Official James Comey testimony thread

[logger]

I want to be on the record that I do not support democracy.

Well, neither does the left!

 

[logger]

How "confidential" could the communication be considered to be after Trump himself divulged some of it (in his letter firing Comey, referring to the three times Comey supposedly told him he wasn't under investigation)? I don't know about the legalities, but it seems pretty poor optics at least to say that someone can't respond to a claim made publicly about conversations by presenting their side of them.

They'll retreat to the defense that it's the President's prerogative to reveal confidential and secret information on a whim, for any reason or no reason at all.

No, usually professional law enforcement don't leak, but of course Comey has proven himself to be very unprofessional.

 

[logger]

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?

Trump should have gotten rid of a lot of Bush/Obama holdovers. Leftist can never be trusted to do a job when politics is involved.

 

[logger]

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

And the proof!

this is certainly the opinion of many leftists in government!

 

[NoahFence]

And the proof!

this is certainly the opinion of many leftists in government!

It certainly is! We love America. We don't want it to fail like you people do.

 

[logger]

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?

What you should be concerned about is HOW and WHY he did it. There was certainly nothing there as far as criminality on Trumps part. Comey doing this this way shows what an unprofessional POS he is!

 

[logger]

It certainly is! We love America. We don't want it to fail like you people do.

Yeah sure, the left loves America so much they want to fundamentally transform it, good job!

 

[Meadmaker]

What you should be concerned about is HOW and WHY he did it. There was certainly nothing there as far as criminality on Trumps part. Comey doing this this way shows what an unprofessional POS he is!

And?

Once more, I am baffled. Yes. You are correct. Nothing criminal, at least that we know about.

So.......help me out here. I ought to be concerned about Comey revealing the contents of private conversations because.......?

 

[NoahFence]

Yeah sure, the left loves America so much they want to fundamentally transform it, good job!

Yes! We agree a lot tonite. Very refreshing.
We want to transform it from an uneducated bastion of partisan retardation back to the shining city in the hill that put man in the moon, freed slaves, and helped lead the world through WW2. Among other things.

 

[quadraginta]

(4) Trump is threatening Comey specifically and the FBI.Intelligence community in general, because he's afraid there are tapes, and if there are they were done without his knowledge or consent.

So in other words, it's Trump's paranoia talking more than anything else.

That makes no sense.

If Trump is afraid there are tapes, then why would he bring them up at all, much less try and intimidate Comey by mentioning them?

If, indeed, there actually are tapes, then it is going to be Trump or his people who made them.

 

[elgarak]

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?

You still refuse to acknowledge the situation: There is/was no authoritative body the FBI or others could take the results of their investigation to as long as the Congress GOP is blocking. That much should be obvious. With Robert Mueller, there now is a gathering point.

There is still the trouble to get the Congress GOP to accept the results and to take action. The only way in the current situation to do that is to inform the public. With leaks/whistleblowing.

 

[Newtons Bit]

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?

Could you provide some specific examples of classified information coming from the FBI in the last few months?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

You still refuse to acknowledge the situation: There is/was no authoritative body the FBI or others could take the results of their investigation to as long as the Congress GOP is blocking. That much should be obvious. With Robert Mueller, there now is a gathering point.

There is still the trouble to get the Congress GOP to accept the results and to take action. The only way in the current situation to do that is to inform the public. With leaks/whistleblowing.

Which may not be frequent, Mueller can run a tight ship.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

 

[jimbob]

You still refuse to acknowledge the situation: There is/was no authoritative body the FBI or others could take the results of their investigation to as long as the Congress GOP is blocking. That much should be obvious. With Robert Mueller, there now is a gathering point.

There is still the trouble to get the Congress GOP to accept the results and to take action. The only way in the current situation to do that is to inform the public. With leaks/whistleblowing.

Yes, especially as Sessions is hardly untainted.

 

[varwoche]

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."

Indeed. It's so glaringly obvious that it would embarrass Captain Obvious. Of course this is no deterrent to self-styled super skeptics.

 

[logger]

And?

Once more, I am baffled. Yes. You are correct. Nothing criminal, at least that we know about.

So.......help me out here. I ought to be concerned about Comey revealing the contents of private conversations because.......?

You must have missed the first sentence. You should be concerned about how he leaked it and why he leaked it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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?

For like the sixth or seventh time, yes! Holy cow, how can I be any more clear than I have been? I've said several times that his first memo was classified. You don't seem to have read beyond Warner's statement that I highlighted. If you actually read Comey's response, Comey is agreeing with Warner that he changed his methods so that his subsequent memos were not classified.

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.

His first meeting with Trump did. Comey has said as much, and it was referenced in the quote I posted. Subsequent meetings may have included classified data, but that is beside the point. Comey's memos of those encounters did NOT include classified information, and were not written as classified documents.

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.

The point is that I'm correcting a pile of rampant errors from a whole bunch of people. One collection of yahoos are busy insisting that Comey leaked classified data - he did not. The other collection of yahoos are busy insisting that nothing Comey did was classified at all - that is also not true.

The truth is that the first meeting included classified information being discussions, and the memo was composed on a classified laptop, as a classified document. And your insistence that things done on a classified laptop aren't necessarily classified is splitting hairs - If the content isn't classified, the fact of it being housed on a classified device makes the file itself classified, regardless of content. You cannot go out and remove content from a classified device all willy-nilly. It needs to be reviewed and be flagged as unclassified before doing so.

The truth is that Comey took intentional steps to make sure that all of his subsequent memos were not classified. Those memos contain the information that he released to the media. My question is: Why did Comey take intentional steps to make sure his subsequent memos to his internal FBI team were unclassified documents? To me, it begs the question of whether or not he intended to release them to the media at some point in the future, and had that intention as far back as mid-January. That's certainly not the only possible reason, but I'd like a reasonable answer to that, and I haven't seen one as yet.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That makes no sense.

If Trump is afraid there are tapes, then why would he bring them up at all, much less try and intimidate Comey by mentioning them?

Because he has the subtlety of a raging bovine? Seriously, this isn't much different from his accusation that Obama wiretapped him.

If, indeed, there actually are tapes, then it is going to be Trump or his people who made them.

I'm not taking that bet. There've been so many leaks (yes, leaks) that I have no confidence in this assumption.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Indeed. It's so glaringly obvious that it would embarrass Captain Obvious. Of course this is no deterrent to self-styled super skeptics.

*Sigh* Someone else's experience doesn't negate mine. Let's consider:

Bob says "My experience is that Purple means an equal mix of Red and Blue".

Jan says "Yes, that is one of the shades of Purple, but Purple can also be an unequal mix of Red and Blue. It doesn't have to be only that one specific blend"

Bob's supporters say "No, see, it's perfectly obvious that an equal mix of Red and Blue is Purple. Jan is just creating false equivalencies, she's not a real skeptic! Holy cow, what a Violet Evangelsit Jan is!"

Jan says "No, I'm not evanglizing Violet. I'm pointing out that an equal mix of Red and Blue isn't the only possible way to get something that people would refer to as Purple. There's a spectrum of possibilities here, and one of them isn't the only right one based on what information we have right now. I've seen many Purples that weren't an even mix of Red and Blue, but contained more Blue or contained more Red."

Bob says "No, I've only ever seen an even mix of Red and Blue. That's the only way I ever make Purple."

Bob's supporters say "See - Bob's right! His experience only has an equal mix of Red and Blue, therefore that's exactly and only what Purple is! There's no other possibility at all, even though we haven't actually seen this color in real life! Bob's explanation makes the most sense to us, so it must be right, and Jan is just a shill!"

 

[jimbob]

*Sigh* Someone else's experience doesn't negate mine. Let's consider:

Bob says "My experience is that Purple means an equal mix of Red and Blue".

Jan says "Yes, that is one of the shades of Purple, but Purple can also be an unequal mix of Red and Blue. It doesn't have to be only that one specific blend"

Bob's supporters say "No, see, it's perfectly obvious that an equal mix of Red and Blue is Purple. Jan is just creating false equivalencies, she's not a real skeptic! Holy cow, what a Violet Evangelsit Jan is!"

Jan says "No, I'm not evanglizing Violet. I'm pointing out that an equal mix of Red and Blue isn't the only possible way to get something that people would refer to as Purple. There's a spectrum of possibilities here, and one of them isn't the only right one based on what information we have right now. I've seen many Purples that weren't an even mix of Red and Blue, but contained more Blue or contained more Red."

Bob says "No, I've only ever seen an even mix of Red and Blue. That's the only way I ever make Purple."

Bob's supporters say "See - Bob's right! His experience only has an equal mix of Red and Blue, therefore that's exactly and only what Purple is! There's no other possibility at all, even though we haven't actually seen this color in real life! Bob's explanation makes the most sense to us, so it must be right, and Jan is just a shill!"

Yes, but how about this hypothetical.

You work for an organisation where by custom and for good reason you are supposed to be independent of the CEO.

They tell you that they hope you want to keep working for them
They tell you that lots of people want your job
They tell you that they hope you do something improper for a friend of his
You refuse and they fire you on supposedly different grounds
They then say that firing you helped their friend

This CEO has had connections with the Mob in the past, and has a history of lying about everything, from the trivial and easily refuted upwards.


Once more: