Thinking about the Comey Memos

National Review ^ | 12 June 2017 | Andrew C. McCarthy

[Meet the New Boss]

His leaking, at the very least, was improper.

snip

One major issue is whether these documents belonged to Comey, in the sense of being his property rather than the government’s. That is the position he took in his testimony. Like Turley, I think the former director is wrong.

snip

There is also a claim floating around that the memo(s) should not be deemed to have been “leaked” because they were, it is asserted, not classified. We need to unpack this errant suggestion in three steps because it is so wrongheaded.

snip

Nevertheless, as Turley observes, Comey never sought a classification review of his memos by the White House or the Justice Department. It is possible that they’d disagree with Comey’s conclusion that the memos are not classified. Going forward, it will be interesting to see what position the government takes regarding the memos: Their disclosure has already been demanded by Congress, and additional disclosure demands will be the subject of Freedom of Information Act litigation.

I’m betting the memos are not classified. There is no doubt, though, that at least one of them has been leaked, and that the leak was, to say the least, improper.

[Cboldt]

-- But Comey has given them something to work with regarding the alleged obstruction of justice. --

I think that canard will have a short shelf life. Comey's actions do not square with him taking "I hope" as an order, other than he made notes and presented the conversation with what appears to be a plan to insinuate obstruction, for purely partisan reasons. Cain Mutiny, faithless servant.

The public dialog includes Dershowitz pointing out the president has the power to stop any investigation he wants to, it can't be obstruction, so this all turns into political theater. It will be impossible to sell to the public at large that Trump's one-time remark was a direct order - "reasonable doubt" comes into play, at least.

And then there is the question of how obstruction vs. Flynn relates at all to finding the supposed underlying crime, collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. Either Flynn colluded or not, show the evidence. Trump's actions after the fact are a non-sequitur.

[Cboldt]

-- But people have pointed out that the NYT had already published an article based on the memo BEFORE Trump's tweet and before Comey woke up in the night in a cold sweat. --

A little factual nitpick. There are multiple memos. The "loyalty" memo was leaked around March 11. The "obstruct Flynn investigation" memo could have been leaked later.

I agree that Comey's reason, "corroborating tapes" is nonsense. Something wrong with that boy's head.

-- ... when he gave his presser on July 5 last year, I knew for sure that he was a man without integrity. --

Many many people knew that, then and there. See Rosenstein letter - it's exactly what i was thinking. How DARE he usurp the prosecutor's job. If that was my immediate reaction, I guarantee you it was the reaction of thousands, maybe millions, who have a practical working knowledge of the relationship between the investigator (cop) and the DA. I bet half of the FBI was livid.

[Pollster1]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/08/full-text-james-comey-trump-russia-testimony-239295

WARNER: I think that’s a very important statement you just made. Then, unlike your dealings with presidents of either parties in your past experience, in every subsequent meeting or conversation with this president, you created a written record. Did you feel that you needed to create this written record of these memos, because they might need to be relied on at some future date?

COMEY: Sure. I created records after conversations that I think I did it after each of our nine conversations. If I didn’t, I did it for nearly all of them especially the ones that were substantive. I knew there might come a day when I would need a record of what had happened, not just to defend myself, but to defend the FBI and our integrity as an institution and the Independence of our investigative function. That’s what made this so difficult is it was a combination of circumstances, subject matter and the particular person. [Corrected - my version: That’s why I gave the only copy of the record to someone else and then deleted the file, so I could better defend the FBI by not having that record.]

[FamiliarFace]

It is hard to know which memo different people are referring to since there were several leaks of memos mentioned in various publications. This usually shows to me that someone is trying to muddy the waters instead of making things crystal clear, for a specific purpose of wanting to confuse readers.

Another thing I think is worth noting is that Comey had reservations about Rosenstein. ***“Rod is a survivor,” he said. And you don’t get to survive that long across administrations without making compromises. “So I have concerns.”***

***From https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-james-comey-told-me-about-donald-trump

In that one statement about Rosenstein, Comey has admitted that he himself has had to make compromises in order to survive in DC. It’s one of those things that stinks about the Swamp.

[Cboldt]

Good article. Thanks.

The first point is a general one: Comey was preoccupied throughout this period with the need to protect the FBI from these inquiries on investigative matters from the White House.

That is either high-minded, which is what Wittes wants the reader to conclude, or nefarious. Trump is not a suspect. How is keeping Trump in the dark protecting the proper mission of the FBI?

Wittes also says "no leaks" when the material is about a one-on-one between Comey and Trump.

I did this interview on the record because the President that morning was already issuing threatening tweets suggesting that Comey was leaking things, and I didn't want any room for misunderstanding that any kind of leak had taken place with respect to the information I was providing. There was no leak from Comey ...

There was either a leak from Comey, or a leak from Trump. Pick one.

And the "survivors have to compromise" reservation he expressed about Rosenstein applies to Comey.

[Defiant]

Even better would be for Sessions to unrecuse himself, claim he was duped and Comey was part of that effort, and then be the one that fires Mueller because if there is an investigation of what happened, Sessions can handle it just fine. Then, Session can take over and have an investigation that exposes the hoax of Russia collusion and the creation of phony documents and all the other criminal activity designed to bring down Trump.

[FamiliarFace]

So Comey in his testimony said, “I knew there might come a day when I would need a record of what had happened, not just to defend myself, but to defend the FBI and our integrity as an institution and the Independence of our investigative function.”

To me, this is an admission that his memos were a work product, and thus, Comey would’ve needed to get permission to show those memos to anyone outside the agency or the White House. Therefore, leaking the memos is against agency rules. How does one intend to defend the integrity of the FBI as an institution if one decides to break the agency’s own rules? Nice try, Comey.

[Intolerant in NJ]

...tapes would be much better evidence of Comey's account (assuming he is not lying) than an uncorroborated memo by Comey. So his reasoning makes no sense...Comey is not wrapped too tight, intellectually speaking......

[Pollster1]

I decided Bill Clinton was a liar and a crook based on his own words. I suspected it from rumor and accusations, but his oddly precise words and the weasel phrasing he used were the deciding factors.

The same is true with Comey. You can suspect him of being a crook based on what others say, although I was slow to lean in that direction. But when you listen to his actual words and ask whether they ring true, you get one clear answer. L - I - A - R. I cannot imagine an honest person who would say and do what Comey has said and done in the situations as he described them.