• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Official James Comey testimony thread

Meadmaker said:
That's not the difference.

The difference is that the "smoking gun" tape confirmed what everyone had long suspected. It confirmed that Nixon knew there was criminal activity and that his actions were intended to prevent that criminal activity from being revealed. That's obstruction of justice.

Merely trying to get an investigation stopped is not obstruction of justice.

It is possible that at some time in the future we will learn that Trump's motives were the same, but nothing in Comey's testimony or anything else in the public record lets us say that today. Trump was telling Comey that Flynn had done nothing wrong, and that the investigations were politically damaging to Trump (they created a "cloud") and for those reasons, Trump wanted them to go away. That is not obstruction of justice.

If we ever find out, with evidence, that he was lying, and that his real motive was to cover up something illegal, then we can say Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice, but right now, we have no evidence of illegal activity by anyone that I'm aware of, much less evidence that Trump knew about and was trying to conceal that activity.
Click to expand...

Why did Trump have everyone leave including AG Sessions if he didn't believe he was doing something wrong?
 
Jim_MDP said:
Maybe... maybe not.

I can see the policy applied to certain agencies, personnel at certain levels (Director would certainly be included), certain field hardware, and of course... "work product".

That last may be where this falls down, but I had hoped Emily would have returned last night and explained.

In general though, and based on that "feeling", I'm going with the lib media pundit's consensus that... there's absolutely no way his notes were classified and Donnie's expensive mouthpiece was telling porkies.
Click to expand...

I'm not an expert on classified data, but I'm 100% confident that merely creating something on a particular computer does not make something classified.

Also, what the heck does "work product" have to do with anything?

It may be true that Comey's leaking of his memos was some sort of violation of some sort of policy directive. Maybe he should be fired....oh, wait. He leaked them after he was fired.

The idea that the White House would even suggest that a crime was involved suggests that they either are incompetent to even believe such a thing, or are cynically manipulating public opinion by deliberately throwing out a lie for the useful idiots in Sean Hannity's audience. I'm not sure which is true, but they aren't completely mutually exclusive. I suppose there could be elements of both.
 
Meadmaker said:
The idea that the White House would even suggest that a crime was involved suggests that they either are incompetent to even believe such a thing, or are cynically manipulating public opinion by deliberately throwing out a lie for the useful idiots in Sean Hannity's audience. I'm not sure which is true, but they aren't completely mutually exclusive. I suppose there could be elements of both.
Click to expand...

I believe that it was Trump's personal lawyer that suggested this. And reportedly, Trump had a very hard time finding a law firm that was willing to represent him in this. At least four major firms turned him down.
 
OMGturt1es said:
I'm no legal expert. But if my boss tells me that a lot of people want my job and that she hopes I can find a way to increase my utilization, that's clearly direction. I can only imagine that direction would seem far more significant if my boss were the president. And if she kicked everyone out of her office to covertly talk with me one on one.

We need to see this for what it is. This is Trump being Trump. This is who he is. He has never expressed anything kinder than annoyance for the rule of law. If we excuse this behavior, we will excuse ourselves into authoritarianism.
Click to expand...
I bleev I said that earlier in this thread. Personal and professional ethics are all that stand in the way of making the boss's hopes come true...

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
Tony Stark said:
Why did Trump have everyone leave including AG Sessions if he didn't believe he was doing something wrong?
Click to expand...

There are several possible answers to that question.

I have had an awful lot of conversations which I decided to hold in private. None of them involved criminal activity.

Trump isn't so good at avoiding "the appearance of impropriety", but it's important to remember that the appearance of impropriety is not the same as impropriety. Moreover, impropriety is not necessarily illegality.

Regardless of why he asked them to leave the room, we now know, thanks to Comey, what happened after they left the room. We can examine what happened and know that, based on what we know today, there's nothing prosecutable.

By historical analogy, we might be in a position a little bit like where Nixon was after the "Saturday night massacre". He wasn't impeached for that, because firing those people wasn't, all by itself, a crime.. What we suspected at the time, and would later learn, was that firing those people was indeed part of an effort to cover up a crime. Because of that, the firing itself could be considered a crime, but until there's proof of a crime, there can't be proof of a cover up.

Trump's actions show that he is an arrogant man who thinks he wields the same sort of power as president that he did as CEO. He's wrong, and I certainly would not be surprised if it led to his downfall politically, and possibly even to some impeachable action, but right now, we don't have proof of that.
 
Meadmaker said:
I'm not an expert on classified data, but I'm 100% confident that merely creating something on a particular computer does not make something classified.

Also, what the heck does "work product" have to do with anything?

It may be true that Comey's leaking of his memos was some sort of violation of some sort of policy directive. Maybe he should be fired....oh, wait. He leaked them after he was fired.

The idea that the White House would even suggest that a crime was involved suggests that they either are incompetent to even believe such a thing, or are cynically manipulating public opinion by deliberately throwing out a lie for the useful idiots in Sean Hannity's audience. I'm not sure which is true, but they aren't completely mutually exclusive. I suppose there could be elements of both.
Click to expand...
According to the rules, yes, it does. I was 8nfirmed that even putting your grocery list on a classified computer made it classified information until cleared by security...

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
Meadmaker said:
There are several possible answers to that question.

I have had an awful lot of conversations which I decided to hold in private. None of them involved criminal activity.

Trump isn't so good at avoiding "the appearance of impropriety", but it's important to remember that the appearance of impropriety is not the same as impropriety. Moreover, impropriety is not necessarily illegality.

Regardless of why he asked them to leave the room, we now know, thanks to Comey, what happened after they left the room. We can examine what happened and know that, based on what we know today, there's nothing prosecutable.

By historical analogy, we might be in a position a little bit like where Nixon was after the "Saturday night massacre". He wasn't impeached for that, because firing those people wasn't, all by itself, a crime.. What we suspected at the time, and would later learn, was that firing those people was indeed part of an effort to cover up a crime. Because of that, the firing itself could be considered a crime, but until there's proof of a crime, there can't be proof of a cover up.

Trump's actions show that he is an arrogant man who thinks he wields the same sort of power as president that he did as CEO. He's wrong, and I certainly would not be surprised if it led to his downfall politically, and possibly even to some impeachable action, but right now, we don't have proof of that.
Click to expand...


I think where you are mistaken is that there has to be proof of a crime before there is proof of a obstruction. That is not a necessary element. Or at least, I'm pretty sure.
 
rwguinn said:
According to the rules, yes, it does. I was 8nfirmed that even putting your grocery list on a classified computer made it classified information until cleared by security...

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

So when Comey isn't prosecuted for leaking classified info, what will your conclusion be?
 
rwguinn said:
According to the rules, yes, it does. I was 8nfirmed that even putting your grocery list on a classified computer made it classified information until cleared by security...

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

1) May not have been done on a classified computer
2) May have been declassified before he leaked it
 
rwguinn said:
According to the rules, yes, it does. I was 8nfirmed that even putting your grocery list on a classified computer made it classified information until cleared by security...

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


I suspect that even in that case, what was classified about your grocery list was the "file" itself, rather than the information contained in it, regardless of what computer you typed it into.

One of the things I learned during my brief stint handling classified data, in an age before laptops, and when email was a unix command line thing, was that the security officials made up stuff about classification that went beyond the law. I'm sure you were told that by a staffer. I'm equally sure that your grocery list is not and was never classified information. In other words, if I copied a text file from that computer onto a thumb drive, containing the words "milk, eggs, and taco sauce", that might be passing classified data. If I were to examine your computer, and report to someone, "I know that rwguinn wanted milk, eggs, and taco sauce", that might be passing classified data. The fact that you wanted to buy milk, eggs, and taco sauce was not classified.
 
Last edited:
rdwight said:
That's not the question though. It's easy to say worst case scenario, sure. But we have to live in reality. What can be prosecuted for joe shmoe vs the President is not the same, whether you want to present them as such or not.
Click to expand...

You get ahead of things. The question regarding Trump now is not, "Can he be convicted of a criminal offense?" but rather, "Ought he be impeached?"
 
Why are we even talking about whether or not Comey "leaked" his own notes? It's an obvious distraction, as is "COMPLETELY VINDICATED!!111one1!". Anything to avoid people talking about what Comey actually said in his testimony:

- The President of the US asked him (yes, that's what he did, drop the semantics BSery), then director of the FBI, to stop investigating an ally of Trump, and by proxy, Trump himself.

- The President of the US asked the independent director of the FBI for a personal pledge of loyalty.

- When the independent director of the FBI wouldn't play ball, the President of the US fired him.

- The President of the US then lied about all of this.

We're way past "the definition of 'is'". We've arrived at the Watergate stop.
 
Last edited:
What I don't get about this is that many of the people that today are vehement Trump supporters and will say the craziest things to support him, before the election were like, I'm only supporting him in the hopes he's impeached and Pence takes over.

Now that they have the chance to push for impeachment and have Pence take over, they seem to have forgotten that was what they wanted, it's like they drank the Trump-Aid and now are under his command, or perhaps they are so terrified by the powerless left, that they think that even the slightest sniff of a victory will bring their whole world crashing down around them so they can't budge an inch,even if it's to cut the anchor that are dragging them rapidly into the depths of the oceans.
 
Meadmaker said:
He and his guest were strongly implying that there was something illegal or unethical about revealing the contents of a private conversation if one of the parties was the POTUS.
Seriously?
Click to expand...

Team Trump's response is basically that Comey lied under oath but they won't (or can't) prove it so instead they will resort to character assassination to blunt the impact of his testimony by casting him as another one of those dastardly "leakers" from the dreaded "deep state".

Evidently Trump doesn't realize that when you're accused of being a dishonest liar the best thing is probably not a good thing to say more lies or otherwise be intellectually dishonest.
 
Arcade22 said:
Team Trump's response is basically that Comey lied under oath but they won't (or can't) prove it so instead they will resort to character assassination to blunt the impact of his testimony by casting him as another one of those dastardly "leakers" from the dreaded "deep state".

Evidently Trump doesn't realize that when you're accused of being a dishonest liar the best thing is probably not a good thing to say more lies or otherwise be intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...

How can a private citizen leak private, self-written notes with no classified content?
 
Last edited:
Jim_MDP said:
Trump thinks his position makes his every utterance privileged. Bollocks.

And Comey's intentional crafting of his notes to keep them free of classified data does not mean they still contain, let's say... hints, that would require classification.

Our Emily has another take upthread IIUC... that because he drafted at least some of the notes on an agency's secure laptop... they're automatically "classified" and cannot be simply removed/copied and disseminated.

I admit I disagree just on a feeling... that these weren't "work product" but rather personal recollections and activities. I don't see why they couldn't be simply recreated and sent out as was the case.
Click to expand...

I don't know if it was classified but I can't see how it would not be a violation of the FBI employment agreement.
Maybe he isn't really an employee of the FBI or his level is not subject to the same rules..?
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/fd-291.pdf/view


As consideration for my employment, or my continued employment, with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), United States Department of Justice, I hereby agree to be governed by and to comply with the following provisions:
1.Unauthorized disclosure, misuse, or negligent handling of information contained in the files, electronic or paper, of the FBI or which Imay acquire as an employee of the FBI could impair national security, place human life in jeopardy, result in the denial of due process, prevent the FBI from effectively discharging its responsibilities, or violate federal law. I understand that by being granted access to such information, I am accepting a position of special trust and am obligated to protect such information from unauthorized disclosure.
2.All information acquired by me in connection with my official duties with the FBI and all official material to which I have access remainthe property of the United States of America. I will surrender upon demand by the FBI, or upon my separation from the FBI, all materials containing FBI information in my possession.
3.I will not reveal, by any means, any information or material from or related to FBI files or any other information acquired by virtue of my official employment to any unauthorized recipient without prior official written authorization by the FBI.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
I presented an argument. Perhaps the fact you didn't understand it is telling?

abuse of power

Look it up, look up how it applies to the POTUS. You seem to think there is no such thing, like Nixon saying, "When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal." So why then was Nixon forced to resign?
Click to expand...

He wasn't forced to resign. He chose to resign. If he didn't, he would have eventually been booted from office. But that is a political process using legislative branch power.

In a real sense, when the president does it, there is no provision for another branch or a subordinate to usurp executive power. He has to comply with things like subpoenas, but he has the power to order the subpoenas are never issued in the first place.
 
I thought this sums it up. Comey is Playing Chess

and Trump is playing smack-down (or tiddly winks). Trump will continue to use the same tactics of viciously attacking opponents and diverting attention to anything related to this. He doesn't know how to do anything else. When an opponent has a singular defensive strategy, it is easier to combat him.

However, I would be very reticent about playing chess with a man like Comey when the stakes are high.

The Comey testimony is only one brick thrown. We really have to wait and see what comes of the Mueller investigation. I also wonder if a lot more will come out be hind closed doors when the intelligence chiefs can speak more freely in a closed hearing.

We will have to wait and see.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom