Monday, May 25, 2020

Did Sullivan Help Set Comey Up With An Endowed Chair At Howard U.?

In September, 2017, after his role in the ambush interview and subsequent firing of Michael Flynn was well known, disgraced former FBI Director James Comey gave an address at Howard University in Washington, DC.:

Comey, who was appointed FBI director by President Obama in 2013 to lead the FBI, was fired by President Trump in May. His dismissal provoked the appointment of Robert Mueller, himself a former FBI director, as the special counsel tasked with investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Howard University named Comey an endowed chair in public policy last month, with his $100,000 salary going to provide scholarships to the school. "I look forward to contributing to this remarkable institution and engaging students and faculty alike," Comey said in a statement upon his hiring.

The Gateway Pundit is reporting that Emmet Sullivan was instrumental in getting that set up, although apparently misstating details:

Judge Sullivan worked with President [Wayne] Frederick to get Jim Comey as a guest speaker for a $100,000 fee.

TGP states that its lengthy blog on Sullivan's friends and family is based on material provided in large part by Yaacov Apelbaum.

I haven't seen Sullivan's role in this confirmed elsewhere, although he is a prominent alumnus of Howard U. If true, this would shed startling light on Sullivan's egregious and controversial actions as well as his words throughout proceedings in the Flynn case. The propriety of Sullivan not recusing himself also comes into question.


  1. Not sure if you follow him but James Kunstler has a really good post about Flynn and how his gag order will be lifted as soon as this mess is over and it'll be very interesting to hear what he has to say.
    He also mentions terms I haven't heard before: the NSA "Hammer" database and a CIA Timber Sycamore op to arm ISIS. Anyway worth a read imo:

    1. There's no doubt about it that the Left is scared witless of Flynn touring the country during the election.

    2. Very good Kunstler article. Not much new for Mark's crowd, but I am heartened each time I read a recap written by someone who gets it who has their own pool of readers.

      I just don't think the full horror of this story can be buried.

    3. @atxnfo

      Yes the Hammer reference was news to me, too.

      If Obama took the whole database he'll need to build a bigger basement in Kalorama or Martha's Vineyard. The NSA data center in Utah is reported to contain an 'exabyte' of data.

      The prefix 'exa' indicates multiplication by the sixth power of 1000 or 10 to the 18th power. Therefore, one exabyte is one quintillion bytes. That's one billion gigabytes, but who's counting!

      Let's see Barry try to bleach bit that baby and smash it with a hammer when Durham comes after him!


    4. Kunstler sure is a stud.
      Too bad he usually doesn't provide links for such key claims.

    5. MikeyinFL

      Was in IT/HCIT for 30+ years and remember reading at the time about them building the "Patriot" act Data center and wondering what were they possibly storing on what is believed to be over a Zettabyte to follow terrorists. Now with the latest Senate bill to allow them to collect your browser history without a warrant, they might be needing even more space.

      A comment was made (can't remember where) about them having something like 600 million pages of information. That sounds very small since 600m pages of 80 columns x 66 lines yields only about 3.2TB. About one hard drive of potentially 10's of thousands or more drives in Utah. (remember the whistleblower turning over 53 hard drives?). Even if it were accurate, think in terms of how many citizens are listed on some of those 600m pages, and then how many Americans have many pages in their ferromagnetic dossier?

    6. The government does not spy on Americans and there is no NSA data center in Utah where all your data are belong to us. Return to your homes immediately and refrain from any further questioning of the government. We'll know if you do.

      Also, FYI, psychopaths pronounce it "jigabytes".

  2. Someone asked whether Sullivan had children (within the context of what Flynn did to keep his son from being prosecuted). Photos at Gateway Pundit show Emmet Jr. to be a sleazy looking guy who apparently produces anti-Trump T-shirts and other gear. The family appears to be wall-to-wall anti-Trumpers…

    The article also tells us that the sketchy president of Howard U, the judge’s friend, arranged this Comey largesse at a time when funds for students were slim … Comey was heckled and defended himself, saying he would only speak for 12 minutes. $100K Nice work if you can get it.

    1. Comey apparently did not take the $100K, but donated it to a scholarship fund at Howard.

      I never swallow TGP whole, but use it as a point of departure to do my own research.

    2. Here is an interesting, very detailed article on the Stevens case, starting off with Sullivan’s courtroom display when he dismissed it. Juxtapose this with the Flynn case.

  3. Tweet:
    Roscoe B Davis🎖⭐️⭐️⭐️
    Feb 1
    Yaacov Apelbaum 'is an expert" in cutting through the white noise. One of the best I've seen. Former CTO at Dept of Homeland Security, brilliant mind, and one of the foremost leaders/developers in facial recognition software. He's the current Founder and CTO at XRVision.

    1. The Gateway Pundit post, if accurate, is extraordinarily damning. The fact that Apelbaum supplied much of the material lends it credence.

      I will have to take some time to absorb the dawning realization that even a federal judge has been recruited to the conspiracy.

      Senior members of the FBI, senior members of the CIA, senior members of the Department of Justice, senior members of the State Department, senior members of the Executive Branch, senior members of the House, senior members of the Senate, and a federal judge? Or judges?

  4. I read TGP, but I will be cautious about this until we hear more. Sounds a bit too fringy of a story, but real stories often times start out that way. I will be curious to follow if anything more comes of this. If Sullivan had connections that should lead hi to recuse but he failed to do so, I think it adds to a corrupt pattern of behavior.

    A whole lot of attention is now being focused on Sullivan to dig up dirt. Let's see what we find--but one has to think if there is real concern that Sullivan was corrupt in this case, the DOJ may be quietly looking into this.

    1. Agreed. That's why I asked a question and offered a disclaimer.

  5. I see at FR there was this re this topic:

    This thread has been pulled.
    Pulled on 05/25/2020 10:08:58 AM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:

  6. Dyer has a take on Sullivan/Flynn that I have not heard from anyone else.

    1. @Mike E

      Excellent article. Thanks for the link.

      Dyer asks the question Lee Smith asked the other day and its the question I've had on my mind, and often shared here, like forever...

      It's: Why?

      I remember thinking a couple of years ago, why would a bunch of bureaucrats (Comey, Brennan, et al) risk destroying their careers to lie and cover up...about politics? Then I thought: Career bureaucrats don't do this on their own. They follow orders. I continued to wonder as Mueller and Weissmann made fools of themselves and then when Schiff and Nadler did the same. Why?

      Then they picked a senile imbecile as the next Democratic presidential candidate. Why?

      Next, it has become more apparent over the past few weeks that Obama is (as always suspected) playing a big part in this nightmare and he's lying, too. Why?

      Dyer suggests the following:

      "The motive doesn’t come from pride in a legacy, not for the high crimes and misdemeanors attending the Iran “deal” (the JCPOA) or the anti-Trump campaign, with its relentless supporting effort in the Flynn attack vector. ...It’s something else. It’s something worth burning down everything to hang onto."

      I come out in the same place. It can't just be the 'legacy'. Its something worth burning everything down for. Is that what Comey's seemingly obscure reference to 'higher loyalty' means?

      Dyer concludes her excellent piece by expressing her own opinion regarding where this all leads and why?

      I'll stop here and let y'all read it for yourselves.

  7. Dyer/Smith pieces are tantalizing reads.

    Another is this thread that IDs Rosenstein as the killer mole in DOJ.

  8. Seems to be the T-Shirt Business:

  9. Iran? Maybe.

    Benghazi? Definitely. Who was head of DIA then?

  10. @Neill

    Rosenstein the undercover hero?

    That's some theory!

    Maybe Cates is right. Amazing operation if that's what's happened.

    It means the Undercover Mole Operation stood aside and observed from the inside while the conspirators destroyed, or tried to destroy, Flynn, PapaD, C Page, Manafort, Gates, Cohen and Stone and the Operation built the case against the conspirators. Presumably with electronic surveillance and photographs and eyewitness accounts. So Comey and Clapper and Brennan's phones have been bugged since May 2017? And Bob Mueller was working for Trump?

    And I guess Trump's complaints about the incompetent Sessions have been just for show...

    Kind of hard to believe Rosenstein could have pulled this off, but all the more amazing if he has.

    Let's sit back and see where it goes...

    1. Cates doesn't know what he's talking about. He shows it first by talking about RICO--just one more who hasn't bothered to find out what RICO is actually about.

      Second, an undercover DAG starts up the SCO op and then the guys who man and whom he supervises and expands it for them with scope memos are going to be prosecuted for his operation?


    2. Mark -- You're no fun!

      I'm skeptical too but would you have believed four years ago that your own FBI would participate in an elaborate coup attempt against the President? Talk about improbabilities!

      I knew you would hate the RICO reference. That's the lawyer in you. Let's obey the Bongino 24-72 hour rule (you probably hate the Bongino reference, too) and see if there is anything at all to this concoction.

      You have to admit that there are plenty of anomalies in the Rosenstein story. Maybe he didn't wear a wire to meet with Trump, but he did wear a wire to meet with McCabe! Maybe there's a kernel or two of truth to this story.

      Let's sit back and see where it goes...

    3. "would you have believed four years ago that your own FBI would participate in an elaborate coup attempt against the President?"

      I'll bet I'm a lot less surprised than non-Bureau people!

    4. Cates needs to send Nunes the message, cuz he obviously doesn't get it:

  11. I've followed Cates on twitter for some time, for the occasionally entertaining threads he puts out. I've politely let him know a few times the Rosenstein white hat thing of his is bonkers, because, well, it is.

    The part that confuses me more is that The Epoch Times' Jeff Carlson (@themarketswork) is right there with Cates on this, and Carlson is generally quite sober in all things. It may be that Rosenstein got religion once he saw Barr coming and has cooperated fully since then, but no way was he ever any sort of a good guy in any of this before that.

    At any rate, I'm excited for June 1 right now (Sullivan's deadline) and for whatever other dates more good stuff starts dropping.

    Happy Memorial Day to all.

    1. I agree with Brad about Jeff Carlson. He is quite sober and he has always been very positive towards Brian Cates.

      I think Rosenstein is more of a tragic figure than corrupt. He might be weak-willed, or, as Mr. Wauck once speculated, he didn't like it when he received brush-back for firing Comey.

      I won't be surprised if he was happy when Barr offered him a rope to get himself off the ledge where he was trapped.

      And, of course, this is only speculation. I have been wrong many times.

  12. I've always speculated that Rosenstein turned away from the conspirators when he kissed and made up with Trump near the end of his time there. I think part of the deal with Rosenstein was that he would stick around to put his seal of approval on Barr's summary of the Mueller report. The scope memos Rosenstein drafted were junk, and Barr almost certainly reviewed those documents first thing in order to get up to speed on the state of the special counsel. Barr had, at least, professional leverage over Rosenstein the moment he walked in the door.

    1. Yes. Most casual news consumers have very little clue about Barr, what his reputation was in the legal profession, and which certainly preceded him to DoJ.

  13. I have a comment and I am curious if anyone agrees or disagrees here.

    I think that there is too much 'friendship' between certain parties that should have a neutral or, adversarial relationship.

    For example, Clapper, Brennan, Comey and the media. Comey (the FBI Director) and Judge Sullivan. Peter Strozk and Judge Contreras, etc.

    Too much mixing between media and those they're supposed to be covering. Too much mixing between the executive, legislative and judicial branches.

    1. Gingrich's view in the mid-1990s was, that D.C. had too much coziness.
      See J. Haidt, at :

      "many of the changes he made polarized the Congress, made bipartisan cooperation more difficult, and took us into a new era of outrage and conflict in Washington.
      One change stands out to me, speaking as a social psychologist: he changed the legislative calendar, so that all business was done Tuesday through Thursday, and he encouraged his incoming freshmen not to move to the District.
      He did not want them to develop personal friendships with Democrats. He did not want their spouses to serve on the same charitable boards. But personal relationships among legislators and their families in Washington had long been a massive centripetal force."

      I'm with you, Joe, that such centripetal forces were coming at the expense of the general public interest.
      D.C. had become a super-cozy club, and DJT (and, for a while, four years ago, Sanders) stood for crashing the party.

    2. A possible fix for some of the incestuousness is to move parts of the federal octopus outside of Washington D.C. There is no reason why the Bureau of Mining needs to be in DC. Same goes for the Dept. of the Interior. Westward, ho!

      Forcing members of the kakistocracy to live among people whose lives they're ruining will give them a clarity they can't get inside the swamp. Trump has already made some moves on this front.

  14. IDK about Sullivan, but Comey donated the $100K back to Howard U's scholarship fund: