Laura Ingraham: James Comey's convenient memory loss and the search for answers

It may be time to send some Prevagen over the former FBI Director Jim Comey. He seemed to experience some severe amnesia during his closed door testimony before the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees on Friday.

They were exploring the factual predicate of the entire Trump/Russia probe--who knew what and when? But Jim Comey, just couldn’t recall.

According to Fox News’ analysis of the transcript, during his 5 and a half hours of testimony, Comey said “I don’t remember” 73 times. He responded, “I don’t know” 161 times. And “I don’t recall” eight times.
Here’s why all of this matters: Republicans are still struggling to find answers about the origins of this Russian collusion probe and the biased “investigators” who advanced it as an insurance policy should Donald Trump win the election back in 2016.

When asked if he could recall who wrote the “initiation document” for the Russia probe in July of 2016, Comey had no recollection.  He also claimed to have no knowledge of the involvement of Peter Strzok. He’s the FBI investigator who led the Clinton email probe whose texts to girlfriend Lisa Page included gems like this: "Trump’s abysmal, hoping people will just dump him."

Comey also couldn’t remember why the FBI granted immunity to Bryan Pagliano, the State Department employee who set up Hillary Clinton’s private email server. Comey’s got more blank spots than Christine Blasey Ford.

Similarly, he could remember anything about the British spy, Christopher Steele, passing his dossier along to Justice Department official Bruce Ohr. It was Ohr who forwarded it to the FBI, sparking the surveillance of Trump Campaign figures. Remember Carter Page, Trump’s campaign adviser?

But the few details that Comey had clarity on raise important questions. He told Congress that the details of the Steele dossier were "unverified" when they were used by the FBI to secure surveillance warrants of Carter Page. Now remember, that’s what started this entire Trump-Russia probe. Comey also maintained that it was “not necessary” for the FBI to validate the sources of the dossier. With questions outstanding, Comey will be further grilled by Congress.

No matter what [Jerry] Nadler says, no matter how he tries to rush the public along to impeachment, disturbing questions linger about the political nature of this entire collusion probe. And we will get answers — whether James Comey recalls them or not.

As the clock is running out on Republican efforts to get answers, Democrat Jerry Nadler, who will soon take the House Judiciary gavel, has already announced his first order of business: To shut down all investigation of possible corruption at the FBI and Department of Justice, their handling of the Hillary Clinton email probe, and all inquiry into the political motivations behind the Trump-Russia investigation. So, once Nadler takes the reigns, its all over.

“It is a waste of time to start with,” Nadler told a gathering of reporters. “The entire purpose of this investigation is to be a diversion of the real investigation, which is Mueller. There is no evidence of bias at the FBI and this other nonsense they [Republicans] are talking about.”

"This other nonsense" speaks directly to the credibility of the Mueller probe and calls it into question. Isn’t Nadler in the least bit curious about the origins of this Steele Dossier and the possibly that American citizens were erroneously surveilled to serve a political end?

And what role did memory-challenged Comey play in all this? The Department of Justice Inspector General Report did question Comey’s judgments about the Clinton email investigation as well as the Russia probe.

And they’re still investigating, by the way, that Comey leaking of his own memo to the file after his conversation with the president. Remember when he sent it over to his friend at the New York Times? That investigation is ongoing.

But Nadler and company want to bury all those concerns and rush right to the endgame. There is only one investigation Nadler means to keep alive and that’s Mueller’s. The incoming chairman already believes the Southern District of New York’s contention that the president instructing his lawyer to pay settlements to two women during the campaign is a felony, is directing a felony. And bingo! That’s grounds for impeachment:

“They would be impeachable offenses,” Nadler said on another cable news network. “Whether they are important enough to justify impeachment is a different question. But certainly they’d be impeachable offenses, because even though they were committed before the president became president, they were committed in the service of fraudulently obtaining the office.”

Translation: Rejoice, Deep State.

In the end, we may end up where this Russia probe began: Partisans misusing the tools of justice in a brazen attempt to drive a President from office. But no matter what Nadler says, no matter how he tries to rush the public along to impeachment, disturbing questions linger about the political nature of this entire collusion probe.

And we will get answers — whether James Comey recalls them or not. And that’s “The Angle.”

Adapted from Laura Ingraham's monologue from "The Ingraham Angle" on December 10, 2018.