Official James Comey testimony thread

[BobTheCoward]

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.

I agree with everything except the by proxy investigation of trump. The evidence really hasn't pointed to Trump being involved in Flynn's illegal activity.

 

[Jim_MDP]

I agree the idea of pursuing a "classified leak" prosecution is the height of hypocrisy for Trump, but...

Would that I had paid attention a few minutes ago, but a friendly (lib?) legal expert just mentioned that the style of the creation of (I presume) the first memo, done immediately in the car on the secure office laptop was indicative of a "form 304 field report" (hope I remembered that right).

So now I have something to use instead of my "work product" placeholder.

That one at least... could qualify as protected/classified.
I'm just following speculation out of curiosity... don't shoot the messenger.

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.

How can a private citizen leak private, self-written notes with no classified content?

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.

 

[PhantomWolf]

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.

What were they going to do? Fire him? Violating an employment agreement is not a criminal action.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

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.

Subpoenas are issued by a Grand Jury, the President cannot simply order a director or individual agent not to issue a subpoena because they don't have that power to begin with.

Edit: Basically, there is no way to phrase a request for a certain kind of outcome in an investigation that isn't inherently a request for interference. Almost like it was designed that way...

 

[TraneWreck]

Not sure how you see that. Is apparent that Comey himself does not believe that. It looks like he was assuming Trump would slip up moving forward but never had that materialize, at least not before he was canned. Outsider random judicial opinions withstanding, do you honestly believe what has been presented so far will bring about any legal proceedings? Not hope for, actually believe will happen?

This just isn't true. Comey himself refused to speculate stating that the special prosecutor would make that judgment:

I don’t think it’s for me to say whether the conversation I had with the president was an effort to obstruct,” Comey said. “I took it as a very disturbing thing, very concerning, but that’s a conclusion I’m sure the special counsel will work towards, to try and understand what the intention was there, and whether that’s an offense.

I think it will justify whatever subpoena action Mueller is taking. I used the phrase probable cause to indicate that if this were a criminal investigation, there would be more than enough evidence to obtain search warrants and make arrests. That is to distinguish it from the point at which a prosecutor is able to bring a case and argue for a conviction.

This is going to be different than a criminal probe - it will be political. But there is this underlying concept advanced by defenders of Trump (not accusing you of doing it) where unless evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" is presented, there's a lot of shoulder shrugging and handwaving.

What was said in that testimony would have ended any other presidency at any other time. The only reason censure or impeachment proceedings have not begun is that Congressional Republicans have worked themselves into perpetual sophistry enabling them to justify and minimize anything Trump does. You know as well as I do that if those memos were about Obama, not Trump, he would be impeached the next day.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Subpoenas are issued by a Grand Jury, the President cannot simply order a director or individual agent not to issue a subpoena because they don't have that power to begin with.

Edit: Basically, there is no way to phrase a request for a certain kind of outcome in an investigation that isn't inherently a request for interference. Almost like it was designed that way...

Thank you for the clarity. Jaworsky the special prosecutor went to a grand jury to get a subpoena in the Nixon case. Nixon can't ignore the subpoena but can order jaworsky to not purse it or have him fired.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Thank you for the clarity. Jaworsky the special prosecutor went to a grand jury to get a subpoena in the Nixon case. Nixon can't ignore the subpoena but can order jaworsky to not purse it or have him fired.

But there's obviously a big optics problem with firing someone who is pursuing an investigation against you.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

 

[BobTheCoward]

But there's obviously a big optics problem with firing someone who is pursuing an investigation against you.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

There is really bad optics on my purge pardon threat.

 

[Arcade22]

This was a great explanation of why Comey's "leak" wasn't illegal nor violated any "executive privilige":

A few hours after former FBI director James B. Comey finished testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday, President Trump’s personal lawyer, Marc Kasowitz, suggested that Comey had violated the law. By causing memos about conversations between Trump and Comey to become public, Comey had committed an “unauthorized disclosure of privileged information,” Kasowitz claimed. On a day characterized by hubris remarkable even for Washington, the blatant wrongheadedness of this “privilege” claim still stands out. In fact, executive privilege almost certainly does not cover the Comey memo. And even if it did, disclosing it without authorization isn’t illegal.

Let’s take these in reverse order. As the Supreme Court has recognized, executive privilege derives from the president’s constitutional authority. The privilege serves as a powerful protection against compelled disclosures of internal, confidential executive branch communications — whether in response to court orders, congressional subpoenas or both. It is meant as a defense in those contexts, providing a valid justification for a government officer’s refusal to comply with a demand to testify or produce documents. And even then, it’s a qualified — not absolute — privilege, meaning that it can be overcome in cases in which there’s a sufficiently good reason to compel the disclosure at issue.

Executive privilege is an important shield to protect the president’s power. It is not a sword, though. So where a current or former government employee wants to cooperate and turn over the requested information, the privilege itself won’t — and can’t — stop him or her. For current employees, the threat of losing their job, their reputation or both from disobeying the president will often serve to keep them in line. But for former employees, there’s no such specter (and sometimes, quite the opposite, as Comey’s case underscores). This is why Trump could not have invoked executive privilege to stop Comey from testifying, something the White House tried not to acknowledge by putting out word that he “chose” not to do so. It is not a “violation” of executive privilege to voluntarily disclose materials that could be protected by the privilege, no matter what Kasowitz says.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...comey-violated-executive-privilege-hes-wrong/

In short Trump is full of it like usual.

 

[eeyore1954]

What were they going to do? Fire him? Violating an employment agreement is not a criminal action.

I don't know if that is true in the case of the FBI and I am not even sure he is subject to the same agreement.
But violating the agreement may say something about the character of the man and if he was subject to this agreement he was not allowed to reveal (leak) the information.

I only posted this information to show why I believe it was leaking information.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I don't know if that is true in the case of the FBI and I am not even sure he is subject to the same agreement.
But violating the agreement may say something about the character of the man and if he was subject to this agreement he was not allowed to reveal (leak) the information.

I only posted this information to show why I believe it was leaking information.

Everything has multiple implications at this point. Comey swore an oath upon becoming Director of the FBI. As holder of that office, he was subservient to the Attorney General, which is a cabinet-level executive department head.

But the AG had recused himself in regards to the Russia investigation so now the chain of command for that topic was the Deputy Attorney General.

Further fracturing the legal steams occurred when Trump asked for a pledge of loyalty. Now you have the FBI Director making notes that pertain to an improper and, in the context of a sprawling investigation of electoral malfeasance and international espionage, downright disturbing interaction between the offices in question.

At the same time, but for very different legal reasoning, James Comey the individual is recording interactions with Donald Trump seeming to ask him to collude in acts that are contrary to codes (acts of Congress), statues (court decisions), and procedures (Presidential EOs and DOJ policy). Basically inviting him to subvert all 3 branches of government.

So James Comey AND the Director of the FBI both made those notes and the information is pertinent to both roles.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I agree with some of the analyses I've heard that Comey's goal here was to lay a trail of breadcrumbs for Mueller to follow. He releases the memo to get a special counsel, he insists on a public hearing so that nothing he says will need a subpoena, his testimony sidles right up to an accusation but then he defers to the special counsel he put there with language like "that's a conclusion I'm sure the special counsel will work towards, to try and understand what the intention was there, and whether that's an offense." Nudge, nudge, eh, say no more?

 

[Newtons Bit]

I don't know if that is true in the case of the FBI and I am not even sure he is subject to the same agreement.
But violating the agreement may say something about the character of the man and if he was subject to this agreement he was not allowed to reveal (leak) the information.

I only posted this information to show why I believe it was leaking information.

A "Good Man" would just keep his mouth shut and say about how the President of the United States was attempting to stop a criminal investigation into one of his buddies?

********.

 

[desertgal]

ANd he is expecting personal loyalty to Donald Trump, not loyalty to office of POTUS, two different things.
Harry Truman's made a famous statement that he did not give a damn what people thought about Harry Truman, but they needed to show the office of POTUS some respect. What a freaking difference from Trump.

He also had a sign on his desk that said "The Buck Stops Here". Trump thinks the buck should stop in his bank account.

 

[eeyore1954]

A "Good Man" would just keep his mouth shut and say about how the President of the United States was attempting to stop a criminal investigation into one of his buddies?

********.

I assume you were being facetious

I think you meant ... would just keep his mouth shut and not say about how the President

If that is what you meant I certainly don't think a "Good Man" should just keep his mouth shut. There were plenty of good options to follow and I don't believe leaking a memo through an anonymous source is one of them. Especially when you are/were the director of the FBI.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Don't forget, Trump firing Comey then Trump saying in a news interview, the Russia investigation was the reason, changed Comey's obstruction conclusion.

Holy cow. He didn't say that. That's what the news keeps suggesting as the reason.

I agree that Russia, in a general sense, probably played into the decision to fire Comey. But there are several plausible reasons. Nothing so far indicates that Comey's termination was in any way intended to stop the investigation into Russia's actions, nor to cease investigation into Trump's "satellites" and their interactions with Russia. The investigation is independent of Comey.

I have no doubt that "the Russia thing" was on Trump's mind when he was deciding to fire Comey - which is the only thing Trump has admitted. But many people, as well as a good chunk of media outlets, have spun "the Russia thing" to mean the entire investigation.

For consideration... We've got lots of classified and private information about the investigation that keeps showing up in the press. We've got Comey making public statements that fuel suspicions of the president himself being under investigation, despite that not being the case. We've got unceasing speculation and media attention on Trump accusing him of directly colluding with Russia, and of being Putin's puppet, despite no evidence to support that (per Comey's own testimony). We've got Trump repeatedly asking Comey to share that Trump is not personally under investigation, and Comey refusing to do so. We've got Comey's own testimony saying that Trump supported the investigation as a whole, and wanted to know if any of his "satellites" were involved in wrongdoing, NOT trying to shut the investigation down.

There are many things related to Comey for which Trump might have decided to fire Comey - including how he chose to publicly handle the Clinton investigation. Some of them are related to Russia, certainly... but there's no firm evidence than any of them are because of the Russia investigation.

 

[varwoche]

Holy cow. He didn't say that. That's what the news keeps suggesting as the reason.

I agree that Russia, in a general sense, probably played into the decision to fire Comey. But there are several plausible reasons. Nothing so far indicates that Comey's termination was in any way intended to stop the investigation into Russia's actions, nor to cease investigation into Trump's "satellites" and their interactions with Russia. The investigation is independent of Comey...

Nothing? Nothing?! Nothing!?!? (think Allen Iverson)

Defies credulity in the surreal extreme.

 

[TraneWreck]

Nothing? Nothing?! Nothing!?!? (think Allen Iverson)

Defies credulity in the surreal extreme.

The argument seems to be:

1) If I can concoct a particular interpretation, then all other interpretations have no value, no evidentiary backing, and are completely unreasonable.
2) Here is my interpretation (that has no more and arguably quite a bit less evidence supporting it).
3) Therefore, any other interpretation has no evidence at all.

It's really very strange. I get the position that there isn't enough, right now, to justify censure or impeachment (I don't necessarily agree, but it's at least arguable), but the notion that there's NOTHING is just a sort of willful blindness.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Don't forget, Trump firing Comey then Trump saying in a news interview, the Russia investigation was the reason, changed Comey's obstruction conclusion...

I cannot find this video. Are there any details you can share to help me locate it?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

This assessment is mindbogglingly blind to the facts.

There is a lot of tunnel vision around here, even when the errors of omission are pointed out repeatedly they seem to be forgotten within minutes.

Election tampering and cyber crimes aside, at a minimum a number of people on Trump's staff lied on their security clearance forms (a felony) leaving out meetings with key Russian operatives. Flynn failed to register as a foreign agent and to disclose that on his security clearance forms (a felony). Same (or similar) happened with Manafort. Supposedly sanctions were not discussed with the Russians but it appears there was a taped conversation which led to the admission that sanctions were indeed discussed.

The number of these staffers who selectively forgot about meetings so didn't disclose those meetings on security clearance forms goes well beyond incidental or accidental forgetting.

Trump pushed Comey to stop investigating Flynn. Now either that was obstruction or firing Comey and admitting in a public interview that the Russian investigation was the reason, is.

Flynn is under investigation for those omissions of disclosure, felonies. Flynn made an offer to testify in exchange for immunity. Think that might have Trump worried? It goes to potential motive for obstruction.

Collusion is not the only potential crime being investigated. But even on that count, the circumstantial evidence of Trump's campaign staff is not easily dismissed as coincidence or normal transition business.

Trump not ever speaking a single word of condemnation for the Russian hacking and election interference is evidence, at least as appearance. But Trump making efforts to return the two confiscated properties to Russia goes beyond 'not condemning'.


Now you can count some of that as weaker or stronger evidence, as prosecutable crimes or not, but to say there is no evidence of any crimes here yet is simply not true.