Official James Comey testimony thread

[quadraginta]

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

Many would rationalize why it was a good thing.

Some are already doing that.

 

[Minoosh]

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

You're outnumbered .

 

[NoahFence]

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

I'm sure if you find your way to Syria, they'll have flights to Pyongyang. Must be paradise over there, yes?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

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

You say quite a lot about how you think things are or should be run for someone who doesn't want a voice in how things are or should be run.

 

[Firestone]

Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) on Comey: "Very troubling indeed that he leaked confidential communications as FBI director"

More troubling of course is a senator posting such a transparent lie on Twitter. The way many Republicans are circling the wagons is disgusting, but also indicates how afraid they are about what Comey has still to tell.

https://twitter.com/JohnCornyn/status/873569551925096449

 

[Tony Stark]

Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) on Comey: "Very troubling indeed that he leaked confidential communications as FBI director"

More troubling of course is a senator posting such a transparent lie on Twitter. The way many Republicans are circling the wagons is disgusting, but also indicates how afraid they are about what Comey has still to tell.

https://twitter.com/JohnCornyn/status/873569551925096449

Yeah, there is no way that he doesn't know he is spewing nonsense.

Republican politicians are pure scum. And to think this guy was one of the frontrunners for the FBI position.

 

[Meadmaker]

Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) on Comey: "Very troubling indeed that he leaked confidential communications as FBI director"

More troubling of course is a senator posting such a transparent lie on Twitter.

That's what I don't get. Why exactly should I be troubled that a guy who was fired wanted the press to know what happened? This "confidential communication" and "privileged information" and all that rot. It's almost as if Comey, finding himself out of a job because he wouldn't kowtow to this authoritarian megalomaniac, wanted to retaliate against the guy who fired him, and wanted to protect his own reputation. Trump was running around saying that Comey was fired because his organization was in disarray, and he was doing a lousy job. Under those circumstances, who wouldn't want people to know the truth about why he was fired?

And somehow revealing that is "troubling"? Susan Collins says "inappropriate"? I don't get it. Seriously. Unless I am really missing something, no laws were broken. Perhaps some policies were broken, maybe, but who cares? The guy had already been fired. He wasn't an employee. I'm just not getting what it is that I should be outraged about this sort of leak. I don't find it troubling in the least.

Yes, Mr. President, everything you say could end up in the media. It's part of the job. Get with the program and start acting like a president.

The way many Republicans are circling the wagons is disgusting, but also indicates how afraid they are about what Comey has still to tell.

https://twitter.com/JohnCornyn/status/873569551925096449

On this part, I'm not so sure. I think Comey has told everything he knows worth telling. I think the wagon circling is because what Comey told could be politically damaging, and they are spinning. That's still disgusting, all by itself. They are trying to protect Trump's reputation by trashing Comey.

As best I can tell, all Comey has done is reveal information that Trump would have preferred remain secret. Furthermore, the reason Trump wanted it secret is so he could lie about it. I'm at a loss as to why I should be upset at Comey.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) on Comey: "Very troubling indeed that he leaked confidential communications as FBI director"

If Trump's "I hope" statement is considered to be a "confidential communication", does that not imply that it was a directive and not just a casual comment? Or if Comey had revealed that Trump had said "I hope that it doesn't rain tomorrow.", would that also have been a leak of a "confidential communication"?

 

[BobTheCoward]

You say quite a lot about how you think things are or should be run for someone who doesn't want a voice in how things are or should be run.

I don't see why positive examination should lend itself to normative positions.

 

[Giordano]

Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) on Comey: "Very troubling indeed that he leaked confidential communications as FBI director"

More troubling of course is a senator posting such a transparent lie on Twitter. The way many Republicans are circling the wagons is disgusting, but also indicates how afraid they are about what Comey has still to tell.

https://twitter.com/JohnCornyn/status/873569551925096449

Official talking points. Circulated for Republican legislators too stupid to invent their own lies.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Official talking points. Circulated for Republican legislators too stupid to invent their own lies.

I guess they must be really troubled if someone higher in office "leaks" information. Say, a president? On Twitter? Or to the Russians?

 

[turingtest]

If Trump's "I hope" statement is considered to be a "confidential communication", does that not imply that it was a directive and not just a casual comment? Or if Comey had revealed that Trump had said "I hope that it doesn't rain tomorrow.", would that also have been a leak of a "confidential communication"?

Official talking points. Circulated for Republican legislators too stupid to invent their own lies.

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.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

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)?

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.

 

[turingtest]

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.

Could be; I suppose they could even be technically right. Like I said, though, it's at least bad optics to claim confidentiality after breaking it yourself.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

Does that include perjury? Just floating that concept by all the people claiming "If the president does it, then it must be legal."

 

[Emily's Cat]

Did he? Got a cite?

I do not believe he has admitted to being any part of any leak of classified information, nor am I aware of any classified data that was in his possession that subsequently got to the press. If I missed something, I would like to be informed.

Read the transcripts! I've linked to it several times.

Anyway, as I previously said very clearly, Comey's memos didn't include any of the information discussed during that first meeting - the one that he documented on a classified laptop, and which is considered a classified document.

AFTER that meeting, he took pains to make sure that all of his documentation was done in a way that allowed him to treat it as unclassified. That is the content that he used in the memos that he released to the media.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's a weird bluff.

If Comey's telling the truth, then he knows that tapes won't contradict his claims and won't be cowed by the bluff.

There are three options.

(1) Comey's not telling the truth, so the bluff really has the potential to scare Comey.

(2) Comey's telling the truth, but Trump's bluff was not directed at Comey. It was directed at the general public, so that we might doubt Comey's claims.

(3) Comey's telling the truth, but Trump is just too addleheaded to understand bluffing.

(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.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Again, you are reasoning in the wrong direction. He DID do something improper, so the clearing of the room has to be viewed in light of that.

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."

You're assuming that it would have been appropriate to have all the other people in the room during a discussion of the investigation, even though some of those other people were also under investigation?

Look... the fact of something improper having occurred doesn't necessarily mean that there was an intent to do something improper beforehand. Consider a case of manslaughter. Let's imagineer an analogy here, to highlight the point I'm trying to make. Let's say that two people have been arguing about what to do with their fortune. They don't want to talk about it in front of their guests, who are over for dinner. They wait until their guests leave before they get into the argument again. During the course of the argument, one of them, Mr. Plum, loses their temper and smacks the other one, Ms. Scarlet, in the head with a candlestick (they're in the conservatory of course). The fact that Prof. Plum waits until the guests leave and they're alone doesn't indicate that he intended to murder Ms. Scarlet. That could be the case, certainly. But waiting, in and of itself, doesn't indicate such. As in this scenario, it could be ancillary to the impropriety. There could be other reasons that the discussion didn't take place until the guests were gone.

In this case, many of the other people were either under investigation themselves or were not privy to any information regarding the investigation.

We aren't on the jury, we aren't in a court of law, use your common sense. The meaning is obvious. Every attempt you've made so far to give it different meaning has been laughable.

You don't clear a room to say something so meaningless. Sessions and Kushner aren't nervous about leaving and try to stay around to stop Trump from saying something innocuous. Put the evidence together.

Is it proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Probably not, right now, but we don't know everything. Is it more likely than not, hell yes.

Why on earth are your speculations of motive based on your ESP so much more acceptable than my consideration of many possible scenarios that could give rise to the situation? Is your ESP really so good that it's the only possible right interpretation of events that you've only learned about second hand? Or is it only that it's the interpretation that confirms your bias?

This makes no sense. Of course Comey writing a memo doesn't make it obstruction, the obstruction makes it obstruction.

If Comey is right, Trump endeavored to inhibit an investigation. He pressured Comey, demanded a loyalty oath, asked him to stop a criminal investigation, then fired him when he didn't do any of that.

1) Please show me the demand of a loyalty oath. Literally that - a demand for an oath. Don't mistake spin for reality.

2) Please demonstrate Trump asking Comey to stop a criminal investigation. Literally that - asking him to stop the investigation. Again, don't mistake spin for reality.

In both of those cases, the interpretation presented is plausible. But it's not the only plausible interpretation. You have the interpretation of one person, about another person's motive and hidden meaning. It's plausible, but not necessarily sufficient.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You and the rest of the GOP need to read some books. ...

I'm not part of the GOP, and I'll thank you for leaving me out of that cesspool.

Translation: A linguist would state that the most probable message transmitted to Comey was to drop the investigation. Yes, it's always probabilities..

The most probably interpretation yes. But an honest linguist wouldn't insist that their view of the most probable interpretation is the only plausible interpretation... Especially given that most of what is communicated is nonverbal, and there are no witnesses except Trump and Comey.

Everything else in your post was irrelevant and/or implied insult.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I was extending the list of possibilities.

Okay... but you were adding possibilities to something that's already been fairly well established. It's something that Comey addressed in his testimony - the first memo was done on a classified computer. And given that one of the information from that first meeting was released by Comey, I rather strongly suspect that it has not been officially declassified.

It made your extension of possibilities appear to be counter-arguments.