Comey opening statement posted, now with in person testimony

[theeedude]

Trump Trash will rationalize all of it.

 

[interchange]

That's a key component. The other is the question of WHICH investigation the President asked Comey to drop. Comey himself states he believed it to be re: Flynn's "misleading" statements... not the Russian investigation. Whether Trump acted to obstruct justice is hanging on a razor's edge and certainly up for interpretation.

It comes down to... does that distinction matter? Legally it probably does not.

The totality of Comey's testimony and Trump's words and memo make it clear that Trump made Comey's job contingent upon informing the public that Trump himself was not under investigation.

See Comey's opening statement:

It is important to understand that FBI counter-intelligence investigations are different than the more-commonly known criminal investigative work. The Bureau’s goal in a counter-intelligence investigation is to understand the technical and human methods that hostile foreign powers are using to influence the United States or to steal our secrets. The FBI uses that understanding to disrupt those efforts. Sometimes disruption takes the form of alerting a person who is targeted for recruitment or influence by the foreign power. Sometimes it involves hardening a computer system that is being attacked. Sometimes it involves “turning” the recruited person into a double-agent, or publicly calling out the behavior with sanctions or expulsions of embassy-based intelligence officers. On occasion, criminal prosecution is used to disrupt intelligence activities. Because the nature of the hostile foreign nation is well known, counterintelligence investigations tend to be centered on individuals the FBI suspects to be witting or unwitting agents of that foreign power. When the FBI develops reason to believe an American has been targeted for recruitment by a foreign power or is covertly acting as an agent of the foreign power, the FBI will “open an investigation” on that American and use legal authorities to try to learn more about the nature of any relationship with the foreign power so it can be disrupted.​

Comey is stating that who they investigate and when and what they say publicly is a vital part of the investigation. The manner in which they do these things is not just to obtain information but also to disrupt active hostile foreign intelligence efforts.

Therefore, Trump's attempts to influence what information Comey makes public obstructs the FBI's ability to use their investigation to disrupt "methods that hostile foreign powers are using to influence the United States or to steal our secrets." That's pretty important. Trump was putting his own image ahead of the country's national security.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Trump Trash will rationalize all of it.

"grab her by the pussy" -drumpf
"just locker room talk" - drumpfette

Yup, the drumpfettes will rationalize pretty much everything, there's proof of that.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The only thing which matters is this. Did Trump do anything which is unambiguously illegal? Everything else is fluff. What we think, what we know, none of that matters because no one is going to impeach on technicalities or appearances, but what can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt is of critical importance.

 

[VRAMdemon]

I get the feeling that it's obstruction, but Trump was too stupid to realize it - it's a running theme of his administration so far. it seems that Trump fired Comey because he didn't go on TeeVee and say, "Attention Americans. The FBI is not investigating Donald J Trump, billionaire super genius. We now return you to your regular scheduled program."

Trump brought up that bullshit about demanding loyalty from Comey, despite Comey trying desperately to educate the rube that it doesn't fucking work that way. Then during their final interaction on April 11, Trump tells Comey (according to Comey), "I have been very loyal to you, very loyal; we had that thing you know."

Less than a month later, Comey's out on his ass.

Trump fired Comey for disloyalty. Obstruction of justice was just a fringe benefit.

 

[pauldun170]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/richard-ni...achment-obstruction-justice/story?id=47460022

Nixon resigned before they could go through the process
Clinton was acquitted by the senate.

 

[CountZero]

I don't see any smoking gun or anything like that, looks to me like the standard goings on behind the scenes stuff you'd see from any administration. The left will go ape crap about this, the right will downplay the whole thing the truth being somewhere in the middle. I guess the key is did Trump do anything to break the law, I have no idea.

I want there to be a smoking gun but I'm not 100% sure there is either. I don't think it is standard at all, nor do I think Comey viewed it as such (deciding to take notes, talking with others about what to do, trying to stop Trump from talking with him).

The question, I think, in regards to obstruction is where does intent come into play? Ignorance of the law is not a defense but while Comey was clearly not comfortable with the interactions or their implications it also doesn't sound like he ever made it clear to Trump just how close he was to potentially committing a crime.

I want there to be a nefarious scheme but I also highly doubt Trump is capable of nefarious schemes that require such foresight. It seems to me there's four pieces of interest:
1) Asking for loyalty "pledge" (creepy)
2) Asking to let go of the Flynn thing since he was already fired. (dumb, but if there is no connection to Trump is it obstruction to ask on behalf of someone else?)
3) Pushing on the investigation thing despite Comey's obvious non-committal answers.
4) Firing Comey because of the Russian thing.

It strikes me more as the conversations of a business person used to pushing around whoever is stopping him at the moment.

 

[feralkid]

The only thing which matters is this. Did Trump do anything which is unambiguously illegal? Everything else is fluff. What we think, what we know, none of that matters because no one is going to impeach on technicalities or appearances, but what can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt is of critical importance.

That's rather obvious don't you think?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That's rather obvious don't you think?

Not in the least. There are those who would like to impeach Trump on any grounds even if illegality is not in question and it is theoretically possible to impeach someone for not liking spinach. That however will not pass muster and effectively there is one chance to remove a President from office. Unless Trump is caught with his hands around the neck of a dead guy and a hundred different videos show he did it, DNA, fingerprints, the works, no one will walk down a once failed road.

It has to be airtight.

 

[Sunburn74]

The only thing which matters is this. Did Trump do anything which is unambiguously illegal? Everything else is fluff. What we think, what we know, none of that matters because no one is going to impeach on technicalities or appearances, but what can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt is of critical importance.

Obstruction of justice.
Pressure someone to drop a pending investigation into you and when they don't you fire them and install a puppet who will.

How is this even debateable as obstruction of justice? Its not a question of whether Trump has ties with russia or not but of whether he is taking or took steps to obstruct the investigation which I think no reasonable person will deny. Its also not a question of intentional or unwitting obstruction. It doesn't matter.

 

[fskimospy]

The only thing which matters is this. Did Trump do anything which is unambiguously illegal? Everything else is fluff. What we think, what we know, none of that matters because no one is going to impeach on technicalities or appearances, but what can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt is of critical importance.

I strongly disagree. According to Comey Trump has already admitted that the corruption investigations related to this are preventing him from implementing his agenda. That's pretty great from my perspective. There will be no impeachment until Democrats get control of a house of Congress, this is about continuing to dig deeper into the huge amount of corruption we've already found. Doing this lets us mitigate the new awful stuff he's trying to do as well as give more ammunition for real investigations once a responsible party gets subpoena authority.

 

[VRAMdemon]

In the context of that document as a whole. The narrative flows from, "I need loyalty, Comey," to, "hey, we had that loyalty thing," (the Clinton email stuff) in a direct line. It felt like the theme of the statements to me.

Trump kept telling Comey to "get it out there," that he wasn't under investigation, and he never did. Remember how many times Trump went out of his way to state that Comey told him directly, three times, that he wasn't under investigation? That was what was paramount to Trump. He just wanted Comey to say it too. He didn't. He got fired.

 

[DrunkenSano]

Comey couldn't say it to the public. Even if Trump wasn't being investigated at that time, it is a good probability that he may end up being investigated in the near future. So why say something that has a decent chance of becoming untrue in the future? Media will definitely have a field day with the FBI and Comey if that happened.

 

[ivwshane]

The only thing which matters is this. Did Trump do anything which is unambiguously illegal? Everything else is fluff. What we think, what we know, none of that matters because no one is going to impeach on technicalities or appearances, but what can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt is of critical importance.

Not really. Impeachment is a political process not a legal one. Obstruction of justice seems to be the commonality of the past impeachments.

 

[Stokely]

Don't mind if they can't/won't impeach him--provided he doesn't kill us all (I'm hopeful renewable energy will be moving forward quickly despite the coal thugs we have elected, simply due to market forces...so while pulling out of Paris really sucks, perhaps it won't matter much over the next few years.) Certainly he has other ways he could kill us though.

The best result would be for him to stay in office and drag down the the entire GOP with lingering issues and self-destruction. Congress either has to go down with him or try to refute him, and they are in trouble either way (from non-GOP and Trump's base respectively). If he has to be impeached, hopefully it's a bit later on to give Pence (who I consider worse than Trump in some ways) less time to actually do anything hand-in-hand with Congress. The bad part of all this is that Trump is *so* incompetent that it's quite a risk (not that what I hope for has any bearing on what will actually happen anyway).

 

[Sea Ray]

Quit being obtuse, you know what he meant.

I have no idea what he meant. What did Trump do that resembled Watergate? You'll be very disappointed tomorrow if you're expecting that. Comey will say that Trump himself was never under investigation.

 

[UNCjigga]

Not really. Impeachment is a political process not a legal one. Obstruction of justice seems to be the commonality of the past impeachments.

Bottom line, we still don't know where this leads from here, but it's highly unlikely a GOP led House or Senate will start impeachment proceedings based on Comey's testimony alone, and neither body of Congress has any prosecutorial capacity for criminal charges.

I think Democrats will want to use any leverage they can get to ensure Mueller can continue unimpeded and cast a wide, wide net. Collusion with Russia will be difficult to prove and that investigation may lead nowhere, but if they keep following the money they may find something else entirely...

 

[fskimospy]

It will be very interesting to see what Republicans do when confronted with a statement from Comey that basically confirms Trump took very similar actions to Nixon in Watergate. I for one am looking forward to the mental gymnastics and desperate attempts to ask about literally anything else. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Comey couldn't say it to the public. Even if Trump wasn't being investigated at that time, it is a good probability that he may end up being investigated in the near future. So why say something that has a decent chance of becoming untrue in the future? Media will definitely have a field day with the FBI and Comey if that happened.

Yeah..but in the context of the document, this seems to be what Trump wanted him to do. Trump's obsession with loyalty borders on pathological in its extremity, if Comey's statements are true, and there is no reason to think they are not.

"I demand your loyalty" is not a normal thing for a person to say in our form of government. Even in private business this is not the norm. It's a perfectly normal thing in cults of personality, dictatorships and the Mafia.

 

[Ns1]

It will be very interesting to see what Republicans do when confronted with a statement from Comey that basically confirms Trump took very similar actions to Nixon in Watergate. I for one am looking forward to the mental gymnastics and desperate attempts to ask about literally anything else. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[IGBT]

Once again, and hopefully for the last time, we see James Comey's insatiable appetite for self-aggrandizement. He literally believes he is the only honest man on the planet.

Multiple problems with what he is saying:

--Why did he decide to start writing memos on the conversations with the President, his boss, even before he was inaugurated? He did so immediately after their first meeting, even though he himself admits the President had said nothing to him that raised alarm. This sounds extortionate, at its worst, and over the top boyscoutish--as if he assumed Trump would be bad--at its best. I've been a boss, many of us have been, and you always know the employees who are keeping book on you, in the hopes of destroying you at a time convenient to them, or for use in getting something they want. In my professional career, these employees were almost universally problem children, and this behavior was never considered honorable. Honorable employees would immediately, in the open, call you out, sometimes to your face, or report you to your boss, if you did something which broke the rules or was inappropriate. The mere writing of the memos is not honorable.

--Comey wrote no memos for the conversations he had with President Obama. And he repeatedly, on many occassions, refused to discuss his conversations with President Obama, stating it was his policy that conversations with the President were private, when asked under oath in Congressional hearings. in other words, one standard for Obama, but a different standard for Trump.

--He alleges, that he believes the President was trying to obstruct the FBI's Flynn investigation, even though, by his own admission, the President didn't stop, or order him to stop, the Flynn investigation. And in fact, Comey continued the investigation unobstructed. But he makes the serious charge of obstruction of justice--an offense that he knows would be impeachable--yet he decided to keep it secret, from all but a few FBI leaders, even though he was the Chief law enforcement officer for the nation and had just witnessed, what he apparently believed, to be a serious crime and a serious violation of the FBI's independence. In my professional experience, an employee who witnesses a crime, money stolen, sexual harassment, etc., and doesn't report it, is considered almost complicit in the crime. Its considered a serious violation in and of itself.

--What did he do with this information that the President had committed a serious crime? He kept it "closely held" and pocketed it, for use "down the road." This doesn't sound honorable, it sounds extortionate. Keep the goods on your boss, so that when you get in a jam, you can use it to get what you want. He himself recognizes the disconnect between his allegation and his actions, and so, once again, he explains his actions, as he did in the Clinton investigation, as necessary, because, once again, he is the only honest man in the room. He alleges he couldn't say anything to the Attorney General, because he was compromised in the Russia investigation and would soon, even though he hadn't yet, recuse himself. And he couldn't say anything to the acting Deputy Attorney General, because they would soon be gone. Despite what might be coming, at the time of the alleged crime, both the Attorney General, and his Deputy, were fully empowered to hear Comey out, so Comey's explanation makes no sense. And he is silent on why he didn't say anything--given his allegation of the seriousness of the matter--to the Congress. Even though now, three months after the fact, and after being fired, he is all too willing to tell them all about it and to emphasize how serous it is.

--His actions look more consitent with extortion, than trying to do what is right. Keeping the goods on the President "closely held" and for use "down the road" has, at minimum, the appearance of wanting to hold the matter over the President's head, consistent with an effort to keep his job as FBI Director. He won't say this, of course, because it would hardly comport with his self image of being the only honest man in the room. Read, I wanted to remain FBI Director and not lose my job, so I didn't want to accuse the President, and I thought if I kept this in my backpocket he would leave me alone, and if he didn't, I could use it, along with all the memos I wrote, to manipulate him into keeping me on the job. Comey admits that in their first private dinner, Trump brought up his job, and that he told him that he "loved" his job, and wanted to stay, so it was on his mind.

Are these acts--keeping tabs on your boss behind his back, accusing your boss of a serious crime, but not to his face, and only months after, after you have been fired, not reporting the crime but holding it for later use, and reversing your preexisting policy of not discussing your conversations with the President, the actions of an honorable man?

No, because, unlike his self-image, James Comey is not the only honest man in the room.

The President was right in firing Comey. And Comey's actions in this matter prove it.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/hillary-clinton-fbi-james-comey-230491

Democrats declare open season on Jim Comey

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

So much winning, ye gods. Trump's fluffers are going to be pissing Tiger Blood (TM) at this rate!

 

[Ns1]

It will be very interesting to see what Republicans do when confronted with a statement from Comey that basically confirms Trump took very similar actions to Nixon in Watergate.

welp, I guess that answers that.

Once again

 

[edcoolio]

Obstruction of justice.
Pressure someone to drop a pending investigation into you and when they don't you fire them and install a puppet who will.

How is this even debateable as obstruction of justice? Its not a question of whether Trump has ties with russia or not but of whether he is taking or took steps to obstruct the investigation which I think no reasonable person will deny. Its also not a question of intentional or unwitting obstruction. It doesn't matter.

It is debatable (as a trial, of course) because it IS a question of intent, amongst many other obstacles to overcome.

Obstruction of Justice, as a legal precept, is all over the map... regardless of anyone's personal opinion.

From a purely legal standpoint, his utterance likely does reach anywhere near the threshold of obstruction of justice.

However, if President Trump actually does have any recordings, as he implied a while back, that could change the course of things very quickly.

 

[fskimospy]

welp, I guess that answers that.

Haha yes it does. Can you imagine IGBT's reaction if you replaced Trump with Obama?