So the Comey hearings were good in the sense that speculation has now been replaced by fact. The memo, reported anonymously and without the news media actually seeing a copy (it was reportedly read to them over a phone), has been confirmed by Comey to have been authored by himself. He has added in this testimony that he felt, at the time, that Trump wasn't talking about the Russia investigation during the conversation he documented; just about letting Flynn off any troubles that might arise out of the phone calls between Flynn and the Russian ambassador. As far as I can tell, no crimes were committed by those calls; deceiving the Vice President by mis-characterizing the calls is not a crime, and there is no report of any quid pro quo talk or anything else in those calls that could be criminal.
So, no obstruction of justice, because the matter Comey thought he was being pressured on didn't involve any crime. Plus, Comey confirmed that Trump was never under investigation regarding Russia -- destroying several major conspiracy theories about "Russiagate" in the process.
Meanwhile, the thing that really did impress my left-leaning friends today was the revelation that Lynch had instructed Comey not to refer to the Clinton investigation as an "investigation." They thought that was a bombshell in terms of evidence of pressure from on-high to resolve a certain legal matter quietly rather than by the law. (Hot Air agrees). Comey thus provided clearer evidence for obstruction from the Obama-era Justice Department than by Donald Trump.
It's good that we got this out there, on the record and in public. I know some would have preferred if this just went away, but at this point the rumor mill has been replaced with facts on the record. Now we can move on without any suggestion that there is a cover-up, especially given a special counsel digging in to whatever remaining questions there are around Russia.
16 comments:
They thought that was a bombshell
Did they realize he was talking about Lynch, not Sessions? Because more than one media outlet initially reported that directive as having come from Sessions.
Yeah, they did. They remarked that they hoped this hearing would put an end to the talk among Democrats that Comey had been unfair to Hillary Clinton, which they think is hurting the party's ability to come to grips with why it really lost.
The memo, reported anonymously and without the news media actually seeing a copy (it was reportedly read to them over a phone), has been confirmed by Comey to have been authored by himself.
What memo? No one has seen it, even now. We have only Comey's claim that he wrote it. And he's already perjured himself in today's testimony: he said under oath a month or so ago that no one had ever pressured him to quit an investigation for political reasons, testimony that occurred after the conversations with Trump about which Comey said, today under oath, he felt pressured to do that. He's also named himself a felon: given the pressure he claimed today, he was obligated to report that interference, and he chose not to.
Comey confirmed that Trump was never under investigation regarding Russia....
Convenient though that testimony might be in certain circles, on what basis is Comey commenting publicly (via his leaks as well as in today's testimony) on whether an investigation exists, much less its status? Although he has an established history of violating exactly that FBI protocol if not legal requirement.
We also have his confession--if it can be believed--that he's one of the leakers of materials relevant to that investigation. He said about that putative leak that he did it with the express intent of interfering with an investigation in progress--to get a special counsel appointed to conduct an investigation, which existence would conflict with the investigation already in progress, as it has done.
The man has no integrity, and so there's not a word passing his lips that can be believed.
...speculation has now been replaced by fact.
What facts?
Eric Hines
The facts of what has been sworn to in public. Whatever else is still in dispute, those facts are now on the record.
Comey might have come in swinging today and said that he (a) had felt that the President was trying to obstruct his investigation, but decided that he couldn't be quite sure enough to report it formally, but (b) that it was obvious and clear given the Holt interview. He could have said he was prepared to swear, now, to his initial impressions that it was an attempt at obstruction.
And then we'd be off to the races.
Now we have his testimony that he didn't think it was even aimed at obstruction on the Russia matter, and that anyway Trump isn't and never was under investigation there, as he repeatedly told Trump, so there'd be no reason to obstruct anyway. Gotta prove intent, and it's a big issue for proving intent that the only witness said "it didn't seem like that to me" and also that there's confirmation that Trump had a limited motive to interfere anyway.
The Lynch remarks are a problem, too.
The facts of what has been sworn to in public. Whatever else is still in dispute, those facts are now on the record.
That he swore to those claims doesn't make them true; it just attaches criminal liability to them if they turn out to be false. All that's on the record are those sworn-to claims.
Eric Hines
I didn't say they were true. I said they were facts. Facts are things that can be proven true or false: that's what is so important about them.
You can have your definitions; I'll use the dictionary ones. From the American Heritage Dictionary:
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences
2.
a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed
b. A real occurrence; an event
4. Law A conclusion drawn by a judge or jury from the evidence in a case
All we have are Comey's sworn claims, no facts.
Eric Hines
You're quoting the dictionary to try and prove that yesterday's hearing established "no facts"? That's a very strange contention, and an odd mode of trying to establish it.
Besides, the debate over the definition is an old one. Certainly there are facts in the OED's first sense; things were 'made or done' yesterday. Also the fifth sense, which refers back to the first: we can see that they either were or were not done, and thus we can prove the truth or falsehood of the claim that they were or were not.
No, I'm only quoting the dictionary to show the real-world definition of a term, rather than an arcane jargon definitional usage. You're using your own definition of fact to insist that the hearing converted speculations to facts. That's its own oddity. You've yet to make your case. All the hearing did was to put Comey's claims under oath. Every single word of them.
The only facts--in each of the AHD's senses (I don't use the OED, but I...assume...that the two dictionaries have substantially the same definitions)--established in the hearing are that Comey said the things he said in the hearing and that he said them under oath.
Eric Hines
Can we ever prove who said what behind closed doors? Only if it was taped.
It's a fact that Comey testified that Trump said certain things (and it's a fact that Comey was under oath). But I'm not sure I'd say it was a fact that Trump said those things. That's why hearsay is generally inadmissible in court.
The exceptions are long and interesting (including official records, such as Comey's memo). But this is problematic b/c Comey contends that his memo was NOT an official record, but rather the private document of a private citizen :p
Of course he does, because he knows he'd be in a heap of trouble if it weren't. But he's full of it, because it was prepared within the course and scope of his employment, likely using government resources (an FBI computer). Hard to believe he immediately ran home to jot things down on his personal PC - especially with DC traffic the way it is.
I can't help wondering what the FBI has to say about employees keeping private notes on job-related matters that are not available to the FBI?
The other amusing thing (to me, at least) about this is that Comey says the FBI director works at the President's pleasure. He has also said the president can legally stop any investigation.
If that's the case, what are we to make of his own testimony that he interpreted Trump's "hope" as the President having directed him to drop the investigation...
...to which he responded by:
1. Following the order.
2. Informing his boss (the fact that Sessions had not recused himself yet is pertinent here, as is the fact that Comey could have informed the next guy down on the totem pole).
3. Informing the president he refused to obey the order, and offering his resignation.
Survey says....XXXXXXX
No, I'm only quoting the dictionary to show the real-world definition of a term, rather than an arcane jargon definitional usage.
"Arcane" is rather like "too philosophical" when offered as a criticism in this space.
Survey says....XXXXXXX
It's interesting in that context. I don't know much about the FBI. I do know that in the Marine Corps "I hope you will be able to X" would indeed have the force of an order, by custom and tradition. It would require one of those responses you cite.
Comey seems to have responded, "Hm, that sounds like an order... which would be inappropriate... but not unlawful... just shady... but I can't trust my boss to report it, or my boss' boss... and I can't resign, because that would be leaving the show to these scoundrels... so I guess I'll memorialize it in case I need leverage later."
It's not any kind of functional way to operate, but it does suggest the man's view of the situation. He seems to have thought of himself as a kind of last line of defense, or last man standing.
I suspect interpretation of statements like "I hope" is subjective, even in the Marines. I know my husband has been in situations where he wasn't sure what was being asked, so he requested clarification. As in, "Sir, are you telling me that you want me to do X?"
Possibly followed by, "That's a really bad idea, sir, and here's why...".
That Comey didn't do that, either, is telling in my opinion. Especially if he thought this was such a big deal.
The problem with thinking of yourself as the last line of defense is that most people with that mindset then convince themselves the rules don't apply to them :p
I have a problem with the notion that a public servant was taking private notes of official meetings "in case he needed leverage later". That's an abuse of power. But for your position, you wouldn't be privy to that information. To use it for private advantage, particularly when you have a pre-existing obligation NOT to do that and NOT to disclose even unclass info to unauthorized 3rd parties tells me the man had allowed himself to become corrupted.
This kind of "rules are for the little people' behavior is particularly egregious in the leader of the nation's most powerful law enforcement org.
I was very shocked by several aspects of his testimony.
It's clear that Comey was overawed by Trump in several respects. I guess this is common; people seem to be impressed by Trump's well-rehearsed strategies for commanding space, attention, deference.
We definitely need that 'young Marine' who can demand clarification and assert his counterarguments. It would be good for the President, and the country, if he found himself surrounded by such people. On the other hand, he doesn't seem to prefer the type; and one thing Comey agrees on is that he has the right to fire people who aren't performing as he'd like.
I have a problem with the notion that a public servant was taking private notes of official meetings "in case he needed leverage later". That's an abuse of power.
I didn't mean to suggest that you shouldn't have a problem with it. I only meant to explain my perception of the events.
"Arcane" is rather like "too philosophical" when offered as a criticism in this space.
And yet, we're dealing with a real world event in this thread, not a philosophical matter.
...in the Marine Corps "I hope you will be able to X" would indeed have the force of an order....
The USAF is a bit loosey-goosey on such things. "I hope" is, indeed, a strong suggestion and close to an order--but it's not an order. It does want very badly a response along the lines of "I will comply," or "I can't do that." "Yes, Sir" in that context is too easily misunderstood; it could be no more than an "I hear you." But it's not an order, so there's no question in that regard except in the minds of wuses and full of themselves REMFs.
Frankly, it doesn't matter how well Trump commands a room, Comey has no excuse for being intimidated. If, indeed, he was, and not just making a cynical play for sympathy for the breathtaking sacrifice he's made in attempting to stand up to this President, even to the point of stealing government property and giving it to the press. What a sacrifice. Yay, poor helpless me.
In that regard, Trump plainly has no lock on ego; the two men just have different techniques for asserting it.
Eric Hines
"We definitely need that 'young Marine' who can demand clarification and assert his counterarguments. It would be good for the President, and the country, if he found himself surrounded by such people. On the other hand, he doesn't seem to prefer the type"
Well, Trump has placed a few Marines, perhaps not young, in his cabinet. I would hope they would be of the sort to do just as you describe, and their reputations would indicate that they likely would. That has to speak well of the man, at least.
"Frankly, it doesn't matter how well Trump commands a room, Comey has no excuse for being intimidated."
Indeed, and I would think someone who saw themselves as the last line of defense would think it incumbent upon himself to stand up- or else what is left? Also, if you have so little respect for the man (and I think it's safe to say Comey has little for Trump), why be intimidated? The worst that could happen is he fires you, and you no longer have to work under a man you don't respect.
Grim, thanks for the clarification. I wasn't so much pushing back on your comment as I was trying to articulate what bothers me so much about Comey's testimony. I was certainly responding to your points, but more in a "hmmm, that makes me think of another aspect..." kind of way :)
Jonathan Turley (who is rapidly becoming one of my favorite pundits) has a great piece on Comey today:
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/337160-opinion-the-damaging-case-against-james-comey
I don't approve of the way Trump treats people - particularly the baiting. Like it or not, if you're under siege you need people to work with you - even people who aren't 100% trustworthy. I think Trump does bring a lot on himself, but that doesn't absolve his detractors of responsibility for their own actions.
Here, it seems clear Comey lost his way a long time ago. For a long time, I was inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. But his testimony put an end to that for me.
I saw a video last night of Mary Katherine Ham that echoed my take - the more he talks, the worse he sounds.
Post a Comment