Official James Comey testimony thread

[quadraginta]

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.

The meaning of "plausible" is being tortured beyond endurance. I can hear it screaming its death throes.

When do the fabled 'checks and balances' happen?

Generally when one, single, ethically bankrupt political party doesn't have a stranglehold on two of the the branches of government, and an undue (but probably justified most of the time) amount of confidence in the subservience of the third.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Serious question to everyone here: Is there anything at all that any of you would accept that clears Trump of your suspicion?

I don't have suspicions. I know what Trump is. He's a lying sack of ****.

What would it take for you... to decide that Trump did NOT collude with Russia?

I don't think that Trump colluded with Russia in the way some people suspect, I think he was probably just doing 'business as usual'. But even if he did I don't care. We are in a post-fact world now. Reality doesn't matter - only perceptions.

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

I wake up and find out I was in the Matrix. But again, it doesn't really matter to me whether he did or not.

Perhaps in this case Trump is telling the truth (at least as he sees it). But that doesn't make up for all the other times that he lied. He has lied himself into the hearts and minds of millions of Americans by preying on their fears, encouraging bigotry and propagating insane conspiracy theories - just so he can stroke his own ego. The damage he has done is incalculable, and for that he must pay.

So I don't care whether Trump really colluded with the Russians or tried to obstruct justice. The only that matters is that he be perceived to have done those things. He hoodwinked millions of Americans into believing that Obama wasn't legitimate, that Hillary was a crook, and that he knew how to Make America Great Again, so I don't care if he gets crucified for things he didn't actually do. It would just be karma.

 

[uke2se]

Generally when one, single, ethically bankrupt political party doesn't have a stranglehold on two of the the branches of government, and an undue (but probably justified most of the time) amount of confidence in the subservience of the third.

So never then?

Time for a second amendment solution?

 

[quadraginta]

So never then?

I'm pretty sure that isn't what I said. Not sure how you arrived at the conclusion I did.

Time for a second amendment solution?

Or that.

 

[uke2se]

I'm pretty sure that isn't what I said. Not sure how you arrived at the conclusion I did.

I came to that conclusion because the house is firmly Republican due to Gerrymandering, and the Senate isn't that vulnerable to the GOP in 2018. Which means that if the GOP (I assume that's the party you are referring to) won't impeach, it won't happen, at least until 2020.

 

[quadraginta]

I came to that conclusion because the house is firmly Republican due to Gerrymandering, and the Senate isn't that vulnerable to the GOP in 2018. Which means that if the GOP (I assume that's the party you are referring to) won't impeach, it won't happen, at least until 2020.

At the rate Trump is screwing up and trashing things I will not be surprised to see impeachment, or at least enough of a threat of it to get Trump to resign so he can declare victory. ("I meant to do that."), if for no other reason than they become convinced of their own political survival.

Gerrymandering is not a flawless solution, and many in Congress are working with a small enough margin that their confidence in their invulnerability has limits.

Even if their party survives in their gerrymandered district they have to know that they may not be representing the survivors. Not if they get too smeared with Trump slime.

I would not be surprised to see a rallying cry for young Republican upstarts in 2018 being, "I have nothing to do with Trump."

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Check your timing. He began making unclassified memos before the discussion of Flynn. It was immediately following the dinner with the loyalty conversation. At that point, there didn't appear to be any indication of intent to meddle. Nothing in Flynn's testimony suggested such. One might interpret it from the loyalty discussion... but I think it's only such a clear association because we already know what followed (Flynn). At the point in time that Comey began making his detailed memos unclassified, he did not have any clear indication from Trump that such things might be asked.

At best, it was a suspicion, a lack of trust of Trump. But at that point he did not know anything about Trump's potential meddling in investigations. His decision to make unclassified memos occurred prior to any event in which Trump's actions can be reasonably viewed as an intent to meddle in investigations.

Reference:

Jan 6 - Comey brief's Trump about "salacious" material (pee tapes). Comey immediately creates a classified memo of the events, based on his feeling about the kind of person Trump is. (1)

Jan 27 - Comey is invited to dinner with Trump, Trump inquires about Comey's desire to retain his position, indicates that he needs and expects loyalty. Comey sidesteps that implied request. Comey subsequently documents the interaction in an unclassified memo. All subsequent memos are unlcassified.

Feb 14 - Oval office meeting, Trump excuses averyone except Comey and expresses his desire that Comey drop the investigation into Flynn becuase he's a good guy. Comey does not commit, but gives the appearance of agreement by repeating that Flynn is a good guy. Comey shares the events with the FBI leadership team, but not with the Attorney General, and not with anyone in the broader Department of Justice, on his belief that it could influence the investigation. (2)

Mar 30 - Trump calls Comey regarding the "cloud" created by the Russia investigation. Trump expresses agreement that he wants the investigation done properly, and wants it to be found if any of his "satellites" had acted inappropriately. Trump asks Comey to make it known publicly that Trump is not personally under investigation. Comey documents the session and additionally reports it to Acting Deputy Attorney requesting guidance.

Apr 11 - Trump calls Comey to find out what Comey had done toward releasing the information that Trump wasn't under investigation. Trump said he would reach out to ADAG about it, Comey concurs that's the right way to handle it (3).

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

Trump isn't under investigation, and has never been. Are you suggesting that in order to conclude he has not colluded with Russia, you require the FBI to launch an investigation, regardless of the fact that to date they have apparently felt that such investigation was not merited?

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.

Are you holding Trump personally accountable for the actions of others, and condemning them for their behavior?

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

I didn't ask you for ideas about what would NOT convince you that he hadn't colluded with Russia, nor for speculation about things that haven't happened. I'm not sure why you bring up potential future maybes here.

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.

Am I to interpret this to mean that unless firm evidence shows up to "prove" that Trump didn't do a thing... you're going to stick with your opinion on the basis of hearsay? Do you hold that same view in other cases where it's one person's word against another's with no solid evidence, or do you apply different standards to Trump?

+++++
Notes:
(1) This is from Comey's live testimony before Congress, not his prepared testimony. He repeated his assertion that the "nature of the person" and his lack of trust of Trump was a major reason for making the memos.

(2) Question: Does Comey feel that other people within the investigation are not as stalwart as he, and would be influenced to cease the investigation if they knew that's what the president wanted?

(3) I interpret Trump's comment as an implied threat to Comey, essentially "If you're not going to help me, then I'll just go to your boss"

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

Nuance here. He didn't say that it was the reason for the firing. He does say that it is an outcome of the firing. But that outcome need not have been the actual cause.

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

Clarificying question: Did Trump repeatedly call the entire concept of Russian interference a hoax, or did Trump call the accusation of him having colluded with Russia a hoax?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Why would it be important to Comey that the information be made public, as opposed to simply being made available to others in his organization?

 

[Tony Stark]

Trump isn't under investigation, and has never been.

The orange turd is currently under investigation for obstruction of justice.

Am I to interpret this to mean that unless firm evidence shows up to "prove" that Trump didn't do a thing... you're going to stick with your opinion on the basis of hearsay? Do you hold that same view in other cases where it's one person's word against another's with no solid evidence, or do you apply different standards to Trump?

I would take a the word, backed up by contemporaneous memos, of the former Director of the FBI over that of a pathological liar with a very obvious motive to lie, no matter who the liar was. So would anyone who is not a sycophant of that liar.

 

[Tony Stark]

Why would it be important to Comey that the information be made public, as opposed to simply being made available to others in his organization?

Maybe he thinks it is important that the public know that the president of the United States is a lying piece of trash who tried to obstruct justice. And them knowing that would create enough pressure that a special council would be appointed.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

I'm not sure what you're arguing with here. Again, I'm not questioning his decision to make notes. I'm questioning his premeditated decision to make unclassified memos, on the (perceived) expectation of releasing them to the public.

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.

Do you believe that Comey feared that nobody else in the FBI other than himself would act ethically? Remember that Comey had already shared his unclassified memos with the FBI leadership team - several people knew about it.

 

[jimbob]

Why would it be important to Comey that the information be made public, as opposed to simply being made available to others in his organization?

So it's out in the open. Why should this *not* be in the open?

"Democracy dies in Darkness"

 

[jimbob]

I'm not sure what you're arguing with here. Again, I'm not questioning his decision to make notes. I'm questioning his premeditated decision to make unclassified memos, on the (perceived) expectation of releasing them to the public.

Do you believe that Comey feared that nobody else in the FBI other than himself would act ethically? Remember that Comey had already shared his unclassified memos with the FBI leadership team - several people knew about it.

Comey had the authority to decide whether to classify the memos.

If he had classified them, then someone releasing them would have been disclosing classified information. They then would *have* been leaking this information, and my understanding is that that is illegal.

Why should Comey make it harder to release evidence of potential wrongdoing in the administration?

The public should know. There was no secret that needed protecting, and a lot that needed publishing

 

[quadraginta]

Check your timing. He began making unclassified memos before the discussion of Flynn. It was immediately following the dinner with the loyalty conversation. At that point, there didn't appear to be any indication of intent to meddle. Nothing in Flynn's testimony suggested such. One might interpret it from the loyalty discussion... but I think it's only such a clear association because we already know what followed (Flynn). At the point in time that Comey began making his detailed memos unclassified, he did not have any clear indication from Trump that such things might be asked.

At best, it was a suspicion, a lack of trust of Trump. But at that point he did not know anything about Trump's potential meddling in investigations. His decision to make unclassified memos occurred prior to any event in which Trump's actions can be reasonably viewed as an intent to meddle in investigations.

More than a suspicion.

Trump's well-established reputation for lying had preceded him.

Comey would have been a fool to do anything different.

And he isn't a fool.

<snip>

Trump isn't under investigation, and has never been. Are you suggesting that in order to conclude he has not colluded with Russia, you require the FBI to launch an investigation, regardless of the fact that to date they have apparently felt that such investigation was not merited?

<snip>

You're a bit behind the times.

And not only is he under investigation, now by Mueller, but according to WashPo sources the FBI opened an Obstruction investigation on him just a few days after he fired Comey.

Good on them.

 

[quadraginta]

Why would it be important to Comey that the information be made public, as opposed to simply being made available to others in his organization?

You seem fixated on promoting this distortion.

Why can't you grasp that Comey simply took reasonable precautions in the event that he might see the need to make it public?

If Trump hadn't done exactly what Comey felt he was liable to do then the memos may well have never been anything but a minor historical footnote unknown to any but a few very diligent historians.

If at all.

 

[quadraginta]

I'm not sure what you're arguing with here. Again, I'm not questioning his decision to make notes. I'm questioning his premeditated decision to make unclassified memos, on the (perceived) expectation possibility of releasing them to the public.

FTFY.

Do you believe that Comey feared that nobody else in the FBI other than himself would act ethically? Remember that Comey had already shared his unclassified memos with the FBI leadership team - several people knew about it.

I love the way you try to make it somehow an attack on Comey's character.

Comey had a perfectly rational grasp of the potential paths that could be taken by political interests regarding this. It didn't have to have anything at all to do with anyone else in the FBI.

He was the Director, for crying out loud. If he was seeing the possibility that the integrity of his own office could be put at risk by Trump and Cronies, why should he feel that others in lesser positions of authority wouldn't be similarly threatened?

He wasn't worried about them acting ethically, he was worried that they wouldn't be able to act at all.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Check your timing. He began making unclassified memos before the discussion of Flynn. It was immediately following the dinner with the loyalty conversation. At that point, there didn't appear to be any indication of intent to meddle. Nothing in Flynn's testimony suggested such. One might interpret it from the loyalty discussion... but I think it's only such a clear association because we already know what followed (Flynn). At the point in time that Comey began making his detailed memos unclassified, he did not have any clear indication from Trump that such things might be asked.

At best, it was a suspicion, a lack of trust of Trump. But at that point he did not know anything about Trump's potential meddling in investigations. His decision to make unclassified memos occurred prior to any event in which Trump's actions can be reasonably viewed as an intent to meddle in investigations.

Reference:

Jan 6 - Comey brief's Trump about "salacious" material (pee tapes). Comey immediately creates a classified memo of the events, based on his feeling about the kind of person Trump is. (1)

Jan 27 - Comey is invited to dinner with Trump, Trump inquires about Comey's desire to retain his position, indicates that he needs and expects loyalty. Comey sidesteps that implied request. Comey subsequently documents the interaction in an unclassified memo. All subsequent memos are unlcassified.

Feb 14 - Oval office meeting, Trump excuses averyone except Comey and expresses his desire that Comey drop the investigation into Flynn becuase he's a good guy. Comey does not commit, but gives the appearance of agreement by repeating that Flynn is a good guy. Comey shares the events with the FBI leadership team, but not with the Attorney General, and not with anyone in the broader Department of Justice, on his belief that it could influence the investigation. (2)

Mar 30 - Trump calls Comey regarding the "cloud" created by the Russia investigation. Trump expresses agreement that he wants the investigation done properly, and wants it to be found if any of his "satellites" had acted inappropriately. Trump asks Comey to make it known publicly that Trump is not personally under investigation. Comey documents the session and additionally reports it to Acting Deputy Attorney requesting guidance.

Apr 11 - Trump calls Comey to find out what Comey had done toward releasing the information that Trump wasn't under investigation. Trump said he would reach out to ADAG about it, Comey concurs that's the right way to handle it (3).



Trump isn't under investigation, and has never been. Are you suggesting that in order to conclude he has not colluded with Russia, you require the FBI to launch an investigation, regardless of the fact that to date they have apparently felt that such investigation was not merited?


Are you holding Trump personally accountable for the actions of others, and condemning them for their behavior?


I didn't ask you for ideas about what would NOT convince you that he hadn't colluded with Russia, nor for speculation about things that haven't happened. I'm not sure why you bring up potential future maybes here.


Am I to interpret this to mean that unless firm evidence shows up to "prove" that Trump didn't do a thing... you're going to stick with your opinion on the basis of hearsay? Do you hold that same view in other cases where it's one person's word against another's with no solid evidence, or do you apply different standards to Trump?

+++++
Notes:
(1) This is from Comey's live testimony before Congress, not his prepared testimony. He repeated his assertion that the "nature of the person" and his lack of trust of Trump was a major reason for making the memos.

(2) Question: Does Comey feel that other people within the investigation are not as stalwart as he, and would be influenced to cease the investigation if they knew that's what the president wanted?

(3) I interpret Trump's comment as an implied threat to Comey, essentially "If you're not going to help me, then I'll just go to your boss"

Ooookay. This appears to me to be a real gish gallop of willful obtuseness, strawmen and JAQing around, but I'm the kind of poster to earnestly carry on a discussion long after most others have given up on it, so I will strive to extract and respond to the most salient points, to the best of my patience.

Check your timing. He began making unclassified memos before the discussion of Flynn. It was immediately following the dinner with the loyalty conversation.

Thanks for the correction. I think the loyalty thing should be enough on its own. Comey is a smart enough guy to know what personal loyalty to Donald Trump implies: it means covering for his screwups and falling on your own sword to protect him. That request should have been enough of a red flag for Comey to realize he wouldn't be able to trust Trump to put the law above his own position.

Trump isn't under investigation, and has never been. Are you suggesting that in order to conclude he has not colluded with Russia, you require the FBI to launch an investigation, regardless of the fact that to date they have apparently felt that such investigation was not merited?

Are you holding Trump personally accountable for the actions of others, and condemning them for their behavior?

I didn't ask you for ideas about what would NOT convince you that he hadn't colluded with Russia, nor for speculation about things that haven't happened. I'm not sure why you bring up potential future maybes here.

Am I to interpret this to mean that unless firm evidence shows up to "prove" that Trump didn't do a thing... you're going to stick with your opinion on the basis of hearsay?

I'll reiterate your questions:

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?

In the course of his campaign and administration, Trump has continually surrounded himself with people who have questionable ties to Russia. At least one was an outright foreign agent. Everyone, from his lawyer to his general to his son-in-law, has proven or suspected connections with Russia. As fishy situations go, this one stinks to high heaven all on its own. I don't know why I'm even typing this, if you don't see how any of this is suspicious by now it can only be because you don't want to.

If you want to know what it would take to clear Trump of my suspicion, for me to decide that Trump did NOT collude with Russia, we are talking about an investigation. There is more than enough smoke to justify looking for a fire. For me to trust the conclusions of such an investigation it would have to be conducted with unquestionable integrity, receive the full cooperation of the administration, and reach a firm and definitive exculpatory conclusion. A half-assed, obstructed or inconclusive investigation will not do much to alleviate my suspicion.

Re: Comey telling Trump he wasn't under investigation, you keep leaving out the phrase "at the time." It is an important phrase.

Do you hold that same view in other cases where it's one person's word against another's with no solid evidence, or do you apply different standards to Trump?

I would consider myself abnormally trusting. Normally I like to take people at their word, because I like to trust them. For example, I am trusting you to actually digest my response and formulate a more insightful reply that addresses the heart of the matter, rather than circle around and fling a new batch of mostly-unrelated questions.

Trump has demonstrated himself to be profoundly untrustworthy. He has a long, ignoble history of lying often and blatantly. On the other hand, Comey doesn't strike me as the dishonest type, and his coworker's description of him bear that out. So in a battle between their word, I don't think there's even room for debate as to whom is more trustworthy.

 

[jimbob]

There is also the fact that Comey's then superior has since had to recuse himself from the investigation.

Comey could have been aware of something like this, and thus not trust the head of the DoJ. For perfectly decent reasons.

 

[acbytesla]

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?

Well for one, Trump could start acting like he's innocent. He could order his staff to meet with the congressional committees and special prosecutor and answer all the questions without this phoney gamesmanship. Trump could volunteer to provide his financials going back the last 4 years.

But I'm afraid Trump couldn't do a damn thing to prove he didn't obstruct justice because it is 100 percent clear that he did and continues to obstruct justice. I have no doubt in my mind that Comey is telling the whole truth and Trump is lying out his ass as usual.

My question back at you is if Trump fires Mueller as he did with Comey would you finally conclude the obvious fact that Trump has been engaged in obstruction of justice?