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."

23 of 559 comments (clear)

  1. How was this not already common knowledge? by JoeyRox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Who else could leak a private memo written by Comey except Comey himself?

    1. Re:How was this not already common knowledge? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    2. Re:How was this not already common knowledge? by Rei · · 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?

      --
      We gotta go to a crappy town where I'm a hero.
    3. Re:How was this not already common knowledge? by clong83 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A thousand times this. Mod parent up.

      "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....

    4. Re:How was this not already common knowledge? by avandesande · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is that it undermines his assertion that he was doing things 'by the book' and a non-political person. It is the same kind of thing that he did with his Clinton investigation announcements.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    5. Re:How was this not already common knowledge? by David_Hart · · 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.

    6. Re:How was this not already common knowledge? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    7. Re:How was this not already common knowledge? by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

      He prepared them on government computers on government time (while he was being paid by us), so he was not authorized to release government owned material, whether classified or not

      You've got that backwards. Unclassified content created by the government is automatically public domain .

      --
      We gotta go to a crappy town where I'm a hero.
    8. Re: How was this not already common knowledge? by KGIII · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  2. Stop the Wordpresses! by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yes, yes, I would say this headline is absolutely, 100% the key takeaway of the Comey testimony, yes.

    --

    Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    1. Re:Stop the Wordpresses! by GLMDesigns · · Score: 5, Informative

      Read the testimony for yourself.

      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...

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    2. Re:Stop the Wordpresses! by gnick · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  3. Bull by BradleyUffner · · 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".

    1. Re:Bull by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Mod parent up. I don't believe he broke any laws, either. Furthermore, I think he did what he did knowing damned well that he'd probably get canned regardless, but thought that the truth of things getting out into the light was more important than his own personal welfare, which is admirable.

  4. It is pretty shocking and telling of our times by Lucas123 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The director of the FBI leaks his own memos in order to spur an investigation outside his agency.

  5. Re:What?! by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Informative

    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...
  6. Re: There is a difference by Lisandro · · 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?

  7. Re:What?! by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  8. Re:What?! by swillden · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  9. Re:Fake news by bobbied · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  10. Re:Fake news by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  11. Re:Comey admits its all fake! by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  12. Re:Is Comey going to jail? by tbannist · · 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.

    --
    Fanatically anti-fanatical