Official James Comey testimony thread

[Tony Stark]

How do we "already know something improper was done"? There were 2 people in the room, and I would choose Comey's word over Trump's any day of the week, but that's all it would be - and that's not enough evidence to convict someone of obstruction, IMO. It's completely circular to say he cleared the room because he was about to do something improper, and we know it was improper because he cleared the room.

I haven't read the whole thread so apologies if this has been addressed, but again IMO, there is no smoking gun. Personally I want Trump out of office ASAP, but I doubt if this is the issue that will bring about his fall. I could be wrong.

The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt not any doubt. I don't think the possibility that Comey decided early on to frame the president of the United States by writing memos and telling colleagues about conversations that never happened is a reasonable doubt.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

All attempts to make it look like Trump didn't know what he was doing fall flat if you consider that his mentor was Roy Cohn.

Trump has made a lifetime career of stepping on the wrong side of the law and suing everyone who calls him out.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

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.

You and the rest of the GOP need to read some books. In particular, 1984 and Brave New World, which give some idea what abuse of language looks like. If still curious, perhaps some time reading up on sociolinguistics, body language, rhetoric and so on would add an important missing clue:

Most of what is communicated in a normal conversation cannot be explained only by the dictionary definitions of the words used.

You can check with the natural language processing folks about that one.

Translation: A linguist would state that the most probable message transmitted to Comey was to drop the investigation. Yes, it's always probabilities, never certainties in real life, but the damning evidence is actually there for any native speaker who is non-partisan enough to analyze the full context without recurring to acontextual, bible-belt literal reading techniques.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

How do we "already know something improper was done"? There were 2 people in the room, and I would choose Comey's word over Trump's any day of the week, but that's all it would be ....

Stop it!

That is not all there is!

Gawd! How many times does it have to be posted people are looking at HALF the evidence?

 

[Darat]

I quoted the post you were responding to, in addition to having read it.

Was your response intended to be out of context? Were you responding solely to that one statement, with no consideration given to the discussion that led to it?

I was extending the list of possibilities.

 

[phiwum]

"Lordy, I hope there are tapes.", stated while under oath, don't sound like the words of a scared man.

So Option 1 seems a bit unlikely.

Agreed.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Look, you've painted yourself into a corner: If Trump's statement - I hope - was just a meaningless plea to the gods, then there's no reason to clear the room. He could say that on national tv, "I hope nothing comes of the Flynn investigation."

Yeah. I don't get this line of defense. If you direct, let's say, a statement like, "I hope nothing happens to Fred," at a person who you know has expressed a desire to commit violence against Fred, it is quite obviously a direction and possibly even a threat.

It's quite amazing how willing and quickly some people "forget" everything they know about communication between human beings. Suddenly, everyone communicates as if they're a software program sharing information using rigidly defined rules.

 

[elgarak]

[..]
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.

As far as I followed the hearing (I couldn't follow all of it) there was no contradiction whatsoever. I assume I caught the two points you refer to; at the first point, he was quoting literally, and answering if he was literally asked to drop the investigation. At the second point, he was asked what his impression of the conversation was, and what he interpreted to be the intention behind it. See the difference?

They did discuss briefly the historic example of Thomas Becket and Henry II with regards to Trumps "I hope". A fictitious example of something similar you'll find in the movie "Clear and Present Danger". What is said literally is not an explicit order; but everyone understands what the implication is.

It is not Comey's fault when you didn't understand this; he was very concise.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Yeah. I don't get this line of defense. If you direct, let's say, a statement like, "I hope nothing happens to Fred," at a person who you know has expressed a desire to commit violence against Fred, it is quite obviously a direction and possibly even a threat.

It's quite amazing how willing and quickly some people "forget" everything they know about communication between human beings. Suddenly, everyone communicates as if they're a software program sharing information using rigidly defined rules.

The same goes for the weird victim blaming that happened where the accusation seems to be because he didn't speak up, it wasn't bad.

 

[TraneWreck]

How do we "already know something improper was done"? There were 2 people in the room, and I would choose Comey's word over Trump's any day of the week, but that's all it would be - and that's not enough evidence to convict someone of obstruction, IMO. It's completely circular to say he cleared the room because he was about to do something improper, and we know it was improper because he cleared the room.

...If you read my post I am very clear that one line of argument is that Comey is a big fat liar. If he's telling the truth, then something improper occurred. Clearing the room specifically to say something improper - combined with Kushner and Sessions getting very nervous - then reveals something interesting about intent.

It is not completely circular because we have evidence of what was said. Feel free to argue Liar Liar pants on fire, but EC tried to reject the argument by suggesting there could be other reasons to clear room. Ok, but who cares? We aren't infering from clearing the room --> something improper said; it's, something improper was said, he cleared the room first, sure looks like it was undertaken with corrupt intent. Also, in light of what was said, an innocuous interpretation makes little sense combined with the room clearing, scared boy-genius son in law.

I haven't read the whole thread so apologies if this has been addressed, but again IMO, there is no smoking gun. Personally I want Trump out of office ASAP, but I doubt if this is the issue that will bring about his fall. I could be wrong.

I don't know what that means. We have Comey's testimony. This is part of the investigation, not the conclusion.

 

[rwguinn]

Man, I don't get it.
If Comey had evidence, or even the thought that the President and/or the A.G. were involved in some nefarious scheme, he should have reported it to the FBI or something, instead of writing memos...

Oh. Wait...

 

[CapelDodger]

All attempts to make it look like Trump didn't know what he was doing fall flat if you consider that his mentor was Roy Cohn.

Trump has made a lifetime career of stepping on the wrong side of the law and suing everyone who calls him out.

Indeed. Prior bad acts are not always admissible evidence in court, but we aren't lawyers here (one or two wannabes aside) and can avail ourselves of the bleedin' obvious.

 

[Babbylonian]

As far as I followed the hearing (I couldn't follow all of it) there was no contradiction whatsoever. I assume I caught the two points you refer to; at the first point, he was quoting literally, and answering if he was literally asked to drop the investigation. At the second point, he was asked what his impression of the conversation was, and what he interpreted to be the intention behind it. See the difference?

They did discuss briefly the historic example of Thomas Becket and Henry II with regards to Trumps "I hope". A fictitious example of something similar you'll find in the movie "Clear and Present Danger". What is said literally is not an explicit order; but everyone understands what the implication is.

It is not Comey's fault when you didn't understand this; he was very concise.

"Nice little store you got here. It sure would be a shame if something happened to it."

"Why, thank you. Yes, it would be a shame. Fortunately, everything's going fine right now. Have a great day!"

 

[jimbob]

You and the rest of the GOP need to read some books. In particular, 1984 and Brave New World, which give some idea what abuse of language looks like. If still curious, perhaps some time reading up on sociolinguistics, body language, rhetoric and so on would add an important missing clue:

Most of what is communicated in a normal conversation cannot be explained only by the dictionary definitions of the words used.

You can check with the natural language processing folks about that one.

Translation: A linguist would state that the most probable message transmitted to Comey was to drop the investigation. Yes, it's always probabilities, never certainties in real life, but the damning evidence is actually there for any native speaker who is non-partisan enough to analyze the full context without recurring to acontextual, bible-belt literal reading techniques.

Yes, which is why I added a link to a Mitchell and Webb sketch

This is my thought on that

​

I know that you don't have a very high opinion of Trump, but he made his wishes clear to someone with the position to effect those wishes. Just because he didn't couch it in terms of a direct order is a weak getout. His invite to the dinner with Comey was also suspicious in that way.

In fact it is hard to read it as anything other than that

Here's a vaguely relevant youtube video


Slightly NSFW at the end (1:50)

Worth watching for amusement.

 

[jimbob]

This is another view where Comey is dropped to puppy dog status. Guy is not bait. He is a shark. Don't cloud your judgement. He viewed Trump's interactions as bordering on legally questionable, and was awaiting him to cross that line. There is nothing about his comments that has pushed him past that point.

His mind wasn't changed. He gained some relevant quote to use to push the narrative he believed to begin with. He still lacks proof to charge with a crime, which is why none of his comments during the session pushed beyond a generic tone.

I think this is plausible.

The head of the FBI would be perfectly within his job description to collect evidence if he is suspicious that a it might could later lead to a conspiracy.

 

[jimbob]

The same goes for the weird victim blaming that happened where the accusation seems to be because he didn't speak up, it wasn't bad.

Which seems perfectly reasonable for someone acting on behalf of the FBI to build up evidence of a potential crime rather than go off half cocked and make it easier for any bad hombres to hide the evidence

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Just curious: Is the FBI director considered a law enforcement officer, that is, does he personally have arrest powers? Is is authorized to carry a firearm?

Yes.

18 U.S. Code § 3052 - Powers of Federal Bureau of Investigation

"The Director, Associate Director, Assistant to the Director, Assistant Directors, inspectors, and agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the Department of Justice may carry firearms, serve warrants and subpoenas issued under the authority of the United States and make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony."

 

[snoop_doxie]

"Nice little store you got here. It sure would be a shame if something happened to it."

"Why, thank you. Yes, it would be a shame. Fortunately, everything's going fine right now. Have a great day!"

Or, "I hope nothing happens to it.

 

[Babbylonian]

Or, "I hope nothing happens to it.

Indeed.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Not so much that as wondering whether Trump actually tried to intimidate a 6'8" federal agent who was packing heat.

I don't know if Comey carries a firearm. Probably not. His experience is as an attorney, not an arresting officer. The position of FBI Director is primarily an administrative position. He is not normally involved in physically arresting people. He (and the Attorney General) are protect by specially trained FBI agents, so he doesn't really need to carry a firearm for protection.

Trump as said (before he became President) that he carries "sometimes a lot". So it is maybe more likely that Trump had a gun than Comey. And of course the President has the Secret Service. And the full command of the United States military.

It is debatable whether the FBI can arrest the President. That would normally fall to the Sargent At Arms of the Senate. IF the President went berserk and started shooting people, I'm sure any law enforcement officer would take him into custody, but the FBI Director in a meeting with the President isn't going to up and cuff the President.

So I'm not sure how much of an intimidation factor there is. It is more of a meeting between two administrators.