Official James Comey testimony thread

[lomiller]

That is correct. Not only did he kick everyone out of the room, but some appeared to attempt to linger. And after the conversation, they were still waiting in the hallway. That context is very important. Also important is Trump's decades of working with the mafia. His language is the language of mobsters for a reason. And this all occurred after Trump had demanded Comey pledge loyalty. And it ended with Trump firing Comey admittedly to relieve pressure from the Russian investigation.

But there's more important context. The Flynn investigation concerns the potential that the Trump Administration placed a paid foreign agent into the highest levels of federal government. And was then provided top secret intelligence, despite the fact that he should have never been provided adequate clearance. And then made decisions that impacted US military operations in ways that were beneficial to the foreign government for which he was a paid agent. It also necessarily therefore concerns the fact that the Trump team was warned numerous times about Flynn by our intelligence community. And even by President Obama himself. And that when Yates alerted Trump to the fact that Flynn's improper communications with the Russians were intercepted, Trump fired Yates. And declined to fire Flynn. And continued to lie about Flynn's conversations with the Russians. Flynn was only fired after his improper communications were leaked to the press.

And this is only one, small, isolated part of the overall Russian investigation.

I can empathize with the fact that there's just so much going on that it's easy to lose sight of the big picture and just focus on each interaction on its own. The scope of potential corruption here is just honestly extremely difficult to fully grasp or even believe. But grasp we must, and belief should follow where substantiated by credible evidence.

Again, this is simply who Trump is. Read his biographies. If we excuse his behavior, we excuse out way into kleptocratic, oligarchic authoritarianism.

This is an important detail because it indicated Trump knew he was about to do something improper and possibly and wanted to conceal it.

 

[dudalb]

Just a reminder that impeachable offense does not have to be a criminal offense.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The idea anything created on an FBI work computer is automatically classified is absurd. That would mean every bit of information that passes through the FBI is classified until someone unclassifies it. That's absurdly impractical.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is an important detail because it indicated Trump knew he was about to do something improper and possibly and wanted to conceal it.

Which makes Paul Ryan's claim Trump just doesn't understand government processes even more absurd.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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...

Is every computer in the FBI considered a "classified" computer? and do you have a source for this rule?

Who is this security that does the clearing? Why wouldn't Comey know this? Or was he one of the people qualified to declassify stuff on his own computer?

He said he specifically deemed his memos unclassified on purpose. I would think the director was authorized to make such a determination. So the whole classified argument is specious.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Keep in mind, truth does not matter to a lot of people. Confirmation bias is key here.

Trump says Comey is a liar and a leaker, yadda yadda. Evidence and facts simply don't matter. People simply need their own truth to hold on to. And if their truth is correct, then it's the other guy who believes the lie.

 

[TraneWreck]

Which makes Paul Ryan's claim Trump just doesn't understand government processes even more absurd.

Another key bit of info regarding that...interesting defense:

How can the Attorney General be involved in this case or tell the FBI what to do when the Attorney General violated sanctity of law by secretly meeting with Bill Clinton, the husband of the possible target of the investigation and a possible target himself, in an airplane on the tarmac in Arizona?

More quotes: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2017/06/trump-sure-seemed-to-understand-tarmac.html

Trump seemed well aware of appropriate behavior on the campaign trail...

 

[Meadmaker]

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.

The actual answer is more complicated than my previously simplified version that you referenced above, but the point, good enough for us laymen, is that proving he interfered with an investigation is not good enough to show the crime of obstruction of justice. Motive matters. If Trump's motive was that he thought it was an unfair investigation, there's no crime on Trump's part for interfering with it.

In the case of Nixon, it was incredibly obvious that he was interfering with the Watergate investigation. However, it went on for a very long time before they would pass an impeachment resolution. It wasn't until they had proof about why he was interfering that they called it obstruction of justice.

So far, there's no comparable evidence against Trump.

 

[TraneWreck]

The actual answer is more complicated than my previously simplified version that you referenced above, but the point, good enough for us laymen, is that proving he interfered with an investigation is not good enough to show the crime of obstruction of justice. Motive matters. If Trump's motive was that he thought it was an unfair investigation, there's no crime on Trump's part for interfering with it.

I'm fairly confident "thinking an investigation is unfair" is not really a defense to obstruction of justice. Not saying it's impossible that there isn't some corollary of the law, but I would be curious to see that supported.

Here's the relevant law:

(a) Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

I don't see any place to fit the "unfair" defense. That seems, arguably, consistent with a corrupt intent.

 

[zorro99]

Comey proved that Trump is a liar.

 

[zorro99]

If Trump's motive was that he thought it was an unfair investigation, there's no crime on Trump's part for interfering with it.

I disagree. Obstructing an investigation because the obstructionist thinks it unfair is still obstruction.

 

[ahhell]

Comey proved that Trump is a liar.

Meh, it is still he said/she said. He didn't really prove anything. I tend to trust Comey more than Trump but he does have an axe to grind. Is opening statement was clear sign of that.

 

[Newtons Bit]

The actual answer is more complicated than my previously simplified version that you referenced above, but the point, good enough for us laymen, is that proving he interfered with an investigation is not good enough to show the crime of obstruction of justice. Motive matters. If Trump's motive was that he thought it was an unfair investigation, there's no crime on Trump's part for interfering with it.

In the case of Nixon, it was incredibly obvious that he was interfering with the Watergate investigation. However, it went on for a very long time before they would pass an impeachment resolution. It wasn't until they had proof about why he was interfering that they called it obstruction of justice.

So far, there's no comparable evidence against Trump.

According to the legal beagles I've been reading the past few days, motive is irrelevant. Why a person chooses to interfere with an investigation is simply not a consideration. Intent, however, is relevant. This prevents people being charged with obstruction of justice who had might have interfered with an investigation unknowingly or involuntarily.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Meh, it is still he said/she said. He didn't really prove anything. I tend to trust Comey more than Trump but he does have an axe to grind. Is opening statement was clear sign of that.

Tend to?

Trump spews lies every single day, on the record. Nothing that comes out of his mouth is trustworthy.

Comey, stellar reputation and kept contemporary notes long before he had an ax to grind.

Comey was under oath.

Is Comey perfect, of course not. Is he bias free? No, his bias showed publicly against Clinton (I posted the evidence earlier) and sure you could say he has an ax to grind now that he's been fired and demonstrably slandered.

None of that translates to "tend to". It translates into, no question who to believe.

 

[rdwight]

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

I am referring to previous actions as opposed to current words. If he felt Trump was attempting to obstruct justice, what actions did he take? He wrote a memo. He documented the event and that is pretty much it. Which were only shared after he was fired.

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.

That's how I am viewing this going. It will be political, and it is being presented as if it is going the route of criminal. The evidence has to reach a level of certainty to force impeachment by a Republican held congress. It will have to be near concrete. People should be more outraged, but that level of confidence in where the evidence stacks up now(for us outside the process) is unwarranted.

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.

I agree. Although in regards to the Obama reference, given a democrat held congress/senate, in these hyper partisan times.. Yea, not sure myself if that would be the case either. Trump is the teflon don of presidents, but current political climate has made that more pronounced than ever.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

The game of paraphrasing, and what was secretly meant is always fun. Here's an alternative for the loyalty discussion...

I need loyalty from you... subtext: someone in your organization is leaking info to the press, and I believe you're aware of it. I need you to demonstrate your loyalty to the office and the FBI by making this blatant disregard for impartiality stop.

Flynn's a good guy, I hope you can let this go... subtext: we already know the content of his calls and that the content was not improper. He's already been fired for failing to disclose that information. You and I both know there's nothing criminal here, but continuing to investigate him in such a public fashion is causing harm to him and his family as well as to me personally. It's fueling media speculation that is a constant distraction and frustration to me doing my job. Please wrap it up and close it out since you already know it's not going anywhere.

ETA: Because I need to say these things frequently, please note that I have no particular belief that this is what Trump actually meant. I am demonstrating that speculation about what Trump must have actually meant is just that - speculation. It allows one to create whatever narrative one wishes... but it doesn't make that narrative true.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think it's fair to question Comey's judgement. But by all accounts, he's generally described as completely lacking pretext.

That wasn't the case back last October, when he was making public statements about Clinton's email investigation. He wasn't viewed as being completely objective and without pretext at that point in time.

I find it interesting that he was a bad guy then, but now he's a good guy. I guess it just depends on whether his questionable actions benefits or hinders one's preferred political party.

 

[TraneWreck]

I am referring to previous actions as opposed to current words. If he felt Trump was attempting to obstruct justice, what actions did he take? He wrote a memo. He documented the event and that is pretty much it. Which were only shared after he was fired.

No, he did much more than that.

-He discussed the incidents with multiple people at the FBI, sharing his concerns.
-He asked Sessions to keep Trump from communicating with him directly.
-He wrote the memos, focusing on recording every detail.
-He took specific care to make sure all of those memos went directly to the special prosecutor and no one else.

He was asked about that in the hearing - his response to Trump asking him to stop the Flynn investigation - Comey's response was that he was so stunned by the impropriety, that he didn't respond ideally. Seems defensible.

Comey was clearly preparing to do something. Maybe the trigger would have been another conversation or another, even more blatant effort at stopping the investigation, turned out to be his firing.

That's how I am viewing this going. It will be political, and it is being presented as if it is going the route of criminal. The evidence has to reach a level of certainty to force impeachment by a Republican held congress. It will have to be near concrete. People should be more outraged, but that level of confidence in where the evidence stacks up now(for us outside the process) is unwarranted.

The two are interrelated. The political process with Nixon, for example, was forced by the criminal side. Right now, there is a pretty good case for obstruction. I wouldn't say "beyond a reasonable doubt," but we don't know everything.

As for impeachment, I would say the burden, right now, is nigh impossible to reach. After 2018 - well, that's when things could get really interesting. There will have to be a combination of some crazy stuff dug up by the special prosecutor and a massive tidal wave against Trump in opinion polls - so severe it begins to affect individual house races in strong Republican areas.

I agree. Although in regards to the Obama reference, given a democrat held congress/senate, in these hyper partisan times.. Yea, not sure myself if that would be the case either. Trump is the teflon don of presidents, but current political climate has made that more pronounced than ever.

Maybe. Of course, the Dems, including Hillary, all rolled over on the Iraq War vote. I would be far less surprised by a Dem Congress impeaching a Dem president than the other way around. Maybe 40% because there are more ethical dems and 60% because most of them are cowards and easily pressured by the perception of popular opinion.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's quite sickening to see that a semantic defense of Trump is really all there is. "I hope" is clear direction. A court would convict. Impeachment must follow on this. Failure to do so would be treasonous.

I hope that ISF will change it's rules regarding embedding images in posts.

I hope that my data scientist can find a way to accurately model propensity to enroll in our more profitable products.

I (as a manager) hope that you (my employee) can focus on expanding your SQL skills this year so we can expand your role on our team.

"I hope" is an expression of preference, and... well... hope. It's not necessarily direction. It can be, definitely. But it's not guaranteed to be that.

 

[OMGturt1es]

I need loyalty from you... subtext: someone in your organization is leaking info to the press, and I believe you're aware of it. I need you to demonstrate your loyalty to the office and the FBI by making this blatant disregard for impartiality stop.

Read Trump's biographies. Trump has always demanded loyalty. It's 100% Trump. The man cannot let go of the slightest impropriety and holds grudges over amazingly petty ****. No matter, requiring loyalty from an FBI director during a private dinner after asking about job status and explaining how many others want the job is not ok under any circumstances.

Flynn's a good guy, I hope you can let this go... subtext: we already know the content of his calls and that the content was not improper. He's already been fired for failing to disclose that information. You and I both know there's nothing criminal here...

But there was. Context matters. Flynn lied about foreign contacts on security forms. And he failed to register as a foreign agent. These are serious crimes. Potentially felonies. And extremely concerning given Flynn's position at the highest levels of government.

And further context: Trump was warned numerous times about Flynn. The Trump Administration ignored warnings and then failed to properly vet Flynn. This resulted in an undisclosed foreign agent having access to extremely classified intelligence. And influencing US military action to benefit the foreign power for which he was a paid foreign agent. When Yates disclosed Flynn's improper communications, Trump fired Yates. And continued to lie about Flynn's communications. Flynn was not fired until his improper communications were leaked.

Speculating about alternative meanings is fine. But speculation must be consistent with the bigger picture, not just the language in the most concerning dialogue of any single encounter. And it then should also be consistent with the character revealed in Trump's biographies. All speculation I've yet encountered that attempts to excuse Trump out of obstruction of justice is consistent with neither.