal debate within the DOJ as to the classification status of the Comey memos.  To wit I replied, “there is a profound irony in this question the DOJ is asking itself.”

You see, in the Mar-a-Lago documents case Jack Smith appealed the ‘classification’ ruling by Judge Aileen Cannon when she appointed a “Special Master” to review the documents and determine the classification status.

The DOJ/FBI Special Counsel, previously said to the Florida court they would not reveal the content of the Mar-a-Lago document information because it was “classified” under “national security” grounds.  You might remember President Trump’s legal position was to make the content public because Trump said there was no classified material.

To reconcile the issue, during discovery phase Florida Judge Cannon appointed a Special Master to review the “classified” documents.  The FBI and Jack Smith balked at the demand and filed an appeal with the 11th Circuit to keep the Trump defense from reviewing what Jack Smith said were “documents marked classified.”

Smith didn’t want the documents made public or revealed to President Trump, so the DOJ/FBI position was that the documents were too sensitive (TSCI) with “national security” implications.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the “classification status” of the Mar-a-Lago documents was whatever the national security apparatus of the federal government (DOJ, FBI and Intelligence Community) said it was.  The judicial branch could not interfere in the classification status applied by the executive branch.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the government position that any documents defined as “classified” by the executive branch (then Biden) that claimed, “national security,” should not be disclosed to the defendant, Donald Trump.  The court of appeals essentially determined that all definitions by the executive branch, are not questionable by the judicial branch.

This precedent now applies to James Comey’s memos.  If the DOJ/FBI/IC define the Comey memos as classified documents because they specifically pertain to private discussions with President Donald Trump about ongoing security matters and Russia, then the Comey memos are legally classified information – regardless of what James Comey says about them.

The DOJ can prosecute James Comey for leaking classified documents by using the same legal approach the DOJ used against Donald Trump.  Classified documents are whatever the federal government says they are.

When I reminded the DC people about this specific precedent, you could have heard a pin drop.

♦ Back to Richman….  Though USAO Lindsey Halligan could not get beyond the technicality ruling of her appointment, she smartly dropped all the evidence against Comey for leaking classified documents inside a legal response about Comey lying to congress. {GO DEEP}

This was either super smart or just legally serendipitous, because that approach made visible the evidence now being considered to indict Comey on a matter that does not have a statute of limitations.

Lindsey Halligan provided the evidence of James Comey’s extensive use of Daniel Richman to act as a cut out for leaks and communications with the media [Attachments HERE].

Beginning on January 2, 2015, James Comey hired Daniel Richman to be his conduit to the media for all things around the Clinton investigation.  Exhibit #3 highlights Richman emails to Office of Legal Counsel, Patrick Findlay, to begin the process of officially working for Comey as a special government employee. [Attachment #3 HERE].

There are multiple exhibits highlighting emails between James Comey (aka Reinhold Niebuhr7) and Daniel Richman [HERE-4 and HERE-5 and HERE-6 and HERE-7] proving the former FBI director did intentionally direct Daniel Richman to contact media persons on his behalf and leak investigative background information, or instruct them on information, James Comey provided. The evidence on this issue is overwhelming.

Daniel Richman, working directly on the instructions of James Comey, worked closely with New York Times journalist Mike Schmidt, husband of MSNBC’s Nicole Wallace, to publish material [ex. Exhibit #8].  Richman then coordinated the FBI director’s message with dozens of national journalists, writing the scripts for them to publish on behalf of James Comey [ex Exhibit #9].   Again, the evidence on this collaborative endeavor is overwhelming.

Interestingly, [Govt Exhibit #12] is the criminal complaint stemming from the FBI investigation which began on July 21, 2025.   The investigative summary notes the purposeful use of Room #9582 at FBI headquarters, intended to destroy classified evidence concealed in five burn bags.

[SOURCE Exhibit #12, page 2]

Florida – Conspiracy case.

North Carolina – Comey threats against Trump.

NY or EDVA – Comey leaking classified documents.

Warmest best,

Sundance

Thursday, April 30, 2026

Supreme Court Rules Racial District Gerrymandering Violates Constitution April 29, 2026 | Sundance |

 

Supreme Court Rules Racial District Gerrymandering Violates Constitution

April 29, 2026 | Sundance |

Today, in a very important 6-3 decision at the Supreme Court [Full pdf Ruling Here] the high court ruled in Louisiana -vs Callais that congressional districts drawn by considering race are an unconstitutional gerrymander.  Race should not be a consideration in the drawing of district boundaries.

Chief Justice John Roberts had previously described Louisiana’s 6th Congressional District as a “snake” that stretches more than 200 miles (320 kilometers) to link parts of Shreveport, Alexandria, Lafayette and Baton Rouge.  “That map is an unconstitutional gerrymander,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissent for the three leftist, activist justices. “The consequences are likely to be far-reaching and grave. Today’s decision renders Section 2 all but a dead letter,” Kagan wrote, referencing Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965

(Via Politico) – […] Alito said a revised interpretation of Section 2 was needed in part because of the Supreme Court’s 2019 ruling that the Constitution does not prohibit gerrymandering for partisan purposes. As a result, he suggested, plaintiffs in voting discrimination lawsuits are now often “dressing their political-gerrymandering claims in racial garb.”

“Failing to account for political considerations in redistricting … can allow plaintiffs to undo a State’s legitimate, non-racial decisions under the banner of Section 2,” Alito wrote, appearing to express concern that Democrats could use voting rights lawsuits for partisan purposes rather than to target racial discrimination.

“If race and politics are not disentangled and a Section 2 claim is cynically used as a tool for advancing a partisan end, the VRA’s noble goal will be perverted,” he wrote.

The high court’s decision is the culmination of a long-running battle in Louisiana over Black voters’ representation in Congress. The Supreme Court first heard argument in the case in March 2025, but the justices failed to issue a ruling and made the unusual decision to hear it again this term. (read more)

The leftist/activist justices (Kagan, Sotomayor and the DEI Justice Brown-Jackson), had intentionally been slow-walking their dissent opinion in order to delay the release of the high court ruling released today.  The delay tactic was intended to stop ‘Republican’ states from using the majority ruling for redistricting purposes prior to this year’s midterm federal election.

Democrats and Community Activist groups are apoplectic that race is not permitted in the determination of congressional districts.  Democrats could stand to lose up to 20 seats in the House of Representatives if race is no longer a factor in making district boundaries.   Former President Barack Obama is highly upset at the decision:

[SOURCE]

President Trump celebrated the elimination of racism in congressional districting.

 

Opinion Analysis

In major Voting Rights Act case, Supreme Court strikesdown redistricting map challenged as racially discriminatory

ByAmy Howe

/Apr 29, 2026

The Supreme Court on Wednesday, in the case of Louisiana v. Callais, struck down a Louisiana congressional map that a group of voters who describe themselves as “non-African American” had challenged as the product of unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. By a vote of 6-3, the justices left in place a ruling by a federal court that barred the state from using the map, which had created a second majority-Black district, in future elections. Although Wednesday’s ruling did not strike down a key provision of the federal Voting Rights Act, as Louisiana and the challengers had asked the court to do, Justice Elena Kagan suggested in her dissent (which was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson) that the majority opinion by Justice Samuel Alito had rendered the provision “all but a dead letter.”

 

In a 36-page opinion, Alito explained that “the Constitution almost never permits the Federal Government or a State to discriminate on the basis of race.” The question before the court, he said, is “whether compliance with the Voting Rights Act should be added to our very short list of compelling interests that can justify racial discrimination.”

Secretary Scott Bessent Discusses “Operation Economic Fury” Against Iran April 29, 2026 | Sundance |

 

Secretary Scott Bessent Discusses “Operation Economic Fury” Against Iran

| Sundance |

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent outlines Operation Economic Fury and the financial pressure campaign against the Iranian regime with Larry Kudlow.

 

Scott Bessent: This is coming to a STOP

Fox Business

(12:40)

KEY POINTS:

0:00 Introduction: Operation Economic Fury
0:39 Max Pressure: The Strategy to Freeze Iran’s Economy
2:04 Tracking the Money: Seizing IRGC Assets and Crypto
3:14 The Oil Blockade: Kharg Island at a Standstill
4:10 US Economic Resilience: Why Critics Are Wrong
6:04 IRS Modernization and Signature Tax Policies
7:33 Global Reshoring and the Manufacturing Boom
8:10 Geopolitical Chess: The UAE’s Break from OPEC
10:27 Federal Reserve Friction: Jay Powell vs. Kevin Warsh