Slashdot Mirror
Former FBI Director Admitted He Was the Source Of At Least One Leak To the Press (theoutline.com)
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."
Who else could leak a private memo written by Comey except Comey himself?
Yes, yes, I would say this headline is absolutely, 100% the key takeaway of the Comey testimony, yes.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Comey's memos were intentionally unclassified. The same can't be said of Snowden's leak.
I don't think Comey actually broke any rules.
His entire testimony was fake news, fake news, believe me.
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".
The director of the FBI leaks his own memos in order to spur an investigation outside his agency.
I honestly think this is what the Republicans were hoping for. VP becomes president and Republicans win the election without a moron running the country.
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.
By the way, Snowden is wrong. Comey didn't break any rules. It's not like he leaked classified information.
It's not a leak. He was a private citizen releasing a document he wrote (while in a government employment) but in a way (unclassified, not pertaining to an investigation, etc.) that he could legally distribute as a private citizen. Leaking refers to releasing content that you don't have authority to release.
"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.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
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.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
The classification system is different than people think: sensitivity does not require a classification. "Sensitive but Unclassified" is a thing.
I also doubt that his communications are actually unclassified. Something he said is probably within the net of a classification guide, but even not, the whole Executive Privilege doctrine also applies.
I think he has a problem now.
So all we need to get rid of a president is an FBI director writing a personal memo now?
Good to know. I'll scratch out my plans of claiming president was born in Kenya and change to fake a single memo. That seems much easier to get done and it appears to get you on board. Good thing we've gotten past that pesky evidence hurdle we've had in the past.
Break the rules or not, you know what you are doing and you accept the consequences of your actions. You don't run away to another country like a coward.
Trump himself was not under investigation and the memos were not classified -- how was this a leak?
If any President attempts to pressure the FBI Director or Attorney General or any other official to obstruct justice, it is the duty of that official to take action. If none can be taken within the government, he should resign, and call a press conference to publicly say why.
Comey did not do his duty. The sequence of events he claims reflect very poorly on him, and show him to be someone not fit to be Director of the FBI, no matter what anyone may think of the Tangerine Troglodyte.
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.
At least for the next 18 months, at which point one and a half more years of Trump presidency will be a big help when the time comes to regain control of congress.
Comey ADMITTED there is no credible evidence of Russian interference with the election. Of course he doesn't think he did, but he did.
Comey admitted the FBI never investigated the DNC servers (the source of Russian interference). A private company did and gave the FBI "evidence". The same company recently got caught lying about Russia hacking a Ukraine computer. Imagine that during a trial, your star witness has to admit to lying about another case in the EXACT SAME MANNER he is an expert in this case. That is a clear cut case of discrediting the witness. No one else examined the DNC servers for hacking. There is no credible evidence, according to Comey under oath.
Nice story about that company and how they are not going to affirm Russia had anything to do with it.
Wow, what a bombshell. The entire thing appears to be made up. Glad you got suckered in. Now the Trump lawyers are suggesting Comey should be investigated for lying under oath today. What a turn! So not only was Trump NEVER under investigation, not only was the entire thing made up, but now Comey will be under investigation.
What a day!
If Comey thought this was all above board and that "As a private citizen, I felt free to share that. I thought it very important to get it out.", then why didn't Comey hiimself share/leak the information directly?
Instead, we get "he asked a friend, a law professor at Columbia University, to leak details of his dinner with the President to The New York Times,"
Why go through a third party to share/leak this information that he felt free to share as a private citizen?
Though we don't know, maybe Bill Clinton might have said to Loretta Lynch: "I hope you can see your way to dropping this."
His listed evidence was the DNC server. The FBI NEVER LOOKED at the DNC server, as stated by Comey under oath today. The ONLY ones who did was that private company. That private company is UNWILLING to testify under oath that Russia hacked the DNC server. So the only source refuses to even testify their finding. There is literally no one even willing to SAY they have seen evidence of Russian interference. How do you build a case without a single witness or piece of evidence?
Unless you can list a SINGLE shred of evidence that states otherwise, there is NO EVIDENCE of Russian interference.
You fell for the entire thing. Repeating it now makes you a liar, because at this point you now also know it didn't happen.
At the time, Comes was a private citizen who shared his knowledge of the contents of an unclassified document. Please explain to me how that is illegal.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
All the stuff from and about Comey today, and this is the one and only article posted up to this point?
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
So you couldn't find any.
Know why? Its doesn't exist.
Are we going to charge Comey for running a fake investigation, for leaking a memo to get a special prosecutor appointed under false pretenses, for lying under oath? I think we might. Looks like the ONLY one telling the truth here has been Trump. Isn't that funny?
There is NO EVIDENCE, period.
They should make an example of Comey the same way they made an example of Winner and Manning.
If they do not make this example of Comey we should dissolve the FBI, DOJ, NSA, and CIA immediately as they are all broken and working against the people instead of for the people.
Or they should all update their mission statements to clarify that the FBI, DOJ, NSA, and CIA only work for government 'people' and specifically 'deep state' 'people' but definitely not 'regular people'.
And here's my preemptive F U to 'the government' because Comey is going to somehow walk away from this just because of who he knows and associates with.
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/os-jcomey-060817.pdf
For all that talk, it seems like they don't have anything.
"I understood this to be my recollection recorded of my conversation with the President. As a private citizen, I felt free to share that."
Not sure about the law in the USA, but here in Europe, nothing you write as part of your job is your private notes. Your employer pays for the time you spend writing it down, they probably paid for the pen and paper, and they paid you for being there and having that conversation. The notes are theirs, not yours.
Whether you support the leak or not, technically speaking he did break the law, didn't he?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
How can it be a "leak" if it is his own notes?
I think they need to look up that word.
Lynch is no longer a federal employee, and unless she tries to return to government or run for office, it doesn't matter much. President Obama has served his term, he's done now and he won't be coming back. So how does it matter what happened during her tenure? She and her boss are out, that's it, it's over.
Or do you mean because you think Clinton should be prosecuted? Well guess what? She lost the election, and is also likely done. That aside Donald "Lock her up" Trump is now President and controls the justice department. He could push for it, if he wanted, yet he has publicly said he isn't going to.
So how is it in any way they "key takeaway"? You are as bad as the liberals who kept pointing to shit President Bush did to try and excuse things President Obama did. The important takeaways are about the administration in power NOW. They are the ones that can cause problems, they are the ones that need to be looked at. The old administration is old news. The bad shit they did is done. Worry about the present.
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.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Obama started this.
...that suggestion is typically best treated as an order. You might have some wiggle room on delivery timing, but you had better make it happen.
One of the few exceptions? Suggestions for a lunch venue.
You don't know it, though. The only reason anyone would think like you do is personal animus against the guy.
You realize the WORST thing anyone has actually accused Trump of is saying "I hope you can let this go"
Think about that for a second. 10 months of non-stop Trump is corrupt, worked with Russians, obstructed justice, and EVERYTHING else, that is the worst anyone has come forward with.
In addition, Comey pretty much confirmed there is no evidence that would hold up in a court room that Russia was involved. I know you want to convict on "double secret evidence", but that doesn't fly in the US. Innocent until proven guilty. So you have no charges, no hope of charges, and no evidence.
Not sure why you think Pence is involved. You have pretty much proven yourself an outright liar now. You haven't shown where we can see evidence and keep making false accusations. I think that is libel and against the law.
This is hilarious! Trump thought he would get away with obstruction of justice by firing Comey and shutting down the Russia investigation. Instead Comey has the last laugh by leaking a memo that resulted in an independent special prosecutor that Trump can't fire being appointed. Trump is almost as dumb as his voters. Almost....
...
A University of Texas law professor, Stephen Vladeck, was quick to debunk [newsweek.com] the idea that Comey had broken a law, and stated that analysis should not get stuck on the term “leak.”
Vladeck cited two cases and a legal statute before concluding that, in his opinion, there seems to be little possibility or a “real legal argument” to claim Comey crossed a legal line.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Obviously not his first offense and classified info was discussed. Maybe he can hook up with Reality Winner while doing his time. I doubt they will put a former head of the FBI in general population. Clearly he also violated the government records act and failed to turn over his papers. I guess the FBI will let him erase his laptop though, like they did with Hillary and crew. So much for proper procedure in the Federal Bureau of Matters.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So no evidence of Russia interfering, and now Comey is the best guy in DC?
Lets see...
He ignores IRS targeting individuals.
He REWRITES the law to get Hillary off the hook.
He fails to report Lynch interfering with the investigation.
He usurps the DOJ job of deciding to prosecute or not.
He FAILS to report obstruction of justice until AFTER he is fired and is a disgruntled employee (I am assuming he made it up after he was fired).
He lied under oath saying 10s of thousands of Clintons emails were on Weiner's computer, it was 12.
He lied under oath that no one in Trumps campaign was wiretapped,
Carter Page had a FISA warrant used against him granted to the FBI.
He said he leaked the memo because of a tweet, the tweet happened the day AFTER the NYT printed his memo contents.
He REWRITES the law a second time to make "I hope you can let this go" suddenly becomes obstruction of justice, for the first time in US history according to him.
He lies about evidence of Russia interfering, his evidence being from a company that REFUSES to corroborate it.
Yea, Comey was the good guy. I have 4 cases of him lying under oath listed there that are provable. I have a 5th time but it is "double secret evidence" that I can't show you.
Oh noes. We have a new level for prosecuting law breaking, straight from MightyMartian.
You are allowed to break the law ALL YOU WANT. You just need to be running for office and lose the election. Losing the election gets you off the hook for lying under oath, taking foreign bribes, and rigging an election.
Are you being serious here? The only election rigging evidence we have isn't from Russia, its Hillary Clinton and the DNC. And you think that is ok because they lost?
I guess everyone should rig elections now. If you win, just tell the DOJ not to prosecute. If you lose, choose the MightyMartin defense of "I lost the election and can't be charged"
You are literally saying nothing that makes ANY sense today. You are smearing people who haven't been charge, claiming "double secret evidence" without even knowing if it exists or not, telling us people lying under oath non-stop is ok because they are saying what you like, and that laws don't apply to members of the DNC.
YOU are the swamp people want to see Trump drain.
What a joke.
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.
**Life is too short to be serious**
They were privileged. And they were not his property. Notes about his job are government records.
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
Documents produced by government officials are official records. The FBI director was not documenting the result of a conversation when he was acting in an official capacity not as a private citizen.
That probably explains why he is an ex-director, the FBI are probably better off without him.
The Russian hookers leaked on Trump. Comey leaked on Trump. Who's next?
- As has been pointed out _numerous_ times prior in these comments, identifying the release of Mr. Comey's personal memo as a 'leak' is misleadingly (and I think intentionally) implying that its release is illicit, which it is not. This is trollery and a clear intent to mislead, plain and simple.
- With regard to Mr. Snowden's comment, there is no rule against what Mr. Comey did, so his comment is stupid.
From a Non-US viewpoint.
Trump is a money guy, that's his source and he'll bend like a pretzel to get more.
Sanctions against Russia have had a huge financial impact on the value of Russian resource contracts.
There's a connection between Trumps Team and Russia, this is on the record, hence the terminations
Comey appears to be a bit of a straight laced guy with a moral compass with a strong reputation
Comey leads a further investigation into these connections
Trump discusses the matter with Comey
Trump fires Comey (with extremely poor form)
Comey leaks details of conversations.
Reading between the lines, Trump was extremely threatened by the investigation into links between the Trump's presidency and Russia and he acted to remove the source of this threat. He knew that there was a chance that Comey would leak but he's also misjudged Comey's finesse in the manner of the leak.
What is truly ironic, given the recent US-USSR history is that the US leadership appears to be under the thrall of Russia and the associated resource values that are being impacted by US economic sanctions.
The other source of tension is that the Orwellian US state surveillance might actually already know answers however to do so would require the admission of the actual scope of this program which nobody wants to do. Because Trump's team were outsider's their understanding of the capability of these programs was infantile and they didn't modify their actions.