Official James Comey testimony thread

[Emily's Cat]

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

Well, I hope that we can get those safety concerns wrapped up as soon as possible then.

 

[BobTheCoward]

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.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/yes...n-be-basis-for-obstruction-of-justice-charge/

Trump’s backers believe that the expression of mere hopes is not the same as obstructing justice, but there are arguments showing that “I hope” could be enough. Law professor Dan Epps from Washington University in St. Louis put it plainly:

Lots of ways in which "I hope" can convey a threat. "Nice store you have here. I hope nobody burns it down."

In response to that tweet, New York Times Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak cited the case United States v. Collin McDonald, where the defendant was found to have obstructed justice based, in part, on a statement where he said to another person in a threatening letter:

I hope and pray to God you did not say anything about a weapon when you were in Iowa. Because it will make it worse on me and you even if they promised you not to prosecute you that’s not always true I would hate to see you go to jail…

A response to Liptak included another judicial opinion, this one from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, where a person was found to have the “intent to an impede an investigation,” when they said to a witness, “I[‘m] just hoping you haven’t told anyone anything…. Like, ya know, talking or anything like that. Just don’t ah ya know?”

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

I've had several meetings with my employees where I've said "I hope" in relation to their performance*. I've had the phrase used with me relating to my performance. I've never used it to imply potential corrective action. If there's a potential for corrective I action, I say so. I've never gotten the impression that the phrase indicated potential corrective action when it has been used with respect to my performance.

*Real life examples:

I hope you can work on expanding your SQL skills so we can get you involved in more stuff.
I hope you can wrap this project up soon so we can move on to the next one.
I hope you'll consider taking on a supervisory role.
I hope you can get this documented and filed away within the next month.

 

[TraneWreck]

I've had several meetings with my employees where I've said "I hope" in relation to their performance*. I've had the phrase used with me relating to my performance. I've never used it to imply potential corrective action. If there's a potential for corrective I action, I say so. I've never gotten the impression that the phrase indicated potential corrective action when it has been used with respect to my performance.

*Real life examples:

I hope you can work on expanding your SQL skills so we can get you involved in more stuff.
I hope you can wrap this project up soon so we can move on to the next one.
I hope you'll consider taking on a supervisory role.
I hope you can get this documented and filed away within the next month.

If that was the meaning Trump wanted, he could have said:

-I hope this case resolves quickly and you don't find anything.
-I hope Flynn didn't do anything.

I hope you drop it without knowing what Comey has found is a clear message to stop the investigation regardless of the substance.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

Your mays were rather imprecise.

Context:

I'm not an expert on classified data, but I'm 100% confident that merely creating something on a particular computer does not make something classified.

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...

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

You seem to have been implying...

1) That maybe the items in question (the one memo he created on a classified laptop) maybe wasn't created on a classified laptop... Except that Comey himself specifies that his first memo was created on a classified laptop, and rwguinn has confirmed and provided support that a file created on a classified laptop is considered a classified document.

2) May have been unclassified since then... which is irrelevant, because the classified memo wasn't included in what was released.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/yes...n-be-basis-for-obstruction-of-justice-charge/

And once again only half the evidence is looked at and declared to mean x or not mean x.

If you fire the head of investigations, knowing you will be choosing the replacement, and admit publicly the reason you fired him was because the investigation was unnecessary, the "I hope" part of the case is corroboration, but not the only evidence.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Comey says he deliberately avoided classified information in his memos -- so they could be shared

Given how riled he was previously about careless handling of classified information in the State Department, and given he was the head of the FBI, I suspect he knows what he's doing and talking about.

In addition, he added a bit of legal counsel to the mix: 'A frivolous distraction': Trump is homing in on Comey's 'leaks,' but legal experts say he did nothing wrong

That friend, Columbia law professor Daniel Richman, gave the memo to The New York Times at Comey's instruction after Trump had implied that there might be tapes of their conversations, Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday.

"My judgment was, I need to get that out into the public square," Comey said. "I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter. Didn't do it myself for a variety of reasons. I asked him to because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel."

And others have weighed in despite the fact Trump supporters have their own legal opinions.

"Executive privilege almost certainly does not cover the Comey memo," Steve Vladeck, a professor of law at the University of Texas School of Law specializing in national security, wrote on Friday. "And even if it did, disclosing it without authorization isn’t illegal."....

It's also not illegal, as long as the information Comey shared wasn't related to "the national defense" or anything financially valuable.

"It's hard to see how Comey’s after-the-fact transcription of his relevant conversations with the president fall within either of these provisions," Vladeck said. "No one is making an argument that the material in Comey’s memos was classified, or that information about a conversation could have the kind of monetary value required to trigger the federal conversion statute."

David Cole, the national legal director of the ACLU, agreed.

 

[Emily's Cat]

...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.

1) The assumption is that Trump intended to purposefully do something improper... which may not have been the case. Regardless of what happened, clearing the room of those particular people does NOT show intent to do something improper. Those people should NOT be in the room during any discussion of the investigation, regardless. Clearing the room doesn't indicate intent of impropriety. In particular, failing to clear the room for a discussion about the investigation would definitely have been improper.

2) You're also working from the assumption that Trump's comment was impossible to be anything other than a direct order to stop the investigation. Comey interpreted it as a request to drop that investigation... but Comey's interpretation is not necessarily reality. Likely, yes, but not definitive. It is plausible that Trump did not intend it as an order. I don't think that's likely, personally, but I think any half-way decent lawyer can easily make that case. Unless the jury has ESP, there's no clear way to know. And given that Trump did not take any other actions to impede to halt the investigation, I think you're going to have a hard time proving that intent.

3) There is no need to prove (or even suggest) that Comey lied about anything at all. Comey's testimony can be 100% accurate. At the moment, I'm inclined to view it as accurate. But the accuracy of Comey's statement is irrelevant to your interpretation of that information. Comey wrote a memo about a meeting he had with Trump, where he felt that it might have been an improper request. "He wrote a memo about it!" doesn't make it obstruction. "I felt like he might have been asking me to do something improper, but I'm not certain" doesn't make it obstruction.

4) Comey seemingly contradicts himself on this point. Read the testimony. At one point he says that no, he didn't think Trump was asking him to stop the investigation... then at a later point following a leading question he said that he felt it might have been an attempt to pressure him to drop the investigation, but wasn't certain.

 

[Babbylonian]

I've had several meetings with my employees where I've said "I hope" in relation to their performance*. I've had the phrase used with me relating to my performance. I've never used it to imply potential corrective action. If there's a potential for corrective I action, I say so. I've never gotten the impression that the phrase indicated potential corrective action when it has been used with respect to my performance.

*Real life examples:

I hope you can work on expanding your SQL skills so we can get you involved in more stuff.
I hope you can wrap this project up soon so we can move on to the next one.
I hope you'll consider taking on a supervisory role.
I hope you can get this documented and filed away within the next month.

Did you ever say, "I hope you stop working on <x> project" that both of you knew was incomplete? If you did, wouldn't you expect the employee to stop working on it? If they didn't stop working on it, wouldn't you do something about it?

This is a pitiful attempt to defend the indefensible.

 

[Emily's Cat]

What happens when you fire the sergeant?

The investigation moves under someone else and continues. Kinda like it did here, right?

Try threatening the police and see where that gets you.

Provide evidence that Trump threatened Comey.

(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.

Or to argue that you are stretching the interpretation of events and framing them in a way that supports your pre-existing belief... I don't have to argue Trump's intent, nor do I have to establish that Comey lied. Comey did not say that he was threatened, nor did he say he was ordered to drop the investigation, nor did he suggest any threat or intimation of threat from Trump. He himself said that he was uncertain of Trump's intent, but felt that it could have been inappropriate.

It definitely could have been. But could have been <> was.

 

[BobTheCoward]

1) The assumption is that Trump intended to purposefully do something improper... which may not have been the case. Regardless of what happened, clearing the room of those particular people does NOT show intent to do something improper. Those people should NOT be in the room during any discussion of the investigation, regardless. Clearing the room doesn't indicate intent of impropriety. In particular, failing to clear the room for a discussion about the investigation would definitely have been improper.

I absolutely disagree that they had no place there. That is not a clear the room event unless you intend to do something wrong.

 

[Emily's Cat]

If that was the meaning Trump wanted, he could have said:

-I hope this case resolves quickly and you don't find anything.
-I hope Flynn didn't do anything.

I hope you drop it without knowing what Comey has found is a clear message to stop the investigation regardless of the substance.

My recollection from the transcript is that Trump already knew at that point that the investigation had already established that the content of the call was not improper. I believe (but am not certain) that he already knew that nothing had been found.

 

[TraneWreck]

The investigation moves under someone else and continues. Kinda like it did here, right?

That shows the power. You cannot go into a police station and fire the police. This makes the analogy not particularly useful.

Provide evidence that Trump threatened Comey.

Not a necessary element. You don't need to threaten an underling to exert force.

Or to argue that you are stretching the interpretation of events and framing them in a way that supports your pre-existing belief...

No, if Comey is telling the truth, then Trump used his power, exerted force, to endeavor to influence an investigation. The only question is whether his intent qualifies and corrupt.

 

[TraneWreck]

My recollection from the transcript is that Trump already knew at that point that the investigation had already established that the content of the call was not improper. I believe (but am not certain) that he already knew that nothing had been found.

The investigation is not over. The Flynn matter hasn't closed. Comey testified that Flynn is under on-going, criminal investigation.

Trump tried to end it. He failed, but he used his force to inhibit the inquiry.

 

[Darat]

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.

Strange framing "retaliation" how do you infer that was his intent.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Did you ever say, "I hope you stop working on <x> project" that both of you knew was incomplete?

Actually yes. My employees have their own internal clients, and they manage their own workflows for the most part. It's not uncommon for me to think they're spending too much time on something of limited value. It's not uncommon for me to suggest that they should push back against their clients to close down work with little value - especially if it's taking a long time and getting in the way of other things.

If you did, wouldn't you expect the employee to stop working on it? If they didn't stop working on it, wouldn't you do something about it?

Not necessarily. Depends on who the client is, what the relationship is, and what other work needs to be done. I have deferred to my employee's assessment that it was important to complete a useless project in the interest of fostering a stronger relationship with the client.

This is a pitiful attempt to defend the indefensible.

I'm sorry that you see it as pitiful that I haven't formed a rock-hard opinion based on incomplete information and someone else's interpretation of the only possible intent... I'll work on redefining what skepticism means so that it squares with the accepted bias around here.

 

[Darat]

Your mays were rather imprecise.

Context:


You seem to have been implying...

1) That maybe the items in question (the one memo he created on a classified laptop) maybe wasn't created on a classified laptop... Except that Comey himself specifies that his first memo was created on a classified laptop, and rwguinn has confirmed and provided support that a file created on a classified laptop is considered a classified document.

2) May have been unclassified since then... which is irrelevant, because the classified memo wasn't included in what was released.

You need to read the post I was replying to.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Soooo....... how close are we to impeachment now?

 

[Babbylonian]

Actually yes. My employees have their own internal clients, and they manage their own workflows for the most part. It's not uncommon for me to think they're spending too much time on something of limited value. It's not uncommon for me to suggest that they should push back against their clients to close down work with little value - especially if it's taking a long time and getting in the way of other things.

Not necessarily. Depends on who the client is, what the relationship is, and what other work needs to be done. I have deferred to my employee's assessment that it was important to complete a useless project in the interest of fostering a stronger relationship with the client.

That's some serious intellectual dishonesty. You know what I was asking but instead are answering some other question that's more agreeable with the point you're failing to make. I didn't say "push back" or reprioritize, I said "stop."

Don't bother answering with more of your weak sauce, either; I won't ask again.

 

[varwoche]

Did you ever say, "I hope you stop working on <x> project" that both of you knew was incomplete? If you did, wouldn't you expect the employee to stop working on it? If they didn't stop working on it, wouldn't you do something about it?

This is a pitiful attempt to defend the indefensible.

To fill out the example, it's more like I hope you stop working on this project, never mind that the board of directors expects it to be completed as a high priority, we've promised the shareholders, and I'm purposefully leaving your direct boss out of this discussion, despite that s/he is the person who will own the project once you complete phase one.

And to update the scenario, the person doesn't stop, and you fire them.