Donald Trumped: Comey says Prez is a liar – and admits he's a leaker Former FBI director James Comey today spoke in public for the first time about his relationship with President Donald Trump, and he didn't stint in calling out the Leader of the Free WorldTM on being economical with the truth. At a hearing in Washington DC, Comey claimed the president asked for a personal loyalty oath at a …
"My late father in law (a senior legal official) often said Lawyer is the olde Englishe spelling of liar."
Good on your father in law - I'd give him a +1 (insightful or funny) for that. However, without any source apart from my feverish noodle, I would imagine that lawyer is similar to say bombardier or halberdier ie a wielder of law.
I think that nowadays we spell old english "Old English" - no need for the extraneous e suffixes. You could wedge in a Ye as a definite article prefix to indicate antiquity but make sure you use thorn and not y as I have done (I can't find the bloody thing on my keyboard.) I'll leave whether it is Old or Middle English or something else to the experts.
lawyer (n.) Look up lawyer at Dictionary.com
late 14c. lauier, lawer, lawere (mid-14c. as a surname), "one versed in law, one whose profession is suits in court or client advice on legal rights," from Middle English lawe "law" (see law) + -iere. Spelling with -y- predominated from 17c. (see -yer). In the New Testament (Luke xiv.3, etc.) "interpreter of Mosaic law." Old English had lahwita, with wita "sage, wise man; adviser councilor." Related: Lawyerly.
I was in Berlin on Friday trying to find a paper with coverage of the UK election.
Bought one with the headline "Luegen, schlicht und einfach", and thought I'd hit the jackpot. Turned out be an equally exciting, but different story. But Lies, Plain and Simple would work just as well as a description of May's campaign.
Lawyers learn that unless you're under oath, where you are compelled to be truthful, its ok to lie. And even under oath, as long as its not an outright lie, you can say things that are less than truthful. There exists a willful intent to twist the interpretation of the facts to their favor.
If caught in a lie, the lawyer will apologize and say that they misspoke. Mea Culpa.
Mr. Comey is a lawyer. Don't forget that.
Here's the take-away from Comey's testimony.
His recollection of the events differ from those of Trump. Since they were the only ones present this becomes a he said, she said issue. Both parties will recollect the meeting differently.
With respect to Trump's lawyer's statement...
He honed in on the timeline of events.
Comey said he leaked the memo because of Trump's tweet about there being tapes.
Yet the lawyer indicated that Comey leaked the memo before Trump's tweet.
This should be easy to corroborate. If true, it will hurt Comey.
His recollection of the events differ from those of Trump. Since they were the only ones present this becomes a he said, she said issue.
But Trump has a problem here. He has zero credibility. He has been repeatetedly caught lying in public. His whole political schtick is basically damn manners or the truth, I'm just going to spout my shit. And you either like the cut of my jib, or hate me (in which case I don't care).
Well that's all very well for winning an election on a minority vote, against a rubbish candidate. But when it comes to whether people believe your given word, it has some serious drawbacks.
Whereas Comey has used the lawyer's/investigator's habit of writing a note of what happened straight after the meeting.
By the way, in a he-said-she-said situation, the courts will put more weight on the person who wrote it down at the time than the one who didn't.
Trump does have credibility.
Comey, on the other hand is damaged goods.
There's more to it of course.
The point of a he said, she said trial is that the person who wins is the one who can tell a better story to the jury.
Comey has his notes, which he admitted to being the leaker. He can be charged over that. Even though they are his work product, under the official records act, they are the property of the Government. And it wasn't just a note by Comey, it was something said between Comey and the POTUS. Classified or not, Comey can be charged. (Already Trump's lawyer(s) are asking for the judiciary committee to look in to the leak.)
You also don't seem to get it. Trump won based on the electoral college. It exists for a reason. Had Trump spent more time in CA he could have taken more of the vote. Clinton lost the midwest because she ignored us.
And in a he said, she said... the courts also put more weight on the context of the situation. Comey leaked his note after he was fired.
At the same time... going in front of congress vs going in front of the special prosecutor are two different things. The special prosecutor can and will grill Comey.
Mr. Comey shared a memo with a friend and thence the press at the time he was a private citizen, so not a leak at all. Now if he still worked for the FBI at the time that would be different.
Second, notes of conversations made at the time by law enforcement, especially FBI types, are given very high credence in court. So unless Trump has tapes that contradicts them I am going with the notes.
Finally, Comey's account fits in with what we know of Trump's antics. Watch the video from today's "Cabinet Meeting" for corroboration.
Not actually a lie.
What you pay lawyers for is a creative (sometimes very creative) interpretation of a certain (often very carefully selected) set of events to prove your point of view.
Much like telemarketing but usually better paid.
Anon because I've done a lot of telemarketing and I've probably called several people here over the years.
For a paranoid view, Trump has been set up to take the fall, leaving Mike Pence to assume the Oval Office by a Domionist conspiracy to take over the US in a religious dictatorship. Trump is so obviously unprepared, so clearly ignorant, and so blatantly corrupt that he was likely a target since his coke snorting days in the '70s.
naw, too complex.
The Donald is a product of Hollywood and on record as a good donator to Democrat causes.
He's the epitome of Scapegoat, by which his actions are all used to smear the GOP and guarantee not only the Midterm elections -which have no term limits - but to guarantee a Presidential win by the Democrat Party in 3 years.
Straight up Machiavelli.
The only real "collusion" we'll end up finding, if at all, will be anyone who kept secret records of the setup for all this. Chump gets attention and improves his "brand" and the Dems get supermajority again for everything.
Which then they can still blame everything that goes wrong on the GOP, like they do in California, which hasn't had an actual GOP presence or anything even strong enough to mount an opposition, in decades.
It prevents the defendant from undergoing any punishment, but since the president's powers don't extend over the judiciary branch, if for example he pardoned Michael Flynn, they could still try Flynn in a court of law and find him guilty.
However, the pardon would remove the leverage the special prosecutor would have over Flynn to get him to roll over on Trump - it would be the threat of prison rather than the threat of a show trial that motivates him to sell out Trump. It would make Trump look REALLY guilty to do so, and guarantee nothing gets done in the next year quite possibly followed by a democratic landslide in 2018 as democrats would come out in force and republicans would be rather disillusioned about their president.
"However, the pardon would remove the leverage the special prosecutor would have over Flynn to get him to roll over on Trump - it would be the threat of prison rather than the threat of a show trial that motivates him to sell out Trump."
I've no idea whether this is a realistic situation you're discussing but this would be a total travesty of legal procedure. One doesn't have to be a Trump admirer to see that although I suppose it helps to be a detached bystander.
It seems for some "The Handmaids Tale" was a manual, not a warning.
Others have suggested Pence (like the smallest unit of British currency?) is the Ultimate Deterrent against "lone gunmen."
"You shoot me, you'll have this SEL to deal with."
Bottom line. People wanting some sane behavior in US politics should forget assassinating the President.
They'd need to widen the net to more of a decapitation strike.
Just saying.
I'll leave others to think about how far down the National Command Authority you'd need to go
Remember kids, it is a Federal crime to make threats against the POTUS.
I don't see an impeachment coming because it begs the question of whether obstruction falls under "high crimes and misdemeanors" and even then an obstruction of justice charge is unlikely since the hierarchy is that the FBI sits under the DOJ in the executive branch and the chief executive is the president of the US. As the chief executive, if he says to drop the investigation then it gets dropped and sorry kids but there is nothing illegal about it. Heck he could proactively pardon Flynn. Obama could have done the same for Hillary but appearances and legacy clearly matter to Obama and no, I won't mention the Rich pardon by Hillary's husband who cared somewhat less for appearances. Oh I already mentioned it, oops. This is also why independent investigators are often brought in in cases like this so that they are more independent although typically still under the executive branch.
Look, Obama took the step in backing off on some aspects of the drug war as was his prerogative and it's well within Trump's power to back off on the Russia - Flynn affair if he so chooses. Granted the former is in my opinion a nice first step but needs significant expansion and/or reform and the latter is about as bone-headed as is possible but neither are illegal. Look at the AG of most, if not all, states and you'll see they have the power to drop charges against anyone whether in exchange for something like testimony against bigger fish now or in the future or even nothing at all.
The real question is for a lot of Republican politicians facing mid-terms.
Do they stand up in front of a crowd of pickup truck driving American "patriots" and say; so the president conspired with the Rooskies to cheat your vote - but technically under clause 4, sub-section III, sub-para-9 of the whatever act that wasn't technically illegal so I'm supporting him.....
No.
Where's the cover up?
Trump didn't use executive privilege to stop Comey. (He could have)
Trump encouraged Comey to testify because Comey couldn't accuse Trump without himself getting charged on a couple of counts.
The worst thing for Trump, Comey called him a liar because their recollection of the meeting differ. The Democrats and the MSM pounced on that.
That's twice on this thread you've used the phrase "Their recollection of the meeting differs". Comey made notes of each conversation and shared it with senior staff at the FBI shortly after the conversations. In the absence of a recording, this is a fairly high standard of evidence. Although not everybody in Washington loves Comey, no-one has ever accused him of dishonesty or being a liar.
Trump can't remember what he said yesterday, and even when it's repeated back to him will often flat out deny he ever said it
Are you really, really, really saying you give the testimonies of these two equal weight?
Did Comey take notes during the meeting?
No. He took them afterwards. So even if he showed his notes... there will be questions.
Not sure where you're talking about 'convictions'.
With respect to Comey... both sides agree that a conversation took place. Comey's notes done after the fact are his recollections of what he heard and what he thought the POTUS meant.
Trump doesn't deny that the meeting occurred but does dispute Comey's account of it. So Comey could be correct in that his notes reflects what he thought about the meeting. Trump recalls something different. Since there was no third party to corroborate either. Notes or not... its still he said / she said.
So Comey could be correct in that his notes reflects what he thought about the meeting. Trump recalls something different. Since there was no third party to corroborate either. Notes or not... its still he said / she said.
What you (willfully?) miss is that Comey is a person who is regarded as being quite honest and also is a conscientious person - someone who is know to take meticulous notes of meetings, and given his former role in the FBI I expect he would've had training in such matters at least to the level of fairly senior police "detectives". On the other hand you have Trump, who has been seen often to publicly make a statement, often in an inappropriate manner (eg 3am tweets), and has also been known to publicly deny statements he made on TV just a day or two before. Not only does Trump not have the same training that Comey has had, he also does not have the reputation for honesty Comey has. Trump's recollection has been proven to be quite bad even over a very short term, he's shown he does not use aids such as notes. And Trump's reputation for honesty is as lacking as my bank balance.
That means a lot in any hearing. Someone who has a reputation for honesty and meticulous note taking always trumps some bumbling baboon who can't remember what he said from one day to the next and, while very bad at it, lies just about every time he flaps his lips. The only hope Trump would have to win is if recordings are produced that show Comey was completely off in what was said. That seems unlikely, or they'd be out by now.
(FTR I am someone who dislikes Comey almost as much as I dislike Trump!)
If you re read what I actually wrote, I just pointed out that obstruction is indeed grounds for impeachment. I didn't even mention the current president.
My opinion is that the current president will self sabotage himself out of the job, with the media he hates and fears gleefully helping him every step of the way.
Yeah I get Obstruction is grounds for impeachment.
I was alive during Watergate and the whole Nixon thing.
I also remember Iran/Contra
And of course Billy Boy's amazing verbal skills and aw shucks moments.
The issue is though that Trump didn't commit obstruction. Obama and Lynch committed obstruction.
Clinton committed obstruction. (Of course its hard to impeach since they are all out of office. ) ;-)
Trump?
Sure, let him hang himself. Oh wait. The Democrats are too busy stalling and 'resisting' to let the man and the rest of Congress to get their jobs done.
Personally I would think that the entire DNC party should be rebuilt from the ground up. Too many wackos in the party.
That the AG has the authority to drop charges in some case, in exchange for a greater benefit does not means that the head of state, or the head of government has the authority to overrule a decision of justice.
If a President had the authority to overrule the judiciary system, that would be the en of democracy, he would not have to follow any law, nor would his friends, the government, etc. and there would be no limit. Some people would be subject to the law and some wouldn't.
That is why, trying to impose on the course of justice is a very serious offence.
@Olivier2553
If a President had the authority to overrule the judiciary system, that would be the en of democracy, he would not have to follow any law, nor would his friends, the government, etc. and there would be no limit. Some people would be subject to the law and some wouldn't.
You are absolutely right the President as the top of the Executive branch can't overrule the judiciary which is in the Judicial branch of government whose top position is the Supreme Court. He can shut down the DoJ because the DoJ is not part of the Judicial branch of government and the USAG, Jeff Sessions, is the top member of the DoJ. Notice that the AG is not part of the judiciary either but falls under the executive.
The President would have to still follow the law because things like perjury are impeachable offenses. So far I haven't seen anyone throwing any claims of perjury around because if they did the howling would be far louder than it is now. Listen, I don't have a dog in this fight simply because both Donald and Hillary are both far and away too authoritarian for my liking which gives me some objectivity the rabid blue and red teams don't have. That said talking to the FBI guy over dinner about an investigation isn't going to reach the level of perjury because it wasn't part of the official investigation regardless of what was said. If it had been part of the official investigation there would have been a stenographer sitting in the room recording the whole thing or a video recording and we wouldn't even be discussing who said what because we'd just look at the official record. That's why so many cling to this notion of "obstruction of justice" meme. Frankly I'm not sure Donald is actually smart enough to know he could have simply told Comey to shut the investigation into Flynn down but he didn't.
@AC
Not if he himself is implicated, and until this investigation has run its full course (which is very much hasn't) he is under suspicion as a consequence of some very clear established contacts with Russia that fell far outside the purview of anyone with nothing to hide.
You say he was implicated and under suspicion yet Comey himself said Trump wasn't under investigation of a crime and that "there was not a counterintelligence investigation of Mr. Trump". I get your rage but there's still no evidence of a crime.
If he's got nothing to hide, the latest 10 years worth of unredacted tax returns would help quite a bit
I'm sure there are both red and blue team members working at the IRS and I'm equally sure a fair number of them have pulled up Trump's tax returns out of curiosity yet they haven't been leaked even given the governmental agencies are a sieve at this point. There must be a Lois Lerner acolyte still at the IRS or perhaps a stodgy version of Reality Winner or even a Snowden. I'm equally sure that eventually they'll come out and they may likely be embarrassing but I doubt you'll find the smoking gun you're so eager to find in there. At worst, we'll find out just how good his accountant/lawyers really are at hiding money but don't expect a 1099 that reads "income: Putin, fellatio".
@Eddy Ito, Obama could have done the same for Hillary
Why? You don't need a pardon when 10 subsequent investigations into the same thing (which IMHO amounts to hard core harassment) failed to turn up anything actionable.
Look, Obama took the step in backing off on some aspects of the drug war as was his prerogative and it's well within Trump's power to back off on the Russia - Flynn affair if he so chooses.
Not if he himself is implicated, and until this investigation has run its full course (which is very much hasn't) he is under suspicion as a consequence of some very clear established contacts with Russia that fell far outside the purview of anyone with nothing to hide. If agent orange has nothing to hide he should welcome this investigation, and so should the Republicans, but methinks he doth protests too much (a phrase that showed up in the proceedings).
If he's got nothing to hide, the latest 10 years worth of unredacted tax returns would help quite a bit but given how Trump runs his company there appears to be every chance you'd merely spark more investigations into other things from creative accounting to money laundering. He gives me the strong impression that he HAS something to hide.
Trump's disrespect for the law does not strike me as something new, it feels like a well established habit.
Wow.
So many things wrong that I don't know where to begin.
First, Obama made public statements stating an opinion during the investigation. This was in fact putting his finger on scale.
Second Obama claimed he did nothing to interfere with the investigation. Yet he had many meetings with Lynch who then, according to Comey's testimony yesterday, attempted to influence (obstruct) the investigation in to Clinton. In fact there is more evidence against Lynch and Obama than there is against Trump. Not to mention Comey previously testified that he did not feel Trump's comments were in fact obstruction.
Your tirade about Trump's tax returns is old news. Trump won the election and Trump was under NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to submit his tax returns. Yeah. There is no law requiring it although Jimmy Carter was the first POTUS candidate to do so setting precedence. With respect to Trump's tax returns... the leaked page (which was illegal to leak) showed he paid more in taxes than any of the other candidates.
So please drop the red herrings.
@ Eddy Ito: The president doesn't get to write get-out-of-jail free cards for the future. They can pardon someone once they have been convicted of a federal offence. Obama couldn't parson Hillary for something she has never been convicted of doing. Both the Clinton and Bush administrations pardons and commutation of sentences where pretty damn dodgy. Mind you, so where their use of private email for government business, but we know that's only bad when the blue team do it :D
The simplified process is (as I understand it): potential crimes are investigated by bodies within the DoJ (FBI, state police etc); these are passed to the prosecutors (also part of the DoJ), who decide to go ahead or not; then there is a trial or plea (overseen by the judiciary).
At no point is the executive directly involved. The only role of the executive in this process is nominating/appointing personnel, or altering the sentence at the end of it. Not by interfering with an investigation.
" As the chief executive, if he says to drop the investigation then it gets dropped and sorry kids but there is nothing illegal about it."
Seeing as how Trump and his lawyers are busy bending in half to deny that this is what happened, I strongly suspect that it is in fact illegal. This is why there is a lot of focus on the phrase "I hope you can see your way to letting this go" as to whether that was an illegal order, or a personal opinion.
Not really sure why the GoP is fighting this. They'd be much happier with Pence in charge.
@MonkeyCee
The president doesn't get to write get-out-of-jail free cards for the future. They can pardon someone once they have been convicted of a federal offence. Obama couldn't parson Hillary for something she has never been convicted of doing.
Absolutely incorrect.
In the ruling on Ex Parte Garland, the Supreme Court stated:
The power of pardon conferred by the Constitution upon the President is unlimited except in cases of impeachment. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment. The power is not subject to legislative control.A pardon reaches the punishment prescribed for an offence and the guilt of the offender. If granted before conviction, it prevents any of the penalties and disabilities consequent upon conviction from attaching; if granted after conviction, it removes the penalties and disabilities and restores him to all his civil rights. It gives him a new credit and capacity. There is only this limitation to its operation: it does not restore offices forfeited, or property of interests vested in others in consequence of the conviction and judgment.
More to the point, Ford pardoned Nixon[1] – before Nixon was convicted of anything. He hadn't even been impeached when he decided to resign. His resignation effectively ended the impeachment proceedings.
I'm only aware of Obama saying that he would not grant a pardon for Snowden. Snowden would have to return to the U.S. to face trial and presumably be convicted before Obama would consider a pardon. (Perhaps we was trying to set a precedent?)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon (it's Wikipedia, so it must be true.)
Exactly.
Alan Dershowitz, a very liberal democrat and Harvard Prof on Law, also pointed this out.
Trump can pardon anyone after the fact. Where the fact is the alleged crime even if there are no charges.
Hypothetically, the POTUS can't hand someone a pardon for killing X before they killed X, but if X was killed and that someone was a suspect, the POTUS could pardon them even if they weren't yet under investigation... (Note: Bad example, but proves the point...)
This is why you really don't have obstruction. Comey admitted that Trump didn't say go do X which would have forced Comey to do X, or resign because to not do X would be insubordination. Many don't understand the law, and those in Congress who do are willfully being ignorant for their own political gain.
This is why you really don't have obstruction. Comey admitted that Trump didn't say go do X which would have forced Comey to do X, or resign because to not do X would be insubordination. Many don't understand the law, and those in Congress who do are willfully being ignorant for their own political gain.
Ian Michael Gumby,
You've got the sequence of this wrong. Having a private dinner at short notice with the head of the FBI whose substantial content is about an ongoing investigation into your administration is almost certainly not grounds of any kind of criminal proceedings. It's stupid, probably immoral and was almost certainly aimed at interfering with a criminal investigation - but almost certainly not enough for normal court. Let alone the higher standard of an impeachable offense which needs Congress to fire the starting-gun.
However, when you later fire that same guy, because he didn't do what you wanted (at least assuming we believe his account of the meeting), then suddenly that looks a lot closer to something like obstruction of justice.
The fact that Trump then stupidly put into his letter firing Comey that he was pleased Comey had told him that he wasn't under investigation just makes him look even guiltier.
And of course, Comey has some credibility when it comes to testimony, Trump doesn't. He's flat denied saying stuff that he said on TV a couple of days before.
I still doubt this will meet the standard of evidence required to get Congress to take the extraordinary stop of launching an impreachment. But don't rule out that Trump will do something even more blatant and stupid in the future, or maybe he's even done it already and it just hasn't come to light yet.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
