What's the source for Comey saying that "Trump did not pressure him to stop the Flynn investigation"?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Winners and Losers from Comey Hearing
- Thread starter carpro
- Start date
On May 3rd, he said the following while under oath: "I'm talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal. It's not happened in my experience."
When you write a document on government computers at the workplace it is the property of the government and not your property. That is also true of work done at corporations. Comey testified that he gave the government property to his law professor friend in response to a Trump tweet, but in fact the tweet came after Comey had already leaked the memos to the professor, who gave them to the New York Times.
(1) Thank you for citing real evidence and responding to my question without venom, accusations or snark. I wish all persons conducted themselves as well as you.
(2) I looked back at the Comey testimony in question and it seems to be a slightly different question that does not involve Trump at all. (See analyses by NPR and Politifact.)
(3) It would be a strange thing for Comey to leak materials to stir up an investigation where he would certainly be called to testify to contradict his previously sworn testimony. I don't think he's that foolish.
(4) I think I does deserve additional questioning under oath to clarify his comments. Strange that it wasn't brought up at the hearing if anyone had concerns. Stories had already been written about it in the media raising the question prior to the testimony this week.
That "fact" has not been established. It is merely an allegation.
The story that Trump's team is circulating is that the New York Times story recounting Comey's dinner with Trump that was printed on May 11th resulted from Comey leaking evidence. Trump's attorney claimed, "It is obvious that whomever was the source for the May 11, 2017 New York Times story got that information from the memos or from someone reading or who had read the memos... This makes clear, as our statement said, that Mr Comey incorrectly testified that he never leaked the contents of the memo or details of the dinner before President Trump's May 12, 2017 Tweet."
Actually that doesn't prove it at all. Since Comey testified that he informed senior FBI leadership of all interactions with Mr. Trump, the leak could have come from a number of senior FBI personnel. As I recall, the story claimed two sources on that, which would be about right.
"In his testimony, Mr. Comey stated that he was 'not *** aware of' 'any kind of memorandum issued from the Attorney General or the Department of Justice to the FBI outlining the parameters of [the Attorney General’s] recusal,'" the DOJ Statement reads. "However, on March 2, 2017, the Attorney General’s Chief of Staff sent the attached email specifically informing Mr. Comey and other relevant Department officials of the recusal and its parameters, and advising that each of them instruct their staff 'not to brief the Attorney General *** about, or otherwise involve the Attorney General *** in, any such matters described.'"
Comey himself admitted that he himself gave the memo to his professor friend for him to turn it over to the press. Comey is not allowed under federal law to take a work-related document produced at work, which Comey admitted that he did. As former head of the FBI, Comey cannot claim that he was ignorant of the law.
Actually, I don't think that anything will happen to Comey or Hillary Clinton, who both took government documents. I read that Comey is getting $10,000,000 for a book, so he will get rich off of his wrongdoing.
What federal law did Comey break when he released his personal notes on his conversation with Trump? Why is Trump hedging on whether or not the conversations were recorded? As usual he's saying in two weeks he'll condi9der it.
I'll repeat the question. What law did Comey break?
The president called Comey 'a leaker', but is there any legal case against him?
Trump’s incorrect reference to the Comey memo as a “leak” does not necessarily mean that releasing the memo was lawful, Shugerman cautioned, pointing to seven conceivable scenarios under which Comey’s release of the memo could present a legal hazard.
Under none of the seven scenarios did Comey appear to be much in danger of transgression, however, Shugerman said. Here are the relevant categories identified by Shugerman, with his analysis in quotations:
How rightwing media saw Comey's testimony as a win for Trump
Read more
- Illegal leak: “It’s not an illegal leak, because as Comey clarified in his testimony, he made sure to avoid any question of whether it would be classified or should have been classified or reveal classified information or other secret information. It’s not classified, so it’s not a leak.”
- Privilege: “A very ambiguous assertion of privilege without actually identifying the privilege itself. If what they’re asserting is executive privilege, it’s pretty clearly been waived. They had notice and opportunity to invoke executive privilege before his testimony. Trump referred to those conversations himself in his letter on Comey’s firing. And executive privilege is not absolute – it must be balanced with public interest.”
- An official FBI document: If Comey’s memo was a so-called Field 302 form, it may be subject to rules for non-release. But the memo was not written as part of a formal investigation, and “if he was trying to make sure that he was preserving a memo for his own use, he would obviously not create a form”.
- Non-disclosure agreement: “It’s certainly possible that there’s a non-disclosure agreement within the FBI. But violating a non-disclosure agreement is not necessarily criminal. [And] as far as we’re aware,” there isn’t one.
- Federal law governing the handling of public property or records: “It’s quite a stretch to say that just because Comey wrote notes on an FBI government computer, that those notes become an official record … So it’s not an official record, and it’s not larceny of property or conversion of property for personal benefit or gain.”
- Internal FBI rules: “I’ve not seen anyone cite a particular internal FBI rule that would have made Comey’s behavior illegal or directly contrary to FBI policy.”
- Privacy act: “It’s not an official record, and does not refer to otherwise private matters,” so no.
People are saying that the federal law is 18 USC paragraph 641
Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; or
Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; but if the value of such property in the aggregate, combining amounts from all the counts for which the defendant is convicted in a single case, does not exceed the sum of $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
The word “value” means face, par, or market value, or cost price, either wholesale or retail, whichever is greater.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 725; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), (L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, § 606(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3511; Pub. L. 108–275, § 4, July 15, 2004, 118 Stat. 833.)
This is crazy.
Nobody looked good in this. It makes out government seem like a petulant group of teenage girls. Petty backstabbing, huge egos, note passing, secret club meetings, I'm ashamed of all of them.
Was Comey really hiding behind a curtain when they found him ?
Nobody looked good in this. It makes out government seem like a petulant group of teenage girls. Petty backstabbing, huge egos, note passing, secret club meetings, I'm ashamed of all of them.
Was Comey really hiding behind a curtain when they found him ?
Last edited:
Please don't defame teen-aged girls.
In other words, politics.
Yep. I feel the same.
Not sure what you are referring to here, but I think you are talking about Comey trying to blend in with the curtains since he was wearing a blue suit. Being a very large guy myself, I know the feeling. You don't want to get publicly put on the spot with a person in authority who has been acting adversarial toward you. You try to stay out of the field of vision and get lost in the crowd.
Been there, done that on a much smaller scale.
Also, to your earlier point, I'm not as concerned about the Russian "interference" as I am that Comey, Clinton, and Lynch tried to rig an election.
I'll buy your story about his suit.
These were his own personal notes. I don't buy it. If that applies here, I'd like to see all the notes VP Cheney took while in office and provided to someone outside the government.
Last edited:
I don't know what other people such as the former Vice President have to do with Comey's case. Under federal law, any document produced at work belongs to the federal government. If you yourself work for a company, doesn't the company technically own anything like what Comey did that you yourself produce on their premises?
Comey is no hero. It is wrong of the FBI Director to leak. He turns out to be just a petty partisan bureaucrat. He got a $10,000,000 book deal for selling out his reputation. He is gone from government for good and probably will escape punishment for his wrongdoings.
I did work for corporations as an engineer for 40 years. They never claimed to own my own personal notes. I have lab books dating back to the mid 70's. They owned my patents.
Very interesting. You have had a good career. How did your employers own your patents?
Typically the company makes you sign a document stating any invention you create that is related to the technology and products made by the company is property of the company. Signing this document is a condition of employment.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
