Official James Comey testimony thread

[fishbob]

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!

Other than the indications of investigation stifling, you know - that pesky obstruction of justice thing.

 

[Tony Stark]

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

Except when their piece of trash former boss fires them and lies about it.

 

[rwguinn]

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

I have done it since I graduated college 42 years ago. Most people in the professions do it to some extent. You maintain a paper trail to protect your livelihood, good name, and integrity from those who are willing to throw you under the bus.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[Minoosh]

Which could imply that as far back as January, Director Comey had information that would lead him to believe that nefarious schemes were afoot, and that the pressure to fire him or try to force him to resign would increase.
As a student of human nature, and experienced at dealing with personalities such as President-elect Trump, steps needed to be made to ensure that such schemes did not get buried...

I think at first Comey just wanted to document the exchanges while they were fresh in his mind. In such a case I might ask a trusted colleague to take a look at my notes, or memos, to get a first read on what he/she thought. If my colleague said, "Wow, that 'I hope you can see your way to let the Flynn investigation go' is troubling - it sounds like he's trying to strong-arm you." At which point I'd say, "I know, right? Thank you."

Given Trump's well-known propensity to attack people personally via Twitter - and then to continue to bad-mouth Comey at every opportunity, to the point of telling Russian officials he was a "nut job" - I think Comey thought that going public with his recollections was almost a duty. I think he slept on his pain, shock and outrage and then thought, **** it. Letting the slander/libel stand might have seemed dishonorable to him, so he told his colleague to do whatever he/she thought was the best thing.

He's not the one who made this personal, and his response seems perfectly appropriate to me. Keeping his notes unclassified meant he could share them, even if it were just for the purpose of bouncing his ideas off someone. It's not like he could ask the AG.

 

[Meadmaker]

I have done it since I graduated college 42 years ago. Most people in the professions do it to some extent. You maintain a paper trail to protect your livelihood, good name, and integrity from those who are willing to throw you under the bus.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

I did it this afternoon.

Not everyone in the office is a nice person, and not everyone tells the truth. If you think you might be a victim some day, you keep records to protect yourself. Today was a day where I pulled out the records.

 

[rwguinn]

I think at first Comey just wanted to document the exchanges while they were fresh in his mind. In such a case I might ask a trusted colleague to take a look at my notes, or memos, to get a first read on what he/she thought. If my colleague said, "Wow, that 'I hope you can see your way to let the Flynn investigation go' is troubling - it sounds like he's trying to strong-arm you." At which point I'd say, "I know, right? Thank you."

Given Trump's well-known propensity to attack people personally via Twitter - and then to continue to bad-mouth Comey at every opportunity, to the point of telling Russian officials he was a "nut job" - I think Comey thought that going public with his recollections was almost a duty. I think he slept on his pain, shock and outrage and then thought, **** it. Letting the slander/libel stand might have seemed dishonorable to him, so he told his colleague to do whatever he/she thought was the best thing.

He's not the one who made this personal, and his response seems perfectly appropriate to me. Keeping his notes unclassified meant he could share them, even if it were just for the purpose of bouncing his ideas off someone. It's not like he could ask the AG.

That's why you keep the notes, as soon after the fact as possible is, indeed, what we all do if we are prudent. That way the fig of time won't distort what we remember.
The fact that he made sure that that were unclassified was the point I was addressing.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[quadraginta]

Most people could care less about the original meaning of "begging the question".

Outside of the halls of academia, "begging the question" no longer means what it used to mean.

Yeah. and it's worse than that.

Not only do few people understand the real meaning of "begging the question", but because of that they get confused and don't understand what is being said when it is used properly.

 

[quadraginta]

Lack of trust is one thing. Doesn't it give you pause that he was planning, as far back as January, to release it to the media? I get wanting to CYA... but I guess I would have thought that memos going to other people within the FBI and the intelligence community would be sufficient. Planning ahead for a release to the public seems... premeditated? It may indicate nothing at all, but it did make me raise my eyebrows just a little bit.

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.

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?

 

[rwguinn]

That's why you keep the notes, as soon after the fact as possible is, indeed, what we all do if we are prudent. That way the fig of time won't distort what we remember.
The fact that he made sure that that were unclassified was the point I was addressing.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Or the FOG of time. Whichever tickles your fancy...

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[TofuFighter]

Or the FOG of time. Whichever tickles your fancy...

figs are more ticklish.

 

[Mycroft]

Don't call arguments fake news. No one would call a bad college term paper fake news.

It was reported by a news agency, an important distinction from a bad college term paper.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[jimbob]

This series of tweets contains an interesting set of observations:

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

Thread: A year with some good detectives taught me that often WHAT ISN'T SAID is the actual tell. And note what isn't discussed between....

...Trump and Comey. At no point does Trump make any concerted effort to discern whether or not Russia did in fact attempt to interfere...

...in the election. Indeed, he notes that the claim has created a cloud over his governance -- so he can scarcely say that it isn't...

...of real concern to him; his concern is premised in this meeting. Yet, he doesn't inquire as to what Comey and the FBI is yet discerning..

...about Russia's role. He doesn't even do so as a means of disparaging the claim. (i.e. "I'm sure you're finding out that there's nothing..

...to the claims of Russian interference, right?" It. Doesn't. Come. Up. In this regard, I am reminded of every innocent and guilty man...

...I ever witnessed in an interrogation room. The innocent ask a multitude of questions about what the detectives know, or why the cops...

...might think X or Y or whether Z happened to the victim. The guilty forget to inquire. They know. An old law school saw tells young...

...trial lawyers to remind their clients to stay curious in front of a jury. There's a famous tale of a murder case in which the body of...

...the defendant's wife had not been recovered yet he was charged with the killing. Defense attorney tells the jury in final argument...

..there's been no crime and the supposed victim will walk through the courtroom doors in 10 seconds. 30 seconds later the door remains...

...shut. "Ok, she isn't coming today. But the point is all of you on jury looked, and that my friends is reasonable doubt. You must acquit."

Jury comes back in twenty minutes: Guilty. Attorney goes to the foreman: "I thought I had you." Foreman: "You had me and ten others. But...

"...juror number 8 didn't look at the door, he looke at your client. And he didn't eye the door, he was examining his nails."

Even when he was completely alone with Comey, Trump didn't look at the door. He eyed his nails. It's an absolute tell.

Why? Because Trump already knows that there is some fixed amount of Russian interference on his behalf, and possibly, collusion as well.

More
Replying to @AoDespair @TheBigPlus1
been cleaning up corrupt cities most of my career. The guilty never ask. FBI agents know. You're right on target. Doubters lack experience.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Which could imply that as far back as January, Director Comey had information that would lead him to believe that nefarious schemes were afoot, and that the pressure to fire him or try to force him to resign would increase.
As a student of human nature, and experienced at dealing with personalities such as President-elect Trump, steps needed to be made to ensure that such schemes did not get buried...

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

One could certainly make that argument... but again, why was it necessary that it be declassified with the intent of a public release of that information? Did he have reason to believe that his own organization would bury the info? Because that seems like an entirely different problem.

He also didn't seem to indicate that he believed any nefarious schemes were afoot. Perhaps he simply left it unsaid, but he had no hesitation in calling out situations that he believed were improper. He also had no problem in clearly and repeatedly indicating that Trump was not (and had not been) under investigation. If he had reasonable suspicion of actual nefarious deeds on Trump's part... shouldn't he have shared those suspicions with his organization and opened an investigation?

 

[Tony Stark]

One could certainly make that argument... but again, why was it necessary that it be declassified with the intent of a public release of that information? Did he have reason to believe that his own organization would bury the info? Because that seems like an entirely different problem.

You mean the organization that ultimately answers to Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump?

 

[Emily's Cat]

That's why you keep the notes, as soon after the fact as possible is, indeed, what we all do if we are prudent. That way the fig of time won't distort what we remember.
The fact that he made sure that that were unclassified was the point I was addressing.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

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.

 

[Meadmaker]

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.

That is also something very common. You make two versions of documents. An classified one, and an unclassified one. That's pretty normal.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

It's the premeditated and purposeful efforts to make sure it was unclassified that seemed odd.

It's not odd under the circumstances. These are odd times.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That is also something very common. You make two versions of documents. An classified one, and an unclassified one. That's pretty normal.

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.

 

[Tony Stark]

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 isn't normal to have someone like Donald Trump be the president of the United States.