As long as Comey does not release any information that is CURRENTLY part of an ongoing investigation, or any information about a past investigation that has previously been deemed classified that is still classified, he is completely in the clear. The only reason for any information being classified by our government to limit access to that information by individuals who may possess partial information is that it could be used to blackmail, covertly or otherwise influence the policies or interests of the United States. Using that system to cover international criminal activity by senior executives of the United States, the way it was used to cover many files pertaining to the administration of Ronald Reagan, is excluded from being classified unless its release would inevitably lead to causing a war involving the United States or any of its allies. In Reagan's case, it is too late to mitigate the activity that led to much of what is now classified from being deemed so. Something tells me, this president will be needing to take the fullest advantage of the same security loophole that should probably not be there in the first place. Unfortunately, it is to late for us to classify the fact that Trump is both a liar and an idiot who knows almost as little about running a government as he knew about running a chain of luxury hotels and gambling casinos for profit, if that is even possible. He isn't indicating his expertise in terms of the people he hires or fires. As absurd as it is to say so, this president does not need to know anything. His security clearance needs to be downgraded or even revoked, because he cannot be trusted with protecting the interests of the United States, even in domestic affairs. He will issue an executive order about the Comey recordings to classify all of them if he is not an idiot. Or to prove that he is. Pick one you would do. He will do the opposite, or whichever one he believes will suit his image today. A president like this one has trouble not making us all appear to be liars or idiots, and that's the real problem here.
Obviously my take on the can of worms, which is putting it mildly, called politics in America comes from the satellite TV news channels It seems the notes Comey made were on a Government laptop just after his one on one with Trump And the news reports if that is the case they do belong to the Govenment personal or not I really need a large white board and a time line to keep track As for the tapes it might be no tapes exist BUT if Comey THINKS tapes exist he has to be very very careful about what he says Do you think Tom Cruze could pull off being Trump in the movie? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Catherine Zeta Jones his wife? And there would have to be a place for one of the Kardashians I watch the news a fair bit and keep wondering when are the producers going to flip it to the comedy channel? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Not sure about that. There may have been an expectation of confidentiality in any discussion between the head of the FBI and the President. I think it depends what was in his contract, and the rules of engagement of his department of government. But that is not at all the same as legal privilege, which has been rather absurdly claimed. In the UK there can be a "whistleblower" defence to breach of confidentiality. Don't know about the USA of course, but it struck me that Comey was implicitly invoking a higher issue than confidentiality, in his depiction of his decision to leak the conversation, which put me in mind of this.
The material belongs to him. The laptop belongs to the government. If you go to the DMV, borrow a pen and write down a quick list of things to get at the store, the government does not own the list.
Comey's loyalty to upholding the letter of the law of the Constitution of the United States and all the laws subordinate to it is most definitely the "higher issue" in play here, exactly the same way the issue played itself out during the Watergate scandal. Just because a chief executive is ignorant of, or ignores those ideals or laws or their oath to uphold them is no justification for anyone subordinate to him or his administration who took the same oath he did to invoke the same privilege simply because they are subordinate. The U.S. government is not a corportation. The U.S. government or its Constitution is not subordinate to military law or similar hierarchal internal systems of jurisprudence.
Typing it on the encrypted and secure Government laptop in the car, because that memo contained classified information.. He has not released that memo to the public and it is perhaps one of the things that he discussed with the committee in the closed hearing. But the rest of his comments that he typed on that computer are his. The memos with the classified information were given to the others in the FBI leadership. His personal memo and notes on the matter, without classified information, even though they were typed on a Government computer, are still his. He probably typed those out, gave copies to his colleagues and kept copies for himself as a personal and FBI record of what happened. That does not belong to the Government. If what he says on those tapes match what he divulged in that hearing, then he has nothing to worry about. At a guess, Comey's recollection will closely match any tapes that Trump may have recorded.. The worry about the tapes fall directly into Trump's lap. The man is known to lie so much that his own lawyers admitted to having to have more than one of them in meetings with him, to ensure a proper record of what he was actually saying. But the biggest concern for Trump is if he taped his conversations with Comey in Washington, then he would be in big trouble as I am fairly certain that Washington is a 2 party consent State when it comes to recording or taping.. in that all parties must consent to being recorded. New York is a one party consent State, so only he would have to consent to recording his conversations with Comey. Not so in Washington. So if there are tapes that were recorded in Washington, then he may refuse to release them because those tapes would show that he clearly broke the law by not obtaining Comey's consent to record their conversations in the White House or in Washington itself (phone conversations).. Ergo, it is not Comey who has to be careful about what he says. Trump is the one who has to be careful about where any recordings were made and what he said on those, especially if he does give evidence under oath about those conversations and there are tapes and he has perjured himself..
Because it's the only thing they have. Otherwise they are looking at four (or quite possibly eight) years of an administration that they hate with a flaming irrational passion. By that time they will have very likely driven themselves totally insane with hatred, acid and bile. They fear that it's their only hope.
You think this guy is going to be insane with hatred, acid and bile in a few years? (Not unlikely; it seems to be a defining characteristic of conservatives these days.) ========================================================================= This former GOP congressman voted to impeach Clinton. He thinks Trump's transgressions are worse. June 9, 2017 The Week House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) claims he still wouldn't be calling for impeachment even if a Democrat were in President Trump's shoes, but former GOP congressman Bob Inglis isn't buying it. In a tweet Friday morning, Inglis chided Ryan, writing, "You know this isn't true." When CNN's Jake Tapper retweeted Inglis' post insisting that Ryan "would be inquiring into impeachment" if a Democrat's conversations with a fired FBI director were the topic of a congressional hearing, Tapper noted that Inglis was once a Republican congressman. Inglis responded, reminding Tapper what else he once was: a member of the Judiciary Committee that voted to impeach former President Bill Clinton. Inglis argued that Trump's case was worse than Clinton's: "Yes, I was on Judiciary Cmte that impeached Clinton/sent him for trial in the Senate for matters less serious than the ones before us now . . .and if the investigation leads to the Pres., his family or his campaign, so be it. Don't obstruct justice. Put country first." ============================================================================ Can you put country first? Or are you more of the obstructor type?
I more or less agree with that. It still justifies Comey's firing, even if it doesn't turn out to be a prosecutable offense, which is borderline. If Comey believed that the President said anything inappropriate to him in private conversation, then he needed to inform his superiors in the Justice Department (the Attorney General in particular) and if necessary elected members of Congress. He says himself that he didn't do that. Leaking his version of his conversations with the President (we don't know if they are accurate, hence Trump's remarks about tapes) to the New York Times isn't how these things are supposed to be done. According to the Wall Street Journal the fear inside the FBI is that Comey's behavior might increase pressure for Congress to pass a statutory charter governing how the FBI must conduct itself. So far, the FBI has been able to avoid that, arguing that close oversight by the Attorney General is sufficient. But when the FBI Director decides on his own initiative to keep the Attorney General out of the loop, that process has obviously broken down. In 2005 the FBI's Inspector General wrote: "Attorneys General and FBI leadership have uniformly agreed that the Attorney General Guidelines are necessary and desirable, and have referred to the FBI's adherence to the Attorney General Guidelines as the reason why the FBI should not be subjected to a general legislative charter or to statutory control over the exercise of some of its most intrusive authorities." The Wall Street Journal opines (highlighting by me): "Mr. Comey is describing an FBI director who essentially answers to no one. But the police powers of the government are awesome and often abused, and the only way to prevent or correct abuses is to report to elected officials who are accountable to voters." The FBI shouldn't be allowed to return to what it was said to have been under J. Edgar Hoover, a law unto itself. The concern inside the FBI seems to be that this kind of runaway "deep state" stuff might push Congress into passing the legislative charter that the FBI has long opposed.
And the Executive branch shouldn't be allowed to return to what it was under Nixon, a law unto itself.
Comey may have thought he could not trust the Attorney General, given his own involvement with the Russians. He had, after all recused himself from involvement. All you say may be true of course, but the thing about whistleblowing is you have to blow the whistle far enough from the organisation you believe may be compromised to ensure it can't smother the sound. Anyway what is clear is that, unless Comey has invented these conversations, the president is behaving scandalously. Comey may get sued or arrested, but it looks to me as if he decided he had to take that risk. The Fourth Estate plays a role in the Constitution too.
Trump's Russia ties. His tax returns. Obstruction of Justice. That's enough for now. And that's just the first few months. I'm sure Trump and Co. will come up with more as time goes on.
The obliviousness to the sheer embarrassment of such obvious projection, the blindness to the humiliating nature of the self-revelation in that assertion, is really striking. That poster really, truly, and sincerely, has no memory of the actual behavior of the core Republican voter over the past thirty years. The core Republican voter is a lost ball. They will never wake up while the US government remains and functions, because hitting bottom in that spiral - the alcoholic waking up in the gutter, the realization of the consequences of voting for Cheneys and Ws and Trumps and Ryans and McConnells and Gohmerts's and Inhofe's and Palins and Pences, the clear recognition of what Tribal membership entailed - involves the dissolution of the US government itself. Because this turned out to be an underestimate, with Trump hardly a shadow on the horizon:
Would you argue that a law enforcement official has, under obligation of cofidentiality, a constitutional duty to protect lawbreaking by public officials? That is one of the necessary implications of your position. Meanwhile, I would also note that Mr. Trump already had a justifiable↑ pretext↑ for firing James Comey, and he probably could have maneuvered around #PutiTrump concerns by simply being a competent president. In the end, though, that wasn't good enough, and the president decided to force the path we're on. That is to say, what version of which discussion about Comey's firing would we be having if Donald Trump hadn't come right out and made it about Russia, Flynn, and the potential for obstruction of justice?
You mean, he should have reported Trump to the AG who was about to recuse himself because he was being investigated by the FBI? The very investigation that Trump was trying to have Comey drop? How would that have worked, exactly? As for reporting Trump's inappropriate contact/comments to the AG.. President Donald Trump fired U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara the day after the prosecutor refused to return a call from him, Bharara said on ABC News’ “This Week” Sunday. Bharara said he viewed direct contact from the president to himself, as a law-enforcement official, to be an inappropriate breach of protocol and reported it to the office of Attorney General Jeff Sessions on March 9. “Twenty-two hours later, I was fired,” Bharara said. [...] “It’s a very weird and peculiar thing for a one-on-one conversation without the attorney general, without warning, between the president and me, or any United States attorney who has been asked to investigate various things,” Bharara said. “In reporting the phone call to the chief of staff to the attorney general, I said it appeared to be that he was trying to cultivate some kind of relationship,” Bharara said. Comey similarly told Congress he believed Trump wanted to establish a “patronage” relationship between them. [...] In all, Trump telephoned Bharara three times between December and March, the ex-prosecutor said Sunday. “They were very unusual phone calls. When I’ve been reading the stories about how the president has been contacting Jim Comey over time, it felt a little bit like déjà vu,” he said. “The number of times that President [Barack] Obama called me in seven-and-a-half years was zero. The number of times I would’ve been expected to be called by the president of the United States would be zero, because there has to be some kind of arms-length relationship, given the jurisdiction various people have,” Bharara said. Trump is trying to run a scare campaign and attempting to blackmail former public officials into silence with so called 'threats of tapes'.. Which will not end well for him now, because his attempts to blackmail Comey into silence in such a public way (via twitter and then in a press conference) has resulted in requests for any recordings from the US Senate. Failure to provide tapes will show that he is a liar and providing tapes will hark right back to Nixon and illegally recording people in Washington, without that person's consent.. Washington is a 2 party consent State.. I think it is a very safe bet that his memo's were accurate. The behaviour from Trump is not uncommon.. This is the norm. His own staff had complained to the media that Comey was fired for not being loyal to Trump's administration, before Trump himself then said that it was because of Flynn and Russia and today he attempts to deny that was the case or that he never brought any of this up with Comey? Are we supposed to simply ignore everything that Trump said from the day before, because his story keeps changing so rapidly? Trump leaked the reasons for dismissing Comey himself, then he attempted to blackmail a former public official on Twitter and you are complaining that Comey releasing memo's on his dealings with Trump is not how things are supposed to be done? The fear in the FBI is that Trump has actively sought to curtail investigations being conducted by the FBI.. And that fear was fully realised and made public when Trump fired Comey and then attempted to blackmail him into silence. Comey had informed the leadership within the FBI of every aspect of the inappropriate conduct by Trump towards him. He also advised that he had told the AG that he, Comey, should never be left alone with Trump due to the inappropriate nature of those meetings. There is also the fact that the AG had recused himself because he was a subject of the investigation by the FBI.. The very investigation that Trump was asking Comey and had even asked other intelligence officials to step in and convince Comey to drop.. If he answered to no one, he would not have sought guidance from the leadership within the FBI and he certainly would not have told Sessions to not leave him alone with Trump due to the fact that it was inappropriate.. I find it astonishing that everyone is blaming Comey, for Trump's inappropriate behaviour and his attempts to influence and curtail criminal investigations into his friends and campaign staff.. And why? Because Comey did not inform his superior, who is the subject of said investigation.. Beggars belief.. The FBI is currently operating under and administration that is attempting to subvert the course of justice in ways that hark directly back to Nixon. In other words, the President should not be allowed to return to the sort of behaviour that saw the former who behaved this way, resign.. Right.. That's your take-away about a President attempting to obstruct justice by directly interfering and attempting to influence criminal investigations to save his own arse and friends in his campaign, going so far as to fire the director of the FBI for not dropping the investigation after a series of inappropriate requests and comments, that saw said head of the FBI inform other leaders within the agency and attempt to devise a way to protect the officers involved in the investigation from undue influence from the President...
Aaannnddd.. Here we go.. In press conference at the White House on Friday afternoon, Mr Trump denied that he asked Mr Comey to drop the probe investigating Mr Flynn’s ties to the Russians. “I didn’t say that … and there’d be nothing wrong if I did say it, according to everybody that I’ve read today, but I did not say that,” he said. This is despite his tweeting that he fired Comey because of the whole Russia and Flynn investigation, days after firing Comey.. But this was the new narrative and ignoring his own words since Comey's testimony.. "I didn't say that".. Quite emphatic! What a shame he failed to tell his kids what they were meant to say about it from now on.. Donald Trump’s eldest son seemed to confirm fired FBI director James Comey’s testimony that the president requested Comey end the FBI investigation into former national security adviser Mike Flynn’s contacts with Russian officials, contradicting his father’s repeated denials. In a Fox News interview with Judge Jeanine Pirro, a Trump ally, the younger Trump said there was “no ambiguity” in the president’s request to Comey, made during a Feb. 14 Oval Office meeting. “When he tells you to do something, guess what? There’s no ambiguity in it, there’s no, ‘Hey, I’m hoping,’” Donald Trump Jr. told Pirro on Saturday. “You and I are friends: ‘Hey, I hope this happens, but you’ve got to do your job.’ That’s what he told Comey.” Wonder if he is still willing to testify under oath about that now...? Since his son just advised he had made that request and there was no ambiguity about said request..
More of the GOP who hate Trump with a flaming irrational passion, driven totally insane with hatred, acid and bile: ================================================ McCain says American leadership was better under Obama: report By Olivia Beavers - 06/11/17 04:02 PM EDT 842 The Hill Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said American leadership was stronger under President Trump's predecessor, President Barack Obama, according to a Guardian report published Sunday. Asked if the country stood on sturdier ground under Obama's leadership, McCain said "yes," according to the report. “As far as American leadership is concerned, yes," said McCain, who also vocally criticized many of the Obama administration's foreign policy decisions. =============================================== GOP rep on Trump's tweets: 'We're going to hand the gavel to Pelosi' By John Bowden - 06/09/17 08:33 PM EDT 776 GOP Rep. Martha McSally (Ariz.) recently voiced concerns about Republicans losing the House to Democrats due to controversy surrounding President Trump's administration, according to a report from Tucson Weekly. In a private speech to the Arizona Bankers Association last week, McSally fretted that Trump's tweets are creating "distractions" that "it's basically being taken out on me." "Any Republican member of Congress, you are going down with the ship," McSally said, according to the report. "And we're going to hand the gavel to Pelosi in 2018, they only need 23 seats and the path to that gavel being handed over is through my seat."
So ... news being what it is, I spent the last little bit watching Maddow segments while racing against my memory and trying to find the names via Google. • Acting Director FBI (Deputy Director) Andrew McCabe • FBI Director Chief of Staff Jim Rybicki • FBI General Counsel James Baker • Associate Deputy Director David Bowdich • Executive Assistant Director National Security Branch Carl Ghattas I was looking for a sixth name that turned out to be extraneous; I started with a report on the testimony, not the testimony itself, which ought to be a lesson about due diligence. To the other, I was struck by the dearth of these names in Google News returns; I would have thought them headliners. They were in a letter from Sen. Feinstein (see Maddow↱). Vox↱ focuses on McCabe, Rybicki, and Baker; Lawfare↱ has a report that would have settled the question had I trusted the lack of a sixth name. There are a couple other articles, but yeah, it felt like these names weren't being put together in this context: Comey stated that he discussed Trump's February 14 conduct with FBI senior leaders: his chief of staff (Jim Rybicki), the deputy director (Andrew McCabe), the deputy director’s chief counsel, general counsel of the FBI (Jim Baker), “and then, more often than not, the number three person at the FBI, the associate deputy director” (David Bowdich). “A few of the conversations” also included the head of the national security branch (Carl Ghattas). The big headline about Sessions going before Senate Intel is that the was already slated for a ... well, I forget whether it was Appropriations or Judiciary or Oversight, but he was already slated for a budget-related hearing. One of the headline mysteries is why Comey—and these other officials—expected Sessions to recuse. The obvious answer seems to be they knew he had exposure, but that is the sort of thing I would expect the Permanent Select Intels or perhaps Oversight Committees to want more about. You make the point, but I think it actually has a lot more mass and therefore gravity than we yet understand. Trying to wrap my head around the idea of Andrew McCabe, the guy who landed in the Director's chair, driving the stake is ... well, I mean, come on. Does mighty America finally debut on the world stage of heritage empires by aspiring to Shakespearean tragedy? It's worth noting that the administration apparently believes Rybicki weak and ineffectual, but they did recently promote Bowdich from the Los Angeles Office. In any case, that really is a high-powered cast of corroboration Comey brings to bear. No, really, I'm just burning words for my ego's sake. I went to put names to your point, and ended up running the long way 'round a snipe hunt. Groan. Anyway ... uh ... right. ____________________ Notes: Chong, Jane, Susan Hennessey, and Quinta Jurecic. "Did We Learn Anything New in Comey's SSCI Hearing?" Lawfare. 8 June 2017. LawfareBlog.com. 11 Juen 2017. http://bit.ly/2scAdur Maddow, Rachel. "Senate Judiciary Committee poised to probe Trump obstruction". The Rachel Maddow Show. msnbc, New York. 10 June 2017. msnbc.com. 11 June 2017. http://on.msnbc.com/2ta4gQA Waas, Murray. "3 senior FBI officials can vouch for Comey’s story about Trump". Vox. 7 June 2017. Vox.com. 11 June 2017. http://bit.ly/2si6hh2
