Official James Comey testimony thread

[Giordano]

To emphasize the obvious, even a statement by the President to the FBI Director hypothetically along the lines of, "I hope this all will be cleared up and Flynn vindicated," would have been highly questionable and inappropriate from a moral point of view. The President should not express his desires as to the outcome of an active criminal investigation of the President's own associates and administration to the person in charge of that investigation. Especially given the President appoints and can fire the FBI Director, I see even these types of "wishful" hypothetical statements as violations of the independence we as a democracy expect in this situation.

But Trump's actual statements were far more damning than that! Trump said (emphasis added), "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go." This is not wishful or idle musing about a hypothetically pleasant outcome- Trump is clearly and repeatedly urging Comey to drop the investigation. I do not see any ambiguity here. It is directly translatable as "I, your boss, want to see you drop the investigation."

Some have maintained that whether even this elevates to a prosecutable criminal obstruction of justice depends on Trump's motivation behind his statements. Oddly, Trump has also been nice enough to provide that information too: "And in fact when I decided to just do it [fire Comey] I said to myself, I said, “You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.” "It should be over with, in my opinion it should’ve been over with a long time ago, because all it is is an excuse."

Trump fired Comey because Trump wanted the investigation of his administration to end. He said so himself. Don't the people here who maintain otherwise believe him?

 

[Giordano]

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



Worth watching for amusement.

One of my very most favorite Mitchell and Webb sketches!

 

[Oystein]

To emphasize the obvious, even a statement by the President to the FBI Director hypothetically along the lines of, "I hope this all will be cleared up and Flynn vindicated," would have been highly questionable and inappropriate from a moral point of view. The President should not express his desires as to the outcome of an active criminal investigation of the President's own associates and administration to the person in charge of that investigation. Especially given the President appoints and can fire the FBI Director, I see even these types of "wishful" hypothetical statements as violations of the independence we as a democracy expect in this situation.

But Trump's actual statements were far more damning than that! Trump said (emphasis added), "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go." This is not wishful or idle musing about a hypothetically pleasant outcome- Trump is clearly and repeatedly urging Comey to drop the investigation. I do not see any ambiguity here. It is directly translatable as "I, your boss, want to see you drop the investigation."

Some have maintained that whether even this elevates to a prosecutable criminal obstruction of justice depends on Trump's motivation behind his statements. Oddly, Trump has also been nice enough to provide that information too: "And in fact when I decided to just do it [fire Comey] I said to myself, I said, “You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.” "It should be over with, in my opinion it should’ve been over with a long time ago, because all it is is an excuse."

Trump fired Comey because Trump wanted the investigation of his administration to end. He said so himself. Don't the people here who maintain otherwise believe him?

Nailed it 100%. There is nothing less, and little more, to be said about all this.

#oysteinbookmark

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

It is directly translatable as "I, your boss, want to see you drop the investigation."

Ahh, but apparently even that would too ambiguous for certain people. It seems that these people will more than willingly rationalize away anything less than, "I demand that you end this investigation."

Now I'm sure some of them find that sort of rationalization to be an invigorating mental exercise, but in cases like this, their arguments become warped to the point of failing to express anything even remotely representative of what we know of human interaction.

 

[KatieG]

To emphasize the obvious, even a statement by the President to the FBI Director hypothetically along the lines of, "I hope this all will be cleared up and Flynn vindicated," would have been highly questionable and inappropriate from a moral point of view. The President should not express his desires as to the outcome of an active criminal investigation of the President's own associates and administration to the person in charge of that investigation. Especially given the President appoints and can fire the FBI Director, I see even these types of "wishful" hypothetical statements as violations of the independence we as a democracy expect in this situation.

But Trump's actual statements were far more damning than that! Trump said (emphasis added), "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go." This is not wishful or idle musing about a hypothetically pleasant outcome- Trump is clearly and repeatedly urging Comey to drop the investigation. I do not see any ambiguity here. It is directly translatable as "I, your boss, want to see you drop the investigation."

Some have maintained that whether even this elevates to a prosecutable criminal obstruction of justice depends on Trump's motivation behind his statements. Oddly, Trump has also been nice enough to provide that information too: "And in fact when I decided to just do it [fire Comey] I said to myself, I said, “You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.” "It should be over with, in my opinion it should’ve been over with a long time ago, because all it is is an excuse."

Trump fired Comey because Trump wanted the investigation of his administration to end. He said so himself. Don't the people here who maintain otherwise believe him?

 

[ServiceSoon]

...
But Trump's actual statements were far more damning than that! Trump said (emphasis added), "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go." This is not wishful or idle musing about a hypothetically pleasant outcome- Trump is clearly and repeatedly urging Comey to drop the investigation. I do not see any ambiguity here. It is directly translatable as "I, your boss, want to see you drop the investigation."

"Directly translatable" You are interpreting those words how you want to interpret them. You even bolded certain letters to add emphasis where it may not have existed. Miscommunication is easy to do in-person. It's even more cumbersome when all you have to go by are written words. Even if Comey took those words as a threat, that has no bearing on Trump's intentions. I do admit that it's fun to speculate and automatically think the worse of somebody!

I don't follow the logic that Trump would have fired Comey to put an end to the Russian Investigation into his administration. Firing Comey would not have magically caused that investigation to end; never to be discussed or reinvigorated again. There were at least 3 gov agencies that were conducting this investigation.

My observation of the legal stumbles of the last administration and this one is that I see a systematic flaw in the way that our branches of government are structured. Since the US inception the Executive (President) has created many ancillary positions within that branch that has upset the balance of powers.

Trump fired Comey because Trump wanted the investigation of his administration to end. He said so himself. Don't the people here who maintain otherwise believe him?

People keep repeating this as if it's fact. My repeated pleas for evidence are met with silence. I've even searched myself and came up empty handed. If any video or quote you provide has to be "translated" by you to educate me on it's real meaning you might as well not waste your time.

Quotes that I can find from Trump pertaining into the Russian Investigation are of him repeatedly saying he wants to find out if the Russians intervened in our election.

 

[CapelDodger]

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.

I hope you're right.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

On the matter of Comey packing heat, whatever the case may be as he travels about is irrelevant. He wouldn't enter the White House with it anyways.

On the matter of how some can sustain amazement at suggestions Trump was doing anything but innocently wondering (and blundering only from naivete), this is America. How long it's been this way is open for debate, but we've had 6 months for it to sink in.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Ahh, but apparently even that would too ambiguous for certain people. It seems that these people will more than willingly rationalize away anything less than, "I demand that you end this investigation."

But does that word necessarily mean what you are implying?

Definition of demand
1 a : an act of demanding or asking especially with authority a demand for obedienceb : something claimed as due or owed the demands of the workers' union

2 archaic : question​

So what could Trump have said to Comey that can't be rationalized away? Nothing. Trump could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot Comey it still wouldn't amount to obstruction - in the minds of some people.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

It should also be pointed out that Comey, being a very tall man, has no reason to be "intimidated" by the president sending everyone out and speaking to him one-on-one.

 

[Giordano]

Ahh, but apparently even that would too ambiguous for certain people. It seems that these people will more than willingly rationalize away anything less than, "I demand that you end this investigation."

Now I'm sure some of them find that sort of rationalization to be an invigorating mental exercise, but in cases like this, their arguments become warped to the point of failing to express anything even remotely representative of what we know of human interaction.

I've come to hope that this is the basis for this type of argument- just to be feisty and rile up the "liberals" here. Fine, this is the politics section. But what I would find very disturbing would be if the people making this argument really believed it. Would they ever accept Trump's statements as ambitious if made by someon else in any other aspect of their lives? If so, scary!

 

[CapelDodger]

It should also be pointed out that Comey, being a very tall man, has no reason to be "intimidated" by the president sending everyone out and speaking to him one-on-one.

I imagine Comey grew up not feeling overawed the way Trump grew up feeling entitled.

 

[Minoosh]

I've come to hope that this is the basis for this type of argument- just to be feisty and rile up the "liberals" here. Fine, this is the politics section. But what I would find very disturbing would be if the people making this argument really believed it. Would they ever accept Trump's statements as ambitious if made by someon else in any other aspect of their lives? If so, scary!

There's a big difference between my personal interpretation that yes, Trump was trying to derail the investigation, to: Will this hold up in a court of law? Or: Will the House vote to impeach and the Senate to convict?

Anything short of that and I'm underwhelmed. For the first couple of months Trump was president, on any given day there were revelations I thought would cause him to quickly become toast. I was wrong. So I've adopted a tougher standard. Now it's become, what would it take to convince Republican majorities to remove him? What would it take to turn off a majority of the people who voted for him?

 

[BobTheCoward]

There's a big difference between my personal interpretation that yes, Trump was trying to derail the investigation, to: Will this hold up in a court of law? Or: Will the House vote to impeach and the Senate to convict?

Anything short of that and I'm underwhelmed. For the first couple of months Trump was president, on any given day there were revelations I thought would cause him to quickly become toast. I was wrong. So I've adopted a tougher standard. Now it's become, what would it take to convince Republican majorities to remove him? What would it take to turn off a majority of the people who voted for him?

But "would this lead to an impeachment" isn't always the question here. Sometimes it is just a question if it can be an effort to derail.

 

[CapelDodger]

There's a big difference between my personal interpretation that yes, Trump was trying to derail the investigation, to: Will this hold up in a court of law? Or: Will the House vote to impeach and the Senate to convict?

Anything short of that and I'm underwhelmed.

Just a tiny crack in the dam.

For the first couple of months Trump was president, on any given day there were revelations I thought would cause him to quickly become toast. I was wrong. So I've adopted a tougher standard. Now it's become, what would it take to convince Republican majorities to remove him?

When the balance tips in favour of the Better Pence opinion.

What would it take to turn off a majority of the people who voted for him?

God only knows.

 

[Tony Stark]

Trump could go on TV and confess that he colluded with Russia during the election and most of his trash supporters wouldn't care.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Trump could go on TV and confess that he colluded with Russia during the election and most of his trash supporters wouldn't care.

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

 

[Minoosh]

But "would this lead to an impeachment" isn't always the question here. Sometimes it is just a question if it can be an effort to derail.

There's no doubt in my mind Trump *was* trying to get Comey to drop the Flynn aspect of the investigation. But to say it doesn't matter what words he used - that "I hope" means the same thing as "I am asking/ordering/threatening you" - strikes me as something like wishful thinking.

People use the Henry II line - "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest" - while I'm thinking of Henry VIII and Thomas More in "A Man for All Seasons." When More learns he will be asked to swear an oath of loyalty to Henry, he eagerly looks forward to learning the exact words to be used; he wants there to be an out. He is loyal to Henry while not recognizing England's authority to secede from the Roman Catholic Church. It turns out he won't swear to the particular oath that is put in front of him.

I saw only snippets of Comey's testimony and haven't read a transcript. I haven't read this whole thread. So this is just an impression: Comey is trying to be honest and direct - that is, non-manipulative. I think that has been his intention all along, with regards to both Clinton and Trump. He won't testify under oath that Trump "asked" him to drop the investigation. Clearly he thought that what Trump suggested was highly inappropriate. Trump might have known it was inappropriate without truly understanding why. IMO he's very limited that way. He's not a sophisticated thinker. He hasn't had to be. He can literally tweet gibberish, change his mind mid-sentence, etc. and his core "staff" pretty much knows what he wants done, but not everyone is playing his game.

There is maybe a cumulative effect of all his general cheesiness, but I think things will get worse before they get better.

 

[quadraginta]

Ahh, but apparently even that would too ambiguous for certain people. It seems that these people will more than willingly rationalize away anything less than, "I demand that you end this investigation."

Now I'm sure some of them find that sort of rationalization to be an invigorating mental exercise, but in cases like this, their arguments become warped to the point of failing to express anything even remotely representative of what we know of human interaction.

Some people reach the point of pretending to be so open-minded that it becomes apparent to any dispassionate observer that their brains are falling out.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

I don't follow the logic that Trump would have fired Comey to put an end to the Russian Investigation into his administration. Firing Comey would not have magically caused that investigation to end; never to be discussed or reinvigorated again. There were at least 3 gov agencies that were conducting this investigation.

<snip>

You know this. I know this. Anyone with an understanding of the fundamental operation of the government or even a passing familiarity with recent history would know this.

Where does Trump fall in that category? Everything he has ever done demonstrates clearly that his worldview is he can do what he wants to, and people have to listen.

I have seen nothing in his past which leads me to believe that he wouldn't assume he could just order any investigation he wanted stopped to be stopped.

His continuing frustration at his inability to do just that only underlines the truth of this.

He really doesn't understand what the office of the President is, and what limitations and responsibilities attach to it. He thinks he's the boss of the country now, with "boss" being defined by his experience with the decades of yes men that have surrounded him as he screws up one venture after another.

All of his missteps are perfectly understandable once he is viewed as the petty, small-minded, willful, semi-literate sociopath he has shown himself to be for decades.

It is more than plausible ... it is likely that he truly believed he could stop the investigation ongoing into both Flynn and Russian involvement just by firing Comey and picking someone more tractable to take his place. It fits in perfectly with every single thing we know about his past and his worldview.

What's frustrating is that he was very nearly proven right, and might yet be.