Posted on 06/08/2017 7:28:23 PM PDT by MaxistheBest
Former FBI Director James Comey is now in a game of legal chicken with the Trump administration. Comey’s testimony (which, in case you missed it, is being given under oath before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence) and President Donald Trump’s repeated denials of having said anything at all about Michael Flynn, as well as seeking loyalty from Comey cannot both be true. Let’s do a quick side-by-side, shall we?
In mid-May, Trump sat down with Jeanine Pirro of Fox News for an interview. When Pirro asked Trump, “The New York Times is selling that you asked Comey whether or not you had his loyalty was possibly inappropriate…. Did you ask that question?” Trump responded, “No, I didn’t, but I don’t’ think it would be a bad question to ask.”
Trump is also reportedly still denying that he asked for loyalty, as well as Comey’s claim that Trump discussed the investigation of Michael Flynn, and expressed a desire for Comey to let Flynn go.
So if Trump is right, that means James Comey is lying under oath, also known as committing perjury. Here’s the applicable federal statute:
(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true;
Comey clearly took an oath. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is clearly a competent tribunal authorized to administer an oath. Comey gave both written and oral testimony. The only things up for discussion are: 1) whether Comey stated anything that he does not believe to be true; and 2) whether, if so, those things count as “any material matter.” Whether we believe James Comey or Donald Trump, I think we can all agree that testimony about private meetings between the FBI director and POTUS count as “any material matter.” Demands or pledges for loyalty, directions or acquiescence to back off an ongoing investigation, or the non-existence of such interactions is about as material as it gets. It all comes down to whether James Comey stated anything he does not believe to be true.
In some perjury cases, possible discrepancy between an accused’s perception of particular information and the actual truth behind that information is relevant. Witnesses aren’t expected to be perfect – they’re just expected to be honest. But in the showdown of Comey v. Trump, there’s no rational risk of interpretive differences making the difference. Either Trump asked Comey to drop the Flynn investigation or he didn’t. Either Trump asked Comey for loyalty or he didn’t. Either Comey’s written and spoken testimony is true, or he has committed perjury.
To prove Comey guilty of perjury, a prosecutor would need to introduce evidence that the conversations Comey detailed in his testimony did not, in fact, take place. As always, proving that something did not happen can be tricky. But “tricky” isn’t “impossible.” Perhaps the best evidence in such a case would be the tapes Trump threat-tweeted.
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump James Comey better hope that there are no "tapes" of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press! 8:26 AM - 12 May 2017
Of course, it’s unclear at best whether the Trump administration would pursue a federal prosecution of James Comey for perjury, even if supporting evidence did exist. However, if the giving of knowingly false testimony given before a Congressional committee by a former FBI-director doesn’t warrant prosecution, it’s tough to know what would. Your move, Mr. President.
I wonder how much he has leaked since the election.
I wonder how much he has leaked since the election.
It would be a mistake to go after Comey. If Mueller would do it, it would be better, but only a little better, and he won’t anyway.
Comey’s testimony points toward a widespread conspiracy to rig the election by concealing evidence of HRC’s multiple felonies, to obstruction of justice by Loretta Lynch (at a minimum, she’s a small fish), and by bribery and misprision of felony by William J. Clinton.
It’s the biggest political corruption (and possibly treason) case in the history of the Republic, and it will be ruined if it turns into “Donald Trump is mad at James Comey”.
Loyalty to the office is different than loyalty to the man, and Comey showed no loyalty to the office.
What is infuriating about Comey is that a secret policeman can conjure up a bogus investigation out of thin air, implicate the President, refuse to release exculpating evidence, leak damaging documents to the media and maintain this unethical legal jeopardy for months - why? To destroy his presidency, and make him ineffective for the benefit of a political party and his own personal dislike for the man.
The ridiculous reason that Comey gave for not releasing the President...”well something could come up implicating him?” Is that the legal standard now? Are we to hold the President, the number one citizen, in legal jeopardy, weakening his presidency, casting doubt on everything he does - why, because he might be implicated in a crime that may or may not have ever existed? A crime we cannot prove! That was an inexcusable dereliction of legal duty, and Republicans or anyone defending the Constitution should have pounced on him. This also points to the Secret Police having far too much power in this nation if they can do this to the President. What does it mean for other citizens, who do not have the resources to fight this ravenous monster, to be so callously put under its hungry gaze?
Rubio had a question that came near the hypocrisy- “the only thing that wasn’t leaked was that Trump wasn’t being investigated.”
Comey is a failure.
Comey is a failure
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And Marco “Bathhouse” Rubio is close behind him.
Meanwhile, here is what I have posted elsewhere about the Comey testimony:
To really put the implied Comey rationalization--that he was trying to protect the institution from improper pressure from the President--into perspective, one must recognize the obvious, incontrovertible fact: As President, Donald Trump could pardon General Flynn for any infraction--just as Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon; just as Clinton & Obama pardoned people who most of us would have allowed to rot. (I am not suggesting in any way that Ford was not right to pardon Richard Nixon. I certainly would have done the same.)
Viewed in the context of this reality, there is no rational reason to view an expression of "hope" from the President, on behalf of General Flynn, as anything more serious than a frank courtesy to Comey. That Comey--who admitted to being intimidated by Loretta Lynch!--saw it as some sort of threat, is a sorry commentary on Comey, not the President.
Conservative activists should point out the key factor--the absolute right of the President to pardon--at every opportunity, until those trying to make a mountain out of a courtesy crawl back under their rocks!
Comey was still FBI Director when the handwritten FBI notes on Pat Kennedy were released.
They are damaging to Obama and Clinton.
I don’t know the chain of command in releasing notes. It would be interesting to know who authorized the release.
‘Mr. Trump go on the offensive.’
With Trump, going on offense sometimes begins with a tweet:
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump·4h
Despite so many false statements and lies, total and complete vindication...and WOW, Comey is a leaker!
Here's what I believe: There is a widespread bipartisan conspiracy, actually more of an insurrection, whose purpose was to prevent Trump's election and which purpose is now to remove him from office, in one of three ways: 1) Trap him into doing something which could lead to formal impeachment (like defying a Federal court order); 2) Immobilize him using the XXV Amendment process; 3) If all else fails, the JFK solution.
Now, different actors in this drama have different roles to play. Comey is a mere foot soldier. He's on retainer from the Clinton Crime Family, and like any good soldier will do what he's told to do.
On "our side" there are those behind the scenes, like Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush. Paul Ryan works for them. The Democrats have agreed, or have been conned into being the public face of this play.
Anyway, Comey opened the door a crack yesterday so we could peek in and see the players. Loretta Lynch (also a foot soldier, but of higher rank than Comey) made Comey "uncomfortable".
When? Right after she met with the Capo di tutti capi in Phoenix. THAT event was not supposed to get out. That it DID get out caused a frantic scramble to cover up the fruits of that meeting.
Anyway, one way to keep this whole mess from unravelling is to make it into "Trump is mad at Comey, and is using his office to get revenge". My choice would be to see if Comey can be made to squeal, and if not to throw him back into the swamp.
He's not important enough to be the main story.
Using that scenario...then Trump is falling into the trap via his lawyer.
I have no doubt that they will try to trap him for impeachment...which is why I am one of the few that wishes he would vet his tweets.
For example, here is what Whistleblower lawyer Kohn has to say about Trump’s recent tweet
Trump should drop a mortar round onto the Clintons and their gang like they do in North Korea.
Sorry, I took so long to get back to you. You asked about the loyalty question and what it had to do with Comey’s perjury. Trump has said that the loyalty request that was brought up by Comey did not happen. He said it in the joint press conference with joint with Romania’s visiting leader, President Klaus Iohannis. President Trump said the pledge of allegiance request never happened: “I hardly know the man. I’m not going to say, ‘I want you to pledge allegiance.’ Who would do that?”
Then, the question about the existence of audio recordings of the dinner came up at the news conference. Now we are entering the Twilight Zone of President Richard Nixon. There were the tapes. Even though recordings are not longer done with magnetic tape, the word “tapes” is being used. I think it is a obvious attempt to tie Trump to Nixon. However, in President Trump’s case, the “tapes” will be the Excalibur that slays the falsifications in Comey’s memo. I predict that Comey will be indicted for purjury, leaking restricted material (the memo) and slandering the President for revenge. The “tapes” will be verified as supporting evidence at that time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.