Former FBI Director Admitted He Was the Source Of At Least One Leak To the Press (theoutline.com) 559
Shortly after his dismissal as head of the FBI, James Comey authorized "a close friend" to leak the contents of his memos to the press in order to prompt a special counsel investigation, he said today. From a report: Former FBI Director James Comey testified that he asked a friend, a law professor at Columbia University, to leak details of his dinner with the President to The New York Times, including the claim that the President asked Comey to drop the investigation into former national security advisor Michael Flynn's contacts with Russian officials. Comey kept meticulous memos of all of his interactions with Trump, and he gave that memo to a friend to pass it along to the Times in order to spark a special investigation. "You considered this not a document of the government, but your own personal document that you could share with the media as you want to?" Senator Roy Blunt asked Comey. "Correct," Comey replied. "I understood this to be my recollection recorded of my conversation with the President. As a private citizen, I felt free to share that. I thought it very important to get it out." Edward Snowden tweeted, "It seems the [former] FBI Director agrees: sometimes the only moral decision is to break the rules."
How was this not already common knowledge? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How was this not already common knowledge? (Score:5, Insightful)
In his written statement (posted several places) he makes it clear that he distributed said memos and discussed them with FBI leadership. So I'm not sure that 'private' is the correct term or that he wrote them as a private citizen outside of his role as FBI director.
Re:How was this not already common knowledge? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also made clear was the fact that the memos weren't classified, and they were deliberately written to not contain information that was classified, so that they specifically could be made public if the FBI needed to defend itself against charges of what Comey perceived to be a White House attempt to influence an investigation.
Comparing this to the leaking of classified information is silly and bordering on clickbait. And what the heck is this crappy site that Slashdot is linking to as its article source?
Re:How was this not already common knowledge? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Leaking" the contents of an unclassified memo that you wrote is no different that simply calling the press and saying "Hey, I had a private conversation with Trump about xyz". It just carries a bit more weight when it is written up and dated appropriately. If you aren't divulging classified info, then there is absolutely nothing illegal about publishing it. Unlike what Snowden did....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Leaking" the contents of an unclassified memo that you wrote is no different that simply calling the press and saying "Hey, I had a private conversation with Trump about xyz".
Right. When it's the content of a private meeting between the chief of the executive branch and the chief law enforcement officer, it's BUSINESS, not PERSONAL, and it is not Comey's memo to release.
It just carries a bit more weight when it is written up and dated appropriately.
It carries no more weight. Anyone can write a "memo" and put a "date" on it and have it say whatever he wants it to. I could have a memo here that says clong83 told me he was the mastermind behind the assassination of JFK, and it has a date just a week after that shooting took place. Does it carry any more weight
Re: (Score:3)
Right. When it's the content of a private meeting between the chief of the executive branch and the chief law enforcement officer, it's BUSINESS, not PERSONAL, and it is not Comey's memo to release.
Sure it is. When I make private business conversations, I'm allowed to talk to other people about them so long as it doesn't harm the business (i.e. divulging trade secrets, security posture, etc.) What Comey leaked did none of the above, and it wasn't classified either.
Does it make the president look bad? Yup, but that's not a crime by any definition.
Re:Is Comey going to jail? (Score:5, Insightful)
The real question is "Is Comey going to jail for violating the Official Secrets Act" The rest is a sideshow. Flynn spoke to the Russian Ambassador? Big deal. Its the NSA chiefs jobs to talk to foreign leaders and representatives and normal during the transition. He lied to Pence about it? Big deal . The VP is NOT the President and not Flynn's boss and he was not under oath. However Comey leaking a conversation with the President which took place in the White House? Definitely jail time if not a treason charge with a possible death penalty.
I am somewhat concerned that you might actually believe the horse shit that you're writing. If that's the case you either need to start taking your medications, or stop self-medicating.
Re: (Score:3)
Ahem.
(en.wikipedia.org)
The Official Secrets Act 1989 (c. 6) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom...
Been reading Bond this week? Or Howard's Laundry novels?
Re:How was this not already common knowledge? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How was this not already common knowledge? (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing he did wrong in the case of the Clinton investigation announcements (as they had been announced previously, he wasn't breaking ground) was the timing of the 2nd to last one. Announcing the investigation continued regarding new emails was not in and of itself a big mistake. The timing was the big mistake.
Comey is as apolitical as I can think possible given the politics of the job. He made a jumbo mistake in thinking his announcement wouldn't be seized on. However the rest of his career is pretty stainless, he is liked and trusted by both sides' true professionals. Unless you can think of something he did previously that was partisan somehow, I think you're slandering him by saying he's overtly political. I call bullshit.
Re:How was this not already common knowledge? (Score:4, Insightful)
Then he should know that what he says to the press have grave consequences and that it is stupid to do so unless it is necessary. Your are conflating importance with self-important.
This is a country where the President himself revealed the presence of an inetlligence source with Assads inner circle to Assads closest ally and patron [washingtonpost.com] And you are concerned by what Comey releases to the public?
Re:How was this not already common knowledge? (Score:5, Informative)
I agree that it's not illegal. But I think this is what got him fired. If I knew the son of a bitch was sending stuff to the press trying to sabotage me I'd dump him too.
I think that your timeline of events is mixed up. I believe that Comey was fired on May 9th and the Memos weren't revealed until around May 16th, a week later. And this was only after President Trump bashed him on Twitter several times....
So, no, he wasn't fired for leaking stuff to the press. He was clearly fired because President Trump wanted Comey to publicly clear his name concerning the Russia investigation.
Re: How was this not already common knowledge? (Score:2)
Dude, if you don't even know the basic order of events things happened in, you might want to reconsider the value of your opinions.
Re: How was this not already common knowledge? (Score:2)
Bwhahaha.
Re:How was this not already common knowledge? (Score:5, Informative)
You've got that backwards. Unclassified content created by the government is automatically public domain [wikipedia.org].
Re: How was this not already common knowledge? (Score:5, Funny)
I am a wee bit stoned. However, I'd like to point out that. Have been gone for a bit. I am glad to be back, because of comments like your comment. Slashdot is where I can still go, to see even the most unhinged of views. I don't have crazy homeless people. Instead, I have you. And you are awesome.
Re: (Score:2)
This. I'm surprised this comes as news to anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
"And how is this different from hillary's email server?"
You tell me, or tell me how it's the same if that's what you mean.
Re: (Score:2)
And one contained classified material and the other didn't. I don't get your point. Sharing unclassified information isn't a crime, even if it is part of an "official record." In fact, if I understand correctly, the Official Records Act is geared more toward what should be shared as opposed to what shouldn't.
Stop the Wordpresses! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
I first met then-President-Elect Trump on Friday, January 6 in a conference room at Trump Tower in New York. I was there with other Intelligence Community (IC) leaders to brief him and his new national security team on the findings of an IC assessment concerning Russian efforts to interfere in the election. At the conclusion of that briefing, I remained alone with the President- Elect to brief him on some personally sensitive aspects of the information assembled during the assessment.
The IC leadership thought it important, for a variety of reasons, to alert the incoming President to the existence of this material, even though it was salacious and unverified. Among those reasons were: (1) we knew the media was about to publicly report the material and we believed the IC should not keep knowledge of the material and its imminent release from the President-Elect; and (2) to the extent there was some effort to compromise an incoming President, we could blunt any such effort with a defensive briefing.
Re:Stop the Wordpresses! (Score:5, Informative)
Don't take my word for it, or CNN's or Fox's or anyone else. It's a five minute read.
https://www.intelligence.senat... [senate.gov]
Re:Stop the Wordpresses! (Score:5, Informative)
So they are accusing Trump of talking in a manner that might be considered pressuring the FBI to stop an investigation that he had been told was based on salicious and unverified information.
No. Not even close. You're either completely confused or trolling. The investigation that Trump tried to stop had nothing to do with the "salacious and unverified" material. One case was Flynn misrepresenting his contact with the Russians. The other case has to do with alleged pee pee tapes. The only thing they have in common are the words "Russia" and "Trump".
That angle isn't going anywhere.
That part you got right, but only because it's a ludicrous angle of your own creation.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: Stop the Wordpresses! (Score:3)
That is not true. Read his deposition again.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Right. It's not an "investigation" it's a "matter".
What is "is"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The old administration is old news. The bad shit they did is done. Worry about the present.
There are all kinds of swamp alligators and players from the old administration still embedded in place in the new administration. It behooves President Trump, who actively campaigned about 'draining the swamp' to identify those critters and punt their asses out of his administration.
I agree that it's not a matter for us. It's something Trump should continue to pursue though.
In his campaign he promised he would be doing that. Is it any surprise that weasels like Comey are erupting and needing to be purged
Bull (Score:5, Insightful)
No rules were broken. The documents were completely unclassified, and he was fully within his rights to release them. The only mistake is calling it a "leak".
Re: (Score:2)
Tag it "clickbait". Basically, Comey transferred information he was legally and ethically allowed to transfer in a situation where it seemed the best course to protect the integrity of the investigation and minimize the damages. Someone is making a big deal about releasing previously-unreleased information.
Re:Bull (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No. You need a public declaration, which is what Comey delivered just today. We're only talking about a former FBI director here.
Re:Thanks! (Score:4, Interesting)
There's nothing in the public testimony likely strong enough to urge the Republicans in the direction of impeachment. Even for the Dems, only a couple of no-name firebrands in the House think impeachment is even remotely possible at this point. Some Dems would in fact argue the very best thing for them going into the 2018 mid-terms is to keep Trump in the White House, where he seems to have made a high art of shooting himself and his party in the foot.
So far as I can tell, the "experts" (whomever they may be) seem to be leaning away from Comey's evidence being strong enough to bring an obstruction of justice charge, and further, a good many seem to think it probably isn't even constitutional to bring such a charge against a sitting President. But really, this is all academic, since I doubt very much there is any such indictment in the works.
As to the question of impeachment, well, if it happens, it is still a long ways off. First and foremost, investigations are ongoing, and Comey can only speak to those investigations up to the point he was fired. What the attempt to strongarm Comey into "loyalty" and the attempt, no matter how weakly, to get Comey to drop the Flynn investigation do indicate is a man who, possibly out of ignorance, but maybe some malice as well, either doesn't know or doesn't care about the necessary limitations of his office or of the at-arms length nature of the FBI. It suggests Trump is a pretty piss poor president, at the very least, but whether it rises to the level of impeachment will take a lot more time, and really, the final calculus will be as much about whether the GOP thinks Trump remaining president as the mid-terms approach will threaten the party's political fortunes.
Impeachment is a quasi-judicial, perhaps if pseudo-judicial process. What constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors", as Gerald Ford so bluntly put it, "is whatever Congress says it is".
Re: (Score:3)
What the attempt to strongarm Comey into "loyalty" and the attempt, no matter how weakly, to get Comey to drop the Flynn investigation do indicate is a man who, possibly out of ignorance, but maybe some malice as well, either doesn't know or doesn't care about the necessary limitations of his office or of the at-arms length nature of the FBI. It suggests Trump is a pretty piss poor president, at the very least, but whether it rises to the level of impeachment will take a lot more time, and really, the final calculus will be as much about whether the GOP thinks Trump remaining president as the mid-terms approach will threaten the party's political fortunes.
I do agree with quite a few of your points: I must add though when you are president there is no weak attempt at strong arming anyone. Even a hint (which based on Comey's testimony was stronger than a hint) is significant. The president discussing an investigation like this and "hinting" (I'll bite and call it that) that someone should be let off or implying he is a good guy (whats next a stand up man?) is beyond the limits of Trump's office and if you or I had done that in any position of power, we'd be sc
Re: (Score:2)
There doesn't have to be anything that will urge the Republicans to impeach. They're not going to impeach no matter what happens. Degrading Trump's legitimacy and ability to advance his agenda is enough.
There's also plenty of indication from the testimony today that obstruction of justice will be something the special prosecutor will be looking into. A very strong case was made. It also
Re: (Score:3)
He openly stated Russia interfered with the election, and will continue to do so, so fuck off with this nonsense. Russia is an enemy of the West, and will remain so.
Re: (Score:2)
You understand, I trust, that the other portion of the testimony will not be public. So this idea that you can just simply declare "the FBI has no evidence of Russian interference" is a load of horse shit. He stated Russia interfered with the election, he demurred when asked specific questions on the investigations and evidence that lead him to that conclusion, so what you're doing is basically taking his inability to publicly reveal what he knows as some sort of evidence that there is no evidence.
Re:Comey admits its all fake! (Score:5, Insightful)
I think his statements today go some way towards explaining his treatment of the DNC leak, and a lot of it has to do with Lynch and Bill Clinton meeting on the tarmac.
I think Comey is just one unlucky fucking bastard, who got stuck being director of the FBI during an election year when both candidates were pretty damned dubious individuals and the Russians were trying to fuck things over.
Re: (Score:2)
Et tu, Slashdot? Consequences of poverty? (Score:4, Interesting)
I guess you [BradleyUffner] deserve the insightful mod, but you didn't dig deep enough. There's another "mistake" when Slashdot uses that framing of the disclosure of the information. My question is whether Slashdot's mistake was an innocent form of clickbait or symptomatic of a deeper and darker sickness. Here's a couple of darker theories:
One theory is that Slashdot has been invaded and largely destroyed by rightwing trolls and (paid?) thugs merely because it was there and a soft target. Not a juicy target these days, since it is obvious that the readership and participation are way down, but Putin's novice cyber-warriers have to start somewhere.
Another theory is worse. Maybe Slashdot's bad financial model and possible desperation from the new owners (of the debt?) are making it cheap and easy to bribe them to tilt the system in that direction.
Anyway, I think there is a fairly skilled liar at work here. The premise of this story is a high-level lie of framing. Reporting the truth about matters of public record to the media, even through an intermediary who has friends who are reporters, is NOT the same thing as leaking secret information. Trying to present the information in the "Leak" frame is a LIE, and no more truthful just because it is a "clever" Level 4 lie. In contrast, #PresidentTweety is a quite unskilled liar, usually operating at Levels 0 (self-contradiction) and 1 (counterfactual statements (where any fool can check the facts)). Quite rare that the Donald can even get as high as Level 2 (partial truth) as in his recent out-of-context attack on the Mayor of London.
The REAL issue here is whether or not Trump has committed impeachable offenses. I'm convinced he has, but it might be that his feeble attempts to obstruct justice are his most serious offenses since he got into the White House. That also depends on the definitions of "emoluments" and "bribery", and as regards bribery, the directions of the bribes. I'm not at all certain about what sorts of pre-White-House crimes would really carry forward as grounds for impeachment. I actually believe that Trump's most serious crimes are hidden in his tax returns and they involve money laundering for Putin and his cronies.
Closing with a joke: Be careful what you wish for, Vladimir. How much money will you lose if Trump's dirty laundry gets unlaundered? The fall of the house of Trump could be costly--but I suppose you were too smart to trust the Donald with much money anyway.
It is pretty shocking and telling of our times (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
At what point? When he had conversations with Trump and made the notes? Or when he turned them over to his friend? The content of those discussions probably fall under executive privileged communications and will continue to be so even after Comey left office.
I had a security clearance*. But even now, after retirement, I'm not free to discuss the particulars of my work. I couldn't take notes I made at work home. Let alone hand them to someone after I left the job.
*Technically, I'm not even supposed to dis
Re: (Score:2)
I had a security clearance*
* Technically, I'm not even supposed to discuss that.
Says who? I held a TS clearance for years, and no one ever suggested that I shouldn't mention it.
But after the FBI conducted standard background checks and interviewed my neighbor the drunk, everyone in town knows.
If you actually held a clearance, you should know that "everyone knows" is not a reason to share information that actually is supposed to be kept secret. Were it true that you should not tell anyone that you held a clearance, the fact that the town already knows wouldn't justify telling anyone in town, much less posting it on /.
However, you're safe, because the fact that you once held a clearance (along with m
Re: (Score:2)
Says who?
My employer.
much less posting it on /.
Yes, but who am I?
Re: (Score:2)
If that is the case, then congratulations on h
Re: (Score:2)
Says who?
My employer.
I suppose that's where the error comes from, then.
Yes, but who am I?
Also not remote a justification for revealing information that is supposed to be secret.
Re: (Score:2)
He did not make notes of any classified content of conversations. Did you watch his testimony under oath? I did, and it was pretty damning for Trump.
Re: (Score:3)
Is that really a leak? (Score:2)
"You considered this not a document of the government, but your own personal document that you could share with the media as you want to?" Senator Roy Blunt asked Comey. "Correct," Comey replied. "I understood this to be my recollection recorded of my conversation with the President. As a private citizen, I felt free to share that. I thought it very important to get it out."
If that is the case, then it really isn't a leak, or the breaking of a rule. Or, at the least, he didn't believe it was the violation of a rule - perhaps others may feel differently.
Re: (Score:2)
He was no longer employed by the government. Any such rules outside classified information no longer applied to him. These memo's are the equivalent of a diary, they are a personal recollection of events. They didn't contain classified information. He was free to read them on the nightly news himself.
Re:Is that really a leak? (Score:4, Insightful)
At the time Comey took the notes he was a government employee. When he left government employment he should have been required to turn over everything work-related to the government so that it could be included in government records. Normally you must sign a document certifying that you have turned over everything. I believe that holding back documents would be breaking the law. It doesn't matter whether or not the information was classified. In other words, Comey probably broke the law in order to get revenge on Trump.
Revenge? That is ridiculous! He WAS protecting himself, which is why he stated during his testimony he met with the FBI leadership to discuss the situation.
Re: (Score:3)
And why he begged Sessions to prevent any further one-on-one meetings with the President.
How exactly people make Comey look like the bad guy here is beyond me. The fact is, for both the the Trump and Clinton campaigns, the poor bastard found himself standing knee deep in his then-boss's and his future boss's steaming lakes of shit.
Transparency is your answer (Score:2)
Conversely, if all the branches of government conducted the people's business honorably, the exception to the rule would be a rare withholding of information for some aspect of genuine national security.
Not a Leak (Score:2)
wtf (Score:2)
All the stuff from and about Comey today, and this is the one and only article posted up to this point?
Re: (Score:2)
Not to defend, or attack Comey, his notes were a kind of "Diary" and not property of the US Government. As such, the Government has no jurisdiction over those notes.
The biggest problem I see so far, is that the MSM has totally discredited itself terribly, to the breaking point (IMHO) in its mishandling of information and continuing attacks on Trump, even when there is no "there" there.
Look I get that Trump is kind of an ass. But going over the top, and making shit up isn't helping your (MSM / Trump Hater's)
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. There's pretty much of "there" there. Comey just declared under oath that Trump asked him to drop an investigation of Flynn.
Re: There is a difference (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit. Comey was very careful in explaining that even when Trump didn't explicitly order the investigation to be dropped, he felt it as an implicit directive. "Let the Flynn matter go", "get rid off" or "lift this cloud" (sic) are all very clear statements, specially coming from the goddamn POTUS.
I'm pretty shocked that people trying to spin this scandal as Comey confirming Trump was under no personal investigation. A former FBI director just declared that a President asked him to drop an active investigation into one of his staff members. How is the US congress not starting impeachment procedures already?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Because what you think is obstruction of justice is not the definition of obstruction of justice. You are using words that you don't understand in a context you are completely unfamiliar with. No worries, I had to go look it up and read some case law to get a good handle on it myself. I recommend you do the same. An informed attack is better than an uninformed one any day.
Also, "lift this cloud" was Trump asking Comey to tell the American people the truth, namely that Trump was not the subject of an inv
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The biggest problem I see so far, is that the MSM has totally discredited itself terribly, to the breaking point (IMHO) in its mishandling of information and continuing attacks on Trump, even when there is no "there" there.
Do you have examples of the MSM using misinformation in their "attacks" on Trump? You can find fringe sources that'll say almost anything, but from what I've seen the MSM's coverage of DJT has been based on solid facts. You can claim that they're presented in a biased manner, but what "mishandling of information" are you talking about that has "totally discredited" the MSM? Do you believe the statements that come from the White House over the statements you hear on CNN? The current administrations's track r
Re: (Score:2)
You're asking the wrong questions. Of course the MSM uses accurate information. It's usually the withholding of information that's makes certain reporting an attack rather than journalism.
For instance, look at Trump's lawyer's press briefing after today's hearing. Nothing he said was directly misinformation, but it's clear that it was one-sided. He worked hard to convey Comey as a "confessed leaker" and that "Trump never told Comey he needed loyalty." These things are technically literally true, but the fir
Re: (Score:2)
Just one example from Comey was a NY times article about a supposed collusion between Trump and the Russians. It was bullshit.
Solid facts?
Re: (Score:3)
Which Comey didn't do. Comey does not have the memos, and did not leak the memos. He leaked a description of their contents. Which was made very clear during the hearing, where he stated that he hopes that the FBI gives the investigation the actual memos.
For your argument to work, you'd need to be arguin
Re: (Score:2)
It's likely that the contents of the memo are at the least FOUO, For Official Use Only. Transmitting FOUO outside of official usage is a violation. Whether or not something is properly marked has no real bearing on whether or not it is actually classified in whatever category. The original ownership of say a document is also not relevant to whether or not the government counts it as classified. For instance if tomorrow I had some kind of epiphany regarding manufacture of a new weapon to which the USA had no
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be very surprised if the offloading policy of the FBI permits walking off with any asset whatsoever.
Irrelevant if he disclosed this information before being fired.
Comey testified that he leaked his memos after he was fired.
Re: (Score:2)
Comey, for all its faults, is a fantastic witness. Watching the GOP pundits and Trump's lawer trying to spin his deposition is surreal.
Re:What?! (Score:4, Informative)
You mean the part where he confirmed that the Obama DOJ(Lynch) directly interfered with the investigation into Hillary? [circa.com] Yep, much lying, much obstructing.
Re:What?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Comey's testimony savages both sides, but ultimately, Clinton lost, so it scarcely matters now, save as a means by which Trump supporters hope to deflect any criticisms of the President.
Re:What?! (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean the part where he confirmed that the Obama DOJ(Lynch) directly interfered with the investigation into Hillary? [circa.com] Yep, much lying, much obstructing.
"Call it a 'matter', not an investigation", hardly rises to the level of obstruction. I'm not saying it was right -- I don't think the White House should try to spin FBI investigations -- but if you equate that to ordering (however phrased) that an investigation be halted, you have no interest in truth or accuracy. Lynch never asked that the Clinton investigation be shut down, just that Comey use a different name for it. That's not remotely similar to what Trump did.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To bad your guy is such a crook that he makes this look like small potatoes?
"Such a crook" that a previous administration's justice department meddled in the investigative process of a presidential candidate, during a political campaign, which directly and dramatically changed the outcome of the election? Oh on top of that he committed perjury? Remember when he said "that nothing happened." I'd be very worried if I was in his shoes(unless he's going to sing), and I'd also be very worried if I was: Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Loretta Lynch, and possibly Obama along with other
Re: (Score:2)
That's the headline?! I know that was a big part of the testimony, but the real story is that Comey pretty much confirmed that Trump is a lying, self-serving douche who would joyfully obstruct justice if he thought he could get away with it (all Trump has at this point is a thin veneer of plausible deniability--"I only said that I hoped...it was a wish, not a command."). That's the part that's really worth talking about, not the Comey leak.
While I agree with you that Trump is a lying, self-serving douche, I do think that there is a good possibility he did not knowingly try to obstruct justice in that he did not realize that asking (or insinuating) Comey to drop the Flynn investigation could possibly be obstruction. The simple truth is that a lot of things you can do when you are sitting in a boardroom (that in and of themselves are perfectly legal) that you can not do when sitting in the Oval Office (which by virtue of your position might ac
Re: (Score:2)
Or as Paul Ryan so delightfully put it "He's learning as he goes..."
Re: (Score:3)
He did not ask the FBI direct to to drop an investigation. The language isn't malicious nor was the intent and Comey said as much. It was a gut feeling that Comey used because he felt uncomfortable and it was unusual.
Re: (Score:3)
How would firing the FBI director stop an FBI investigation?
Re:What?! (Score:4)
> Comey pretty much confirmed that Trump is a lying, self-serving douche who would joyfully obstruct justice if he thought he could get away with it
That's not what I took away. I was pleasantly surprised that Trump (very early on) has acted in a manner that was more considerate, sophisticated and calculating than I would have expected. I found I was aggravated by the irony of a Senate member telling Comey that Trump "shouldn't have" run meetings (in his own office with his own office heads), a certain way. Comey confirms that he let's Trump know that's not appropriate, and it never happens again. Shocking, almost like we're dealing with humans that have never been in these situations before, handling them in a practical manner. These witch hunts seem cursory for every administration and I have no doubt Clinton would be on the receiving end of a similar "scandal", had she won. McCain's attempt to roll all investigations "Hillary" related into the Russian-Election influence was funny.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the reply instead of the down-mod (I guess I got hit by a Trumper before the discussion could grow--must be because I forgot my usual disclaimer of being a lifelong Conservative [registered] Republican who just can't stand Trump).
Anyway, there is more than one message to take away from today's hearing. The biggest lessons didn't have anything to do with Comey, but for some reason this site has turned really conservative and let its newer bias write the headline. This place was very liberal when I
Re: (Score:2)
The Republicans will fixate on Comey's leak because it's about the only leverage they have over the story. They can't really say "Nothing to see here anymore!" as Comey has outright stated both in writing and in person that Trump deliberately and inappropriately demanded both "loyalty" (and all that inferred) and asked him to drop the Flynn investigation. It sure looks like obstruction of justice to me, but even some of the folks who know about these things aren't even sure you can actually charge a sitting
Re: (Score:2)
The only snowflakes I see are the pathetic alt right trolls
Re: (Score:2)
"Waaaah, someone is saying something mean about my president, waaaaah! He's saying that it looks more and more like obstruction of justice and treason and that that several people involved in the campaign and administration already have grand juries against them while the investigation expands every several weeks to include new persons of interest as investigation keeps turning up new evidence of wrongdoing, waaaaah! Somebody stop the big mean liberal, he's hurting my feelings!"
Re: (Score:3)
No actually the press reports that make the claim Comey implicated the president or anybody other than Flynn in his testimony are what he's going to call fake news... And he will be RIGHT... How do I know? I just listened to the whole open session first hand on CSPAN radio, I heard every question asked and every answer given. There was nothing new here, except that Comey is the one who leaked his own memo...
IF you hear that Comey's words somehow implicate anybody in the Trump administration or campaign
Re: (Score:2)
Comey directly implicated Trump. He just declared under oath that the POTUS was pressuring him into dropping an active investigation on a staff member.
Re:Fake news (Score:5, Informative)
No, he said that this was how he interpreted what Trump said. However, Comey made it abundantly clear that he cannot know what was intended by Trump and that Trump nor his staff took ANY action that obstructed the Flynn investigation in any way. Plus Comey made it clear this was discussed only ONE time directly with Trump.
Obstruction requires intent by statute. So Comey's testimony would not be enough to establish intent for two reasons. 1. The words recorded by Comey do NOT clearly establish intent AND 2. The conversation was private so Trump is free to deny Comey's version of events. Then, given the fact that Comey admits it didn't impact the investigation in any way, there is no way this really rises to obstruction.
I'm willing to stipulate that Trump said some ill-advised things to Comey in that private meeting, but we are a long way from having a provable obstruction charge here. What we have is a inexperienced President who is unfamiliar with the vagaries of how lawyers talk and phrase things who chose a direct way to express himself that Comey thought was fraught with legal peril that should have been avoided. I think Comey fully understood what Trump intended, that it wasn't obstructive and knew so at the time. What's happened is Comey feels betrayed and disrespected by a man he doesn't like who fired him in a rough way. He's just angry, so he's doing what he can to get revenge for being fired.
This is why Comey leaked this memo, in order to get the special council in place (Yes Comey SAID that was why). He's just angry, looking to cause trouble for a man he doesn't respect, doesn't like and whom he has the ability to harm in some way.
Re: (Score:3)
However, Comey made it abundantly clear that he cannot know what was intended by Trump and that Trump nor his staff took ANY action that obstructed the Flynn investigation in any way.
Trump took at least two actions if Comey is to be believed, he made it abundantly clear in private correspondence that he wasn't happy that Flynn was being investigated and he fired Comey. The second action specifically was linked to the investigation by Trump himself in an interview. The first action was spoken in the phrasing of someone who needs plausible deniability, and yet in the context they were uttered it would have been difficult not to feel pressured.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, you have connected a couple of dots that don't go together. What Trump said about Flynn was specifically limited to Flynn (according to Comey's testimony today) AND Comey clearly understood that Trump was supportive of the Russian investigation, even if it implicated those around Trump. All Trump was asking Comey to do was to make a public announcement that Trump wasn't being investigated because of this "Russian thing" what ever that is.
What do you think "the Russian thing" means to Trump? I r
Re:Fake news (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of this is going to hinge on how the fallout from SCOTUS's gerrymandering ruling. The GOP has been using gerrymandering for a while now to cover up the demographic black holes in a number of states that could flip them blue in the years ahead. That may not make a difference in 2018, but the 2016 election aside, the US is growing bluer, and if Republican state governments can't use redistricting to paper that hole over in the future, that spells a long term problem for them.
Re: (Score:2)
He will not be impeached for that, because the case for obstruction of justice is too unclear to convince enough Republicans to impeach him. Trump deliberately dismissed other witnesses and used careful wordings like "I hope you can...", as Comey made 100% clear in his testimony. It's one of those borderline cases in which the evil intention is obvious but the behavior is technically still legal or in a gray zone.
Re: (Score:3)
You don't need a crime for an impeachment. Impeachment is a political process, not legal.
See the definition of High Crimes and Misdemeanors [wikipedia.org] which are basis for impeachment. Despite the jargon, there's little related to actual legal crimes in there.
Re:Please impeech trump! (Score:4, Informative)
Impeach him for what. First you have to have a crime.
Actually, all you need is suspicion of "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" as per the constitution. From there, impeachment takes a simple majority of the house. Should the motion pass, it's then sent to the Senate, which conducts a "trial" which then eventually needs a 2/3rds majority to remove the president from office. However, unlike trials in the legal system, the standards of evidence and due process are much more relaxed in one sense. However, the 2/3rds majority makes it an exceedingly difficult bar to hit (which I suppose was part of the point).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Comey wrote an unclassified memo precisely for this eventuality.
What's less easy to understand is why Slashdot is shilling articles for a traitor sitting in Russia at this very moment for stealing classified material.
Because people do not like admitting they made a mistake?
Re: (Score:2)
Comey wrote an unclassified memo precisely for this eventuality.
What's less easy to understand is why Slashdot is shilling articles for a traitor sitting in Russia at this very moment for stealing classified material.
Treason is committed against a country, not a government. While Snowden might have hurt the government, he helped the country. People need to remember that while the government works for the state and is usually an extension of the state, it is not the state itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you believe that the government in Washington DC is "The United States", I can understand why you see it that way. I tend to think that We, The People & The U.S. Constitution count for something.
Look up the oath of office for government employees:
"... I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same..."
These government employees in the intelligence agencies flagrantly violated their sole
Re: (Score:2)
it is the duty of that official to take action.
Perhaps. However, I'd like to know what part of the FBI manual that enumerates that duty prescribes playing "anonymous" source footsies with the press. Pretty sure it doesn't say that. You play that game you're playing politics and when LEOs play politics they flush their credibility right down the shitter.
Re: (Score:3)
I dunno, what part of the FBI manual permitted Mark Felt to reveal to Bob Woodward Nixon's abuses of power? I'm fascinated by the desire to shoot the messenger, as if the precise legality of the leaker (if what Comey did was a leak at all) is the most important issue. Do you spare some outrage for the fact that the President of the United States attempted to obstruct justice, or is the President to be let off the hook will you erect the gallows for the man who revealed that abuse?
Re: (Score:2)