House Minority Whip Steve Scalise tore into 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders for wanting to give “full voting rights to terrorists in prison” while allegedly “stripping away” rights of law-abiding American citizens.
Scalise appeared on “Fox News” this Wednesday and pointed out that “it’s almost unbelievable when you look at how far to the left they have gone, where socialism literally is beating out liberalism in terms of their ideology.”
In regard to Bernie Sanders advocating for criminals like the Boston Marathon bomber, who killed three people and injured many others in the attack and is now facing the death penalty, to have the right to vote while in prison, the Republican lawmaker called it as he saw it.
He said that while Bernie Sanders wants to allow prisoners to vote, Democrats are going to start “stripping away” rights of “law-abiding citizens,” particularly gun rights.
“They’re going to take away your First Amendment rights, your Second Amendment rights,” Scalise said. “They’ve got this plan on health care where they want to take away your ability to buy your own private insurance from your company.”
“It’s all about control versus freedom.” Scalise added.
On the health care plan put out by the Dems, Bernie Sanders reintroduced his “Medicare for All” bill on April 10. A health care expert recently told Fox News that “we would need to double the taxes just to even attempt to pay for this program.”
During Monday’s CNN town hall, Bernie Sanders claimed that “terrible people” like the Boston Marathon bomber should have be allowed to vote while in prison.
Democrats have moved so far to the radical left that their actual proposals now include giving full voting rights to terrorists in prison like the Boston Marathon bomber, all while stripping away the 1st and 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. pic.twitter.com/xs2YlFFCVs
In contrast to Sanders, another 2020 Democratic hopeful, South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, made it clear when asked at the town hall if he supported prisoners voting behind bars, responding, “No.”
On Wednesday, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief-of-staff Saikat Chakrabarti stated that incarcerated criminals should be able to vote because they are “the people most affected by unjust laws.”
Chakrabarti’s remarks came after Democratic presidential candidates came forward with the idea of allowing terrorists, murderers, rapists, and pedophiles to vote in elections during a series of CNN town halls on Monday.
“What’s the reason NOT to let incarcerated people vote?” Chakrabarti tweeted. “Shouldn’t the people most affected by unjust laws have some say in electing people to change them?”
Chakrabarti’s tweet received heat on social media from many users, here are some of the responses.
Dana Loesch: “Who knew the law against putting a bomb by an 8-year-old and blowing people up was unjust?”
Jeryl Bier: “Why is it that the default assumption is that most people in prison are there unjustly?”
Andrew Follett: “Are you implying that the Boston marathon bomber was unjustly incarcerated? As that was the explicit question that prompted this?”
Chakrabarti has been slammed down by scandals since entering the spotlight with Rep. Ocasio-Cortez.
He was accused of funneling over $1 million in political donations to his own private companies. And Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and Chakrabarti also “obtained majority control of Justice Democrats PAC in December 2017, according to archived copies of the group’s website, and the two appear to retain their control of the group,” as The Daily Caller reported.
“If the Federal Election Commission (FEC) finds that the New York Democrat’s campaign operated in affiliation with the PAC, which had raised more than $1.8 million before her June 2018 primary, it would open them up to ‘massive reporting violations, probably at least some illegal contribution violations exceeding the lawful limits,’ former FEC commissioner Brad Smith said,” The Caller added.
“Ocasio-Cortez never disclosed to the FEC that she and Chakrabarti, who served as her campaign chair, controlled the PAC while it was simultaneously supporting her primary campaign, and former FEC commissioners say the arrangement could lead to multiple campaign finance violations. The group backed 12 Democrats during the 2018 midterms, but Ocasio-Cortez was the only one of those to win her general election.” they added.
Former FEC commissioner Brad Smith said for The Caller: “If this were determined to be knowing and willful, they could be facing jail time. Even if it’s not knowing and willful, it would be a clear civil violation of the act, which would require disgorgement of the contributions and civil penalties. I think they’ve got some real issues here.”
“At minimum, there’s a lot of smoke there, and if there are really only three board members and she and [Chakrabarti] are two of them, sure looks like you can see the blaze. I don’t really see any way out of it,” Smith continued.
“The admission makes it open and shut if someone wants to file a complaint with the FEC. I don’t see how the FEC could not investigate that. We’ve even got their own statement on their website that they control the organization. I don’t see how you could avoid an investigation on that.”
The police officers who responded to Democratic presidential hopeful Beto O’Rourke’s drunk driving crash back in ’98 are standing by their official report that the former Texas congressman tried to flee the scene.
“I believe we have contradicting stories here,” Richard Carrera, the investigating officer, told The Texas Tribune on Wednesday. “I stand by my report.”
Following the accident, Richard Carrera brought Beto O’Rourke into the police station to perform an alcohol test. The breathalyzer reported a blood alcohol content of between 0.136 and 0.134, almost twice the legal limit.
The report says that O’Rourke had “glossy eyes” and was “unable to be understood due to slurred speech” and “almost fell to the floor” when exiting his car. He was subsequently charged with driving while intoxicated.
The Houston Chronicle published the reports Aug. 30, 2018, which detailed the incident. O’Rourke lost control of his car while driving “at a high rate of speed” and collided with a truck, throwing his vehicle across the center of the interstate. It also states that witness who called 911 told police that the Texas politician “attempted to leave the scene.”
O’Rourke has repeatedly denied the police report.
“I did not try to leave the scene of the accident, though driving drunk, which I did, is a terrible mistake for which there is no excuse or justification or defense, and I will not try to provide one,” Beto O’Rourke stated during a Senate debate in September 2018.
The Washington Post concluded O’Rourke’s denials earned four Pinocchios, which equals to a false statement.
O’Rourke, however, maintained his version of events even after the WaPo fact-check. An April Vanity Fair cover story profiled the presidential candidate when he described what he believed happened: After drinking a couple Jameson whiskeys with his father, O’Rourke called up a past girlfriend, she didn’t have a ride, so he offered to pick her up.
He drove an hour to Las Cruces and then an hour back to El Paso to drink with an old high-school friend. O’Rourke was taking his date, named Michelle, back to Las Cruces when the accident happened. He failed a sobriety test and was handcuffed. In his telling, he was pathetic but nonetheless chivalrous: When police left his friend in a gas-station parking lot, a handcuffed O’Rourke asked them to take cash out of his jeans so she could get home.
While Carrera added he doesn’t specifically remember the arrest, he has “no doubt that [O’Rourke] tried to leave the scene,” the Tribune reported. Gary Hargrove, Carrera’s former supervisor, also stood behind the initial account and noted that he does not have doubts that the report he helped compile and sign is accurate.
“[O’Rourke] did something to lead the officers to believe that he was trying to get away,” Hargrove said. “What they put down, I believed them.”
“Beto’s DWI is something he has long publicly and openly addressed over the last 20 years at town halls, on the debate stage, during interviews and in Op-Eds, calling it a serious mistake for which there is no excuse,” Chris Evans, O’Rourke’s communications director, responded. “This has been widely and repeatedly reported on.”
“The police report shows he was arrested for a DWI,” Evans continued. “Not for leaving or attempting to leave the scene.” The drunk driving charges against O’Rourke were later dismissed.
Former FBI official revealed that some of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails were recovered in the “executive offices” of the White House while former President Barack Obama held the office.
According to a disclosure obtained by Judicial Watch, the assistant director of the FBI Counterintelligence Division, Bill Priestap, admitted that the “email repositories were obtained” from the executive offices of the White House. Bill Priestap has retired from the FBI since then, as the Washington Examiner reported.
Judicial Watch questioned top intelligence officials after a judge ordered several key administrators to be deposed under oath about Clinton’s emails as it was connected to her private server and the emails sent regarding her response to the embassy attack at Benghazi.
No wonder Hillary Clinton has thus far skated – Barack Obama is implicated in her email scheme. https://t.co/0Hv5fMdmQQ
This deposition exposed that missing emails were found at the White House, the State Department, and several individuals such as Clinton’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton stated that Clinton avoided criminal prosecution just because the White House was “implicated” in the email scandal while Ex-President Obama’s Department of Justice was investigating the use of the private server.
“This astonishing confirmation, made under oath by the FBI, shows that the Obama FBI had to go to President Obama’s White House office to find emails that Hillary Clinton tried to destroy or hide from the American people. No wonder Hillary Clinton has thus far skated – Barack Obama is implicated in her email scheme.”
In addition, Judicial Watch reported that 48,982 emails were recovered from former Rep. Anthony Weiner’s laptop.
New York authorities confiscated the disgraced congressman’s laptop as part of an investigation into whether he sent sexually explicit images to a minor. During the investigation, FBI officials were notified that several emails from Clinton were also on the computer.
For now, it is not clear what will come of this information. Many Republicans, including Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham, have already strongly hinted that they would love to see a special counsel investigation into Clinton and the Obama Department of Justice.
Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham took aim on Tuesday at Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, suggesting that South Carolinians would not be pleased at the thought of prisoners being allowed to vote.
The former Republican presidential candidate claimed that it might be difficult to explain to the people of South Carolina, still raw from the racially-motivated church shooting perpetrated by Dylann Roof on June 17, 2015, why Bernie Sanders would allow a convicted murderer and self-proclaimed white supremacist to cast his vote.
“Just when you thought it couldn’t get worse….@BernieSanders supports allowing rapists, murderers, and terrorists – like the Boston bomber and Dylan[sic] Roof, the individual who massacred 9 church-goers in Charleston, to vote from prison,” Graham tweeted.
Just when you thought it couldn’t get worse….@BernieSanders supports allowing rapists, murderers, and terrorists – like the Boston bomber and Dylan Roof, the individual who massacred 9 church-goers in Charleston, to vote from prison. https://t.co/1wd8EBJHiS
“I look forward to hearing his explanation — in South Carolina — why Dylan[sic] Roof should be allowed to vote in the upcoming elections,” Graham continued.
During a CNN town hall on Monday, Bernie Sanders argued that convicted felons should not just regain the right to vote once they have been released from prison, but should be allowed to cast their vote while they are still serving their time.
Many conservatives were outraged about Bernie Sanders’ proposal. His radical idea was torched on social media moments after he shared it with the public. Few democrats, however, decided to join his idea and shared their support.
Kamala Harris also stated that it’s an opportune time for America to have a conversation about allowing convicts to cast their vote in America’s elections.
When asked by host Don Lemon about fellow presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders’ proposal to let everybody vote, including even the Boston Marathon bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, whose actions killed three people and injured 280 others back in 2013, she replied: “I think we should have that conversation.”
Democrat presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris called for three radical policy positions during a CNN-hosted town hall event on Monday in New Hampshire.
First, Sen. Harris vowed to use executive action to implement her sought-after gun control schemes.
“Upon being elected I will give the United States Congress 100 days to get their act together and have the courage to pass reasonable gun safety laws. And if they fail to do it, then I will take executive action,” she said when asked how she will go about keeping America’s schools safe.
“And specifically what I will do is put in place a requirement that for anyone who sells more than five guns a year, they are required to do background checks when they sell those guns. I will require that for any gun dealer that breaks the law the ATF take their license.”
A ton of evidence suggest that additional gun laws wouldn’t stop school shootings. Empowering teachers and school security officials with weapons of their own might, on the other hand.
Second, the California senator shared her support for a proposal to lower the voting age to 16. According to science, the human brain doesn’t stop developing until the age of 25. which means that someone who believes in science might reasonably argue that the voting age should be raised to 25, instead of being lowered.
“I think that there is no question that, if we are looking at what is going on in our country, we’re putting more responsibilities on people at a younger age, and the larger number of people we can involve in the electoral process, I think the more robust it would be,” she said Monday.
“I think one of the downsides of the way our system is currently constructed … is that if people don’t vote or they don’t write checks, they don’t get heard. And I believe strongly that you can judge a society based on how it treats it children.”
“And you can look at what we are not doing for our students, for our teenagers and for even younger, and I believe that if they had greater political power, maybe we would get our act together a little bit better than we’ve been doing.” she added.
Last and not least, the California senator stated that it’s an opportune time for America to have a conversation about allowing convicts to vote in America’s elections.
She issued the statement when asked by host Don Lemon about fellow presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders’ proposal to let everybody vote, including even the Boston Marathon bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, whose actions killed three people and injured 280 others back in 2013.
“Senator Bernie Sanders said earlier he’s in favor of felons being able to vote while serving in prison. He was asked specifically about people like the Boston Marathon bomber and also people convicted of sexual assault.” said Lemon.
“He said, ‘the right to vote is inherent to our democracy, even for terrible people.’ Do you agree?” Lemon asked.
“I agree the right to vote is one of the key components of citizenship, and it is something people should not be stripped of needlessly,” Kamala Harris replied.
“But, people who are convicted, like the Boston Bomber. They should be able to vote?” Lemon pressed.
“I think we should have that conversation,” she replied. Watch it on the video bellow.
While Sen. Harris’ answer was appalling, Sanders’ own statements were demonstrably worse.
When asked by a crowd member during a CNN town hall event on Monday about whether “those convicted of sexual assault should have the opportunity to vote,” the senator essentially said yes.
“If somebody commits a serious crime, sexual assault, murder, they’re going to be punished,” he initially replied. “They may be in jail 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, their whole life. That’s what happens when you commit a serious crime.”
“But I think the right to vote is inherent to our democracy. Yes, even for terrible people, because once you start chipping away … you’re running down a slippery slope … I believe even if they are in jail, they’re paying the price to society, that should not take away their inherent American right to participate in our democracy.”
When host Chris Cuomo asked specifically about the Boston Marathon bomber being allowed to vote from prison, Sanders said, “Look, this is what I believe. Do you believe in Democracy?”
“Do you believe that every single American 18 years of age or older who is an American citizen has the right to vote. Once you start chipping away at that, believe me that’s what our Republican governors all over this country are doing.”
The Democrat-produced idea of Republican legislators engaging in “voter suppression” is a lie designed to smear the GOP’s justified efforts to root out election fraud.
Many conservatives were outraged about Bernie Sanders’ proposal. His radical idea was torched on social media moments after he shared it with the public.
“Bernie proves he is clueless, I agree the right to vote should he a fundamental right and liberty. However if a violent offender deprives someone of their liberty and rights they should clearly forfeit theirs as punishment.” said a tweet.
If you had any doubt about how radical the Democrat Party has become, their 2020 frontrunner wants to let terrorists convicted of murdering American citizens vote from prison.
“Excuse me, Bernie but Boston Marathon bombers took away the right to vote from all the people they murdered that day. Still, you think the jailed brother should still be allowed to vote. You have lost all sense of civility and humanity in your desire to obtain votes from anyone.” wrote a tweet.
On Sunday, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff refused to commit to investigating whether the Steele dossier is the product of Russian disinformation, a theory that been around in the wake of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia report.
During an interview with Fox’s Chris Wallace, Adam Schiff refused to discuss the dossier, a remarkable shift for the Democrat, who endorsed Steele’s unverified allegations about Donald Trump associates during a public House Intelligence Committee hearing two years ago.
Schiff cited dossier author Christopher Steele’s name six times during his opening remarks at an Intelligence Committee hearing on March 20, 2017.
In the interview on Sunday, Wallace noted the Mueller’s report established that much of the Steele dossier was false or just impossible to verify. Wallace asked Adam Schiff whether it was appropriate to investigate if the dossier was the product of a Russian disinformation campaign.
Intelligence officials are considering whether Russian operatives planted disinformation with Steele, a former MI6 officer who has worked in Moscow, as The New York Times reported on Friday. Daniel Hoffman, a former CIA chief of station in Moscow, also recently told that he believes the dossier is the product of a Russian disinformation campaign.
“Don’t you think the question of exactly how this investigation began, was it a Russian disinformation campaign to try to get, since they were trying to set Americans against each other, not only to tarnish Hillary Clinton, but also to tarnish Donald Trump, isn’t that a legitimate source of an investigation?” Wallace asked Schiff.
Then the lawmaker dodged the question.
“Chris, you know, the reality is that the Republicans on our committee spent two years investigating exactly that because, frankly, they weren’t that interested in what Russia had done, the systemic attack on our democracy. They spent the focus of their two years investigating the investigators and investigating exactly that question,” Schiff said.
Wallace jumped in to point out that the report has raised new questions about the dossier, which was funded by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign.
“We do have new information, the Mueller report discredits a lot of that, says there was no indication that Carter Page did anything wrong. Shouldn’t you be looking at that just to find the truth?” asked Wallace.
Again, Schiff refused to commit to investigating Steele’s report, which the FBI used to obtain surveillance warrants against Carter Page, Donald Trump’s campaign adviser.
“Well, what we are going to be looking at is we’re going to be looking at all the counterintelligence findings that were the genesis of this investigation,” the California representative said. “Let me be very clear about this, the Mueller report makes it absolutely crystal clear that the initiation of this investigation was not only warranted, but absolutely necessary because it revealed a widespread, systemic effort by the Russians to help the Trump campaign.”
In his report, Robert Mueller said that Russian operatives disseminated emails stolen from the DNC and Clinton campaign. But he also failed to establish that the Trump campaign conspired with Russians to steal the emails or release them.
There were also no evidence that members of the Trump campaign, including Page, acted as foreign agents of Russia.
Mueller’s report specifically undercut one of the strongest allegations of collusion in the dossier. He said that former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen did not visit Prague in August 2016 to meet with Kremlin insiders, as the dossier alleges.
Despite his Democratic Party affiliation and liberal leanings, Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz has persistently defended President Donald Trump throughout the Mueller investigation, and now that the report has been released, he has given the media the grade of “F” for their terribly biased media coverage.
Dershowitz spoke on “Fox News” on Sunday and said that the media’s reporting of the Mueller report has been so biased that CNN will not allow him on the network to give his expert legal analysis.
“CNN, which used to have me on all the time, on Anderson Cooper, on Cuomo, on Lemon, as an analyst, as a centrist analyst, they decided no, no, it is okay to have extreme Trump supporters, because people just use them as a stick figure exhibits,” Dershowitz said. “What they didn’t want was a centrist liberal that went against their narrative.”
Later on, he claimed that he asked Zucker why he had suddenly been blackballed from the network. “I asked [Zucker] how come I am not on anymore, and he said, oh, no, no, no, you will be on, but since the summer I’ve never been on a single time,” Dershowitz said. “I have been on all of the other networks repeatedly. But clearly, they made a decision. They did not want my kind of analysis.”
The veteran Harvard Law School professor stated that the media earned an “F” grade for their coverage these past two years, which would not be alleviated even if the grade were subject to inflation.
“Even with grade inflation, I just think the media comes off awful, terrible, for the most part,” Dershowitz said. “I think we are seeing an elimination of the distinction between the editorial page and the news pages in some of the leading media in the country, and that’s a shame. Walter Cronkite could not get a job in the media today.”
Dershowitz also had trouble dealing with the fact that CNN chose Michael Avenatti’s legal opinion over his own throughout the Mueller probe, the same Avenatti who’s been hit with a 36-count indictment alleging that he stole millions from his clients and cheated on his taxes.
“They had a choice of a Harvard Law professor for 50 years who has been getting it right, a centrist liberal and who has credibility, or Michael Avenatti,” Dershowitz said. “And they picked Michael Avenatti. He became their go-to guy. Every one of his predictions turned out to be false.”
As for the actual Mueller report, professor Dershowitz said that the special counsel got the law “completely wrong on obstruction of justice.”
“[I]n my introduction, I show how Mueller got the law completely wrong on obstruction of justice,” he said. “And I lay out what the law on obstruction is. And you cannot be charged with obstruction if you’re the president and you simply exercise your constitutional authority to fire Comey or anyone else. I lay that out carefully.”
“And the best precedent for that is George H.W. Bush, who pardoned Casper Weinberger and five other people on the eve of the trial,” Dershowitz continued. “The special prosecutor said he obstructed justice, but he couldn’t be charged with it. And they never mentioned the Bush case in the Mueller report. Mueller was in the Bush administration. Barr was in the Bush administration. And they deliberately omit as the leading precedent, which would preclude a president from being charged with obstruction for simply exercising his constitutional authority.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren claims she wants to use taxpayer money to “cancel” hundreds of billions of dollars in student debt and offer debt-free college for millions more, which would cost $1.25 trillion over the next ten years.
The Massachusetts Democrat said in a blog post on Medium that the “huge student loan debt burden” is “crushing millions of families and acting as an anchor on our economy. It’s reducing home ownership rates. It’s leading fewer people to start businesses. It’s forcing students to drop out of school before getting a degree. It’s a problem for all of us.”
The first step in addressing this crisis is to deal head-on with the outstanding debt that is weighing down millions of families and should never have been required in the first place. That’s why I’m calling for something truly transformational — the cancellation of up to $50,000 in student loan debt for 42 million Americans.
My plan for broad student debt cancellation will:
Cancel debt for more than 95% of the nearly 45 million Americans with student loan debt; Wipe out student loan debt entirely for more than 75% of the Americans with that debt;
Substantially increase wealth for Black and Latinx families and reduce both the Black-White and Latinx-White wealth gaps; and provide an enormous middle-class stimulus that will boost economic growth, increase home purchases, and fuel a new wave of small business formation.
“Experts estimate my debt cancellation plan creates a one-time cost to the government of $640 billion. The Universal Free College program brings the total cost of the program to roughly $1.25 trillion over ten years,” Warren wrote.
But Warren says “the actual costs of these new ideas are likely to be even less than that,” and assures that “we can fully cover the cost of these ideas with revenue from my Ultra-Millionaire Tax on the wealthiest 75,000 families in the country — those with fortunes of $50 million or more.”
The Wall Street Journal reported that would entail “an annual 2% levy on wealth above $50 million and an additional 1% tax on wealth above $1 billion.”
The Massachusetts senator, who is running for president in 2020, also proposes using $50 billion taxpayer money for historically black colleges and universities, known as HBCUs. And she wants to “prohibit public colleges from considering citizenship status” when making admissions decisions.
Additionally, Sen. Warren wants to phase out federal cash that now goes to for-profit schools. “After an appropriate transition period, ban for-profit colleges from receiving any federal dollars (including military benefits and federal student loans), so they can no longer use taxpayer dollars to enrich themselves while targeting lower-income students, service members, and students of color and leaving them saddled with debt,” Warren wrote.
The student loan debt has more than doubled over the past decade to $1.5 trillion, and some economic experts say that is driving the declining home ownership rates among young adults.
White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders slammed CNN’s April Ryan in an interview on Monday morning, taking aim at her “lopping the heads off” comments calling for her to be fired from her job as a “new low.”
Sarah Sanders appeared on “Fox & Friends” Monday morning and responded to Ryan’s demand of her being fired from her position as the president’s press secretary after she admitted that her claim in 2017 of “countless” FBI agents coming forward to denounce former FBI Director James Comey was false.
“You have to start and start lopping the heads off,” Ryan said on CNN Thursday. Here is the video of April Ryan’s comments:
OUTRAGEOUS!@AprilDRyan said that Sarah Sanders should have her "head lopped off."
Not only is this inciting violence against the President's staff, but it's insensitive to the families of Americans beheaded by ISIS.
“She should be let go. She should be fired. End of story. When there’s a lack of credibility there, you have to start, and you have to start lopping the heads off.” said Ryan.
The White House press secretary didn’t take too kindly to April Ryan’s comments, proclaiming that she has “had reporters say a lot of things about [her],” torching the political analyst’s demand as “a new low, even for the liberal media.”
“I have had reporters say a lot of things about me. They said I should be choked. They said I should deserve a lifetime of harassment, but certainly never had somebody say that I should be decapitated. This takes this to a new low even for the liberal media.” said Sanders.
.@AprilDRyan on Sarah Sanders lying to the press: "When there is a lack of credibility … you have to start lopping heads off." @PressSec responds: "I've certainly never had someone say that I should be decapitated. This takes us to a new low, even for the liberal media." pic.twitter.com/ZwEQLODYEs
“I think it just once again proves why this journalist is taken seriously,” the white house press secretary added.
Back on Thursday, Sarah Sanders admitted that she exaggerated her 2017 claim about the “countless” FBI agents that came forward to speak out against James Comey during an interview on Fox News.
The White House press secretary stated that the “countless” comment was a “slip of the tongue” while taking a shot at Comey, calling him a “disgraced leaker,” as previously reported.
