Tags
barack obama, Bret Baier, collusion, FBI, Fox News, Hillary Clinton, James Comey, leaks, Scott Johnson
James Comey appeared on Fox New’s Special Report on 04-27-18. Anchor Bret Baier conducted an interview that was a model of fair, unemotional and pertinent questioning. At the link one may view the entire interview, but I’ll deal with only a few of the issues raised in the interview.
My impression of Comey, based on that interview, is he is liar, and not a very good one. Clearly, he understands the legal jeopardy in which he put himself, and is spinning furiously to give the appearance of honesty and integrity, while lying to avoid legal liability. He also appears to be very much a legend in his own mind. He, like Barack Obama, is terribly disappointed in us. We let him down, and it weighs heavily on such an honest and honorable soul.
Scott Johnson of Powerline agrees:
Baier excelled when it came to the counterintelligence investigation that originated the Mueller Switch Project. On this subject, Comey don’t know nothin’. Comey has drawn on his professional knowledge of mobsters to disparage President Trump’s method of operation. I wonder if he isn’t projecting. Last night Comey reminded me of nothing so much as an uncooperative Mafia witness playing dumb.
Two issues: the classified memos Comey leaked to the press, and his claim to know nothing about who paid for the Steele Dossier, the compilation of “unverified and salacious” accusations—Comey’s own words in testimony before the Congress–the FBI use, approved by Come, to obtain multiple FISA warrants to spy on an American citizen, a tangential associate of the Trump campaign.
Comey, whom Trump fired in May 2017, denied Thursday that sharing the memos with his legal team constituted a leak of classified information.
‘I didn’t consider it part of an FBI file,’ Comey told Fox News’ Bret Baier during an appearance on “Special Report.” He compared the process to keeping a ‘diary’ and maintained a key memo ‘was unclassified then. [skip]
Comey, in the Fox News interview, acknowledged giving the memos to at least three people including his friend, Columbia University law professor Daniel Richman. He said he sent Richman a copy of the two-page unclassified memo and ‘asked him to get the substance of it out to the media’ — which he did. [skip]
“I didn’t consider it part of an FBI file,” Comey told Fox News’ Bret Baier during an appearance on “Special Report.” He compared the process to keeping a ‘diary’ and maintained a key memo ‘was unclassified then.” [skip]
“The reason I’m smiling, Bret,’ Comey said, ‘I don’t consider what I shared Mr. Richman a leak.
At least Comey is being consistent in lying about the nature of classified material, just as he did in dealing with Hillary Clinton’s wanton exposure of classified materials. Comey wrote those memos as a result of his contacts, as FBI Director, with the President of the United States. He said he kept a copy of the memos at the FBI and another in his safe at home. He admitted giving them to a friend, a college professor, who was an unpaid “special” FBI employee, an SGE, which he did not bother to tell the Congress, but he maintained the memos weren’t classified, and he leaked them after he was fired, so he wasn’t an FBI employee, and he didn’t consider what he did leaking. Oh yes, and he also gave them to two other lawyers.
There is no question those memos were written as part of Comey’s job as FBI director, hence, they were work product and subject to the very specific FBI rules about keeping such materials in house. There is also no question at least some of those memos were classified. In fact, the three lawyers to whom Comey gave the memos were forced to return them to the FBI after their possession of the memos came to light. Comey was one of the few people empowered to classify materials. He was responsible for knowing what was and was not classified, even if was not stamped “classified.” There is no question that what Comey did violated FBI rules and arguably, federal law. It doesn’t matter that Comey didn’t consider what he did leaking, it was leaking.
Perhaps the most amazing assertion Comey made was that he had no idea who paid for the Steele dossier that was the basis for the FISA warrants, which is why, Comey claimed, he didn’t tell that to President Trump. Close to it is his claim that he didn’t remember who told him about the dossier, he didn’t tell Barack Obama any more about the memo than he did Donald Trump—just about the supposed golden shower incident—and to this day he doesn’t know who paid for the dossier. Anyone that knows anything about law enforcement knows that’s absolutely ludicrous.
Any competent investigator looking into any matter always asks essentially the same questions as reporters: who, what, when, where, why and how? Comey would have us believe that told about the dossier, the “unverified and salacious” dossier about the Republican nominee for president, he was so incurious as to fail to ask who paid for that document? The Director of the FBI failed to ask about something so fundamental, so Criminal Justice 101? The dimmest rookie cop knows enough to ask “who” in any investigation.
And Comey is not just some political hack—well, he may be that—who was dropped into the Director’s job as a political favor (though that may be true too). Prior to becoming FBI director, Comey was, for many years, a federal prosecutor, and a university lecturer on the law.
Consider too the political nature of the job, and the fact that the Comey FBI, at the highest levels, was thoroughly politicized. He has admitted, for example, his decision making on this and related cases was entirely politicized, though he simultaneously denies considering politics in making decisions. Any police officer anywhere understands local, state and federal politics play a role in their work. The same is true of FBI agents, particularly at FBI HQ in DC. They swim in the political cesspool every day.
How could it be possible that the Director of the FBI, a man that must be particularly careful about political concerns, didn’t so much as bother to ask who was responsible for an “unverified and salacious” document that he ensured was leaked to the press—he denied having any hand in that—for the purpose of ensuring that Hillary Clinton would be elected? How could it be possible that the high-ranking FBI agent—Comey admitted that much, though he couldn’t remember who–that informed Comey about the dossier didn’t fill him in completely? How could such a person fail to think that kind of pertinent information would be uninteresting to the Director? How could such a person think leaving that out anything other than incompetence? There are four primary possibilities:
1) Comey knew, but didn’t want to be told to maintain plausible deniability.
2) Comey really is so incompetent as not to care about the most pertinent facts of one of the most politically explosive cases in American history.
3) Comey is a liar.
4) Comey believed Hillary Clinton was going to be president—he’s admitted this—and didn’t want to do anything to annoy her. He knew she’d cover for any criminal acts on his, and the FBI’s part, as long as she believed he was on her team. He knew she was a criminal, but he hoped she’d behis criminal.
One could also argue, that in the best Hooverian tradition, having blackmail material on a president is handy in perpetually maintaining one’s job. Comey admitted that despite calling Trump a crime boss, and morally unfit for the presidency, he very much wanted to serve him as FBI Director. He has also retained the three men to whom he gave classified documents, in an apparent attempt to claim attorney-client privilege.
All rational Americans should be very glad Hillary Clinton was not elected. They should be equally glad President Trump fired James Comey.
Postscript: During the interview, Comey claimed he never held the belief, or told anyone, that the FBI did not believe General Michael Flynn lied to FBI agents during his interview with them. The newly released congressional report on supposed Trump collusion—it concluded there was no such thing—reveals Comey is likely less than honest about this too. Fox News reports:
Comey, however, denied that he ever told lawmakers agents didn’t believe Flynn intentionally lied.
‘No,’ he said in an interview Thursday with Fox News’ Bret Baier on ‘Special Report.’ ‘I saw that in the media … maybe someone misunderstood something I said. I didn’t believe that. I didn’t say that.
There appears, however, to be compelling evidence that he did, indeed “say that”:
House Intelligence Committee Republicans, in their newly released report concluding their Russia investigation, seemed to back up reports that FBI agents did not think ex-White House national security adviser Michael Flynn lied to them – despite his eventual guilty plea for making false statements.
Among the 44 findings in the report was a line stating that ‘Federal Bureau of Investigation agents did not detect any deception during Flynn’s interview.
And this:
The Washington Examiner’s Byron York first reported earlier this year that fired FBI boss James Comey had briefed lawmakers amid allegations Flynn had lied to Vice President Pence about conversations with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and speculation he may have misled FBI agents who questioned him in January 2017. Comey reportedly told lawmakers at the time that agents who interviewed Flynn did not believe he lied in that Jan. 24 meeting, and that any inaccuracies in his account were unintentional.
Comey stands to make a great deal of money from his recently released book. He may need it for attorney fees.
UPDATE: 04-28-18, 1540 CST: For anyone wondering about the nature of Comey’s honor and veracity, I recommend this article by Paul Mirengoff at Powerline. As you’ll see, gentle readers, its confirmed facts do not speak well of Comey as an official of the Department Justice, but as an example of a leftist political hack/deep state operative, statues should be erected of him in every blue state capitol.
UPDATE: 04-28-18, 2015 CST: For a somewhat different take on Comey, visit this article by former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, who I often quote here. I consider McCarthy a reliable writer, though at least in this instance, he somewhat differs from my opinion of Comey. He also admits Comey, and several of Comey’s friends caught up in the current debacle are good, and old, friends, which does seem to have influenced his opinion, as he pretty much admits. Still, an interesting article.
You would think you being associated in law enforcement you would understand the idea of innocent until proven guilty. It’s one thing our Chief Buffoon has already convicted him without a trial because he knows not what he says. But you should know better with all the “he’s a liar” nonsense. Now.. we do have a Chief Liar.. and that’s constantly been fact checked.
I intentionally watched all the network interviews, including this one, and it pretty much speaks for itself. But the talking heads following.. yikes. Although the NPR person pretty much reserved comment.
Dear Doug:
Innocent until proved guilty? Of course–in court when criminal charges are being tried. I deal with analysis of available evidence. Regular readers know that whenever the evidence contradicts my analysis, I correct it. At the moment, there is substantial evidence indicating Comey violated the law. Speaking about that possibility is not in any way damaging to the rule of law. I could care less how many people suggest Comey is lying. I speak of known facts, and provide information about how law enforcement should work.
the media would have us believe if we disagree with them, we’re striking at the foundations of democracy. In reality, we’re merely holding them to account.
Comey mentioned in the Fox interview that it was reported to him that the original payment for the dossier was from a Republican/Conservative source not favoring candidate Trump, followed by a DNC source. This seems to bear out from a NYT article…
..that states…
“Who paid for it?
During the Republican primaries, a research firm called Fusion GPS was hired by The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative website, to unearth potentially damaging information about Mr. Trump. The Free Beacon — which was funded by a major donor supporting Mr. Trump’s rival for the party’s nomination, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida — told Fusion GPS to stop doing research on Mr. Trump in May 2016, as Mr. Trump was clinching the Republican nomination.
After Mr. Trump secured the nomination, Fusion GPS was hired on behalf of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign and the D.N.C. by their law firm, Perkins Coie, to compile research about Mr. Trump, his businesses and associates — including possible connections with Russia. It was at that point that Fusion GPS hired Mr. Steele, who has deep sourcing in Russia, to gather information.”
I suppose like everything else.. anything can be interpreted any old way in what Comey says to fit a political opinion. But seems to me there’s some sense that he had no real reason to pursue further than what was reported to him. It’s one thing to assume facts but it’s another thing to prove criminal intent… which was Comey’s reason behind not recommending to DOJ to prosecute Hillary’s email debacle.
Doug, it’s right in the article you quote. Steele was hired after the Free Beacon cut Fusion loose. Steele produced the dossier. Ergo, the Republican/Conservative source had no part in creating the dossier.
By the same token Manafort has been charged with offences that occurred around the time he was working for the DNC. That does not mean he did anything illegal (or that Trump directed him to do so) while he was working for Trump. Get it?
Manafort? I was referring to your supposition that Comey was somehow slipshod or corrupt in not questioning the origin of the dossier sooner.
Regardless… whether anyone anywhere is going to initiate a serious investigation against Comey is still to be seen. Personally, I have a feeling there is much too much going on elsewhere in the administration and in Congress… and the DOJ… for people to pay much attention right now; so much is in flux thanks to the unexpected nature of the President… and we certainly don’t know how far to go with the Mueller investigation.. and if Comey’s firing is determined to be Trump obstructing the investigation, as Trump himself admitted to. Then there’s the mid terms that will likely shift the balance of power in Congress. Comey is not such a big fish to fry by comparison.
The Fox interview was the expected trying to pin Comey with “gotcha” questions and it didn’t really work but Trump’s base read what they read into it.
You might want to reference this…
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/04/trump-wrong-on-comey-leak-mccabe-funds/
Dear Doug:
You’re aware are you not, of the iffy nature of virtually every “fact check” operation? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (loose translation:) who will fact check the fact checkers?
I am aware I am a lot of things… not a lot of things… …and I am aware there are things others wish to assign to me (as rd has just done). I am also aware that we live in a complex world and I am aware that, failing to be perfect, I prefer to assign some level of personal balance in the things I believe in and the opinions I develop from them by determining reasonable credibility in sources that have the time, resources, and general inclination to present the research I am unable to accomplish. If others prefer to constantly doubt… that’s their choice.
Now.. here’s the thing… I was drawn to your blog because you have some basic credentials that suggest some level of credibility in your opinions rather than some guttural Neanderthal spouting that’s so common on conservative blogs. Absolutely we have different opinions (as you most certainly already know from having dashed in and out of my own blog and likely dismissing my opinions as the ramblings of some misguided lefturd) and since I am a bit of a humanist I tend to be curious in the how’s and why’s people think the way they do. I don’t tend to just “hang around” blogs that simply agree with my politics just to have a place of warm fuzzy chest thumping. If you prefer a readership that agrees with your every word just let me know and I can toddle on my merry way.
Dear Doug:
I have indeed checked out your blog, but was not repelled by your opinions, there or here. It’s perfectly fine to disagree with me and any of those that comment here, as long as we all do it politely. I surely don’t expect everyone to agree with me, or become outraged when they don’t.
You’re welcome to find your merry way here as often as you please. Glad to have you!
Dear Marty:
What you said.
Mr. McDaniel,
Congratulations on the acquisition of your own personal troll. Think of it as a status symbol. Only the important bloggers have one.
Dear rd:
Now, now. Trolls are generally far less pleasant and entirely unhinged. And “Mike,” please. Only my students call me Mr. McDaniel, though I sometimes think of myself as “”Your Grace,” or “Your Majesty”…
A university recently allowed students to chose their own pronoun. Predictably one chose “his majesty”.
I’m long past college, but if I were, Starlord has a nice ring to it, don’t you think? Or maybe Darth Phil?
https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/barbara-hollingsworth/university-michigan-students-designated-pronoun-his-majesty
Dear Phil:
“Darth Phil?” Nice.
Pingback: Stately Standards | Stately McDaniel Manor