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
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.
You mean the part where he confirmed that the Obama DOJ(Lynch) directly interfered with the investigation into Hillary? Yep, much lying, much obstructing.
Om, nomnomnom...
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 beyond Flynn (for failing to file the proper paperwork and/or lying about his finances), they are feeding you fake news.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
> 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.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
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 arguing that "talking about non-classified matters is prohibited, because your knowledge of said non-classified matters remains the property of the employer". By all means argue that.
We gotta go to a crappy town where I'm a hero.
You don't need a crime for an impeachment. Impeachment is a political process, not legal.
See the definition of High Crimes and Misdemeanors which are basis for impeachment. Despite the jargon, there's little related to actual legal crimes in there.
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".
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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).
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
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 former members of the DOJ and FBI.
Om, nomnomnom...
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?
Discredited? I think they've done more hardnose reporting this last few months than they have in years. Trump is not just a jackass- he appears to have colluded or given off a strong impression of it and it's in everyone's interests to get to the bottom of it. I haven't seen anything that they've "made up." I honestly don't think Pence would've been given the same treatment had he been the one running (or any other candidate on the R platform.)
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 record this year isn't stellar regarding accuracy.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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 screwed.
But yes, at minimal - this proves Trump is not mature enough and also lacks the common sense to be president.
Comey also told us that yes, Pence knew...
And really that means, no personal investigation "at this moment".
You mean the part where he confirmed that the Obama DOJ(Lynch) directly interfered with the investigation into Hillary? 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.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
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.
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Trump knew that what he was asking of Comey was wrong. Why do I say this?
1. He asked everyone to leave the room. If this was incidental, or accidental, why have everyone leave?
2. When Kushner and Priebus were looking in from another room, Trump told them to get out and shut the door. That's further evidence that he knew what he was asking for was wrong.
3. He made sure that it was just Comey and Trump together, so that it would be a he-said/he-said situation.
All of this is evidence of knowledge, intent, and it is further backed up by the fact that Trump fired Comey at later date and said that it was because of the Russia investigation. Someone who doesn't know that what they're doing is wrong will not go to such lengths to disguise and conceal their wrongdoing.
The difference between business and government doesn't factor into this one. Trump was acting like a person engaged in a criminal conspiracy, not simply someone ignorant of the laws governing criminal investigations.
No, he didn't say that. Stop lying. He explained how he felt about it, appropriateness-wise. If he actually thought there was a REAL attempt to obstruct justice, he was obliged to report it to DOJ immediately, and if he didn't he not only perjured himself in his sworn testimony in March, he also committed the felony of not reporting it. He didn't report it, and swore in March that it didn't happen (an attempt at obstruction) because IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. At least, it's his sworn opinion that there was no obstruction attempt. He said today that it was up to Mueller. And Mueller has interviewed him extensively, and approved of his remarks today. If Mueller thought there was an obstruction crime to pursue, he wouldn't have sent his ONLY witness (Comey) out to say under oath that it didn't happen.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
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 solemn oath to support & bear true allegiance to The Constitution (note, it's allegiance to "The Constitution" not to "The federal government"). Snowden blew the whistle and exposed these violations. Who committed treason and whom exactly did they betray?
Edward Snowden is our greatest living patriot.
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
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 recommend you read the memo firing Comey and listen to the hearing, all of it. Why do you think Trump keeps saying "I'm not being investigated!". But clearly Comey didn't think the conversation about Flynn (the only remotely possible obstruction case you have) had anything to do with the actual "Russian investigation".
What you are doing is stringing sound bites together that are unrelated and making assertions about what they mean when taken together.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
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 investigation. No matter what your affiliation, lens, or blinders, you should be able, at the very least, to understand that asking the director of the FBI to disclose truthful and non-classified information to the public is not illegal in any way.
That this truthful information would help the president, and that Comey deliberately did not do it, are in my opinion why he was fired. It showed without a doubt that Comey's interests were at odds with those of the president and his administration. It also showed that Comey is/was willing to hide important information from the American people to the detriment of our public discourse and in furtherance of his own goals, whatever those may be.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
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.
Reality is a slackware box running on a 386 tucked away in god's sock drawer.
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?
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.
How would firing the FBI director stop an FBI investigation?
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.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
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?