Official James Comey testimony thread

[OMGturt1es]

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.

I am still upset over how Comey handled HRC's email investigation. But Obama spoke to Comey's integrity. That meant something to me. Benjamin Wittis, Susan Hennesy, and others associated with Rational Security, Lawfare, and other foreign policy and national security podcasts and publications have spoken highly of his integrity and lack of pretext. That has all mattered to me. These are all folks with more direct evidence who have long demonstrated reasonable judgment, so I deferred to their judgment once they spoke.

 

[TraneWreck]

I am still upset over how Comey handled HRC's email investigation. But Obama spoke to Comey's integrity. That meant something to me. Benjamin Wittis, Susan Hennesy, and others associated with Rational Security, Lawfare, and other foreign policy and national security podcasts and publications have spoken highly of his integrity and lack of pretext. That has all mattered to me. These are all folks with more direct evidence who have long demonstrated reasonable judgment, so I deferred to their judgment once they spoke.

And it's important to note that despite the ****-show he created, he did clear Clinton. As big of a mess as it was, the result seems correct based on the law and facts surrounding the email non-scandal scandal.

 

[plague311]

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.

This is completely out of step with what Trump has done his entire life. You've said words he can't even fathom. On the other hand, the previous implications about his context have been demonstrably in step with the way he talks and operates. I've found that Trump supporters\defenders require that everything Trump does be taken in it's own, specific context, and that we should not take Trump's extensive history into account. It's...cute in it's own way.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

I find Comey's actions to be unusual. This is my personal opinion, and that opinion is undoubtedly influenced by my upbringing. A yuge number of my friends and family are in military or government positions, many of them positions dealing with classified and secret information. I have no doubt that this shapes my thinking on this matter.

The items that Comey drafted on the classified laptop are ones that he himself refers to as being classified documents. He intentionally shifted away from that in future meetings, and took steps to make sure that everything he was documenting was in an unclassified format. That suggests premeditation to me. In some fashion, Comey expected to release that information to the public in the future.

Regarding this simply being his personal recollections... That doesn't necessarily fly. My spouse has "personal recollections" of classified and/or private briefings too. Just because he "personally recollects" those briefings doesn't mean he's allowed to disclose any of that information.

Comey's premeditated steps to ensure that his private meetings with Trump were memorialized in a fashion that allows him to sidestep classified protocols and release it to the public causes me some unease.

Doesn't mean there's a fire there. This is evidence of nothing at all. There are many possible explanations. Just because it raises questions for me doesn't mean that there is any sort of wrongdoing. I think it merits consideration. But until actual evidence and judgement from people with far more information than me speak up... it's simply something to think about.

 

[Darat]

I find Comey's actions to be unusual. This is my personal opinion, and that opinion is undoubtedly influenced by my upbringing. A yuge number of my friends and family are in military or government positions, many of them positions dealing with classified and secret information. I have no doubt that this shapes my thinking on this matter.

The items that Comey drafted on the classified laptop are ones that he himself refers to as being classified documents. He intentionally shifted away from that in future meetings, and took steps to make sure that everything he was documenting was in an unclassified format. That suggests premeditation to me. In some fashion, Comey expected to release that information to the public in the future.

Regarding this simply being his personal recollections... That doesn't necessarily fly. My spouse has "personal recollections" of classified and/or private briefings too. Just because he "personally recollects" those briefings doesn't mean he's allowed to disclose any of that information.

Comey's premeditated steps to ensure that his private meetings with Trump were memorialized in a fashion that allows him to sidestep classified protocols and release it to the public causes me some unease.

Doesn't mean there's a fire there. This is evidence of nothing at all. There are many possible explanations. Just because it raises questions for me doesn't mean that there is any sort of wrongdoing. I think it merits consideration. But until actual evidence and judgement from people with far more information than me speak up... it's simply something to think about.

Such as the reasonable one that explains all the steps he took, the one he talked about. I.e. he didn't trust Trump!

 

[Emily's Cat]

1) May not have been done on a classified computer
2) May have been declassified before he leaked it

Seriously people, go read the testimony!

Comey himself makes it clear that the information he recorded on a classified laptop is indeed considered classified material. That is also NOT material that he released after being fired.

After that initial session, he began intentionally recording his meetings in an unclassified fashion. Comey says this in his testimony (probably not those exact words, but it's there nonetheless).

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

I know it's a completely wild thought... but some people actually value their principles. They might very well still hope that Trump gets impeached, but they want him to get impeached for actual real wrongdoing... and they're not willing to make things up to get it done. For some people, the ends don't justify the means.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Loophole - he didn't release that information until after he'd been fired. he wasn't an FBI employee at the time he went public with it. I'm not sure how binding those rules are post employment.

 

[rwguinn]

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.

I (as the guy who can fire you on the spot) hope you can find a way to allow the assembly line you shut down for safety violations to resume production. Today.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Holy cow. Read further than your first instance of emotional outrage

 

[Babbylonian]

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.

That would be solid analysis if it wasn't utter nonsense.

If your boss calls you in to express "hopes" about your performance, it's obviously implicit that if those hopes are not fulfilled then there will be corrective action...which, in this particular case, is realistically limited to firing.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

It doesn't exist. Trump fired Comey, and gave whatever invented reasons he gave. He was asked in an interview whether he was thinking about Russia when he decided to fire Comey. Trump answered that yes, of course he was.

Well duh. Pretty sure Trump spends most of his time thinking about Russia... as has pretty much everyone posting in this thread. It's kinda the hot topic all over the news - not sure you noticed that.

An admission that it was on his mind is not an admission that it was the reason for the action taken. And it's certainly not an admission that he fired Comey in order to try to stop the investigation into Russia's actions.

 

[Darat]

Seriously people, go read the testimony!

Comey himself makes it clear that the information he recorded on a classified laptop is indeed considered classified material. That is also NOT material that he released after being fired.

After that initial session, he began intentionally recording his meetings in an unclassified fashion. Comey says this in his testimony (probably not those exact words, but it's there nonetheless).

Are you unaware you are posting in agreement with both of my mays>?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

Sure. The only reason I ever have private meetings with any of my colleagues or employees is because I'm about to do something improper.

ETA: I haven't gone to check the timing here, so some of this is a little loose. Sessions was either about to recuse or had already done so (Comey indicated that it was fairly common knowledge that his recusation (?) was going to occur ahead of time). Most of the others were also being investigated in some fashion by the FBI. Trump was NOT under investigation. There's decent reason to think that the other people present should NOT be included in a discussion about that investigation, regardless of the content of the discussion. Asking the others to leave is not, in and of itself, and indication of purposeful wrongdoing.

 

[TraneWreck]

Sure. The only reason I ever have private meetings with any of my colleagues or employees is because I'm about to do something improper.

...Your contrarianism is honestly baffling.

We know something improper did happen. There is evidence of this. Comey wrote a memo about it. Maybe he's a big huge liar, but if you're defending Trump, that's the only move forward.

We don't need to question the structure, whether clearing a room necessarily implies an intent to do something improper because we already know something improper was done. You're just flagrantly conflating necessary and sufficient conditions.

The clearing of the room shows intent, which is the only remaining relevant variable in an obstruction charge unless you're prepared to argue that Comey is just lying about everything.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

You know, other than Comey indicating that it was a classified document created on a classified device. I'm sure that's just a total misunderstanding on his part.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

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.

Seriously, maybe you need to go read Comey's testimony in full before you continue this line of "reasoning".

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

He didn't obstruct anything though. He didn't get in the way of it, he didn't prevent any of it from occurring, and he didn't lie to the investigators in order to prevent them from doing their job.

Seriously, you can go down to the police station and ask them to stop any investigation you want. Ask loudly and repeatedly. You might be charged with disturbing the peace, but not for obstructing justice.

 

[TraneWreck]

He didn't obstruct anything though. He didn't get in the way of it, he didn't prevent any of it from occurring, and he didn't lie to the investigators in order to prevent them from doing their job.

Seriously, you can go down to the police station and ask them to stop any investigation you want. Ask loudly and repeatedly. You might be charged with disturbing the peace, but not for obstructing justice.

What happens when you fire the sergeant?

Try threatening the police and see where that gets you. You're using an example of a situation where there is no force - a random person can't stop the cops from doing much by having a tantrum in a station - with a situation where the guy doing the obstruction is president of the freaking country with the ability to fire the law enforcement official he's talking to.

Obstruction of justice does not require success:

(a) Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede...

The only route for your defense of Trump is to argue intent or that Comey is lying.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Such as the reasonable one that explains all the steps he took, the one he talked about. I.e. he didn't trust Trump!

He didn't trust him... so he took steps to make sure that he would be able to release his meetings with Trump to the public, in addition to having given all of that information to other people within his organization.

Planning for retaliation seems odd to me.