Official James Comey testimony thread

[Emily's Cat]

Yeah. I don't get this line of defense.

Considering more options than just those that make Trump look the worst isn't defense. On the flip side... considering only those options that make Trump look worst and dismissing all others is a pretty good indicator of confirmation bias and a lack of critical thinking.

If you direct, let's say, a statement like, "I hope nothing happens to Fred," at a person who you know has expressed a desire to commit violence against Fred, it is quite obviously a direction and possibly even a threat.

What happens when you direct a statement like "I hope nothing happens to Fred" at a person who likes Fred and has never wished Fred ill? Unless you're implying that Comey really wanted to drop the investigation?

I think the analogy you're looking for is "Gee, I sure hope you can find our protection money soon, Mr. Nahasapeemapetilon"...

 

[Emily's Cat]

As far as I followed the hearing (I couldn't follow all of it) there was no contradiction whatsoever. I assume I caught the two points you refer to; at the first point, he was quoting literally, and answering if he was literally asked to drop the investigation. At the second point, he was asked what his impression of the conversation was, and what he interpreted to be the intention behind it. See the difference?

It's a fair point, in regards to contradiction. My recollection is that he said he did not believe it was an order to cease the investigation (his interpretation) then later said he viewed it as a directive (also his direction). I'm digging through the transcripts to see if I can find this.

They did discuss briefly the historic example of Thomas Becket and Henry II with regards to Trumps "I hope". A fictitious example of something similar you'll find in the movie "Clear and Present Danger". What is said literally is not an explicit order; but everyone understands what the implication is.

And again... that is a plausible interpretation. It is not the only plausible interpretation. Especially given that we have only Comey's interpretation of what he believes Trump really meant.

It is not Comey's fault when you didn't understand this; he was very concise.

I never intimated that it's Comey's fault. I intimated that it's the fault of the media as well as those who are most vehemently anti-Trump. Those are the venues selecting a particular interpretation and then pretending that no other interpretation is possible.

 

[Giordano]

Given this is a topic still under conversation here, I will ask one question of those who still believe that Trump's comments to Comey were ambiguous:

If your own boss took you aside and made the same types of comments ("I hope you can do this...") to you, how would you view them? As some sort of wistful plea to the gods that you would just ignore as a hypothetical wish that had nothing to do with you? Or would you instead conclude that he/she was trying to tell you something very important with regard to your job, and you would feel a very strong motivation to turn your boss's "hopes" into reality? Be honest...

 

[TraneWreck]

Given this is a topic still under conversation here, I will ask one question of those who still believe that Trump's comments to Comey were ambiguous:

If your own boss took you aside and made the same types of comments ("I hope you can do this...") to you, how would you view them? As some sort of wistful plea to the gods that you would just ignore as a hypothetical wish that had nothing to do with you? Or would you instead conclude that he/she was trying to tell you something very important with regard to your job, and you would feel a very strong motivation to turn your boss's "hopes" into reality? Be honest...

And to throw another bit of evidence on the pile, Senior Prosecutor Preet Bharara was fired for refusing to take a direct call from Trump:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40243184

Why is he calling prosecutors directly? Makes the Comey think seem like less of innocent mistake (if anyone was still deluded enough to buy that).

 

[seayakin]

Given this is a topic still under conversation here, I will ask one question of those who still believe that Trump's comments to Comey were ambiguous:

If your own boss took you aside and made the same types of comments ("I hope you can do this...") to you, how would you view them? As some sort of wistful plea to the gods that you would just ignore as a hypothetical wish that had nothing to do with you? Or would you instead conclude that he/she was trying to tell you something very important with regard to your job, and you would feel a very strong motivation to turn your boss's "hopes" into reality? Be honest...

I have had a boss who would do this. I also had someone else in the organization who communicated in less ambiguous terms that this was an order.

I know as a boss now (head of a small non-profit), if I say I hope you will write an email to Joe about issue X, almost all of my employees will take that as an order. (When i want something done, I never use ambiguous language unless I really mean to give the employee a choice. In those instances, I'm very clear it is a choice.)

 

[Oystein]

If your own boss took you aside and made the same types of comments ("I hope you can do this...") to you, how would you view them? As some sort of wistful plea to the gods that you would just ignore as a hypothetical wish that had nothing to do with you? Or would you instead conclude that he/she was trying to tell you something very important with regard to your job, and you would feel a very strong motivation to turn your boss's "hopes" into reality? Be honest...

While an airman first class with a NATO E-3A flying squadron, my immediate superior, none less than a Canadian Major, would tell me, usually with boots leisurely on the table, that it'd be really nice if I could run this or that errand, if only my time allowed.

Needles to say, I obeyed those orders gladly and promptly.

 

[TragicMonkey]

While an airman first class with a NATO E-3A flying squadron, my immediate superior, none less than a Canadian Major, would tell me, usually with boots leisurely on the table, that it'd be really nice if I could run this or that errand, if only my time allowed.

Needles to say, I obeyed those orders gladly and promptly.

It took me a while to overcome my inner conviction that a "Canadian Major" was a brand of beer.

 

[Giordano]

I play multiple roles at work, both as a subordinate and as a boss. I interpret a "I hope you can" from my boss as a polite, but clear way of them telling me what they actually me to do. It is a polite approach, one that recognizes that there may be some practical difficulties, but it is very clear that it is a command to at least try my best to fulfill what my boss "hopes" for. If they were to also "coincidently" bring up any issue involving my appointment to my position, it would invoke even more dedication on my part to achieving their "hope."

When I am in the role of the boss, I find myself using the same wording for the same reasons. When I say "I hope you can" or even "It would be great if you can" to a subordinate, I am really saying "I want you to do this, or at least make a determined effort to try to do it." I see the wording both as being polite (we are all working together on this) and also as recognition that there may be practical problems that might need to be overcome. Nonetheless it is obvious that i want the individual to try to achieve that goal to the best of their ability. I can't remember when one of the people in my lab took a different interpretation and simply decided to "blow off" my "suggestion" as a wistful lament. They always tried- some harder than others, but they at least tried. And of course, being experimental science, what they tried often didn't work the first time. Which was fine by me. But they definitely tried.

 

[ahhell]

Sure, he was almost certainly trying to influence and even stop the flynn investigation but tone and body language matter in this sort of thing. I have definitely been asked by bosses things like "I hope you conclude blank" and have it mean they really just hoped it turned out a certain way but weren't meaning to influence my work. Now, I'm an engineer and I haven't worked with anyone with the ethics and casual connection to the truth of Trump but the language involved gives folks plausible deniability, which is all some folks are looking for. Skeptics should know that that's what most folks are looking for most of the time, to have their biases confirmed not challenged.

Also, I'd be fired if I refused to take my CEOs phone call. Now, it would be odd for him to call me, maybe even inappropriate but I'd still get fired for it. I get that the government is different in some regards but federal prosecutors and the FBI actually do work for the president and any isolation their may be between the president and those employees is really just a matter of tradition and not law.

 

[Giordano]

Sure, he was almost certainly trying to influence and even stop the flynn investigation but tone and body language matter in this sort of thing. I have definitely been asked by bosses things like "I hope you conclude blank" and have it mean they really just hoped it turned out a certain way but weren't meaning to influence my work. Now, I'm an engineer and I haven't worked with anyone with the ethics and casual connection to the truth of Trump but the language involved gives folks plausible deniability, which is all some folks are looking for. Skeptics should know that that's what most folks are looking for most of the time, to have their biases confirmed not challenged.

Also, I'd be fired if I refused to take my CEOs phone call. Now, it would be odd for him to call me, maybe even inappropriate but I'd still get fired for it. I get that the government is different in some regards but federal prosecutors and the FBI actually do work for the president and any isolation their may be between the president and those employees is really just a matter of tradition and not law.

Tone and body language do play a role (although not required for a legal determination). But in fact Comey testified exactly to this matter: that Trump's tone and body language, not only his words, led Comey to conclude that Trump was seeking to end the FBI's inquiry, which in turn led Comey to take detailed notes so as to document his interactions with Trump. Trump himself stated that was one of his motivations (as I cited in a post upthread). Absoltuely damning!

I see absolutely no plausible deniability in Trump's words, let alone Comey's interpretation of the context and Trump's own subsequent tweets. The legal and logical test is what would a reasonable person conclude; this criterion is met by the evidence we already have. To my knowledge there is no legal defense that, "is there any way, any way at all, no matter the evidence, no matter how absurd, unlikely, previously unheard of, or bizarre, that might in an alternative universe hypothetically might, just might justify the person's actions as legitimate. Te test is what a reasonable person would conclude. And probably the majority of people in jails have been convicted on this basis.

I realize that you are not stating you own views as to Trump's actions here. And I agree that this perceived "ambiguity" is what Trump supporters are clinging to. It is natural. My point is that it is indeed a very slender thread to grab onto- one that, in fact, is just an illusion of a thread.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That's what I don't get. Why exactly should I be troubled that a guy who was fired wanted the press to know what happened? This "confidential communication" and "privileged information" and all that rot. It's almost as if Comey, finding himself out of a job because he wouldn't kowtow to this authoritarian megalomaniac, wanted to retaliate against the guy who fired him, and wanted to protect his own reputation. Trump was running around saying that Comey was fired because his organization was in disarray, and he was doing a lousy job. Under those circumstances, who wouldn't want people to know the truth about why he was fired?

Retaliation is kind of a problem for me.

Also... given the sheer volume of leaks coming out of the FBI (not Comey's memo), I wonder a little bit about the organization too.

Why is nobody concerned about the amount of classified and confidential information that has made it to the press in the last few months? Is it okay because it makes Trump look bad? Do you excuse it as acceptable when it benefits one's preferred side?

 

[Trebuchet]

While an airman first class with a NATO E-3A flying squadron, my immediate superior, none less than a Canadian Major, would tell me, usually with boots leisurely on the table, that it'd be really nice if I could run this or that errand, if only my time allowed.

Needles to say, I obeyed those orders gladly and promptly.

It took me a while to overcome my inner conviction that a "Canadian Major" was a brand of beer.

At least it wasn't a Canadian Colonel.

 

[NoahFence]

Retaliation is kind of a problem for me.

Also... given the sheer volume of leaks coming out of the FBI (not Comey's memo), I wonder a little bit about the organization too.

Why is nobody concerned about the amount of classified and confidential information that has made it to the press in the last few months? Is it okay because it makes Trump look bad? Do you excuse it as acceptable when it benefits one's preferred side?

I'm not concerned because everyone who is leaking these things are heroes. They're patriots.

 

[Meadmaker]

Read the transcripts! I've linked to it several times.

Anyway, as I previously said very clearly, Comey's memos didn't include any of the information discussed during that first meeting - the one that he documented on a classified laptop, and which is considered a classified document.

AFTER that meeting, he took pains to make sure that all of his documentation was done in a way that allowed him to treat it as unclassified. That is the content that he used in the memos that he released to the media.

You have been lied to. Typing something on a classified computer does not make something classified. Yes, I know you read that. Yes, it has been repeated in this thread. Yep. All those things.

It ain't classified. Show me a reputable source that says it was classified. You can't because it isn't. You can find people talking on the internet that say it was classified. You can find right wing yappers with radio shows saying there was classified date. You can find guests on "objective" news shows where they invite a right winger and a left winger to say that it was classified. You can't find a reputable source that says it was classified, because it wasn't.

Use just a tiny bit of skepticism and critical thinking here. James Comey testified at a public hearing in front of a large number of senators, with a majority of them Republican. Supposedly, he sat there blurting out classified data, and not one of them called him on it? Never mind demanding he be prosecuted for breaking the law, they didn't even criticize him for such blatant public revelations of classified data. Why not?

Insert conspiracy theory here, or acknowledge that they didn't call him on it because it wasn't classified.

 

[Meadmaker]

Retaliation is kind of a problem for me.

Also... given the sheer volume of leaks coming out of the FBI (not Comey's memo), I wonder a little bit about the organization too.

Why is nobody concerned about the amount of classified and confidential information that has made it to the press in the last few months? Is it okay because it makes Trump look bad? Do you excuse it as acceptable when it benefits one's preferred side?

Lots of people, including me, are concerned about the leaks of classified data. James Comey didn't do that.

As for "confidential" data, I am not the least bit concerned about leaks of "confidential" data. Comey and Trump had a private conversation. Comey leaked the contents of that conversation. I am not concerned about that at all. Do you think I should be?

I want every government official, up to, including, and especially the President of the United States, to be well aware that anything they say very well could end up in the press, with the sole exception of classified data. But private conversations about matters of governmental interest? There are states and jurisdictions where just having that conversation would be a crime. I'm not very fond of such extreme so called "sunshine" laws, because their most common use is to attack political enemies, but the principle is a good one. If you are talking about governmental affairs, and it is of public interest, someone may very well decide to give it to the press. That's a good thing.

 

[Giordano]

Retaliation is kind of a problem for me.

Also... given the sheer volume of leaks coming out of the FBI (not Comey's memo), I wonder a little bit about the organization too.

Why is nobody concerned about the amount of classified and confidential information that has made it to the press in the last few months? Is it okay because it makes Trump look bad? Do you excuse it as acceptable when it benefits one's preferred side?

I tend to excuse it not because it makes Trump look bad for political reasons, but because I view Trump as representing an enormous and very real danger to our country and that his illegal and dangerous actions must be revealed publicly for the very safety of our society and of ourselves. I view many of these leaks as patriotic actions based on morality. I never viewed the Bush presidents, for example, as needing to have this type of leaked information and I do not favor leaking for political goals. But if someone learns that Trump is seeking to interfere in a legal investigation, that is a legal and moral issue and should be revealed to the public. Trump IMO does not have a right to do so and to cynically use the regulations to hide his illegality and protect himself.

Remember- this is a country of laws and Trump was not elected to be an unquestionable, unchallengeable King. The very reason for whistleblower laws was the recognition that people in power often use regulations to hide their illegal or dangerous actions, but that other people in the "chain of command" have moral obligations beyond what is asked of them by the usual rules. Just one well established example: Trump is Commander-in-Chief, yet every military persons down to the lowest fresh recruit is told that they have an obligation (and the absolute right) to disobey illegal commands. This concept applies to all aspects of government. We are a democracy, and this only works if important facts are not so easily hidden by those in power.

It gets somewhat more difficult when addressing secret or confidential materials, but these designations have long been used to just to protect the reputation of those in power and not only for legitimate reasons. Most of the Pentagon Papers were confidential or secret- and most of this had nothing to do with protecting our country from others. They were to protect the establishment from those in our country who might question their motivations and judgements.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You have been lied to. Typing something on a classified computer does not make something classified. Yes, I know you read that. Yes, it has been repeated in this thread. Yep. All those things.

It ain't classified. Show me a reputable source that says it was classified. You can't because it isn't. You can find people talking on the internet that say it was classified. You can find right wing yappers with radio shows saying there was classified date. You can find guests on "objective" news shows where they invite a right winger and a left winger to say that it was classified. You can't find a reputable source that says it was classified, because it wasn't.

Use just a tiny bit of skepticism and critical thinking here. James Comey testified at a public hearing in front of a large number of senators, with a majority of them Republican. Supposedly, he sat there blurting out classified data, and not one of them called him on it? Never mind demanding he be prosecuted for breaking the law, they didn't even criticize him for such blatant public revelations of classified data. Why not?

Insert conspiracy theory here, or acknowledge that they didn't call him on it because it wasn't classified.

Oh ffs. The Transcript

Vice Chairman Mark Warner - Virginia:
I found it very interesting that in the memo that you wrote after this February 14th pull aside, you made clear that you wrote that memo in a way that was unclassified. If you affirmatively made the decision to write a memo that was unclassified, was that because you felt at some point the facts of that meeting would have to come clean and come clear and actually be able to be cleared in a way that could be shared with the American people?

James Comey:
Well, I remember thinking this is a very disturbing development. Really important to our work. I need to document it and preserve it in a way, this committee gets this, but sometimes when things are classified, It tangles them up. It's hard --

Vice Chairman Mark Warner - Virginia:
Amen.

James Comey:
-- to share it within an investigative team. You have to be careful how you handle it, for good reason. My thinking was if I write it in such a way that I don't include anything that would trigger classification. That would make it easier for us to discuss within the FBI and the government and to hold on to it in a way that makes it accessible to us.

Also...

Okay... but you were adding possibilities to something that's already been fairly well established. It's something that Comey addressed in his testimony - the first memo was done on a classified computer. And given that none of the information from that first meeting was released by Comey, I rather strongly suspect that it has not been officially declassified.

Correction mine, it should have been "none" from the beginning.

I've been consistently referring to it as released, not leaked. I've also repeatedly specified that the only information he released was from the subsequent unclassified memos, not from the first one.

So go right ahead and insert your own conspiracy theory. And consider reading things completely instead of making assumptions.

 

[Meadmaker]

Oh ffs. The Transcript



Also...


Correction mine, it should have been "none" from the beginning.

I've been consistently referring to it as released, not leaked. I've also repeatedly specified that the only information he released was from the subsequent unclassified memos, not from the first one.

So go right ahead and insert your own conspiracy theory. And consider reading things completely instead of making assumptions.

I'm truly baffled here. You are quoting Senator Warner, who is talking about Comey not releasing classified data, and you are using that quote to support, well, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it sure seems like you are saying Senator Warner's assertion that Comey did not release classified data is evidence that Comey did release classified data.


As far as "the first memo was done on a classified computer", give me a credible source that says the memo was classified, whether because of the contents, or because of the manner in which it was produced.

A whole bunch of Senators heard him talk about it, and not one said that he released classified data, or that he broke the law.

 

[Meadmaker]

Wait. Maybe I get it. I went back and read what you wrote. (i.e. Emily's Cat).

Are you saying that he had classified data, but didn't release it? Uhh....yeah. I don't know whether or not any of his conversations with Trump included classified data, but it's certainly possible that they could have.

But if there was any classified content, he didn't release it, so what's the issue? I'm just having a hard time connecting the dots to end up with a relevant point.

 

[logger]

Many would rationalize why it was a good thing.

Some are already doing that.

Exposing Hillary? Yeah it's a bit of a toss up. I wonder what else they have on leftists?