Official James Comey testimony thread

[Beelzebuddy]

I don't see what's so confusing about it.

He knew Trump wanted to meddle in ongoing investigations.
The only way to investigate that, if needed, is with a special prosecutor who doesn't answer to Trump and can't be directly influenced without serious repercussions.
The best way for Comey to get a special prosecutor, if he needed to force the issue, would be to release material describing the conversations justifying one.
The responsible way to release material, if he needed to release it, would be to keep it unclassified if at all possible.

As it happens, a special prosecutor is needed, Comey being fired (presumably for someone more pliable) means he did need to force the issue, which means he did need to release his memo, so it was a dang good thing he had the forethought not to include anything classified in them.

I know it's weird to see someone in Washington actually plan for contingencies, but that's all that happened here, as far as I can tell.

Was he afraid his own organization would not have his back if things went south?

Yes. Trump/Sessions can easily hinder any investigation unless it's in the hands of a special prosecutor.

 

[Tony Stark]

I don't see what's so confusing about it.

He knew Trump wanted to meddle in ongoing investigations.
The only way to investigate that, if needed, is with a special prosecutor who doesn't answer to Trump and can't be directly influenced without serious repercussions.
The best way for Comey to get a special prosecutor, if he needed to force the issue, would be to release material describing the conversations justifying one.
The responsible way to release material, if he needed to release it, would be to keep it unclassified if at all possible.

As it happens, a special prosecutor is needed, Comey being fired (presumably for someone more pliable) means he did need to force the issue, which means he did need to release his memo, so it was a dang good thing he had the forethought not to include anything classified in them.

I know it's weird to see someone in Washington actually plan for contingencies, but that's all that happened here, as far as I can tell.

Frankly I think that anyone who claims to be confused about this is just a Trump apologist no matter how much they may pretend not to be.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Serious question to everyone here: Is there anything at all that any of you would accept that clears Trump of your suspicion?
What would it take for you (any of you) to decide that Trump did NOT collude with Russia?
What would it take for you to decide that Trump did not intend to obstruct justice with respect to Comey's investigation?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I don't see what's so confusing about it.

He knew Trump wanted to meddle in ongoing investigations.

How did he know this? What's your support for this claim? Why did he not indicate this during his testimony?

Everything beyond your statement above hinges on your assumption being true. Please establish that your assumption is true.

 

[Tony Stark]

Serious question to everyone here: Is there anything at all that any of you would accept that clears Trump of your suspicion?
What would it take for you (any of you) to decide that Trump did NOT collude with Russia?

It is impossible to prove a negative but if Robert Mueller concludes that he can't prove it, I will accept that.

What would it take for you to decide that Trump did not intend to obstruct justice with respect to Comey's investigation?

Tapes showing that Comey lied about the conversation they had in the Oval Office.

 

[Mycroft]

Who crys like this? Usually professional people in Comeys position aren't out to clear their names, this guy is truly a showboat!

Anybody in a workplace situation who sees fishy things going on would be wise to document times, dates and conversations that may become important later. I have done this more than once and it has proven valuable. Comey's actions, in this case at least, are professional and commendable.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[Beelzebuddy]

How did he know this? What's your support for this claim? Why did he not indicate this during his testimony?

Everything beyond your statement above hinges on your assumption being true. Please establish that your assumption is true.

He'd just had a conversation where (according to his testimony) Trump dangled his job and pressured him to drop the Flynn case. It was already happening. That is how he knew.

Serious question to everyone here: Is there anything at all that any of you would accept that clears Trump of your suspicion?
What would it take for you (any of you) to decide that Trump did NOT collude with Russia?

Full cooperation with, integrity of, and subsequent exoneration by, relevant investigatory bodies.

Session's little bull session yesterday, with the selective amnesia, the refusing to answer, and the leading softball questions from (R) committee members, that wasn't cooperation.

The House Intelligence Committee, which mostly screwed around playing partisan politics, muddying the waters, and directly informing Trump about any intelligence it came into possession of, that wasn't integrity.

Trump firing people until he gets the case dropped or enough evidence destroyed to preclude actual charges, that wouldn't be exoneration.

What would it take for you to decide that Trump did not intend to obstruct justice with respect to Comey's investigation?

At this point, tapes of the conversation. If Trump said what Comey said he said, that's clear obstruction. It's Comey's word against Trump's, and one of the two demonstrably can't stop lying to save his hair implants.

 

[dejudge]

Trump himself admitted that that he fired Comey because of the Russian investigation. Examine Trump's interview with Lester Holt.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...t_trumps_full_interview_with_lester_holt.html

And in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself -- I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should've won........

Trump has consistently called the FBI investigation of the Russian intereference with the 2016 election a hoax [a made up story].

The POTUS wanted to stop the so-called hoax.

Trump will be charged with obstruction of Justice by Mueller based on Trump's own words and actions.

Comey statement will be used as corroborative evidence.

The POTUS will not last a full term.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

The POTUS will not last a full term.

Perversely, I kind of hope he does. He's doing such a crappy job of it, it's more of a hindrance to his own party than anything. Apparently just today he torpedoed their health care bill again, because he finally heard what was in it.

 

[jimbob]

Making the memos was a simple precaution. A wise one considering Trump's character and flexibility with both the truth and his memory.

The possibility that the memos might at some point be released to the public would have been a perfectly reasonable consideration to prepare for. Not necessarily an exclusive, planned consequence. Just one of many possibilities.

Had Trump not behaved the way he did then the very existence of those memos would probably never become a public matter at all, much less their contents.

This is post-hoc rationalization. I get that Trump isn't exactly trustworthy, and is an asinine person full of alternative facts. I question the perception of intent to make it public. Was he afraid his own organization would not have his back if things went south?

You seem to be much more willing to take a negative view of Comey's actions, even though they have all been perfectly proper and legal, than you ever are of Trump's behavior, no matter how blatantly questionable it always is.

Why the double standard?

Nah. It's not a double standard, it's simply not a willingness to jump on a bandwagon. I have suspicions about only one thing that Comey did, and it is a suspicion that I want more information about, not something I accept as fact, nor something that I'm hanging a bunch of arguments around.

I'm also perfectly willing to question Trump's actions, and have done so. But again... I have suspicions, but I don't accept those suspicions as evidence of anything other than "this should be looked into". I don't accept them as fact, and I don't accept all the arguments hung around those suspicions as being valid.

What you're perceiving as a double standard is, in fact, a very even and objective approach. It is undoubtedly perceived differently based on volume. There's a LOT of discussion about Trump, so the opportunity for a situation where I challenge a suspicion-accepted-as-fact is far more likely to occur. The discussion of people in opposition to Trump is much less frequent. In addition, the majority of posters here question the validity of incomplete or out-of-context information relating to people in opposition to Trump... but don't question the validity of it with respect to Trump. If nobody else is accepting incomplete or out of context information for folks in opposition to Trump, there's no bad logic for me to call out. It's a one-sided situation, not a one-sided approach on my part.

It's not a post-hoc rationalisation. Comey had had meetings with both Bush and Obama and had not felt the need to take memos. He specifically stated that the behaviour seemed improper and he wanted to ensure that it might get out. Given that Comey has a reputation for being astute, it isn't a stretch for him to work out that if he only had classified memos, then they could not be released. Face it, *I* can work that out within a few seconds.

Trump's lawyers used to meet with him in pairs because otherwise Trump's "recollection" of meetings was significantly different from theirs.

He has had a well known history of lying about meetings - not surprising as he still claims to have had the largest inauguration crowd, which is easily disproved. He lies when it's obvious; Comey will have researched his ultimate boss (that's just professional behaviour in such a role) so will have been prepared for this.

It really doesn't take a highly astute operator to have taken the steps that Comey took. By most accounts, Comey *is* usually pretty astute.

 

[rwguinn]

I also have no objection to him having kept notes on every encounter. I also think that's a pretty reasonable thing to do. It's the premeditated and purposeful efforts to make sure it was unclassified that seemed odd. I mean, if there was simply no reason for it to be classified, and that was normal operating business for him, I wouldn't question it. But he himself says that he made a conscious decision to make them unclassified.

You are demonstrating a remarkably shallow point if view.
Whether you choose to believe it or not, there are actually people who think that what they do and what they stand for is important.
Security and the law SHOULD be important to the FBI. Breaking the law by releasing classified documents is something that an FBI employee should not consider.
When the conflict of interest and potential illegal acts are being pursued by the individuals who hold the power of firing you and every person who has access to the documents in question, and appointing an individual who can make them disappear, the choice to make an unclassified version is the only ethical choice he could make and still live with himself.


Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This series of tweets contains an interesting set of observations:

https://twitter.com/aodespair/status/872966218738741250

Looking back at Sessions' and the other four's testimony was so telling for what they avoided or sidestepped answering.

Just take Sessions' answers to the question, what did he know about each campaign member known now to have had Russian contacts. Sessions said he had no knowledge, and when coming to Carter Page said he vaguely recalls some news account.

Think about that for a minute.

Sessions heads the Department of Justice. The Russian hack and election interference is a very big deal. All those campaign staff are implicated in at least an unusual number of Russian contacts.

And what, Sessions wasn't interested enough to educate himself as to the known facts in the case? Had he said, because he's recused he has purposefully avoiding looking at any of the FBI or other agency evidence, it might have made sense. But to play dumb about the accusations that have been made about Manafort, Flynn, and Page?

Hiding something much, ya think?

 

[jimbob]

Serious question to everyone here: Is there anything at all that any of you would accept that clears Trump of your suspicion?
What would it take for you (any of you) to decide that Trump did NOT collude with Russia?
What would it take for you to decide that Trump did not intend to obstruct justice with respect to Comey's investigation?

Trump could cooperate with the inquiry.


Trump could go back in time and not ask Comey to drop the investigation, fire Comey when he doesn't, and then tell the Russians that firing Comey had taken the heat out of the investigations.

 

[Meadmaker]

Is it normal to do so with the intent to release it to the public? There's no inflection here, so I'd like to go ahead and say that I am genuinely asking, I'm not arguing. This isn't a question-as-counter-argument thing here.

It's hard to answer in a straightforward manner, because this isn't a normal situation. How many times do we have a case of a very powerful person who suspects he is going to be fired by the President of the United States, and expects that the President will lie about it?

That being said, I think the answer is pretty much yes, it's normal. What you have here is something like a government whistleblower. It's pretty normal for them to document everything with the intention of making sure it ends up in the hands of the press or the Congress in case things proceed as expected.

So, it isn't "normal" just because there are very few cases where there's a precedent to compare it to, but it doesn't strike me as at all unusual. Making sure that documents contain no classified data, so that you can disseminate them later, is very, very, normal. The target of that dissemination isn't usually the press, just because the press doesn't usually care, but in this case, he knew they would.

 

[Meadmaker]

Serious question to everyone here: Is there anything at all that any of you would accept that clears Trump of your suspicion?
What would it take for you (any of you) to decide that Trump did NOT collude with Russia?
What would it take for you to decide that Trump did not intend to obstruct justice with respect to Comey's investigation?

It seems like there might be a little bit of begging the question in these questions, and in this case I'm using it in the old sense of the phrase.

Unlike many others here, I'm not convinced that Trump did anything illegal, or even truly improper. He lied, but I expect that from Trump. It's not a crime, or an impeachable offense.

However, I think it is at least possible that Trump did commit a crime, so for me, the question would be what would make me dismiss that possibility as anything other than a hypothetical. For me, the answer is the report of the Special Counsel, or whatever Bob Mueller's title is. I am confident that he will conduct a proper investigation and tell the truth about it. If it says there's no evidence, then I'll say there's no reason to suspect Trump. If it lays out a case he broke the law, in anything other than a trivial fashion, I'll support impeachment. Between those two ends, there are other possibilities, but I think they all involve more suspicion and more investigations.

 

[quadraginta]

This is post-hoc rationalization. I get that Trump isn't exactly trustworthy, and is an asinine person full of alternative facts. I question the perception of intent to make it public. Was he afraid his own organization would not have his back if things went south?

There is nothing post hoc about acknowledging Trump's untrustworthiness, It was well established long before the man became POTUS.

And no need to rationalize, either.

Quite the contrary. It would be irrational not to treat encounters with Trump that way. Especially if not in the presence of dispassionate observers.

Nah. It's not a double standard, it's simply not a willingness to jump on a bandwagon. I have suspicions about only one thing that Comey did, and it is a suspicion that I want more information about, not something I accept as fact, nor something that I'm hanging a bunch of arguments around.

I'm also perfectly willing to question Trump's actions, and have done so. But again... I have suspicions, but I don't accept those suspicions as evidence of anything other than "this should be looked into". I don't accept them as fact, and I don't accept all the arguments hung around those suspicions as being valid.

What you're perceiving as a double standard is, in fact, a very even and objective approach. It is undoubtedly perceived differently based on volume. There's a LOT of discussion about Trump, so the opportunity for a situation where I challenge a suspicion-accepted-as-fact is far more likely to occur. The discussion of people in opposition to Trump is much less frequent. In addition, the majority of posters here question the validity of incomplete or out-of-context information relating to people in opposition to Trump... but don't question the validity of it with respect to Trump. If nobody else is accepting incomplete or out of context information for folks in opposition to Trump, there's no bad logic for me to call out. It's a one-sided situation, not a one-sided approach on my part.

Yeah. Sure it isn't.

You just keep telling yourself that.

You might even be able to convince an audience of one.

Assuming there is a mirror in the room with you.

 

[quadraginta]

Serious question to everyone here: Is there anything at all that any of you would accept that clears Trump of your suspicion?
What would it take for you (any of you) to decide that Trump did NOT collude with Russia?

I still haven't decided that.

I have decided that the indications his staff did are becoming overwhelming.

I have decided that his knowledge of this is becoming more likely.

I am increasingly suspicious that his staff acted not only with his knowledge, but also with his blessing.

But "convinced" of that? No. Not quite yet.

What would it take for you to decide that Trump did not intend to obstruct justice with respect to Comey's investigation?

That particular horse is long out of the barn.

Anyone trying to pretend that he didn't is either willfully ignorant or a hypocritical liar.

This has gone waaayyy past the 'room for reasonable doubt' period, and has reached the 'no one who isn't a shamelessly dishonest Trump apologist could pretend otherwise' stage.

His guilt couldn't be more obvious if he was holding the cookie jar with his hand in it, mumbling "No. I didn't take any.", around the cookie in his mouth.

 

[TofuFighter]

Serious question to everyone here: Is there anything at all that any of you would accept that clears Trump of your suspicion?
What would it take for you (any of you) to decide that Trump did NOT collude with Russia?
What would it take for you to decide that Trump did not intend to obstruct justice with respect to Comey's investigation?

1. nothing. I will always be suspicious of Trump. It's not possible not to be suspicious of someone who lies like he does.
2. I already don't believe Trump was involved in direct collusion, but i feel he is aware that someone in his camp was involved. If Mueller can't confirm that is true, then I'm happy to accept the special counsel's conclusions.
3. Probably nothing. Every single aspect of Trump's nature points toward a contempt for propriety and expectation of personal loyalty and subservience to him. Trump views everything in terms of loyalty, and through this prism he sought to protect someone he views as dog-loyal to him from an investigation. Whether Flynn is innocent or not, Trump, in my view, was absolutely trying to shield him, and that is obstruction.

There aren't too many people around Trump who he would stick his neck out this far for. His bodyguard is one of them. If any one of the people that Trump is fiercely loyal to gets into trouble I have zero doubt that Trump would obstruct justice again if he needs to. Those loyalty bonds are more important to Trump than any notion of justice that he might have. It's that simple.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

There aren't too many people around Trump who he would stick his neck out this far for. His bodyguard is one of them. If any one of the people that Trump is fiercely loyal to gets into trouble I have zero doubt that Trump would obstruct justice again if he needs to. Those loyalty bonds are more important to Trump than any notion of justice that he might have. It's that simple.

I have seen nothing which leads me to suspect that Trump considers loyalty to be anything but a one-way obligation, always and only to him, but not from him.

The "if he needs to" calculation would consider only the benefit to him. Given the choice between getting dinged himself and throwing a loyal supporter under the bus, that supporter is always going to end up with tread marks all over him.

He might pay lip service to loyalty as long as it isn't too costly for him. The moment it is he'll dump them.

I suspect his concern about the Flynn investigation has far less to do with any effect it might have on Flynn, and far more to do with how any fallout from it might affect him.

 

[3point14]

This has gone waaayyy past the 'room for reasonable doubt' period, and has reached the 'no one who isn't a shamelessly dishonest Trump apologist could pretend otherwise' stage.

But he still has plausible deniability. As has been pointed out, he uses the language of gangsters (And of David Mitchell's evil genius) to provide him with an out every time. There comes a point where the preponderance of vague and slippery language is utterly damning but, because each individual event is defensible as 'That's not what he meant' it allows Trump to continue being President.


When do the fabled 'checks and balances' happen?